Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 65

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60 ← Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67 → Archive 70
PASSED
5-0, added. --Thi (talk) 08:49, 10 May 2020 (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 Neighbourhood

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support, since it seems at least as vital as Town square and Ghetto, both of which we list. But please, Dawid2009, put some effort into your sorting so that we don't have to fix everything you propose. This belongs in Geography > Cities > Urban Planning, not here. Sdkb (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support, belongs here, but I'd like to say the same as Sdkb. Generally you just put proposals under a wide section header (e.g. Geography) when they can easily be subcategorised. J947's public account 23:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. --Spaced about (talk) 13:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
6-0, passed. --Thi (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2020 (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 Japanese art

This article has section about Japanese aesthetics, which is important thing in Japanese cultural identity and has influenced modern Western art and culture. Ukiyo-e is listed, but I think that these aesthetic concepts are quite vital thing in arts.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom   // Timothy :: talk  11:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  6. Support Per nomination. HopsonRoad (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
2-2, no consensus. --Thi (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2020 (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 Sport industry

More vital than sportpeople whose we list. IMO we need wide article which would be parent for things like World Cup, Sport club etc. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Major industries should be covered at VI4. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The article has only few interwiki links. I prefer development of the article Sport, it seems to need a section about economy. --Thi (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Professional sports is the vital topic here. Gizza (t)(c) 02:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
Removal 1-2, addition 1-2, swap 1-1. --Thi (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2020 (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 Tetris, add Futsal

Futsal as indoor version of soccer (I belive almost everyone have ever played Futsal on winter) is more vital than Tetris. I also think that Nintendo and Video Game Industry are better articles to coverage of video games and I doubt we can find place for Tetris when we even do not list something like Internet slang or Online chattingat technology section.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition it's like dodgeball which IIRC was proposed for addition and failed a year or two ago: it's a game with no real professionalism about it, just merely a not-too-common kids game. I'd add dodgeball before it. Weak oppose on removal – I feel like one of the three video games/modern franchises here deserves to be removed and that's between Tetris and Pong. I'm leaning towards Pong. J947 (c), at 22:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removal Enduring video game. Dimadick (talk) 10:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  3. Per Diamadick. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per above + Tetris is part of the game canon of the Library of Congress. --Spaced about (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

Tetris was added here and proposed for removal here. J947 (c), at 22:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@J947: From my experience (but I guess it is abvious that it is not just children game) I am pretty sure that adults/old adults just more often play Futsal than soccer on big field or Streetfootball as outdoor game which ones just often require condition/running and can be more brutal ;). I do not see why you asociate/link it just with the Children game (in contrast I would even rather associate to very old adults as even soccer starts sometimes start play futsal after long careers). Yes, soccer naturally is vital for iconic reasons (which why we list FIFA, Champions League etc.) but IMO we could also add other subtopic for soccer, non-olympic version of soccer which is played especially on winter as indoor game. Is it really less vital than Tetris and Pong? I never heard about pong before I started editions in that project (while I saw earlier Tetris, I did not know name of that game tbh). Dawid2009 (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
Removal 3-3, addition 2-2, swap 1-0. --Thi (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2020 (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 Looney Tunes, add Warner Bros

If DC Comics] was swapped for AT&T, I think we should swap Looney Tunes for Warner Bros (although Warner Bros also are not wide topic like AT&T). In my opinion we need to add Warner Bros because of History of film is level 3 article meanwhile Looney Tunes has ben swapped for Bugs Bunny while ago. I also blive we need more companies which are moentioned in List of most-viewed online videos in the first 24 hours#Top trailers (includong Warner Bros).

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support removal There should be no animated shows on here, they're just not culturally vital worldwide or been around long enough like Mickey Mouse. The Simpsons should be next as it's way too recent for this list. GuzzyG (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support addition hugely important, one of the biggest companies in film industry. We need coverage of this industry and as long as Hollywood and the film industry are not listed, Warner Bros is a good choice. If any of that article family warrants removal it's Jack L. Warner. --Spaced about (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition not the next film company to add and we should not have more than 1/2 film companies, preferably less either when we do not list companies like Nestlé. GuzzyG (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose addition Warner is not different from Paramount, Columbia or Universal. --Thi (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose removal Warner Bros does not have the cultural impact that Looney Tunes have. Dimadick (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose removal per Dimadick. It was internationally successful and was translated into Italian, French, and German. --Spaced about (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  5. Oppose removal, the Looney Tunes are notable enough on their own beside being a part of Warner, which includes live action films. LittleJerry (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

Discussions of interest. J947 (c), at 23:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3, not removed or replaced. --Thi (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Remove Census or replace with Survey (human research)

It is just one of many tools used in statistics. I don't think it is Vital at level 4. Level 5 would suffice for such a concept. Another option would be to replace it with a higher level concept such as Survey (human research) (census is only of of many types of surveys). As far as I can tell, survey is not listed as a Vital article (I think it should). Further, even if kept, I don't think this should be under sociology. Data fron censuses is used in many other disciplines as well. It should be moved probably all the way up to 'General' section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as the nominator. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose  Carlwev  21:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I see it for example historically important topic. --Thi (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Highly historically significant. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

@Piotrus: The problem is that we are currently way over quota at this section and way over quota in many sections too. Which topics in society sections you would cut as first? More than year ago we removed some libraires so personally so I would cut educational insititutions to keep space for some other topics. Or that we should add higher quota to society section from another section (for example technology) What do you think? Dawid2009 (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree some edu institution may merit a cut, we can discuss them in a separate section. But for now we can just remove census as a concept without replacing it, I suggest remove or replace. As for increasing the quota here, of course I'd do so, removing for example some popculture stuff or such, but that might be tougher. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes a specific thing is better than general, a census is a well known well used thing in many countries for a century or more, I think the concept is quite vital. I think survey looks quite weak, I don't hate it but I wouldn't lose Census for it. They are both a series of questions, why not have question in linguistics?  Carlwev  21:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn by nominator GuzzyG (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2020 (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 Wim Wenders for Rainer Werner Fassbinder

Simply major contemporary figure in New German Cinema vs the historical "widely regarded as a prominent figure and catalyst of the New German Cinema movement" figure.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support addition per nom. --Thi (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal I think Wenders fits to this level. --Thi (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

I'm not entirely sure why we should swap Wenders for Fassbinder. If Wenders needed to be swapped for another director of New German Cinema, Volker Schlöndorff seems like a good choice because he won an Oscar. Margarethe von Trotta would be a good choice for a female director. But the genre is already well represented by Werner Herzog.--Spaced about (talk) 09:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't get why you're so reliant on awards, especially American awards for German cinema. By that metric, Frank Borzage would be more important than Charlie Chaplin the one director on the level 3 list, or Alfred Hitchcock and Sergei Eisenstein who used to be listed, or even popular among audience directors like Stanley Kubrick. Which is clearly not the case. von Trotta is more vital than Schlöndorff but neither them or Wenders have made films on the level of Ali: Fear Eats the Soul, The Marriage of Maria Braun, The Merchant of Four Seasons, The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant or Fox and His Friends.
Let's look at "They shoot pictures don't they"'s ranking. They are a aggregate of nearly every ranking of film. Volker Schlöndorff has a weak profile, with only one film in the top 1,000 [1]. von Trotta has none that i can find. Wenders is a top 250 film director on the site, and by the star markings 4 films on the 1,000 list and a detailed profile. [2]]. Fassbinder is a top 250 film director on the site with 6 star markings indicating 6 of his films are rated in the greatest 1,000 and he has a detailed profile. Just for comparison, Herzog is a top 250 film director with 7 films in the greatest 1,000 listed, with a detailed profile. [3]. So seems like Fassbinder and Herzog are the two most critically acclaimed of this bunch. No opinion on if two of this movement in German cinema should be added but the second should be Fassbinder if we list two. Remember Fassbinder died young, so too almost match Herzog who is nearly 80 and got 3 of his "greatest" films after Fassbinder had died and the latest in 2005, so Fassbinder had the more impactful career by lifetime, which makes him a better filmmaker by career achievement in my opinion. [4] most of his other films are placed with the top 15,000. Also on their ranking of every director, Herzog is ranked 45, Fassbinder 51 and Wenders is 60, the other two are not listed. [5]
Now these statistics mean nothing but are a bonus: Rate Your Film, a site for pretentious film geeks, a bolded film is the top achievement, let's see how many directors have bolded films - von Trotta has none [6]. Schlöndorff, the one hit wonder - has none [7]. Wenders has 5 [8]. Fassbinder has 8 [9]. Herzog has 10 [10]. Which shows Fassbinder has mass appeal too, despite being less known than Wenders or Fassbinder.
Now Fassbinder by these results fits "high culture" film and is popular with audiences. Both more than Wenders, more known today for documentaries. Now adding nuance, nearly every other director has lived double the life of Fassbinder, combined with him being labeled the "catalyst" of the movement i think it's fair to list both Fassbinder and Herzog. Fassbinder is dead too, so no recent publicity, yet he beats the others and is nearly tied with Herzog all benefiting from modern publicity and favoring. I just don't see how Wenders is more important than Fassbinder or the one hit wonder Schlöndorff. Should one award really beat critical and public consensus? The TSPDT list is a very, very highly acclaimed aggregate of films and it shows who is better. GuzzyG (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I understand what you mean. Yes, Fassbinder may have a slightly higher number of awards. But I don't hink that is the only relevant measure. Figuring in the page views, for example, my initial statement proves right: Fassbinder and Wenders are about equal. Fassbinder gets about twice as many hits on German wikipedia, Wenders gets more page views on English Wikipedia. I'm neutral on this proposal. Adding them both or none is also fine.
Concerning von Trotta, she would be a great add as a female director and also as an activist, which seems to be an important aspect for this list. She cannot be compared to men in this category because discrimination doesn't just influence critical acclaim but, also, due to discrimination, she must have faced much more difficulties during the production process. History shows that women like her rise in fame: see Frida Kahlo and Marie Curie. With more recent figures we can only guess who will remain vital. My bet is on her. --Spaced about (talk) 09:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I list distinctive evidence showing you actual critical acclaim via a list that is a aggregate of hundreds of "greatest films" lists in response to you using one award as a metric of vitality and now you say that isn't the only relevant measure and that despite Fassbinder clearly having more significant acclaim that they're equal anyway. Than you mention that Fassbinder gets more than twice the views in his native language? How is that not a clear difference in notability? Are you defining German cinema by English pageviews, ignoring the critical acclaim by both critics and the public and the German pageviews? What kind of metric is that? Also it's worth noting Wender's biggest films are in English, Paris, Texas (film) for example. So obviously there will be a bias there, how is that not obvious?
I could do equivalent rankings to show you why von Trotta is irrelevant compared to Agnès Varda, Chantal Akerman, or Jane Campion as non American nationality women directors and many others if i was bothered to bring them up, ignoring women from Hollywod or early pioneers like Alice Guy-Blaché, but it'd seem you'd rather project your vision of vitality than go by hard consensus, so i'm just gonna walk away from this discussion. Leni Riefenstahl is the German woman director who's actually lasted in history and you're in favor of removing her. Can you share your Wikipedia:CBALL, so we can build this list properly?. GuzzyG (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
You're distorting things. Anyway, I think they are about equal and English is the relevant language here. I would also support Agnès Varda, Chantal Akerman, or Jane Campion. Riefenstahl has not lasted in history, she was off the radar after the war, and I can find no proof that her style was influential in movie history (which surprised me, I thought it was different). --Spaced about (talk) 09:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
In what way am i distorting things? You set the barriers (Dench being more popular than her contemporaries, Schlöndorff having more acclaim etc) and than i smash the barriers and you say it doesn't matter. Qualifying German cinema itself by English language films and American awards is the definition of distortion and changing the standard. I show you the hard influence and acclaim and you ignore it for modern day popularity and fame in another setting than what we're comparing (German cinema/English American films). It's the equivalent of saying Georges Méliès is less vital than Christopher Nolan because Méliès has less English pageviews. You know it's bad when a dead director for nearly 40 years and in a foreign language [11] is only 600k views behind a contemporary currently famous filmmaker who makes English language films [12] and this without adding nuance is the one thing that makes them equal ignoring everything else? Please, any film historian would laugh at the idea of pageviews dictating vitality over acclaim anyway. Guess we gotta add Tommy Wiseau because he's a European director making English language films and hs double the combined views of both [13], being blunt that's your logic. GuzzyG (talk) 10:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Also being blunt again, i don't see how Leni's films were forgotten after the war when both of her main films still make that 1000 films TSPDT list (that compiles hundreds of film lists) and Olympia clearly changed and influenced modern filming techniques. GuzzyG (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
You were distorting what I am saying, I meant. You may have your way of judging vitality, that's fine, but I will have a different approach, which I tried to explain, and you misunderstood, I should say, not distorted. I didn't suggest to include Schlöndorff, I was wondering why you want to switch around German directors, and depending on what criteria to apply, there are differnt options. But the question here is between Fassbinder and Wenders (who gets 150k more hits annually).
In no way did I ever suggest that page views are the most important number. On the contrary. I directly stated that it is a complex decision making process. Many things need to be factored in.
Including some of these bad cult movies, like Wiseau's? Maybe at level 5. Not sure.
If these lists rank Riefenstahl high, I doubt their other rankings. Her style was excessive on the one hand and wasn't used after the war. The other aspect is the style of the era, the socialist worker aestetic. I quoted below that our article here mentions her iconography (=the Nazis) as the most importat style feature. We've got the Nazis covered at this level.--Spaced about (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
My way? Hard data and statistics versus what, your crystal ball predictions and feeling of the future? How are you continuing to miss NUANCE? "(who gets 150k more hits annually)." IN ENGLISH while you're comparing a GERMAN language director versus a ENGLISH language director, a director who has been dead for nearly FORTY years versus a contemporary. How do you not see that argument of "gets ONLY 150k more views in English a year" is IMPRESSIVE for someone who is dead for forty years versus a contemporary director? Also, you are saying English language pageviews are the most important criteria above critical and public acclaim and the actual pageviews of the country whose cinema we are debating. That should be again, clear.
Now you're just questioning everything that does not fit your extreme bias. The TSPDT list is a extremely reputable aggregate (hint: not personal opinion) of every single film scholar, critics, directors themselves in multiple different cultures rankings of great directors and films, which is why it's simply important. Everything you bring up is always your own opinion and to dismiss such a strong reliable source for film rankings because it outright conflicts with your narrative is laughable and shows you're not worth debating as you have your opinion and it can't be changed. GuzzyG (talk) 11:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Here's a list of sources for that list [14], since it's established some people don't click links, here's a description "The 1,000 Greatest Films listing is based on the 6,620 individual lists and 4,776 miscellaneous lists detailed below." Yes, it still has Leni and Fassbinder beats Wenders and is closer to Herzog (6 spots vs 24 with Wenders), in the "greatest directors" equivalent, sorry. GuzzyG (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Being neutral on a proposal is not extreme bias. And a single list, no matter what it is based on, is just a single source. We can't just copy the list at that site. The author doesn't state if he is evaluating the lists, or if he's just adding them up. If we consider that many of these lists were compiled on and from the internet under the heavy influence of a filter bubble it reduces its merits even more. We're here to think the proposals through and not just copy a list. Not saying these rankings aren't a source to consider, but they are just a single source. The author of "they shoot pictures" is not the Library of Congress or the Museum of Modern Art or some reliable source. --Spaced about (talk) 12:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
To top it off here's some quotes from academic works on film history. From Fassbinder's director's page [15]
""Rainer Werner Fassbinder was perhaps the best-known director of the New German Cinema" - Kristin Thompson & David Bordwell (Film History: An Introduction, 2002)
"Perhaps the most remarkable phenomenon of New German Cinema was the brief but prolific career of Rainer Werner Fassbinder (1946-1982)" - Robert Sklar (Film: An International History of the Medium, 1993)
and that's just from a basic effort, which is why i always say, it has to be clear why your personal opinion and English pageviews on Wikipedia is worth more than actual established film scholars. That's all i'm asking for. There's just no point in digging deeper when established historians get overridden for statistics on wikipedia and personal opinion.
It's a single source that links to other sources. You continue to deny sources from established people in favor of your opinion, please explain in depth why all 10,000 sources listed (have you checked them all?) are wrong, i can go one by one if you wish but there's no point. That list had 11,398 sources from 5,111 professionals. What are you on about? GuzzyG (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
How on earth is compiling sources from established historians and scholars a filter bubble? I admire your fight against 10,000 sources from industry professionals but i don't understand how 10k sources can all be wrong. Would you explain for me? Anything more than conjecture? GuzzyG (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you want from me. Maybe the statement above when i said "I understand what you mean (...)" was misleading you into believing I would change my !vote. I just wanted to say that many of your rationales are valid. They will not change my decision however. The question here is if both or one or none belong on level 4. That one of them is worthy of a higher place on level 4 is secondary: even if Fassbinder were on rank 1001 and Wenders on 9999 that wouldn't make a difference - they both fit. If you want me to admit that Fassbinder is a few ranks higher within level 4 - I trust your research because the results are credible and fit in with what I know - but it's irrelevant.

Concerning filter bubble: I would assume that possibility with most websites. The author does not say how he compiled the list from the sources - is it based on an average, are the entries weighted, and similar things. Even if that were stated on the website, I still don't know who this guy is and he doesn't have credentials like a reliable source typically has. --Spaced about (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

For you to make sense, "If you want me to admit that Fassbinder is a few ranks higher within level 4" doesn't make sense, since Fassbinder is not on the list. "Fassbinder were on rank 1001 and Wenders on 9999 that wouldn't make a difference" type of reasoning is the textbook example of why these projects need more eyes and to go off actual reasoning and not vote numbers. I'm here to debate, not add my favorites and speak with conjecture. Votes need to stop being about qualifying WHY someone "fits" and WHY compared with everyone missing do they fit. Every director of Wenders or actors like Dench stature that matter will "fit" but the question is why list them when we're missing other more important people and why when we're missing their contemporaries that are of equal rank. Marilyn Monroe and Alfred Hitchcock can't be compared with anyone, which is why they should be listed. You've flat out admitted Fassbinder is of higher rank but you think Wenders fits so in result Fassbinder will not be added. That type of reasoning doesn't make sense. But ""Fassbinder were on rank 1001 and Wenders on 9999 that wouldn't make a difference"" is a classic and kinda stifles debate. By your methods anyone remotely successful will "fit" but that doesn't mean they belong, there is a difference. I've proven that Fassbinder or Wenders are atleast equals, arguably i believe none should be on - we're missing many scientists, religious figures, philosophers and politicians and level 5 is for pop culture. If two German male directors are to be listed though, it's not Wenders, it's Fassbinder or F. W. Murnau and Herzog. When all 3 "fit" but are not on the list and the list has a 2000 people restriction "the highest ranked" one is the one that goes on, which is why as i chose Fassbinder, as you've even admitted he's of higher rank. "Fassbinder were on rank 1001 and Wenders on 9999 that wouldn't make a difference" this (which yes, needs repeating) type of mentality is one that is terrible for the direction of this list speaking bluntly. P.S he's said before it's a weighted average the higher quality the source. It's not rocket science. GuzzyG (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Aren't you lucky that I'm not the only one to decide this. It's for cases like this that we need more people to voice their opinion. There may be others who know better and who you can convince, for me it is too close a call to make and I will stay neutral on this. And also, the list is 20 over quota. F. W. Murnau is a whole different ballpark. I'd support him. The point in the Fassinder/Wenders case is, the difference is not 1001 and 9999. They are mcuh closer. Let's see what others say. --Spaced about (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

You're only proving my point, most prominent people to you will "fit" but we have to be strict. Let's put it like this, to make it very simple: Wenders is known for being apart of the German new wave scene and his documentaries. Rainer Werner Fassbinder is the more acclaimed/important of the German new wave judging off of film scholars and Robert J. Flaherty is clearly the documentary maker that should be listed first. All three would "fit" on the list, but we're already over quota by alot and it's not clear why we should have 3 people of similar activity when we can list one and cover something else. So it's clear that either Fassbinder should be listed (Or not, because Herzog clashes and the German New Wave scene isn't that important in art history to list two) or add Flaherty who is clearly more important to film history than Wenders. All because bad choices would fit on the list, doesn't mean we can't improve it by adding better. Whitney Houston or any big person will have qualifications that would fit but they shouldn't because we have other people who fit that have proven themselves in history. You're main metric you always bring up is "popularity" which shouldn't factor in at all on this level. Standard setters like Rudy Vallée are more important than popular, highly regarded figures like Tony Bennett or Dean Martin. That's what i am trying to get through to you. Everyone will fit at some point, we have to be strict and focus on people who contribute something. Fassbinder was the main force/catalyst behind this wave and is historical, at the end of the day Wenders just rode the wave on popularity and is a unproven contemporary, so if we have to have two German New Wave directors it should be Fassbinder - being the most acclaimed in general and popular in their native country and the industry they're both in is a bonus - the cherry on top per se. GuzzyG (talk) 14:49, 27 January 2020 (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.


REMOVAL PASSED
Swap 3-0, removal 6-0, addition 3-1. Vitaly Scherbo removed. --Thi (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2020 (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 Vitaly Scherbo for Katie Ledecky

We need a female swimmer before a male gymnast. Ledecky is one of the most dominant swimmers ever, here "recency" shouldnt factor because shes the most dominant female swimmer already and Lebron James set the sports recency precedent.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support removal Dawid2009 (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support Hyperbolick (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support removal I don't think that an example of male gymnast is absolutely necessary. --Thi (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition i no longer believe in the addition. Truly vital athletes will stand the test of time, there's no rush - if she is vital she will be in 50 or so years for a recheck, we're over quota and have much more important figures and i believe sports should be down to 90 with entertainers, athletes/entertainers are of equal worth - if not less than entertainers. GuzzyG (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
@Thi: since you're the experienced one in closing, would this pass as a removal? I no longer support the addition and would start a separate nomination but was just wondering if there's any point, thanks. GuzzyG (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn by nominator GuzzyG (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2020 (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 Olga Korbut for Simone Biles

Biles is one of the most dominant gymnasts ever, here "recency" shouldnt factor because shes the most dominant female gymnast already and Lebron James set the sports recency precedent.

From her lede: "Biles is the gymnast with the most World medals (25) and most World gold medals (19) of any gender, as well as the female gymnast with the most World all-around titles (5). Biles is the sixth woman to win an individual all-around title at both the World Championships and the Olympics, and the first gymnast since Lilia Podkopayeva in 1996 to hold both titles simultaneously. She is the tenth gymnast and first American gymnast to win a World medal on every event, and the first gymnast since Daniela Silivaș in 1988 to win a medal on every event at a single Olympic Games or World Championships, having accomplished this feat at the 2018 World Championships. Olympic Champion Mary Lou Retton called Biles the "greatest gymnast ever"[7] and multiple other observers have echoed the sentiment."

Also Korbut is one of the weaker figures in the sports section.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Good catch. Even though IMO quota for sport people should be rather 50-75 than 100, Biles should be on this list. Quite honestly I was going to make this swap earlier or later. She is vital not only for olympics achivements but also as clearly notable for people who are interested in acrobatics. Capoeira as part of UNESCO is also needed for this level. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support removal --Thi (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
5-4, not added. --Thi (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2020 (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 Great Chinese Famine

Largest mass-death event in history, causing tens of millions of deaths. Partially covered by Great Leap Forward, but still. - Sdkb (talk) 06:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Sdkb (talk) 06:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 06:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Surprising omission. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. --Spaced about (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  16:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Partially covered and we're over quota here by 14, plus we're missing so many other events it's better not to be listing all these ones that are partially covered by something else. Mongol invasions and conquests would be much better in East Asian history. GuzzyG (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per GuzzyG. --Thi (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. I agree with GuzzyG. We're already way over quota in this section. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  4. Oppose; it's a very important event but it's part of a very small time period in one country that is already covered by another article. I don't think we can justify having both. — J947 [cont] 01:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

Was removed here. J947 (c), at 05:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
6-0, added. --Thi (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2020 (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 Writer

We list occupations like Lawyer, Teacher, and Physician at level 4, but both Writer and Author are relegated to level 5. I think we ought to elevate one. - Sdkb (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Sdkb (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 06:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support; agree with nom. J947's public account 00:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support --Spaced about (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Interesing discussions here and here. (ping @Cobblet, Carlwev, DaGizza, Thi, Neljack, Wumbolo, Susmuffin, Power~enwiki, and J947: who were participating in these discussions) However I do not think it is vital. Article like Filmmaker even does not exist (it is redirect at the moment to filmmaking). Quite frankly IMO when we are way over quota we should rather remove all articles like physician. Dawid2009 (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

There are some occupations that many people interact with, and are a vital part of society, most people interact with teachers and doctors/physicians numerous times in their lives for example who provide a service. Not many people interact with writers other than by reading their writing. I would imagine there are more teachers than there are writers. We do list things like Mathematician, farmer, soldier, and scientist which is in the same the same ball park as writer and artist. If we list writer and artist in addition to writing, literature, art and the arts. (Looking at the vital 100 list of topics that have equivalent jobs) why are they more important than chemist in addition to chemistry, or biologist, physicist, tailor, chef, athlete, industrialist, merchant, filmmaker, architect, historian, linguist, philosopher etc in addition to their fields.? When is it appropriate to list a person/expert in addition to their field? I am not sure of the answer but a lot of duplication could arise, how much is acceptable? which areas are acceptable, which are not? I am not sure......For comparison We don't list Christian and Muslim in addition to Christianity and Islam. Although we list a few most nationalities/race/peoples are not listed; eg we don't list Russians in addition to Russia, or Mexicans in addition to Mexico. They are quite substantial topics covering millions of people but are probably seen as covered and redundant to other articles; are writer and artist redundant to literature and art? is musician redundant to music?  Carlwev  19:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Those are all good questions. Looking at the contents of the articles, the way I'd draw the ideal distinction between them is that writing should focus mostly on the stuff being written, whereas writer on the people who write stuff. There are sections in writer on the writing process, authorship, and consequences for writing controversial things. So yeah, there's some overlap, but not entirely, and the focus is different. As for how vital it is, we list writing at level 2, so roughly speaking, writer only needs to be 1/100 as vital to warrant a spot here. Looking more generally at professions, the population of people practicing the profession is one criterion, but if that were the only one, we'd be listing dishwasher (occupation) here. I think we ought to also consider things like how much there is to say about the practice of a given profession, the extent to which that profession becomes the identity of its practitioners (e.g. miner is probably more vital than accountant), etc. Sdkb (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, added. --Thi (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2020 (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 Capoeira

Cultural combination of Martial arts/acrobatics/dance. The most vital sport missed at this level which is also known for centuries. It get more pageviews on PTwiki than Samba and outside world cup, in general it is way much more vital for Brazilians than soccer players just like Pele, Garrincha, Ronaldo etc. Also for people who train acrobatics it is centairly quite vital. Popiularity of this sport will be growing growing just like popularity of acrobatics or parkour etc.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support I prefer the basic overview sports articles over indiviudal sports people, as they are more informative for the reader who is not a sports fan. At the intersection of martial arts and dance, a mixture of sports and art, and quite unique in that way. --Spaced about (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Dimadick (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support vital martial art for a population of 210 million and we're under quota. Brazilian jiu-jitsu should even be added. GuzzyG (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
6-0, added. --Thi (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2020 (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 Muay Thai

One of two national sports for Thailand. Sepak takraw is listed at this level and is less vital for Thailand than Thai boxing

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. It is better known in Taiwan than sepak takraw.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support If we list 100 sportspeople like 9 tennis players and some speed skaters and figure skaters, I think Muay Thai is more vital, it appears in around 65 languages, is popular outside US and Europe.  Carlwev  19:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support per Carlwev. --Spaced about (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support Dimadick (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  6. Support vital martial art to a country of 70 mil people and we're under quota here. GuzzyG (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

@Purplebackpack89: Technically Tarot was 2–2 at the time of closure so shouldn't have been removed. J947 (c), at 21:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@J947: I have reclosed it to reflect the difference in votes and lack of consensus to remove tarot. Gizza (t)(c) 03:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-1, added. --Thi (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2020 (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 Generation

Seems like a major concept (here or perhaps to the 'Society' section). I also proposed adding the 7 main generations (Millennials, Baby Bomers, etc.) to Vital 5. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as the nominator. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support If we can list for example technical article magazine and 12 individual examples, I think it can go a well. Sometimes we list individual examples ahead of general article (for example Wikipedia ahead of Online encyclopedia), but not always. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Quite important concept. --Thi (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 06:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Just as we list the individual continents before we list Continent, I think the individual generations are more important than than the concept of a Generation itself. Sdkb (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

@Sdkb: I don't buy that argument. Tradition is listed at level 4, should we remove it and add hundreds of traditions here? Continents are universal, but there are generations that are not-Western. See Category:Cultural generations. I am not opposed to adding those seven to level 4, but so should the basic parent concept. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
6-0, added. --Thi (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2020 (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 coronavirus

Support
  1. As nom. No doubt it should be added since after the outbreak of SARS it has been mentioned by news media and laymen quite frequently.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support I'm surprised it's not already listed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  3. Coronaviruses are an important topic because many contemporary epidemics have been caused by them: there's the current SARS-CoV-2, the original SARS-CoV, as well as MERS-CoV. Coronaviruses have a broad impact and are a vital topic for an encyclopedia to cover. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  4. Weak support per my reasoning at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5#Add 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and #Add 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic it probably makes sense to include the virus its self since it has been responsible for several other outbreaks to. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  6. Support Being under quasi-quarantine because of this little bugger is the only reason I'm back wasting time on Wikipedia, so I guess it deserves a place here. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

See also the proposal to add the pandemic. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 02:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
1-1, no consensus. --Thi (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2020 (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 Cosmology

It seems very strange to me that we list Physical cosmology at Level 3 but don't even list Cosmology at Level 4. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I think that main content overlaps with Physical cosmology and History of astronomy. --Thi (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-1, removed. --Thi (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Remove Naval architecture

Assuming that automotive engineering passes, we'll have one article for land transport engineering, one for air, and two for water. I think we'd ideally want to have only one of each. Naval architecture and shipbuilding currently have pretty separate content (with the former more about modern techniques and the latter more about history), but I think when fully developed to a FA, they'd actually have very similar scopes. I think we ought to retain shipbuilding, since it's the term readers are more likely to search for. (This dovetails with our current choice to list aviation but not aerospace engineering.) Sdkb (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. Sdkb (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 21:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Not necessary at this level. --Thi (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support Spaced about (talk) 11:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support; between Naval architecture and Shipbuilding I'd favour the historical one for inclusion any day. J947 (c), at 00:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Strongly Oppose, Naval architecture leads to shipbuilding, just as civil engineering leads to construction. Each topic is potentially too fulsome to combine into a single topic. Furthermore, each is a completely different discipline, requiring different training and tools. A civil engineer works in an office to develop designs, based on field investigations, and doesn't drive a bulldozer to prepare a site, use a crane to emplace materials or a welder to join components—although the engineer may oversee these processes to assure that they match the design. A construction worker, who follows the design, would have no concept how to size structural members, based on the required loads; nor how to design a heating, ventilation and air-conditioning system, based on the occupancy of a building; nor how to assess the stability of a slope to design a structure to avoid landslides. Likewise, naval architects practice a discipline that applies hydrostatics, hydrodynamics, structural engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering and propulsion engineering to develop designs that are constructed in shipyards, using a variety of techniques, practiced by individuals who follow building plans, but would not have even a basic idea how to create them. The content of each field has a great deal of substance, sufficient to make a FA each unto its own. HopsonRoad (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Remove Seymour Martin Lipset

Just a run of the mill sociologist, we could find 20 similar on the level 5 list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 10:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. Weak support Not run of the mill, he is know in the field, but vital 4? I have my doubts. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, added. --Thi (talk) 08:51, 23 May 2020 (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 Isoroku Yamamoto

We have the top military figure of the US, Britain, Germany and the Soviets from WWII, we may aswell list the most important Japanese naval figure, responsible for Pearl Harbour etc. It'd make the military leaders section more diverse too. If not Yamamoto, surely Tōgō Heihachirō. Japan was a major participant in WWII and should have a representative military figure.

"Yamamoto held several important posts in the IJN, and undertook many of its changes and reorganizations, especially its development of naval aviation. He was the commander-in-chief during the early years of the Pacific War and oversaw major engagements including the attack on Pearl Harbor and the Battle of Midway."

The attack on Pearl Harbor was one of the defining events of the 20th century and according to the Britannica "he conceived it" [16] and britannica also says "Yamamoto was Japan’s most prominent naval officer during World War II." The Japanese navy was prominent enough in my opinion to have a representative.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom and by how impactful his assassination was. Aza24 (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
Addition 2-2, removal 1-2, swap 1-2. --Thi (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2020 (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 Northern Territory, remove New South Wales

The NT is the only Australian state/territory not represented at this level. Adding the region itself rather than its capital Darwin is appropriate as Darwin is not of the same population or cultural/economic importance as the other Australian cities on this list. Removing NSW is less of a priority, but doing so would mean that every state/territory would be represented by either itself or its capital city, but not both: ACT: Canberra, TAS: itself, WA: Perth, Vic: Melbourne, SA: Adelaide, Qld: Brisbane, NT: itself, NSW: Sydney.

Support
  1. As nom. Calbow (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support addition --Spaced about (talk) 13:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We need at least one Australian state or territory in and of itself, and NSW is the best choice. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. --Spaced about (talk) 13:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

So you would say that NSW should be represented to the same extent as NT and ACT (Canberra should be out)? Plus, historical significance is more important than representation by stretches IMO. J947's public account 00:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

At this level, yes. At level 5, I would agree that the more historically significant states should have more representation. Calbow (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
1-0, no consensus. --Thi (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Remove National Gallery of Art

I don't see how this is a vital article other than being a popular museum, we should probably have 20 articles in this section.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
For context, it's the second-most visited art museum in the Americas. Although often presumed to be part of the Smithsonian Institution, which we list, it is actually not. Sdkb (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. The National Gallery doesn't seem particularly out of place in the section as currently sized, so I guess the question for me is whether there's a compelling reason to list fewer museums at this level. Lacking that, I'll probably end up opposing. Sdkb (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
1-2, no consensus. --Thi (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2020 (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 Don Juan (poem)

We're light on poems and this is one of the most important works we're missing.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Individual poems are in general more relevant at Level 5, I presume. --Thi (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose The reception section simply includes comments by Walter Scott, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, and Algernon Charles Swinburne. No information on commercial success, impact on popular culture, or derivative works. By comparison The Giaour (1813) influenced Edgar Allan Poe, Mary Shelley, John William Polidori, and the depiction of vampires in literature. Dimadick (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
2-2, no consensus. --Thi (talk) 08:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Remove Rhapsody in Blue

Per my nocturnes nomination, on all the technical music stuff we're missing that'd be better adds. Porgy and Bess is Gershwin's most important work, but i'm not sure he's a jazz musician we should be listing a work of when we could have A Love Supreme, Bitches Brew, What a Wonderful World, Strange Fruit, Mingus Ah Um, Maple Leaf Rag, Sing, Sing, Sing (With a Swing) and Take the "A" Train, all of which are up there in this kind of style. I'd even rater have My Way than this. Just not a strong enough work to have listed, would be better on the level 5 list with all other works of equal rank.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. It is the only music piece listed in this nom that I actually recognize. Subjective? Sure - but I see no evidence the nom's argument is less so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Hugely influential piece. Porgy and Bess may be Gershwin's most important, but Rhapsody in Blue is by far his best known. One of the icons and most recognizable pieces ever written. Aza24 (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
MOVED
Moved to Entertainment section. --Thi (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2020 (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.

Move Professional wrestling here

it's a performance art/style listed under sports. i'd be bold but didn't want any problems. if noone has any strong objections i'll be bold, but on it's article it's listed as a performing art and not a sport, no matter how personal opinion we should reflect that.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support move to Sports and recreation > Entertainment > Basics. Agreed it doesn't fit under sports; I think it would fit better there. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Fits better to Entertainment section. --Thi (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I get the idea, but it's better listed under sports/entertainment than art. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
    Oppose It might make it as a lvl 5 under entertainment, but I'd even question if it belongs there.  // Timothy :: talk  11:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

It's already listed on level 4....that wasn't the point of this nomination lol... How wouldn't it make it on level 5? GuzzyG (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @TimothyBlue: you may have misunderstood the nom. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb I did misunderstand the nom. I changed my statement above.   // Timothy :: talk  09:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
2-3, not swapped. --Thi (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2020 (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 Water Lilies (Monet series) for Impression, Sunrise

Swap in the grand scheme of things a unimportant set of Monet paintings for his painting which is the launch and namesake of the Impressionist movement; if any Monet painting is listed it should be this.

Support
  1. Support nominator
  2. Support removal per nom. I am not sure how many paintings should be listed. --Thi (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose It's still the most wellknown of his paintings, at least one of them is. I didn't know it was a whole series. --Spaced about (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. My sense as a museum-goer is that Water Lilies is better known. If art history experts want to weigh in, I'm persuadable and might defer to their view. I'll issue an invite at Monet's article. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Water Lilies is of greater art-historical importance; that a critic coined a term from a painting's title is incidental. Ewulp (talk) 03:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, added. --Thi (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2020 (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 Reality television

Important genre of television, vast international impact and despite it's poor reputation massive impact on current culture in most western countries. One of the defining genres of entertainment in the 21st century. [17] shows how many countries have aired them and how many shows exist, with examples outside of the west as Bigg Boss, East Africa's Got Talent, Ainori, Terrace House (franchise), Arab Idol, Indonesian Idol, Idols South Africa, King of Mask Singer, Chinese Dream Show and The Voice of the Silk Road. Academics often study it's effect on modern culture as shown by 35k google scholar hits [18]. Reality television has overtaken and replaced Soap opera and is just as vital as Game show, which are both listed and have less shows when you compare them [19]] and [20]. As television expands to other international locations and as western TV execs look for easy, cheap programming it's going to become more prominent. When people think of "television personality" it's no longer hosts, it's people like Kim Kardashian, it defines modern television.

Support
  1. Support As nom GuzzyG (talk) 11:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support as per nom. J947's public account 21:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Sdkb (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I proposed swapping in reality television around five years ago. Reality television was considered to not be a coherent genre and was just a catch-all term for number of types of shows. Since then, I've become neutral. I also agree with one of the comments in the archives that something like interview would be more vital than reality television. Gizza (t)(c) 00:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

By that metric so could game shows, because talent shows and cooking shows and alot of others could fit a game show format. But no other "genre" of television is studied for it's impact on real life culture, not "interviews", not game shows, not soap operas and not even sitcoms to the same level, reality television has a impact on how some people live their lives. the "interview" article is a general catchall article, including other forms of interviews like job interviews, it's too bland for this list and interviews are an aspect of Talk show anyway. Which i agree should be on here and have nominated above, we have more tv shows than tv genres and that needs to be fixed. David Frost even has a chance in journalists. But if reality television doesn't deserve a spot on this list neither does game shows as reality television actually gets studied indepthly unlike game shows and as my links have shown there's more reality shows in more countries than game shows despite the latters longevity. I think we should add it, because it covers the area of American Idol and Kim Kardashian/Paris Hilton (plus all the international equivalents) that defines this age and than we don't have to cover anything else, it's inescapable and it's going to get bigger. We need something covering this area, it dominates television in every continent and is studied extensively with clear and obvious impact on everyday life, what more are we looking for from a tv genre? Even if it is a catch all, it's a catch all for a area we miss and need if we are covering today's society and 21st century culture. GuzzyG (talk) 07:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Swap 3-0, removal 3-1, addition 6-0, Silicon Valley added. --Thi (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2020 (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 San Jose, California for Silicon Valley

San Jose is best known for being the center and largest city of Silicon Valley, but is otherwise not that significant. Meanwhile, the Valley itself is internationally renowned for its concentration of high-tech companies.

Support
  1. As nominator. feminist (talk) 04:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support addition Surprising omission. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support addition --Thi (talk) 10:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support addition Silicon Valley clearly deserves L4. I'd have to look more at the other cities we list to determine whether San Jose deserves to remain, so no view on that for now. Sdkb (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support Addition and Move Support addition of Silicon Valley to Level 4 and Suppprt switching San Jose to Level 5.   // Timothy :: talk  05:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  6. SUpport both. Much more famous location, household term around the world, whereas SJ is not very well known - most people outside US wouldn't even recognize it as a Top 10 city. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal San Jose is the tenth most populous city in the United States. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, added. --Thi (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2020 (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 Scottish Highlands

Physical geography in genral is underrepresentedd at this level and Scottish Highlands clearly are the most notable moutains from English-speaking world missed at this level. If we check to disambig Highlander first suggestion (as primary topic) are people who live in Scottish Highlands.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Weak support —J947 (c), at 05:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Famous for its nature (and Celtic culture). --Thi (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. --Spaced about (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, added. --Thi (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2020 (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 Nintendo

This company is needed when we list for example severalWalt Disney company specific subtopics. I think that Nintendo is important to cover video game's industry. Same inventor of Pokemon has more language versions than Vince Lombardi who is the only pure sport businessmen on the list.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support, makes more sense than Mario, Pokemon and Miyamoto.  Carlwev  17:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PARTIAL PASS
Biosphere added 5-0. --Thi (talk) 16:43, 29 May 2020 (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 Biosphere, Flora and Fauna

All these three terms are essential part of physical geography. More vital than specific deserts.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Since both animal and plant are included in the level 2 list, and fauna and flora are no interchangeable with animal and plant respectively, it is acceptable to list fauna and flora. Biosphere should be added as well.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC) added the opinion that biosphere should be added as well --13:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Biosphere. --Thi (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support biosphere Rreagan007 (talk) 04:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support all 3 per nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose flora and fauna. There is nothing in those articles that would not be covered in plant and animal. Redundant. Gizza (t)(c) 13:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose flora and fauna because of redundancy. --Thi (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose flora and fauna per above. No view on Biosphere yet. Sdkb (talk) 01:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, added. --Thi (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2020 (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 Electric generator

Important invention in the history of technology, developed by Michael Faraday, Charles Wheatstone, Werner von Siemens and others. I presume that both electric motor, electricity generation and generator would be useful articles at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 22:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. --Spaced about (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, swapped. --Thi (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2020 (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 Aoraki / Mount Cook, add Southern Alps

Recently we have added Aoraki but it just was our mistake. Southern Alps deserve for includsion because of only Scottish highlands are more vital moutains from English-speaking world for this level. Meanwhile Aoraki (obviously as single mountain in southern alps) is nothing special among List of peaks by prominence. There are plenty moutains with better Topographic prominence and some of them (for example Mount Kinabalu) also do not have parent peak. This make Aoraki not vital at this level. When we seldon list member of bands ahead of bands I think we should list Shoutern Alps ahead of Aoraki. I also do not support add Mount Kinabalu (more vital moutain IMO) due to fact Mount Pelée is proper addition because of this voulcan had impact for history by its eruption.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per my comments here. J947 (c), at 05:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support - an improvement Gizza (t)(c) 22:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Related discussions here and here. J947's public account 23:38, 12 August 2019 (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.
PARTIAL PASS
Swap 3-0, addition 5-0, removal 4-0. Łódź added. --Thi (talk) 08:30, 31 May 2020 (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 Poznań for Łódź

Łódź historically is bigger city than Poznań

Support
  1. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support removal, no comment on addition. feminist (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support addition Seems better choice. Poznań is sufficiently large city. --Thi (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support Łódź is the third-largest city in Poland. ―Susmuffin Talk 23:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. --Spaced about (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  6. Support addition, not sure about removal. Both are historically significant and major Polish cities. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

What do you think about swap Poznań for Belfast? Łódź IMO certainly is not less vitala than Poznań but if Gdańsk has to be kept we also have to remove Poznań. Poland is very strongly overrepresented at the level 4 and United Kington strongly underrepresented. Belfast pretty fit at this level. Recently we have added Honolulu to the level 4 despite fact that Honolulu had fewer pageviews than Belfasst for last three years and it is not significant in context of whole USA such like Belfasst is significant in contex of whole United Kington. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Belfast may be a bit too small for this level. feminist (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED/NO CONSENSUS
4-4, not removed. --Thi (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Remove Dr. Strangelove

City Lights exemplifies now comedy film and I don't think that two films by Stanley Kubrick is needed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 00:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Although one comedy is too low. But Kubrick doesn't need two films and this is not the highest ranked comedy. GuzzyG (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support My favourite Kubrick film so it pains me to support this, but I agree that Kubrick is over-represented, and Dr Strangelove perhaps wasn't as genre-defining and as influential as 2001: A Space Odyssey. Betty Logan (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I don't mind dropping Dr. Strangelove, but I think that one comedy is too few. Orser67 (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose This a Cold War satire, taking aim at the doctrine of mutual assured destruction. We don't have anything comparable on this level. Dimadick (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose This is a seminal work of the Cold War that is still considered meaningful today.   // Timothy :: talk  18:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. I think it is more famous than City Lights. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
8-2, added. --Thi (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2020 (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 Arminianism

Add Arminianism under Protestantism. This is a inter-denominational/transverse development/movement of protestantism, present mainly within 2.Baptists, 4.Evangelicalism, 6.Methodism, 7.Pentecostalism, 9.Seventh-day Adventist Church (and was also present into 1.Anglicanism, see: Arminianism in the Church of England) all movements cited under Protestantism. The following graph shows the different protestant movements, including Arminianism:

Protestant_branches

Protestantism has been split into to major camps regarding soteriology : Calvinism and Arminianism.[a] Then if calvinism (named after John Calvin vital l. 4) is mentioned as vital article level 4, it makes sense to include also Arminianism (named after Jacobus Arminius vital l. 4) as a level 4 article. ---Telikalive (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support per nom Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 12:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Telikalive (talk) 08:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support JohnThorne (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support TuckerResearch (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. It needs to be included for balance. But I would appreciate if every add proposal came with a suggestion for what to remove instead because we are currently over quota by 20. --Spaced about (talk) 07:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  7. Support per nom. Surprising omission. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  8. Support NW7US (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I think that the sects that it affected, as well as Jacobus Arminius himself, already adequately cover this topic at level 4. Orser67 (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

To editor Spaced about: OK, one suggestion : in Christianity / Concept, there is purgatory. This is a concept that developed in the 8th century[b] and became a Roman Catholic teaching in the late 11th century. For comparison : "hell", "lake of fire", are concepts more widely shared into Christianity taken as a whole from its beginning. To me, "Purgatory" should be a level 4 purely "catholic" concept if possible, or put in level 5 if not possible. ---Telikalive (talk) 09:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree, the first paragraph in the article on purgatory doesn't adequately reflect that, but you're right. I'll be bold and make it a subsection of catholicity. --Spaced about (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
To editor Spaced about: I reconsidered it again and actually now I think that purgatory has no place in level 4 as a generic christian concept, it's clearly a christian level 5 concept, since it's a middle age purely catholic concept. (I don't now if it's an added value but Pope should be put away under Catholicism, and can be questioned as well since it concerns only basically half of Christianity)---Telikalive (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Purgatory has become an everyday term according to Merriam Webster and it also appears in literature (f.i. Dante). The pope is an influential historical figure who is also involved in politics. So, the meaning is not limited to Catholicism. I haven't made up my mind but I doubt the proposals would be successful. --Spaced about (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
To editor Spaced about: I rephrase it but, only half of Christianity believe in the concepts of pope and purgatory, on the other hand, the largest part of Christianity believes in the mentioned concepts of grace and Trinity, for instance. That's why those formers should be more legitimately considered as "christian concepts".
Besides of my suppression suggestion, I saw that you put purgatory below Catholicity as I suggested. Please note that Pope should be placed in the same position if you want to keep it.
Besides, what about Arminianism ? ---Telikalive (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Notes
  1. ^ Akin, James. A Tiptoe Through Tulip, EWTN, 1993 : In Protestant circles there are two major camps when it comes to predestination: Calvinism and Arminianism. Calvinism is common in Presbyterian, Reformed, and a few Baptist churches. Arminianism is common in Methodist, Pentecostal, and most Baptist churches
  2. ^ Jacques Le Goff. La naissance du Purgatoire [The Birth of Purgatory]. [Paris] : Gallimard, 1991, p. 155. The earliest description of a "purgatory", without being so named, appears to be found in Drythelm's vision written in 731.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
3-4, not added. --Thi (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2020 (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 Transport industry

Worth discussion if we are going to consider something like Food industy. I am not sure which one subsection in life would be OK for it. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support nom.
  2. Support This is so vital and increasing in importance currently as well as being historically important. I would even add it as a redirect. Move to business section. If everything else fails, turn it into a stub. We are missing many vital articles at level 5 as well, some of which don't exist or are redirects. --Spaced about (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support; the project is all about finding vital, encyclopedically relevant topics. Article (or redirect, etc.) qualities should not come into consideration, only optimal qualities. J947 (c), at 02:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Transport industry is currently a redirect to Transport, which is in Level 2. --Thi (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  2. Strong Oppose per Thi. This should not have been nominated. Sdkb (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose; I don't see why different modes of transport should be combined as a single industry. I'd note that we don't have articles like Shipping industry, Aviation industry, Railway industry, etc. which would be easier to write than a general article about transport as one general industry. feminist (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - it's a redirect for a reason. It's not a commonly used grouping of industries in business and economic literature. As Feminist says, aviation, railway, automotive, etc. is how they are normally discussed. "Transport Industry" gets very low Google hits compared to the others. Gizza (t)(c) 02:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, added. --Thi (talk) 08:21, 31 May 2020 (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 Snack

We list breakfast/lunch/dinner, as well as dessert, here. Eating is level 2, and snacking is a common type of eating. - Sdkb (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Sdkb (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. Weak support —J947's public account 23:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. --Spaced about (talk) 13:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support "Snack" is a important concept of eating. GuzzyG (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, added. --Thi (talk) 08:57, 31 May 2020 (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 Crocodilia

It's one of the four major groups of extant reptiles and is not listed. Alligator, Caiman and Crocodile should not be listed just under Reptile. LittleJerry (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support
  2. Support per nominator. --Thi (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support per above Dawid2009 (talk) 05:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support, agree with nom. We have good coverage of birds, mammals and insects. This reptile topic seems important enough to list here, comparing with other animal groups  Carlwev  04:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support per above. GuzzyG (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PARTIAL PASS
Vehicle engineering not added 5-4. Automotive engineering added 7-1. --Thi (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2020 (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 Vehicle engineering and Automotive engineering

Two very important disciplines with underwhelming articles. We can't have Naval architecture on this list without these two. —J947 (c), at 02:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. J947 (c), at 02:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support vehicle engineering only. Both articles need a ton of work, but I don't see the argument for needing both here. Consider me neutral on Automotive engineering. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)).
  4. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support automotive engineering only, since it seems a reasonable complement to naval architecture and shipbuilding for water and aviation for air (which seems to take the place of aerospace engineering). Sdkb (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support Spaced about (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  7. Support automotive engineering only as it stands among other transportation engineering disciplines, including naval architecture, aerospace engineering, highway engineering, and railway engineering. The resulting artifacts—motor vehicles, airplanes, roads, rolling stock, and railroads—shouldn't be lumped in with the type of engineering that generates them, nor should the construction or manufacture thereof. HopsonRoad (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  8. Support automotive engineering only Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 07:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose vehicle engineering, since it seems covered by the sub-field articles we list or seem about to list. The article currently is just an outline of air/water/land transport engineering, with separate sections for each. I'm not sure that there's enough to say about engineering that applies to both sailboats and fighter jets for this to be vital at this level. Perhaps that's just since the article is underdeveloped, but my inclination until I see evidence to the contrary is that that's why it's underdeveloped. Sdkb (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose vehicle engineering This article is an artifact of WP:SYNTHESIS. Searching on "vehicle engineering" results in hits on "automotive engineering". None of the references in the article make use of the term. It should be a candidate for AfD. HopsonRoad (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Vehicle engineering, as the article has been deleted based on this discussion. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Rreagan007. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, moved. --Thi (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2020 (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.

Move Queen of Sheba to Philosophy and religion

This was a leftover from when we moved alot of the non historical religious figures over to the philosophy and religion page Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 59#Move Abraham, Daniel (biblical figure), David, Elijah, Ezra, Isaac, Isaiah, Ishmael, Jacob, Joseph (Genesis), Moses, and Solomon to Philosophy and Religion, if Solomon was moved i don't see how Queen of Sheba should stay. The page isn;t even covered by wikiproject biography, which is what the people section covers, biographies.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support - Aza24 (talk) 02:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support agree with nom. Just an oversight it was missed, no brainer. Could probably do it without voting but nearly got 5 support already anyway  Carlwev  18:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, added. --Thi (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2020 (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 Emergency medical services

When Police is level 3 article, First aid is 4 (nomineted to level 3 too), Emergency medical services fits on level 4.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support I think anyone who's ever needed to use them would agree they're quite vital. - Sdkb (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support even though I would consider paramedic and emergency physician equally worthy possiblities. --Spaced about (talk) 10:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
Swap 3-2, addition 4-2, no consensus. --Thi (talk) 09:31, 5 June 2020 (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 Henry Moore for William Morris

20th century sculpture is well covered by Brâncuși and Giacometti while Morris is one of the most prominent/influential/well known in the arts and crafts movement; which we do not cover.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support addition Morris is well-known designer and influential author. --Thi (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support We need an Arts and Crafts icon like Morris pbp 22:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support Morris has had greater influence. Neljack (talk) 07:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal Moore has been criticized as formulaic, but he is still one of Britain's most famous and popular artists. --Thi (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Moore's works mark an era. We've got the Arts and Crafts Movement on L4, that should be enough. --Spaced about (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Moore is much to influential to be removed from L4. I could see Morris in L4 but perhaps replacing someone else. Aza24 (talk) 07:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
The two artists are highly important in two different fields. Both Moore and Morris should be included. Amandajm (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
Swap 2-1, removal 3-1, addition 2-2. --Thi (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2020 (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 Leni Riefenstahl for Lois Weber

Riefenstahl is primarily known for Triumph of the Will and Olympia, two works of Nazi propaganda. We already list Goebbels, who was the more influential propagandist. Weber, on the other hand, directed at least 135 films and is considered the first major female Hollywood director.

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Spaced about (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support removal. Triumph of the Will fits better to Level 5. --Thi (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Obviously Riefenstahl is a bad person; but she's a pioneer in film technique, directed a film on our level 4 arts list (only woman to do so) and represents something other than Hollywood; her reception section makes it clear she's not listed for propaganda, but film technique. Nominate Ida Lupino instead, she'd be less worthy than Riefenstahl. There's a reason Weber herself is cited on her page "the most important female director the American film industry has known" with the American distinction made clear. Weber isn't any leaps more vital than Alice Guy-Blaché, Mabel Normand, Dorothy Arzner, or June Mathis enough to be listed; personally i'd take Guy-Blaché instead. Frances Marion and Lupino represent women in Hollywood, so again Guy-Blaché would be better. If it were up to me though i'd add Weber, Guy-Blaché and Normand by swapping out people like Mel Brooks, but if people like Louis B. Mayer are not getting traction, i doubt any serious change will happen. Either way i strongly oppose that only women in Hollywood being listed. GuzzyG (talk) 07:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose addition per above. --Thi (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

I would also support Alice Guy-Blaché (French, partially grew up in South America, very unique work), Mabel Normand (had her own studio), and June Mathis (as a screenwriter). There will naturally be a large overhang of people in Hollywood, because it was one of a few important centers of the film industry.

Riefenstahl really wasn't all that influential or innovative - the article reflects that. Same goes for Triumph of the will, which we also list and which should also go. Her style was typical of the era, very similar to Soviet socialist worker aesthetic. There is a common assumption that her films were innovative - but the article doesn't credibly specify that. Instead it portrays her iconography (= Nazi parades) as novel: the article talks about bodies in motion, and - very funny - Hitler's supposed "sexiness", seriously. Were her films influential? In an artistic way: no. Most of the works in the influences and legacy section of Triumph of the will cite movies that even mocked her work. Was her movie influential in a propagandistic way? We don't know, there is no science on that. All we know is that it was used as propaganda. The "bodies in motion" feature of her films is just the style of the era - I'm sure we can find better works of art and better biographies to illustrate that trend. --Spaced about (talk) 10:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
5-3, not added. --Thi (talk) 09:57, 5 June 2020 (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 Geronimo

More native Americans are needed on this level. Better choice than Petro Konashevych-Sahaidachny.

Support
  1. Support As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support --Spaced about (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Constantine ✍ 19:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom   // Timothy :: talk  00:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We're over quota by alot and we're missing so many people in similar areas, as related to my comment in de Saxe's removal. To put this in perspective, with Sitting Bull and now Geronimo likely to be added, we have as many Native Americans as we do Chinese military people - a country with a long military history and centuries of it - and of a massive population. It's a massive form of bias towards Americans. As much as i support representation, one Native American is enough - considering everything. I'd much rather add people like Kʼinich Janaabʼ Pakal, Itzcoatl and Huayna Capac - that is the area we're missing people from regarding people native from the Americas. Let's not mention we have no people from Africa - a whole continent of over 1.2 billion people in this section. Also, just like Sitting Bull, it's wrong to call Native Americans like Geronimo military leaders, he'd have to go into American political leaders - which is already bloated. GuzzyG (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per GuzzyG. --Thi (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. If I had to pick another American Indian warrior/leader to add to the list, it would be Crazy Horse. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
3-5, not added. --Thi (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2020 (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 Northeastern United States

The fact that of all four regions of US defined by the Census Bureau it is the only unlisted and most economically developed, densely populated, and culturally diverse one means that it is vital at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support. It's bizarre that it's the only census region not listed. I'd support removing New York state in place of this. Orser67 (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I'd rather add Western Europe, Eastern Europe or Northern Europe first. feminist (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Weak oppose Perhaps since the northeast has been so instrumental in the development of U.S. culture as a whole, it doesn't have as distinct a regional identity as the South or Midwest, and it doesn't occupy the cultural imagination as a distinct entity the same way as does the West. To the extent regional identities do exist in the Northeast, they tend to be either with sub-regions (e.g. New England, which we already list) or with cities like NYC. My sense is that people just don't say "I'm from the Northeast" the same way they do "I'm from the South" etc., and for this reason I think it's less vital, despite the higher population. Sdkb (talk) 05:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  3. Weak oppose per Sdkb. I think we have actually IDed the five most prominent "regional identities" in the U.S. with what is currently listed. "Northeastern" is less of an ID than New Yorker, New Englander, or even Californian. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Sdkb. --Spaced about (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. We already list New England and New York. Too much overlap with those 2 articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
  • I'd only support this as a swap with New York state. Gizza (t)(c) 02:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • As one of the 20 million+ people who is from the Northeastern United States but who isn't from New York or New England, I have to say that it seems unfair to include all of these other U.S geographical locations but not include the Northeast. In particular, I don't see how Illinois or New York (the state) belong ahead of one of the four census regions of the United States. I do consider myself to be a Northeasterner, as defined in contrast to those from the West, the Midwest, and the South. Orser67 (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
3-4, not removed. --Thi (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Remove Triumph of the Will

I don't think any propaganda or documentary film is important enough for this level Olympia (1938 film) would be the better propaganda film to list and Nanook of the North/Man with a Movie Camera are the two most important documentary films. Either way, i don't think Triumph of the Will makes it. Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans, Apocalypse Now, Taxi Driver, The Passion of Joan of Arc, Persona (1966 film), The 400 Blows, Rashomon, and Raging Bull are all more critically acclaimed films and represent what we're missing more than documentary (war, sports, more art films etc). The Blue Angel, Aguirre, the Wrath of God, and Ali: Fear Eats the Soul are all more acclaimed films from Germany. It's just not the next film that should be on this list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support. Shoah would be better documentary and Man with a Movie Camera would be good addition, because Dziga Vertov is not listed. --Thi (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom.   // Timothy :: talk  18:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I'd like to have at least one documentary listed. Somewhat unfortunately, this is probably the most influential documentary of all time, and it's significant in its own right. Orser67 (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Influential film: "Charlie Chaplin's satire The Great Dictator (1940) was inspired in large part by Triumph of the Will.[1] Frank Capra used significant footage, with a mocking narration in the first installment of the propagandistic film produced by the United States Army Why We Fight as an exposure of Nazi militarism and totalitarianism to American soldiers and sailors.[2] The film has been studied by many contemporary artists, including film directors Peter Jackson, George Lucas and Ridley Scott. The opening sequence of Starship Troopers is a direct reference to the film." Dimadick (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Historically significant and incredibly influential. If the list is going to include a documentary then it should be this one. Betty Logan (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Given its historical significance, I think it deserves to be listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2020 (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 Henry Fielding

Britannica: "Sir Walter Scott called Henry Fielding the “father of the English novel,” and the phrase still indicates Fielding’s place in the history of literature. Though not actually the first English novelist, he was the first to approach the genre with a fully worked-out theory of the novel; and in Joseph Andrews, Tom Jones, and Amelia, which a modern critic has called comic epic, epic comedy, and domestic epic, respectively, he had established the tradition of a realism presented in panoramic surveys of contemporary society that dominated English fiction until the end of the 19th century." The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling is a "highly original and deeply comic" [21] novel which paints "an incomparably vivid picture of England in the mid-18th century" (Britannica).

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support "father of the English novel" is important enough for the English wiki, especially if people are rushing to defend Nekrasov. GuzzyG (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, swapped. --Thi (talk) 11:50, 5 July 2020 (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 Gorgias, add Sophist

Gorgias was perhaps added as representative of sophists, but there are conflicting views about his legacy. "Gorgias has been a marginalized and obscure figure in both philosophical thought and culture at large... many academic philosophers still ridicule any efforts to portray Gorgias as a serious thinker." There are many more famous philosophers. Sophist is good addition to articles about history of philosophy.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Sophism is more notable as a movement than any individual sophist. Neljack (talk) 07:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support thing/field should always be represented first rather than a figure. GuzzyG (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support per GuzzyG. --Spaced about (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 10:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Remove The Internationale

Per my nocturnes nomination, on all the technical music stuff we're missing that'd be better adds. It's important, but not vital when we don't list any anthem (anthem itself is not listed) or national anthem and i don't see why this one should be chosen over any of the more well known/prominent anthems. it's perfect for level 5.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. feminist (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  4. Weak support. I don't like losing this as it is historically significant, but it's not quite enough to keep it. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support ili (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-5, not removed. --Thi (talk) 10:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Remove Rock and roll

This is redundant clutter when we already cover Rock music. We don't list other time period specific articles covered by the general article like Traditional pop or Swing music. Gospel music and Film score, among many other regional styles of music like Ska or Qawwali would be better to cover for music history than a period of rock history when we list the general article. If we needed a subtopic genre to a parent genre, Electronic dance music would be better. It represents a separate form of electronic music rather than stuff like Karlheinz Stockhausen and would cover all main forms of music today.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. pbp 02:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose General article is better choice than listing Heartbreak Hotel or Buddy Holly. --Thi (talk) 10:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose It's more of a subgenre — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3DNewEra (talk • contribs) 10:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Thi ili (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Historically significant subgenre. Dimadick (talk) 10:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

Except this isn't the general article, Rock music is, which is covered. It's time and genre specific; Rock's Classical Hollywood cinema. Pointless to list this, even if it's a fav genre of Wiki's demo.

Let's examine the "General articles" of stuff we list and don't. Would anyone be in favour of;

  1. Classical Hollywood cinema (not listed) instead of Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, James Cagney, Ingrid Bergman, Gary Cooper, Joan Crawford, Clark Gable, Bette Davis, Cary Grant, Judy Garland, James Stewart Audrey Hepburn, Spencer Tracy, Grace Kelly, John Wayne, Marilyn Monroe Barbara Stanwyck, Elizabeth Taylor, Frank Capra, Cecil B. DeMille, John Ford Howard Hawks, Alfred Hitchcock William Wyler, Billy Wilder, Citizen Kane, The Wizard of Oz (1939 film), Gone with the Wind (film) and Casablanca (film) - no? What's different other than personal taste? They're both time specific genre articles of a parent topic?
  2. Cinema of Germany or New German Cinema (not listed) instead of; Wim Wenders, Fritz Lang, Leni Riefenstahl,Triumph of the Will, Klaus Kinski and Marlene Dietrich?
  3. Cinema of Italy or Italian neorealism (not listed) instead of; Michelangelo Antonioni, Vittorio De Sica, Federico Fellini, 8½, Bicycle Thieves, La Dolce Vita, Marcello Mastroianni and Sophia Loren?
  4. Qawwali or Islamic music (not listed) instead of Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan?
  5. Bande dessinée (not listed) instead of Jean Giraud, Hergé, The Adventures of Tintin, and Asterix?
  6. Cinema of the United Kingdom (not listed) instead of Alec Guinness, Sean Connery, Judi Dench, Peter O'Toole, Laurence Olivier, David Lean, and Lawrence of Arabia (film)?
  7. Mafia or Sicilian Mafia or American Mafia or Chicago Outfit (all not listed) instead of Al Capone?
  8. Afrobeat (not listed) instead of Fela Kuti?
  9. Persian traditional music (not listed) instead of Mohammad-Reza Shajarian?
  10. Carnatic music (not listed) instead of Muthuswami Dikshitar, Shyama Shastri or Tyagaraja?
  11. Minstrel show (not listed) instead of Stephen Foster?
  12. Tejano music (not listed) instead of Selena?

and that's just a quick examination. this list is very inconsistent in what it covers and seems more based on subjective taste on when to apply arguments than a consistent treatment of everything. if the genre of something has to be covered first for one thing - that must apply to everything. is anyone ready for that discussion?? lol GuzzyG (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Rock and roll is in my encylopedia wth 5,000 articles, the genres influence to beginning of modern youth culture was considerable. Heartbreak Hotel should be removed first, it has weaker case as a song and Johnny B. Goode is included. --Thi (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
3-3, not removed. --Thi (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Remove Super Bowl

It is an American event with little international recognition (unlike Oscars or such, it is rarely transmitted to other countries, or covered by international press). It is big in US, but this is international English language encyclopedia, not US-only, and SB is about as vital as 4 July celebrations or such. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose "The Super Bowl is also among the most-watched sporting events in the world, and is second to the UEFA Champions League final as the most watched annual sporting event worldwide." - eh, this is enough for me, when we list UEFA Champions League too. we need to removed the American football biographies down to one. the super bowl is ok considering the US is the country most focused on sports as a whole and it's their biggest event GuzzyG (talk) 07:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Its importance in the U.S. makes it vital for the English Wikipedia, due to the large number of English speakers that live in the U.S. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose many things that are important for the U.S. that don't seem to matter for the rest of the world are on here, and this probably takes the cake in that respect. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Passed in another section 5-1 (see under title Swap: remove Rugby World Cup, add Beauty pageant). --Thi (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2020 (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 Beauty pageant

Rugby World cup should not be removed and this should be added, so i'm starting a alternative vote. Lineage back to medieval times, with one of the first notable ones held "during the Eglinton Tournament of 1839" won by Georgiana Seymour, Duchess of Somerset. Now it's a major industry in pretty much every country in the world, if this were a sport it'd be added. It's very big in the United States, Philippines and Venezuela which shows it has multi continental impact. Arguably more vital than Professional wrestling.

Support
  1. Support As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
1-1, no consensus. --Thi (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Remove Chinghiz Aitmatov

He may be the greatest writer in Kyrgyzstan, but i think by numbers it's not justifiable to cover Kyrgyzstan, when we don't cover any writers from Southeast Asia or from Korea, which are both much more populous regions than Kyrgyzstan, a writer from countries with big populations like Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Myanmar, Malaysia or South Korea should get listed first. Some of these countries have populations with over 100 million people and yet we cover no cultural figures from them (Indonesia for a start). I think Aitmatov was added because of his connection to Soviet literature, of which we cover lots of writers from, it seems when this list was a free for all we had a Russian literature fan, Abai Qunanbaiuly seems like a better addition to represent Central Asian literature. I think along with Aitmatov, we need to cut back on some Japanese writers like Kazuo Ishiguro and rebalance the Asian writers section with some SEA/Korean/more Chinese/Indian writers which would be more representative of Asian literature as a whole. 7/17 of the modern writers are Japanese, meanwhile we lack modern Chinese and Arabic literature representatives, two Official languages of the United Nations. We need to balance the writers list and removing Aitmatov is a start.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 07:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose He was one of the greatest writers of 20th century. [22][23] By some estimation his novels were translated into 176 languages and more than 100 million copies of his books were issued in 128 countries. I would include him on the list of 500 most vital biographies as best representative of Central Asian literature. I would also include Kazuo Ishiguro on top 500. He is the best answer when asked about greatest contemporary writers worth reading, just as Umberto Eco or García Márquez were at their times. --Thi (talk) 09:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

Lots of writers get the general "greatest of" label when they die. Barbara Cartland sold close to a billion copies, but that means nothing. the only source i can find for Aimatov selling 100 million is this - [24], which makes a super bold claim that says "According to UNESCO, Chingiz Aitmatov is the most widely read writer in the world after Shakespeare and Tolstoy. His books were translated into 176 languages ​​and published in a circulation of 100 million copies.", which sounds unrealistic. For a super important writer, the fact that only three of his works have articles themselves Jamila (novel), The White Ship (Aitmatov novel) and The Day Lasts More Than a Hundred Years and that they're all stubs except the last one shows this is more 20th century bloat. Ishiguro is one of many highly regarded contemporary writers, [25], [26], [27], [28], the fact that we don't have any contemporary musicians, entertainers, or artists seems to be cherry picking, what makes a 21st century writer so important to add over 21st century musicians like Radiohead, Eminem, Girls' Generation and Britney Spears, actors like Leonardo DiCaprio, Shah Rukh Khan and Angelina Jolie or artists like Banksy and Damien Hirst? Especially when we list Haruki Murakami as well? It doesn't make sense. All of those would be denied and rightfully so, why are we rushing 21st century artists in? They should stand the test of time. we're missing so many artists that have. GuzzyG (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Aitmatov is listed in all my encyclopedias, including ones with 5,000 and 10,000 topics. I own copies of his books and can found them from my library. No one knows how reliable soviet era statistics are, but his works were filmed and his books are held in high regard. [29] Aitmatov was nominated for Nobel prize and he is national hero in Kyrgyzstan and of Turkic peoples in general. He contributed to world culture. Many other national heroes from Eastern and Southeastern Asia are already included. I don't think that is easy to find many better examples of modern, translated, widely read Asian literature than Aitmatov, because translations to English were so rare in 20th century, not only with Central Asian but virtually all Asian literature except for Japanese literature. Even now only about three percent of all books published in the United States are translated works and they get rarely much publicity. --Thi (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Also instead of 7 Japanese writers, we should be listing a Japanese musician, considering it's one of the major markets for music today with a lot of influence in Asia. Ayumi Hamasaki would be seen as too recent, so why wouldn't Ishiguro? If Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five didn't get any votes for being "too recent" here, with the group being disbanded in 1983 (short reunion 1988), that'd throw B'z (who has also sold 100 million) out of consideration too, considering they were founded in 1988. So where would Ishiguro fit? Why are we so lenient towards 21st century literature (Ishiguro), film Wim Wenders and Judi Dench and sports LeBron James, but late 20th century music like Nirvana (band), Whitney Houston and John Coltrane gets removed and we're missing vital concepts like a record producer (Quincy Jones or a film composer John Williams, let alone 21st century and we don't have any recent visual artists other than Gerhard Richter or any 21st century form of entertainer like Gisele Bündchen, Kim Kardashian, PewDiePie, Hulk Hogan, Royce Gracie, Tony Hawk or Jenna Jameson, the possibilities are endless with recent art/entertainment/sports. It's just not consistent. If Central Asia with a population of 72,960,000 is so important that a writer from there would be in your top 500, why wouldn't Southeast Asia with a population of 655,298,044, the third most populated region? If a population of 72,960,000 is enough, how about more than 7 African writers with a population of 1,275,920,972? In music, Tabu Ley Rochereau and Tilahun Gessesse both come from countries with more population than Central Asia itself, yet would they qualify? They should then. We have no black visual artists, would Ben Enwonwu, a artist regarded as the greatest in Africa from a country with 2x Central Asia's population, would he qualify? This list has biases and we need to iron them out or it's going to be inconsistent. Also if we needed a current, still alive writer from contemporary literature i'm p sure the consensus would be Cormac McCarthy. Maybe Philip Roth if he was still around. David Foster Wallace or J. K. Rowling if pop culture name recognition mattered. Would they have a spot too? If so, why not Norman Mailer and Henry Miller? See what i mean? If there's so many similar writers of equal rank, we should wait for history to decide, we can't pick contemporary artists - unless we cover alot of them, in the word of your oppose vote in the Grandmaster Flash nom, "Either just one representative or the list of 5–6 artists is best solution in this section", we already have Haruki Murakami. So do we need all 5-6 contemporary writers, if so why not cover the 21st century and contemporary artists in other art forms too? . GuzzyG (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Also if Ishiguro establishes 21st century/contemporary figures on this list; it's only fair that i mention other contemporary figures of other art/entertainment forms and sports listed, like Robin Williams for comedy, David Copperfield (illusionist) for magic, David Letterman for tv, Hideo Kojima for video games, Bill Watterson and Akira Toriyama for comics, Daft Punk for electronic music, Gianni Versace, Alexander McQueen and Karl Lagerfeld for fashion and Mike Tyson, Tom Brady, Lewis Hamilton, Richie McCaw, Kobe Bryant, Katie Ledecky, Simone Biles, Novak Djokovic and Magnus Carlsen among the sports we list. Would they all fit too? If we need contemporary coverage in literature and film, why not everything aswell? These names are only more likely to build overtime like Ishiguro's, so why wait? GuzzyG (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I doubt he's that "widely read" if he only has 23,354 book ratings on the most popular book site Goodreads [30], literally the first author i clicked on to test others in the modern Asian prose writers section was Sadegh Hedayat, who has 68,709 ratings [31]. That's without the Russian and Soviet backed cultural prestige Aitmatov has, of which the West pays attention to more than other Asian countries. You could say defining Asian literature's importance by success in the US or the West is a bad methodology. Central Asia is the 4th least populated sub region as seen here, i'm sure Derek Walcott would have a chance here too based on that - maybe he can be in a top 500 for Caribbean literature, especially if niche Icelandic literature gets representation with Halldór Laxness. Now ignoring the west, being the national writer of a country or a very highly regarded one gets you taught in schools and a household name presence, which in some cases means more than a popular Western following. Here's a bunch of writers with that presence in countries with just as much or a little under the population of Central Asia itself and would be better representation than another Soviet writer Amir Hamzah, Pak Kyongni, Kazi Nazrul Islam, Ahmed Ali (writer), Mirza Fatali Akhundov, Sunthorn Phu, Adunis, Yi Chong-jun, Vũ Trọng Phụng, Begum Rokeya, Kulap Saipradit, Simin Daneshvar, Cho Ki-chon and Ko Un. Khachatur Abovian would also be a better choice.. Dashdorjiin Natsagdorj too - defining writer even if the US doesn't know him or he's not in a Western encyclopedia unlike more minor writers on a world scale like Stéphane Mallarmé or Aitmatov. Amos Oz and Shmuel Yosef Agnon would be better if we're covering a minor but important region's literature. Bhāsa, R. K. Narayan, Mulk Raj Anand, Arundhati Roy, Raja Rao and Shen Congwen, Mao Dun, Mo Yan and Gao Xingjian would all be better to balance the Asian writers section towards the two most populous countries in favour of the more pop culture Japan writers.

There's so many options and when we're over quota Aitmatov doesn't stand out, especially when we cover so much Soviet writers already. This is not even mentioning our low coverage of Africa and Latin America. That encyclopedia of yours should cover John Coltrane, yet he was removed. If it doesn't cover him - than i question it as a source for 20th century art. Regarding Ishiguro and Aitmatov - i'd even rather Japanese writers like Chikamatsu Monzaemon, Zeami Motokiyo, Masaoka Shiki, Ichiyō Higuchi, Jun'ichirō Tanizaki, Yosa Buson and Kobayashi Issa all who are more important to Japanese literature than some of the more popular Japanese writers we list, especially when Never Let Me Go (novel) and The Remains of the Day were written in English - ensuring they get more coverage than the other Japanese writers in the west. I think "I own copies of his books" is the general sentiment for alot of this list - including our faves, there may be alot of writers or artist that would be on somebodies personal 500 list, but that doesn't mean they should be listed here, if we're being fair to the coverage of the arts as a whole and not just based on what regions are popular in the US or what would be in our personal 500. Either way, defining the Asian writers we list by their success in English and Russian - two European languages is wrong, popularity in the west means nothing for someones importance and should not be what we judge people for this list. Teresa Teng does not have a audience in the west, but i guarantee you more humans have heard her music than 80-90% of the popular musicians from the west we list. Remember China has a population of 1.4 billion people - Europe 750 mil, Oceania 50 mil and North America 600 Mil, now i've rounded up the continents but China is equal to a Euro/American artists main audience. I guarantee you Teng and Zhou Xuan - even arguably Leslie Cheung and Anita Mui have had close to a billion more of a audience than Eric Clapton, Stephen Sondheim, Patsy Cline and Sam Cooke considering Chinese music has influence Asia wide. Now obviously this is a English list, but it speaks to our problem on how we balance this list in a way. The Wikimedia expanded list, which should cover this is even more of a mess. Astor Piazzolla being listed over Carlos Gardel speaks more that this list is more good faith based favoritism rather than how things are. I think Aitmatov represents that and when we're over quota him or people like Judi Dench don't stand a chance. GuzzyG (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that both 500 and 2000 topics are at the end quite limited quota, so we should pay attention to entry-level topics. There are many other wikiprojects for special fields and as "only Central Asian writer to make any mark on world literature", as it has been said, Chingiz Aitmatov is better topic than for example the Kazakh poet you first suggested. You ask why include writer from Kyrgyzstan, the answer is why not. Many critics have researched Aitmatov's work from postcolonial perspective. Postcolonial theory has questioned what centre and periphery mean. Why not include also the small nation and region in the margin? Aitmatov crossed the boundaries of socialist realism. He used with realistic mode also the register of oral Kyrgyz tradition and myths, premodernist modes of thought. In my opinion it provides a link to third world and First Nations viewpoints. [32]
There are not many modern Asian writers listed and with removal we would just lose more. Aitmatov is already listed and I think he fits to criterias of real international reputation and critical success. He is not a special favourite of mine, but it would be difficult to get some new Asian writer in current situation with few project participants. Ko Un, Adunis, Amos Oz or Mo Yan could have chances as Nobel contenders or winners. I have pondered R. K. Narayan and Sadegh Hedayat and nominated Tanizaki, but he got no votes. Kazuo Ishiguro should be listed as British writer. I think that in a packed list he is good representative of modern British literature. He would be better choice than other Nobelist William Golding, if Lord of the Flies is also included.
I don't think that is fruitful approach to compare writers to other artists and entertainers. Literature is important for national identity around the world, it is important thing in articles about countries in Wikipedia. I don't think that smaller quota for writers would be good idea. Literature is important in institutional level, so we must take it into account. We don't have room for large coverage for popular entertainers at this level, because we have extensive sections in mathematics, history, biology and similar things outside the biography section. That's my theory.
You are justly calling for consistency, but I think that is also important to remember that the project is made with different, often conflicting aims. The result is a compromise and chance has its role on what topics we include. With slightly different set of voters we would have different results. I don't think that the exclusion of Nirvana and especially Coltrane are the best examples of parameter setting or guidelines. Mistakes has been made, but they can also be corrected. We can vote Coltrane back.
I am also not sure that we should include as many different professions and fields as possible in biographies. If we assume some hypothetical outside observer or peer reviewer, I am not sure that he or she would first demand more people from different fields. Maybe the reviewer would think that we have concentrated on good coverage on some major areas. The list contains many politicians but only few stage comedians. Maybe he or she thinks that we don't need more coverage in entertainment but is only happy to see that the list offers some examples of other fields, a glimpse of what can be found from level five. This is just hypothesizing.
Outside observers could also think differently about our rationales for inclusions, although the reasons would seem good for us. If we include Claudio Monteverdi in level four, reviewer would perhaps ask first, where are all the other composers. When listing most influential or important composers, Monteverdi often comes in number ten or something. Similar thing is with Grandmaster Flash. The user of the list would ask where are some other rap musicians he or she is familiar with, aren't they equally important to include? My rough estimation was five or more. It would probably be difficult to name to just two or three towering figures in rap, unlike in some other fields. It has been said that the story of baseball can be told by three names and country music also needs only three names. So realistic estimation for rap would be one, two or three musicians. I guess that it would also have been possible to include the song The Message instead Grandmaster Flash. --Thi (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
1-2, no consensus. --Thi (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Remove Wim Wenders

We already list Werner Herzog for New German Cinema and we list Fritz Lang, which means we list 3 German directors and 3 Indian directors, which seems dispropotionate considering the respective prominence of each's cinema. Cinema of Germany isn't even listed on the level 4 arts page but both Cinema of India and Bollywood are which in of itself shows the difference. There's a massive bias towards western filmmakers here. With Ousmane Sembène not getting votes and directors of major population size countries like Glauber Rocha, Lino Brocka and Youssef Chahine not listed, i think there's a massive bias towards German film here, especially with Klaus Kinski being listed aswell. Now some may think that he would fit on such a list; but we're over quota and we're missing so many that i could list over 50 people like Pierre Fauchard. He could fit, but we have so many filmmakers and missing so many more important people while over quota.

Let's not forget that F. W. Murnau, Carl Laemmle and Ernst Lubitsch are just as prominent directors/executives from Germany, Murnau/Laemmle should be listed over Wenders, i'd accept that. But with everything else and Murnau/Laemmle not added i can't support Wenders and all because he's important and could fit, i don't think he should considering we cover his area with Herzog, we are over quota and we have removed so many contemporary musicians that are his equivalent and we're missing so many. If he's really important we can always revisit him when he stands the test of time.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose He is in my encyclopedia and I think that editors of an encyclopedia should also reflect contemporary taste and not choose only early pioneers. Wenders is one of the most well known auteur directors and in my opinion the imbalance is between art house cinema and blockbusters, not Western film and other areas. Mainstream directors will always have lots of pageviews and wikieditors. Wings of Desire is landmark of 80s film and the list would not get better with Wenders removed. Swap with Krzysztof Kieślowski or Lars von Trier would be possible, additions preferable. Klaus Kinski can be removed. --Thi (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Dimadick (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

I mean if you want contemporary "art house" Wenders and Trier are still beat by Béla Tarr and Terrence Malick, the wiki article may not reflect it but Black God, White Devil is better received than WoD. I would never suggest people like Christopher Nolan and i think we cover George Lucas with Star Wars and would have him removed, so i am not a blockbuster person. Not one of the foreign directors i mentioned (or nominated like Abbas Kiarostami) make blockbusters but they do represent a vital area of film we miss - African/South East Asian/South American/Arab/Persian cinema, which again - would be better for this list. Ang Lee and Miloš Forman should be removed too. We should be light on contemporary figures, everyone is extremely strict on musicians from the 20th century, to the point where John Coltrane was removed but lightweight directors like Wenders and actors like Connery, Hanks and Judi Dench stay. Rainer Werner Fassbinder is the more highly regarded art house director of the same film movement and the director of Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans, a film consistently in the top 10 of all time and Nosferatu should be on this list more than Wenders. If Wenders is beat out both by Murnau and Fassbinder at his own cinema, of which we don't list the cinema itself (Cinema of Germany) and it is not even a highly renowned cinema, i don't see how that justifies Wenders place, especially considering every director i linked except Kiarostami is the master director of a territory with millions more of a population than Germany, thus covering more people. It's unrealistic to say that Wenders is more important to cinema as a whole. Your encyclopedia probably has lots of people not listed. That should not qualify anything, we need to look at what and who we are missing on this list - not finding reasons people can fit; ignoring German cinema - where Wenders is below Murnau and Fassbinder; lets quickly go to missing filmmakers in the same ballpark

Roberto Rossellini, Manoel de Oliveira, Andrzej Wajda, Chantal Akerman, Luchino Visconti, Alain Resnais, John Cassavetes, Hou Hsiao-hsien, Edward Yang and Dziga Vertov

Now they might all be dead, but this list would be better with them on it than the likes of Wenders, von Trier, Ang Lee or Forman. This is just in film too, using German/Austrian art, how is Wenders more vital to list on a above quota list than Lucas Cranach the Elder, Balthasar Neumann, Johann Pachelbel, Hans von Bülow, Wilhelm Furtwängler, Nikolaus Harnoncourt, Hans Memling, Giacomo Meyerbeer, Carl Maria von Weber, Josef Albers, Otto Dix, Matthias Grünewald, Egon Schiele, Paula Modersohn-Becker, Heinrich Schütz, Georg Philipp Telemann, Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Carl Orff, Alban Berg, Friedrich Kalkbrenner, Johann Jakob Froberger, Wilhelm Kempff, Jonas Kaufmann, Elisabeth Schwarzkopf and Fritz Kreisler i would put every one of these above Wenders, if German cinema is so important to represent so much and WoD, why not list Cinema of Germany instead? Thi you are in support of Gustav Klimt being added, would you really put Wenders above Klimnt?? We are missing so many important artists in the German sphere itself as listed here, imagine if i listed every countries missing artists. Is Wenders really more worthy than every one of these people?

Is making Wings of Desire more important than all of these accomplishments?

and this is just a brief look at what we're missing, i just can't say Wenders is anymore important than these when we're over quota. We need to compare figures listed to people that are not. All of these would make the list better if they took Wenders spot. I can't say making Wings of Desire is any more desirable a listing or worthy of being listed instead of pioneered a science discipline. We need to strictly examine 20th century pop culture people who are still alive.

TLDR;Why are we so strict on 20th century musicians, but not on 20th century filmmakers and actors or 21st century atheltes. Also Wenders should be removed either way in a swap for Cinema of Germany; there's no way he is more important than that. GuzzyG (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Wenders is needed as a placeholder, he represents art house cinema as well as anyone else. I would like to add more classic filmmakers (or artists or music people), but it is difficult with full quota and lack of voters. Very few users have approached the film sections as holistically and with statistics as you are. It is unlikely that Ang Lee or Tom Hanks will be removed in the near future. Users have wanted to keep Ang Lee because of globalization and American audience thinks that Hanks is modern day James Stewart. Project participants have not yet choosed Fassbinder, but it is worth remembering that "But while he’s always had passionate advocates, it may be that his Douglas Sirk-influenced films are too brash and vulgar for some of the polled critics in Sight & Sound." [34] Meanwhile, Wenders can be representative. Many other names are - unfortunately - less well known to general public so their inclusion seems unlikely. Removal of George Lucas is good idea. --Thi (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I just don't think we need anymore 20th century film directors/producers/actors other than the one's i've mentioned here, more women directors, Valentino/Fairbanks as actors and some more Indian actors and Louis B. Mayer. I don't support Fassbinder being on here any longer. I think we should be more strict on all of the levels with biographies here (3, 4 and 5). I have a hard time believing globalization is actually a goal if Ousmane Sembène, Glauber Rocha, Lino Brocka and Youssef Chahine are not going to be added or that Abbas Kiarostami hasn't got enough votes next to Mel Brooks. I would even rather Edward Yang, Hou Hsiao-hsien or Tsai Ming-liang instead of Ang Lee. We just have things that stand out like why not Sergio Leone instead of Clint Eastwood or Ian Fleming instead of Sean Connery. That Hanks reasoning would hold up if we didn't also list Eastwood who's a modern John Wayne, we do not need both representations of the same archtype twice, people will cite Eastwood's films but The 15:17 to Paris is no Wings of Desire. If you're on here for being a "modern" version of another person listed, we need to reexamine that person because it's overlap and this list should be for original artists or ones who fundamentally changed something or represent a unique period.
These are all 20th century bloat but hold up many important politicians and scientists and military people, but mainly medical pioneers - this is just film alone.
Sean Connery, Clint Eastwood, Tom Hanks, Alec Guinness, Shintaro Katsu, Klaus Kinski, Gregory Peck, Julie Andrews, Lauren Bacall, Claudette Colbert, Doris Day, Judi Dench, Rita Hayworth, Sophia Loren, Jeanne Moreau, Barbara Stanwyck, Mel Brooks, Miloš Forman, Samuel Goldwyn, Ang Lee, George Lucas, David O. Selznick, Wim Wenders, and William Wyler
I say that as a big Stanwyck fan. This is just film, i could do music, literature and especially sports too. The world would hardly be any fundamentally different if none of these people ever existed. They're just popular. If they were musicians they would be gone just like their music equivalents. What we're missing is pre 20th century entertainment like Henry Irving, Ira Aldridge, Edmund Kean, David Garrick, Richard Burbage, George M. Cohan, Edwin Booth, Thomas D. Rice, Joseph Grimaldi, Sarah Siddons, Eleonora Duse, Rachel Félix, Elizabeth Barry, Sarah Siddons and Nell Gwyn.
This is just actors. No encyclopedia writing about the history of acting or entertainment would completely leave out anything pre 20th century like above. Let's not even get into figures like Master Juba, Marie Taglioni or August Bournonville. We're not even going into not listing important musicians like Jenny Lind while listing Eric Clapton or missing pre modern writers while listing Kazuo Ishiguro and Ursula K. Le Guin (why not Gertrude Stein, instead of Le Guin? or Eugene O'Neill instead of Stephen King?). or the many important painters and artists while listing Aubrey Beardsley and Jean Giraud. Why have Louis de Funès for globalisation, when we have so many French actors already, why not Chespirito who is still important to a whole continent today?
Either way there's many things wrong with this list and all of this 20th century bloat should be examined just as much as the musicians are. If John Coltrane and Nirvana (band) are the standard musicians being removed than none of those actors or filmmakers i've listed can hold up. The problem is looking at things like they're a "placeholder" because swaps rarely proceed and there's so many 20th century placeholders that people defend it leaves off very important scientists, religious figures, politicians and military figures. If i nominated Rafael Nadal and LeBron James, many people would find reasons or why they're important to tennis and basketball, but not considering maybe Michael Jordan and Roger Federer is enough and not why they are more important than the likes of Nicolas Steno, Philip Henry Gosse, Francis Beaufort, Vilhelm Bjerknes and Per Teodor Cleve. I found those better names in just a couple of minutes, imagine going through every one. Sports especially are not more important than entertainers. We have more runners than medical pioneers, that is what we have to consider the most, we're very under coverage in science, military and religion; also despite me previous thinking we had too many politicians, we don't have enough in certain areas like Africa etc. This list needs a reexamination and these 20th century figures, especially the ones still living need to stand the test of time like everyone else did and the religious figures and scientists we're missing who've lasted centurie. If Clint Eastwood or Wim Wenders deserves a spot they will still be around in 2050 to get it.
George Lucas would be impossible to remove even though he overlaps with Star Wars, people will cite Indiana Jones/American Graffiti. Same with Arthur Conan Doyle when his other, minor works were brought up. The cult favs are gonna be impossible to remove, but they overlap just like J. D. Salinger, Aldous Huxley, Thomas Pynchon, Harper Lee, J. K. Rowling, Robert E. Howard, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Ian Fleming, L. Frank Baum and Margaret Mitchell. Some people get a pass while others don't. You can try though if you agree, i'll support it. GuzzyG (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Nevermind, i got him confused with Spielberg with Indiana Jones. Speaks for his notability though that i confused him with Spielberg. He doesn't have a case than, unless Gene Roddenberry does. I would definitely support his removal then. GuzzyG (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

So a pile on at this point - but i wanted to test something. Four fields that would never get a representative on here due to negative associations with their fields worth (pro wrestling Hulk Hogan,runway modeling Kate Moss, skateboarding Tony Hawk, pornography Jenna Jameson), i put their defining figures (contemporaries all out of their prime by 20-30 years) up agaisnt Wenders (still making films) in a google trends search worldwide [35] and Wenders loses decisively, with Jameson winning. Of note is a minus 1% for Wenders in the US and 1% for the UK and Australia which is a hit for the English wiki vitality. 1% for India. 7% in France (still last). 9% (last) in Germany..... 10% in Italy (beats Hawk). 8% in Japan (beats Hawk, close to Jameson 9%). So no major film country rates him above figures from fields barely considered worthy on this list, not even his home country. I get he's a "arthouse" figure and he's notable in film as one of the top 100 directors, but if you're getting beat by figures in retirement of their field, in fields that would never be considered worthy to this list in niche American industries worldwide, i think that says alot for your English encyclopedia vitality. They all beat him in pageviews too. Now you could argue being a auteur arthouse artist makes you more important, but you can also argue that we list too many arthouse bios that are never read and keeping out lighter entertainment figures that readers want, when adding a defining figure of a popular form of entertainment would be better for readers than students of film studies. Or there's my argument, list neither. They can both stand before history for a couple decades first, either way a defining level 4 artist should do better in his home country up against niche American entertainment. GuzzyG (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Remove Gaspard II de Coligny

I'm not sure if Huguenots are vital enough for a leader, we already list Huguenots and French Wars of Religion on this list. The event St. Bartholomew's Day massacre would be better to list, as he's only vital for inspiring that event, without it he'd be forgotten. We don't list Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, who is almost identical in vitality and we list the event Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand event instead. They seem like identical cases too me. Gaspard just seems like western bloat. The biggest section of his biography is about the resulting massacre and as the Ferdinand example shows we have precedence for list the event instead.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support agree with nominator on most statements but the Assassination of Franz Ferdinand is more important than the massacre on St. Bartholomews's Day, because the former is credited with starting World War I. --Spaced about (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. Always struck me as somewhat queer that this fella was included at this level. pbp 17:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, swapped. --Thi (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2020 (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 Luo Guanzhong and Wu Cheng'en, add Tao Yuanming and Bai Juyi

Luo Guanzhong was attributed with writing Romance of the Three Kingdoms and editing Water Margin. Wu Cheng'en is considered by many to be the author of Journey to the West. These novels are listed in Arts section. Tao Yuanming (Tao Qian) is one of China’s greatest poets, as is Bai Juyi: Bai_Juyi#Modern_assessment.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. All of the additions.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support If the "list the work and not the author" rule applies they certainly should go. GuzzyG (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support removals. I guess I support the additions too. Orser67 (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support An excellent swap. The novelists' legacies are largely redundant with the novels they wrote, while the addition of these two tremendously influential poets properly reflects the centrality of poetry in Chinese literature. Cobblet (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

@Thi:Currently Cao Xueqin is not listed, although he should no doubt be.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, corrected. --Thi (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-1, added. --Thi (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2020 (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 Constantine P. Cavafy

"Greek poet who developed his own consciously individual style and thus became one of the most important figures not only in Greek poetry but in Western poetry as well." (Britannica)" "C.P. Cavafy is widely considered the most distinguished Greek poet of the twentieth century." [36] The 20th century produced many famous Greek poets: Yiannis Ritsos, Giorgos Seferis and Odysseas Elytis, among others. It is easy to start with Cavafy, the "greatest Greek poet since antiquity" (The New Yorker).

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 04:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support We ought to have room for a modern Greek writer. Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We're over quota and i say we dont need anymore writers. GuzzyG (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5–2, removed. --Rreagan007 (talk) 06:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Remove Senet

I think Vital 5 is enough for this obscure game. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support Generally I have trouble about keeping Senet on the level 4 because of there are a lot of comparable games listed on the level 5 (for example The Royal Game of Ur, Knucklebones/Yathzee or Nine men's morris/Tic-tac-toe) which can be covered by history of games here, and we cover more ancient entertaiment-activities related to tabletop games than other ancient games (Among incredibly old/ancient tabletop games we already list both: Mancala and Go but we do not have Mesoamerican ballgame which is mentioned on the level 3 in Mesoamerica#Ballgame, other games covered on the level 4 are much younger). In my opinion three weakest tabletop games on L4 are maybe: checkers, chaturanga and pachisi. Chaturanga is listed beause of it make really much sense to earlier know about chaturanga than about all certain regional chess variants (on L4 we list: shogi, xiangqi and the youngest traditional version of chess, all these three were earlier even on the level 3). Pachisi I would keep as it is less obscure and cover modern commercial versions of this game in the article. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support. Interesting but not vital. --Thi (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support. Not vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support. per above. GuzzyG (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. My inner child Egyptologist isn't going to like me for this, but this is a niche topic IMO. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. OpposeDimadick (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose One of the oldest board games. Encyclopedic, historic. --Spaced about (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

BTW what do you think about addition of Altamura Man to the level 5 ? Dawid2009 (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5–0, swapped. --Rreagan007 (talk) 06:45, 28 July 2020 (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 Mountain bike for Mountain biking

Pointless to have mountain bike on it's own, it'd be like listing Basketball (ball) instead of the sport. Mountain biking is a olympic discipline, which makes it important since it requires international impact to become one.

Support
  1. Support As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support - Aza24 (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

This has enough support now anyway. I can see the basketball comparison. How would you respond to the argument, in the 1000 list we list bicycle, car, aircraft, ship not cycling, driving/autoracing sailing or flying/piloting. Mountain bike article is in much more languages than mountain biking. Probably much more people own a mountain bike, possibly simply for a mode of transport, than actually use it to compete professionally. Just like car is more important than driving or autoracing. Why is the activity better than the object/invention/vehicle in this instance but not bicycle or car?  Carlwev  09:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED/NO CONSENSUS
3-3, not added. --Thi (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2020 (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 Philosophy of history

Concept created by Voltaire is needed on this level.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Strong Support per nom   // Timothy :: talk  05:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose we're over quota by 14, not that vital of a article. GuzzyG (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Not everything created by Voltaire is vital 4, this is a niche subbranch of social sciences. Why is it more vital than a subfied of sociology like sociology of gender or economics or such? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Per Piotrus. Gizza (t)(c) 11:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Swapped 5-0. --Thi (talk) 09:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Remove Sparrow Swap Sparrow with Old World sparrow

As rightfully a disambiguation page, it cannot be made featured-class as WP:VAE says. Therefore it is unneeded at this level. J947 (c), at 22:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Related discussions
Support

Support as nominator. J947 (c), at 22:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

    • Changed to a swap; see above. J947 (c), at 00:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Spaced about (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 10:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC) Changed to a swap. --Thi (talk) 09:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  4. Replace it with Old world sparrow, whose talk page contains a template claiming that it is vital at level 4, yet it is currently not listed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  5. Swap with Old World sparrow per above. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Remove Anders Celsius

Level 5 is sufficient for Celsius. Fahrenheit was the one who actually invented the first reliable thermometer (and also developed the first widely-used temperature scale), and he isn't even listed at this level. Celsius is also listed as an astronomer even though he is certainly not very well-known for any of his contributions to astronomy. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 07:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  3. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support - per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 11:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support Fahrenheit is more important, not including every other more important figure, we need to equal our quota too. GuzzyG (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 do list

Heads up, I've created a to-do list for this project visible at Wikipedia:WikiProject Vital Articles#To do. I wish that we used the project talk page more, since discussions just get buried here, but hopefully having a list will allow us to keep track of some of the unresolved tasks we have. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:53, 21 May 2020 (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.

History of philosophy

History of philosophy is now a redirect, so needs removing from this and at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/History#History_of_philosophy_and_religion_(28_articles). Le Deluge (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2020 (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 Rudolph Valentino

Alternates to my proposal and rationales above; now we've got two actor spots to catch up to; these would fit.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support --Spaced about (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  5. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Perhaps we don't need to list actors and actresses separately any more. Originally it was meant to make sure that there is enough actresses. --Thi (talk) 09:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-1. --Thi (talk) 06:31, 19 August 2020 (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.

Suggestion: combine actors and actresses under actors

There's no need to segregate them anymore, as Thi suggested above "Perhaps we don't need to list actors and actresses separately any more. Originally it was meant to make sure that there is enough actresses.". Now there's more actresses than actors and the unevenness looks funny, better to just combine them, they're the only thing segregated. The bigger issue is that we have less entertainers than athletes, which does not seem right. But i don't think there's any reason to separate them anymore. It looks odd. It'd be better so we can compare the names all together.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support the needless segregation by gender is something I'd be extremely happy to do away with. Separate categories for men and women makes no more sense than separate categories for white and non-white actors. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 14:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support it appears to be an inevitability in my book now that the quota is fulfilled. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support We are not even separating sportspeople. We have mixed Tennis but Association Football is almost always segregated in professional play, men and woman play separate, but we have not separated Mia Hamm away from the men. Grammies and other Music awards often give awards to best Male and Female musicians like the Oscars do actors, but we are not listing the solo musicians separated by geneder for this reason.  Carlwev  15:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I like having them separated. The Oscars still separate out acting awards categories by gender, so it makes sense for our list to as well. And it's nice showing that we give equal (or slightly disproportionate) representation to women actors. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 06:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Remove Eric Clapton

Not one of the most influential musicians, covering Bob Marleys songs isn't enough to be on this level. We only need one pop music guitarist when we don't list classical guitarists like Andrés Segovia, Julian Bream, Fernando Sor, and Francisco Tárrega and Hendrix fits the popular music guitarist role better. Also why have two guitarists when we could just cover bassists, drummers or classical instruments like flautists, organists, horn players, oboists, harpists, or even violists instead?

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Bruce Springsteen, Elton John, Neil Young and Nirvana are already removed. B.B. King represents blues guitarists with Hendrix. --Thi (talk) 09:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  5. Looking through the current Rock list it seems well-enough represented with the likes of Bowie, Dylan, Led Zeppelin, etc., although I do think the nom was a bit too disrespectful of Clapton. I'd be open to adding Paul McCartney to complement Lennon, but that's for another discussion. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose

#Oppose I'm not a big fan of his music but he's the only person inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame more than twice, and known for more than covering Marley. There's room for multiple guitarists IMO given the guitar's disproportionate importance in modern popular music. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

Ignoring there's multiple other important people missing, if we needed multiple guitarists why not Andrés Segovia and Gaspar Sanz, classical guitar is a area we do not cover, while we cover many popular guitarists. GuzzyG (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I mean this as an actual question, which pop guitarists do we cover other than Clapton and Hendrix? I'm open to removal of some if it's more than two, as well as adding Segovia, but we have room for multiple pop guitarists as I said earlier. Especially since Clapton has been in such bands as Cream, the Yardbirds, Blind Faith, etc., and is thrice-inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Remove Nana Mouskouri

Not one of the most 2000 most influential people in history. Just another prominent singer.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per above. --Thi (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, added. --Thi (talk) 07:48, 17 August 2020 (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 Henry Purcell

Purcell has been called the greatest of all English composers. He certainly was the best English composer before Lennon and McCartney (or Edward Elgar, Ralph Vaughan Williams and Benjamin Britten). Purcell would be natural choice for English-language Wikipedia. He is also popular in America [37] and around the world. The inclusion of Purcell would make the classical composers list more complete.

"There is hardly a department of music, as known in his day, to which Purcell did not contribute with true distinction. His anthems were long since accorded their place in the great music of the church; there are enough fine orchestral movements in his works for the theatre to establish him in this field; his fantasies and sonatas entitle him to honor in the history of chamber music; his keyboard works, if less significant in themselves, hold their place in the repertory; his one true opera. Dido and Aeneas, is an enduring masterpiece, and his other dramatic works (sometimes called operas) are full of musical riches. And, most especially, Purcell's songs themselves would be sufficient to insure his immortality. His sensitivity to his texts has been matched by few masters in musical history; when he had worthy poetry to set, he could hardly fail to produce a masterpiece." [38]

"Purcell's 'Dido and Aeneas' is one of the most beloved operas in the repertory. Divas flock to the title role; Dido's final 'Lament' is a showstopper. Schools and colleges worldwide perform it; early-music groups have made it a mainstay" [39] [40]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support somewhat surprised that he wasn't here already. Gizza (t)(c) 11:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support we need some more older composers compared to modern ones. GuzzyG (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  5. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Swap 2-1, addition 5-1, removal 3-3, Pablo Escobar added. --Thi (talk) 06:59, 19 August 2020 (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 Al Capone for Pablo Escobar

It's time to remove bloated pop culture names. Capone ruled during prohibition for seven years and his area was just the city of Chicago, Pablo Escobar for 17 years controlled nearly a whole continent and the drug trade. Capone didn't have the influence on American organized crime as Lucky Luciano with Luciano being described as the

"he was instrumental in the development of the National Crime Syndicate. Luciano is considered the father of modern organized crime in the United States for the establishment of The Commission in 1931, after he abolished the boss of bosses title held by Salvatore Maranzano"

"In 1998, Time characterized Luciano as the "criminal mastermind" among the top 20 most influential builders and titans of the 20th century"

and being listed on the time magazine [41] as the only gangster/crime figure of the 20th century. So Capone controlled a regional gang and was not even the most prominent organized crime figure in the country. Escobar is responsible for the modern day drug trade. Capone has a big cultural presence in the US, with lots of cultural works, but Bonnie and Clyde, Charles Manson, and Ted Bundy have just as much of a presence, and they wouldn't be listed and shouldn't. Escobar's drug shipping and operation has had a massive impact and has led to such things like the Mexican Drug War which shows more of a real world international impact than the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre, the thing that raised Capone's profile. Our readers are more interested in Escobar with 121,412,475 views [42] and 29,209,520 views for Capone. [43] which is only relevant as gangsters are prominent due to being romanticized and getting attention in culture, so Escobar's being 4x the total and a more international range says alot. Since they're listed in the business section and not a separate crime section, Escobar fits more into the definition of a business, being involved in many business and had a higher networth than Capone and many other billionaires, being the "wealthiest criminal in history", which is a defining achievement for a organized crime leader (organized crime at it's core is illegal business, if McDonalds had a corrupt leadership it'd be Rico'd too). Escobar would be a more important and higher priority article to have featured. This isn't important alone, but as a cherry on top he's also the most searched internationally [44]. If a gangster is to be on this list, it has to be Escobar, who has more of a case as the defining gangster of the century. He was nearly voted on before, but i failed to vote as i was too late, under modern rules of votes being left open, he would be on [45]

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 09:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support addition - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support removal per nom, popular culture figure. --Thi (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support addition – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  6. Support addition  Carlwev  22:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal Capone is the archetypal Mafia member to most Americans. His cultural impact warrants inclusion on this list, even if his personal impact wasn't as significant as some lesser-known mobsters. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - popular culture figure, worldwide name recognition, more so than a bunch of other names here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose removal per Presidentman, Capone is the main (real) Mafioso in popular imagination. I'm open to adding Escobar, however. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

@Presidentman: We don't list Mafia or American Mafia or Sicilian Mafia though, surely they're more important articles? Bonnie and Clyde, Billy the Kid and Jack the Ripper have just as much, if not more cultural value per ngrams [46] than Capone but they're not listed and would probably never make it (although i'd support Jack). GuzzyG (talk) 09:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Got any evidence for this "worldwide name recognition, more so than a bunch of other names here", moreso the person in the nom? Time has changed alot since 1932 and since Scarface (1932 film) came out. Ignoring the fact that sources cite Luciano as the most important mobster or the fact we don't even list the mafia itself - let's actually go through page views (again)

  1. Al Capone - 32,648,173 pageviews worldwide total - [47]
  2. Pablo Escobar - 129,617,360 pageviews worldwide total - [48]

Now since irrelevant names to the nomination got brought up let's dig deeper,

  1. Charles Manson - 71,880,600 pageviews worldwide total - [49]
  2. Ted Bundy - 71,838,630 pageviews worldwide total - [50]
  3. Bonnie and Clyde - 38,379,293 pageviews worldwide total - [51]
  4. Jack The Ripper - 28,818,481 pageviews worldwide total - [52]
  5. Billy the Kid - 12,670,464 pageviews worldwide total - [53]
  6. Lucky Luciano - 11,953,005 pageviews worldwide total - [54]
  1. Now not mentioned, but i'll bring him up later - Ed Gein - 19,233,053 pageviews worldwide total - [55]

Now here's google trends (remember to tick "Include low search volume regions"), which tracks google searchs, with the main 5 performers Capone and Escobar (the nomination), Manson, Bundy and Jack. [56]. But Escobar is the biggest search worldwide, Manson takes China, Jack the Ripper takes Thailand, Japan and South Korea, Ted Bundy takes Australia and the United States, Capone takes.... not a single country. His best performing country - Armenia he has a 25% search percentage... being beaten by Escobar's 59%. These are google searches, so a pretty clear indicator of "worldwide" interest. I fail to see with evidence how Capone is so much more worldwide up agaisnt the top tier criminals here.

Now the second tier performers, Capone up agaisnt Bonnie and Clyde, Billy the Kid and Luciano/Gein (all of which i never meant to nom, but since they'e being used as a oppose, plus i always cited Luciano as a example of not famous - but who sources point out who had more control of the mafia - again which we do not list itself. [57], now let's analyse these results. Bonnie and Clyde take big population countries like the US, Russia, China, Brazil and Mexico - Australia too for how big it is on the map. Now Capone has the UK over B&C by 36% to 33% so not alot for English wiki dominance. Billy the kid takes Bulgaria and Japan. Ed Gein ties Capone in South Korea. Capone takes India, North Africa, Indonesia, Arabia, West Europe and Mongolia - in the second tier of not nominated criminals.

Now Scarface (1932 film) and Bonnie and Clyde (film) are level 5 films, artworks from level 4 artists like Billy the Kid (ballet), the numerous examples that there's a page for it for Jack the Ripper in fiction, Manson's connection to level 4 artist The Beach Boys etc and having the highest selling True crime book about him Helter Skelter (book). Popular hollywood movies like Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile. So alot of these names have a high cultural presence, not anymore higher than Capone. But Ed Gein deserves a mention, he directly inspired Norman Bates in Psycho (1960 film) (a level 4 film), Leatherface in The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (a level 5 film) and Buffalo Bill in The Silence of the Lambs (film) (a level 5 film) and many other horror stories, so i'd say that's more of a pop cultural influence than Capone, but he wouldnt make it and rightfully so. The Untouchables (film) isn't on any levels, only Scarface.

True crime, which is the biggest example of crime in culture today, mainly focuses on murder anyway, so logically it should be Jack the Ripper listed. But this nom was always about Escobar and Capone, which i have clearly shown Escobar is the more important figure today - he ran a whole continent and trade. Capone a city. Big difference. Personal opinion shouldn't matter when the data is so clear. Escobar gets nearly 100 million more views than Capone.... says enough. Atleast list the American mafia article first. GuzzyG (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

So i forgot a main section, let's look at JSTOR and numbers from there. this is from a search of articles with their name in the title.
  1. Al Capone - 16 articles - [58]
  2. Pablo Escobar - 15 articles - [59]
  3. Jack the Ripper - 59 articles - [60]
  4. Bonnie and Clyde - 25 articles - [61]
  5. Charles Manson - 7 articles - [62]
  6. Lucky Luciano - 3 articles - [63]
  7. Ted Bundy - 1 article - [64]
  8. Billy the Kid - 110 articles - [65]
  9. Ed Gein - who has the second biggest pop culture impact behind Jack the Ripper - 0 articles - [66]
I think the results are pretty clear, Capone has more than 40 years on Escobar but 100 million more interest from the public and similar interest from academics. Now taking away the fact we barely cover South America, it's obvious if we have a criminal it should be Jack. I'm not convinced Capone should be listed over Mafia or American Mafia and i am convinced he should not be in over Pablo Escobar, Jack the Ripper or Bonnie and Clyde. GuzzyG (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Just to clarify Escobar's pageviews numbers in relation to others who are unaware of the average, here's Michael Jackson, the celeb who gets the most hits anywhere on any platform generally - yet he only gets 96,276,619 pageviews worldwide [67]. Adolf Hitler, one of the highest views i've seen has 134,136,079 [68] worldwide pageviews, only 5 mil ahead of Escobar. Now obviously they're more important - but it speaks volumes on the articles that are vital to have FA for our readers - the point of this list. Capone isn't as vital. Criminals thanks to True crime are surprisingly big on interest worldwide both in pageviews and in interest. It's one area we lack and Escobar/Jack the Ripper is all we really need. American Mafia would cover Capone. GuzzyG (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
4-3, failed. --Thi (talk) 07:07, 19 August 2020 (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 World

Wikipedia's article on the human aspects of the planet Earth. Seems like an oversight to not have it here. Sdkb (talk) 08:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Sdkb (talk) 08:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support; but most parts of the article apart from the lead focus on the term 'world'. I feel like this is not what the article should focus on, especially considering its level 1 subtopic, History of the world. Of course, the latter article does not merely focus on the history of the term 'world', and I think the parent article should follow it in that regard. Nevertheless a vital topic, probably at level 3 too. J947 (c), at 20:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. --Spaced about (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Worldview and other articles cover this. --Thi (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
    Worldview is much more philosophical than World should be; I think they cover different bases. J947 (c), at 20:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose We seem to list all of the component articles that would be covered by the world article (Earth, Human history, Civilization, etc.) so listing this article seems redundant. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Completely redundant with Earth and Human. What aspect of the Earth is not affected by humans, or is not "human" in some sense? Cobblet (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Remove Auld Lang Syne

Per my nocturnes nomination, on all the technical music stuff we're missing that'd be better adds. It might be important in the UK and sung around the world but i don't see why we should prioritise this over every national anthem, every other populer traditional song or widely sung christmas carol. There's many other songs of similar statue and i don't think it stands out on this level why we should only list this one.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support agree with nom. Gizza (t)(c) 11:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support artistically it's not vital. Culturally more significant but still not vital. We removed Happy Birthday to You, another Traditional song mostly sung on one specific occasion. But the same as Birthday traditions should be covered by the main birthday article, A decent New year article should cover significant New Year Traditions. We list Christmas Carol with should cover general concept of Christmas and New Year songs too.  Carlwev  18:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support overrated IRL, not significant enough for this level musically. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Shrine removed 5-1. --Thi (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Remove either Temple, Monastery, or Shrine

Considering that the religion section is upwards of 9 above quota and that there is significant overlap between these three topics, I think one of them should be removed. My vote would be for either monastery or shrine, as these could be interpreted as subsets of temples. I understand that individually, all three of these articles could probably warrant being level 4, but all three of them are just too much with how similar they are. Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 13:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Remove Temple

Remove Shrine

  1. Support Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 13:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Temple is more important topic. --Thi (talk) 10:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Don't need both temple and shrine. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support. Religion is important, but shrines are probably Vital 5 not 4. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support arguably a smaller temple. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Remove Monastery

  1. Support Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 13:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Keep all

  1. Philosophy and Religion shouldn't be above quota in the first place. A bunch of articles were moved into the section without a corresponding increase in the quota by one person all without discussion. 430 is a miniscule target for the section after its expanded scope. It should at least be 450. Gizza (t)(c) 22:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I suggest we just take away 5 quota spots from everyday life and give it to philosophy/religion. Religion probably does deserve a little bump and everyday life is honestly one of the lesser important sections. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, added. --Thi (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2020 (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 Nestlé

"largest food company in the world", has alot of important history, being founded in 1866, invented baby formula, has alot of iconic brands, is the main stakeholder in L'Oreal, the world's largest cosmetics company and with Volkswagen would be one of the only European companies listed, a area in which we lack. I think it's worth a listing.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 09:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support I was considering proposing Procter & Gamble or European Unilever to represent major branding companies but Nestlé is an even better choice because it represents the food industry and the list lacks coverage in that area. --Spaced about (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  15:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  5. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  1. ^ Trimborn, pp. 123–124.
  2. ^ Rollins, Peter C (ed.). (2003) “Indoctrination and Propaganda, 1942–1945” The Columbia companion to American history on film: How the movies have portrayed the American past. Columbia University Press. pp. 118.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_65&oldid=974473655"