Wikipedia talk:Vital articles

General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography Society STEM

Introduction

FA FA GA GA A – Total December 1, 2007 83 45 90 139 25 690 1022 June 1, 2008 88 46 79 140 25 670 999 December 1, 2008 88 50 72 145 24 682 1014 FA A GA B C – Total December 1, 2009 82 7 49 586 146 129 999 January 1, 2011 78 8 60 472 255 113 986 January 1, 2012 76 1 76 454 275 109 991 June 29, 2013 88 3 88 450 289 82 1000 October 13, 2013 90 4 92 446 284 83 999 January 13, 2015 90 2 96 417 333 60 998 December 23, 2016 94 2 107 425 355 17 1000 December 10, 2017 91 3 115 392 376 17 994 January 22, 2019 92 4 122 389 380 12 999 December 20, 2019 88 2 121 390 383 17 1001 November 25, 2020 83 1 127 373 402 15 1001

The purpose of this discussion page is to select 1000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles. All Wikipedia editors are welcome to participate. Individual topics are proposed for addition or removal, followed by discussion and !voting. Since the list is currently full, it is recommended that a nomination of a new topic be accompanied by a proposal to remove a lower-priority topic already on the list.

All proposals must remain open for !voting for a minimum of 15 days, after which:

1. After 15 days it may be closed as PASSED if there are (a) 5 or more supports, AND (b) at least two-thirds are in support.
2. After 30 days it may be closed as FAILED if there are (a) 3 or more opposes, AND (b) it failed to earn two-thirds support.
3. After 30 days it may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal hasn't received any !votes for +30 days, regardless of tally.
4. After 60 days it may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal has (a) less than 5 supports, AND (b) less than two-thirds support.

Nominations should be left open beyond the minimum if they have a reasonable chance of passing. An informed discussion with more editor participation produces an improved and more stable final list, so be patient with the process.

• 15 days ago: 19:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC) ()
• 30 days ago: 19:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• 60 days ago: 19:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Delhi, add Buenos Aires

India has both Delhi and Mumbai, in contravention of our "one city per country" rule; Mumbai is far more important IMO with its status as India's financial capital and Bollywood. South America has only São Paulo on here, compared with North America's and Africa's two and Asia's and Europe's several. (Oceania doesn't have any, which I don't have an issue with tbh.) Buenos Aires has the fourth-largest metro area in the Americas, and was a hub of immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th century on par with New York City, ultimately becoming a rich multiracial city. Of course, those days are long gone, but the city still has such important landmarks as the Teatro Colón. As recently as 2012 it was the most-visited city in South America. I know I might be selling it short here, but I think it is an important city whose inclusion would increase our geographic diversity in city selection.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Interstellarity (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support removal Mumbai is to be preferred over Delhi, but I do not see a case for Buenos Aires. It is quite simply not important enough as a city to be included -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose There is no such rule. The Delhi Sultanate was playing a decisive role in Indian history long before Mumbai or Buenos Aires came into existence. Also, more people live in India than in all of Latin America: it's more than fair to Latin America that each is represented by two cities. Bringing up the Teatro Colón while neglecting Qutb Minar, Humayun's Tomb and especially the Red Fort makes no sense. Cobblet (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose addition One city per country is not any strict rule. Latin American countries such as Chile, Cuba, Peru and Venezuela should come first. --Thi (talk) 10:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose addition per above -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose There is no "one city per country" rule, and if there was, China and India would be the two countries to ignore it for. Delhi is much more prominent than Buenos Aires. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose removal - taking into all factors of vitality (length and diversity of history, population, economic output, cultural and artistic contributions, political power, architecture, religious significance, linguistic influence over the region) Delhi is easily a Top 10 city and more vital than Mumbai if an Indian city had to be removed. Neutral on Buenos Aires. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose per above. PaleoMatt (talk) 09:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
7. Oppose There is no such rule limiting each country to one city. Delhi has a fur longer history than Buenos Aires, and has had more of a historical impact. Dimadick (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
8. Oppose pbp 22:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
9. 'Oppose Delhi is one of the most promient cities on the list Dawid2009 (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I'm aware that "China" has both Hong Kong and Beijing, but as said in the earlier discussion the two systems makes Hong Kong different enough from the mainland to not violate the rule IMO. I know IAR and all, but Delhi isn't that super-important to be the sole exception.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Add Green Revolution

Since it seems like Norman Borlaug won't pass, and since various people have mentioned that they would prefer adding the Green Revolution over him, I have decided to go ahead and nominate it here. See the above entry on Borlaug for information on why this event is vital.

Support

1. Support as nom -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Sure, per the above discussion.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support - per above and earlier discussion in the Norman Borlaug proposal. Gizza (talk • voy) 00:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Can go under History of agriculture Dawid2009 (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
6. Support - Interstellarity (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
7. Support per everything from this discussion and the last. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I don't think this is a very good article to list at this level. Most of what the article covers are already covered by various other articles already listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I added wikilink above to Norman Borlaug nomination which is now in the archive. --Thi (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Remove Strong interaction and Weak interaction, add Sulfur and Phosphorus

Sulfur and phosphorus are two chemical elements common on Earth and in life. The strong interaction and weak interaction are only part of particle physics and are best discussed in this level as part of some other topic.

Support

1. as nom User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Weak support additions Sulfur and phosphorus are indeed the last of the CHONPS elements, which are the "building blocks" of life. Nevertheless, I might be looking from the inside as a biologist on them, and I can understand if a layman understanding of the world around us would not be significantly improved by adding these two elements compared to, say, lead.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support additions Not only are sulfur and phosphorus absolutely vital in the context of biochemistry, they are important in other areas of chemistry as well. Phosphorus is a limiting nutrient in freshwater ecology (see phosphorus cycle) and phosphate in the form of guano (historically) or apatite (nowadays) is one of the most heavily mined minerals due to its use in fertilizer. Many important metal ores are sulfides, and sulfuric acid is such an important industrial chemical that its production used to serve as a proxy measure for a country's overall industrial output. Cobblet (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support additions Among main articles in encyclopedias. 150+ language versions in Wikipedia. --Thi (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support additions. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
6. Support additions-- Zelkia1101 (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
7. Support additions -- PaleoMatt (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removals The weak and strong forces are two of the four fundamental forces, all of which are listed. I don't see us removing Gravity or Electromagnetism anytime soon, and I feel uncomfortable listing some but not all of the group. The strong force is important in building stuff like the atomic bomb, while the weak force, despite being quite weak (heh) to our understanding of the world around us, still has a role to play in atomic decay and the resultant radioactivity.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose removals I'd consider the strong and weak nuclear interactions just as vital as any of the subatomic particles we list. In fact, the first particle physics article I'd consider removing is photon because of the overlap with electromagnetism and light. Cobblet (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose removals Dawid2009 (talk)

Discuss

Lead would probably not be my choice for another metal. I might go with calcium: everyone understands its biochemical importance, and it's also hugely significant industrially – it's in concrete, lime, gypsum (e.g., drywall), and plaster for example. But twelve chemical elements is probably enough, and CHNOPS plus five metals and silicon would be a fairly representative mix. Cobblet (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I nominated this as a swap because I thought other contributors would want to keep "Science" at a round quota of 200 articles. If people don't object, this can be split into two proposals, I feel Sulfur/Phosphorus clearly have consensus to be added once it hits 15 days. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

There are some other science articles I'd consider removing. I've already mentioned photon above. I don't think day and year are absolutely necessary – in particular the latter overlaps with calendar. Having all of classical mechanics, momentum, Newton's laws of motion, force, theory of relativity, quantum mechanics and even orbit makes it perhaps unnecessary to list motion. Tornado seems less vital than the unlisted drought or wildfire, although we do list famine and fire. Cobblet (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that year is probably expendable with Time and Calendar etc. on the list, though I won't nominate it for removal myself. I also agree that Classical mechanics overlaps with Newton's laws of motion but am not sure how to fix it. I haven't thought enough about the weather topics to have public opinions yet. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Add United Arab Emirates

The UAE could be a potential addition. It's influence especially Dubai is famous for its tourism and unique culture. Interstellarity (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Nom
2. Support Definitely an up and coming country, not just Dubai but also Abu Dhabi has been an influential city. Although it is only rather recently become influential it is one of if not the global hub for the Arab World and is a regional powerhouse as a member of OPEC and the GCC and has even intervened in the war ongoing in Yemen. In general the Middle East is expanding massively economically and the UAE may be the greatest example of this from being a desert to housing some of the most influential cities in the region including the world's tallest skyscraper among other achievements. It also is the top tourism destination in the entire Middle East. In my opinion this is the most vital country we are missing from the Middle East. PaleoMatt (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support IMO, no longer just an "up and coming country": Dubai is one of the world's most important trade and transport hubs – see the GaWC 2020 ranking of global cities, for instance. I used to think Dubai would be a better addition, but nowadays the UAE is a middle power that is acting independently of Saudi Arabia and the rest of the GCC, e.g., in Libya and Yemen. Moreover Abu Dhabi is also an influential city in its own right – its sovereign wealth fund is twice as large as Dubai's nowadays. The UAE's significance is no longer limited to the rise of Dubai as it might have been 10 or 20 years ago. Cobblet (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Powerful country. --Thi (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
6. Support per Cobblet. GuzzyG (talk) 08:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
7. Support Per Cobblet. After adding Netherlands now make it sense to add more countries, more geography articles and makes list more diverse Dawid2009 (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
8. Support the main case I can make against inclusion is recentism; if oil profits dry up and other calamity strikes the area might be a geopolitical backwater. But I'm not concerned about recentism, we can remove it later if need be. If we're expanding the quota for countries above 40 today, this should be listed. I would rather list the UAE than Dubai. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I would rather add Dubai, tbh. Also, its global relevance has been fairly recent, dating roughly to the 1980s.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per above comment. Dubai would be a better choice to add. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Neither Dubai nor the UAE are encyclopedically relevant enough to be on the top 1000 list of most essential articles. Level 4 is sufficient for both. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

For the list of countries, when a country became globally relevant hardly matters; this is not the History section. All that matters is that it has global prominence. Cobblet (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Jakarta, Add Berlin

Jakarta may be a large city however there is other larger cities we do not list such as Shanghai, Dhaka, Karachi, Los Angeles, and Bogota... Secondarily it is the capital of Indonesia however it does not have much global significance and the capital is planned to be moved to a new city in the near future anyway due to major problems such as the city sinking. Berlin on the other hand is the only capital of a great power (Germany) not listed here, has a huge political, economical, and cultural influence being home to the government of the largest EU member, large creative industries and tourism sector, leading world universities and well known modern art and nightlife. The city has numerous world famous institutions such as museums, zoos, and World Heritage Sites. The city functions as its own federal state within Germany too and its history (especially in recent times with the Cold War which saw the Berlin Airlift, Berlin Wall, etc.) has been influential and important in European and World history. PaleoMatt (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. PaleoMatt (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Surprised Berlin wasn't already on here.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support. Berlin is absolutely vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose per my comments here and here. European cities are already overrepresented relative to cities of other continents: we list London, Moscow, Paris, Rome and Istanbul. That's twice as many cities as Europe should have based on its 13% share of the global urban population. Southeast Asia has only a slightly smaller population than Europe and yet it is only represented by Jakarta and Singapore. The argument that Jakarta will lose its importance because it won't be the capital someday is flimsy speculation which ignores the realities of the context. The Jakarta metropolitan area remains the most populated area of the country by a huge margin, comprising 32 million people (that's twice as large as the population of the entire former East Germany), and its GDP (which at almost 300 million USD, is larger than Berlin's even in nominal terms, i.e., not accounting for PPP) represents over a quarter of the Indonesia's entire GDP. None of that is going to disappear overnight, just as none of Ankara, Islamabad, Brasilia, Abuja, Dodoma or Naypyidaw have displaced the primary role that Istanbul, Karachi, Rio de Janeiro, Lagos, Dar es Salaam and Yangon continue to play in their respective countries. Moreover, Jakarta is the seat of ASEAN, while Berlin doesn't host a single major EU institution. Berlin isn't even the financial capital of Germany. Jakarta is an alpha city according to the 2020 GaWC ranking; Berlin is only beta+. Cobblet (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Another (beta+ city) from western Europe is nowhere near to be considered vital on this level and does not have comparable importance to Rome or London. We already have extreme bias in toward Europe, especially western Europe. Beyond that I agree with Cobblet, Jakarta is more vital in almost any and every possible way. Most other criterias than population and geographic diversity are purely subjective. Berlin is quite significant but not so significant to be listed along with Germany on this level when we do not have countries like Ukraine, Morocco etc. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Opposite removal I'm neutral on the addition. Berlin is an important city in European city, but I'm not sure we have room for it given we already list more important cities like London or Paris. I would like to see geographic diversity on our list, and therefore I oppose the removal of Jakarta. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 04:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Does not beat Athens in historic importance in European history. We arguably need more South East Asian cities right now than we need more European cites. (like Bangkok). Berlin's important, but so is Los Angeles and we pick and choose based on being representative. We can't list everything important on a list of 1k and picking cities over countries in that case does not make sense. We should only be listing the absolute most important 20 cities, the rest can go to entire countries. (Like Sudan, Algeria, Uganda, Kazakhstan, Peru, Chile etc, which covers more than a single city of a state we already list ever could. GuzzyG (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Cobblet; 5 cities from Europe is enough. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Algeria

The Maghreb is a large cultural region in Africa we are completely missing from the list of countries at this level. I propose adding Algeria as it is the largest country in the region both population and area wise even beating out many countries in both of those categories that we already list. Algeria is also a regional power, has some of the largest natural gas and oil reserves in Africa and has a long history under many empires. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Given all that and Camus you've got my vote.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Weak support We should have a representative of the Maghreb. Algeria is larger and more populated than Morocco, but I think the latter is the more historically and culturally relevant, especially to an English-language encyclopedia. I'm okay with both, but if it came down to it I would take Morocco over Algeria. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support The biggest missed country by surface area and the biggest missed country by population according to List of countries and dependencies by population (one of the most populous according to sources which Cobblet gave below). I think Algeria and Morocco have comparable importance. Morroco is the most touristic country in Africa. Personally I think it is better to weigh due for "Morocco and Algeria"/"Poland and Ukraine" etc. than "Paris and France"/"Indonesia and Jakarta" etc.. After adding Netherlands we probably should fix ballance beetwen Western Europe and another regions but this is just my suggestion as I highly consider population's criteria. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

   It's actually the second largest country by area not listed. Kazakhstan is larger. Cobblet (talk) 02:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

6. Support per discussion. If consensus changes and people want to keep countries to a quota of 40 or less I will reconsider. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

I'll stay neutral on this proposal pending at least the outcome of the UAE proposal. I'm leaving some figures here for (my own) reference.

According to projections from the UN World Population Prospects for 2021, the largest countries by population not currently listed are Uganda (47.1 million), Sudan (44.9 million), Algeria (44.6 million), Ukraine (43.5 million, including Crimea), and Iraq (41.2 million).

The population of the Maghreb (Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Tunisia, Western Sahara) is 106 million. Other regions currently unrepresented or underrepresented on the list include Western Africa (196 million excluding Nigeria and Mauritania), Southern Africa (159 million including all the countries south of the DRC and Tanzania except for South Africa), Central Asia (75 million; 115 million if Afghanistan is included with the former Soviet republics), Central Africa (58 million including the six CEMAC countries), Southeast Europe (53 million including Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, former Yugoslavia), Central America (51 million), and the Caribbean (44 million). Cobblet (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Why not add the regions themselves (rather than countries)? (I’m not an active Wikipedian and will not be voting etc. - it just struck me.)

Regions are more poorly-defined geographically compared to countries (is Germany part of Central Europe?, for example); there are certain regions we do already have like the Middle East, but those are geographic. "Central Asia", "Southern Africa", etc., are both recent inventions and don't (generally) have identities of their own.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Adding Central Asia and Central America have both been discussed in the past and not attracted much support – search the archives. Cobblet (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

My signature was wrongly added to the above comment, I don't know who's comment that is. Either way, I'm not supportive of adding regions. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanations, which make perfect sense! :) – Bjørn (who wrote the comment above and is not an active Wikipedian)--128.77.131.222 (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Uganda, Sudan, Ukraine, and Iraq are all additions I would be supportive of. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I could see adding Uganda and maybe Sudan (although we do already have Egypt and Ethiopia). I'm not too keen on having Ukraine (we already have Poland and Russia) or Iraq (we already have Mesopotamia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and might have the UAE as well).  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

My only question is whether Morocco is as prominent as Algeria. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. Algeria has a larger population and GDP, which in my opinion are the two most important factors for whether countries should be added to the list. One could potentially consider global cultural influence where Morocco could potentially trump Algeria however I am not educated on that matter. Algeria is a safer addition and makes more sense logically. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Just anecdotally, Disney's Epcot showcase has a Morocco pavilion to represent the Middle East and North Africa. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

If we want to get up to 50 countries (which, admittedly, is an "if"), why not have both?  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm a supporter of getting up to 50 countries but I'm not sure if I would support a Morocco proposal if Algeria passes, with UAE likely to pass too that would bring us up to 40 and I don't know if I personally would be supportive of having Morocco in the next 10 most vital countries to list. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm considering Maghreb as an alternative as well. I think 50 countries is probably too much. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Maghreb is not even on level 4. People who want 50 countries are going to have to propose some removals to make room for them. Personally I think the list of countries was fine as it was before we added the Netherlands. Southern Ocean is a bigger omission than any of the countries not currently listed. Cobblet (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh. Nominated there. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Before adding Netherdalds and after removing Taiwan the list was structured almost purely by population (BTW see this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 15#Single criterion for countries) which IMHO should be (along with diversity which is mentioned in the FAQ) the best criteria to measure countries by importance. Before addign Netherlands the least populous countries (if we do not count Israel and Saudi Arabia which are inredibly important, and if we do not count Australia which has quite promient growth of population on the continent in the far future) the least populaous countries were: Canada and Poland. Poland is not country where English is first language but it was quite significant in history. Personally I would be neutral to swap Netherlands with Algeria but if Netheralndws was added with so strong consensus then I now have no problem to include more countries. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd be keen on lowering the amount of biographies since I think countries are more vital than people, also I don't think countries should be sorted by population exclusively. I think it should be a mix of highly populated countries and large economies. If we only sorted by population, we would have problems with Israel, Netherlands, Saudi Arabia etc, if we only sorted by GDP we would have problems with many of the countries in Africa. A mix of both allows for a more varied representation of the Earth's countries and this was my initial reasons behind proposing Netherlands and Algeria, being the largest countries by GDP and population respectively missing from the list. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2021 (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 Vasco da Gama

We can do without the third most important European explorer from around 1500 AD. (Christopher Columbus and Ferdinand Magellan are the other two.)

Support

1. as nom User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Definitely Level 4 worthy, but surpassed by Magellan on here IMO.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose All three (Columbus, Magellan, da Gama) are giant figures which IMHO definietly are worth inclusion among 1000 articles. I think this is is very useful to learn about age of discovery, superfically even for small children. If we need something to cut for more countries then I strongly suggest english literature (if we really want to keep more writers and people) or better - 19th Englush writer (they are indeed oveerepresented in comprasion to everything on that list). Dawid2009 (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Da Gama in many ways inaugurated Western imperialism in Asia, a topic in history so important that we have its article on this list. His contributions are not adequately covered by any of the other explorers' articles. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 6:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose One of the most famous persons in history. Typical topic in primary education and in encyclopedia. --Thi (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose no reasonable evidence has been provided for this removal... Vasco de Gama opened up a new era in history to some extent. Aza24 (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose per above. Da Gama also helped open up global sea trade, something we are still reliant upon today (as the Suez blockage showed). Gizza (talk • voy) 04:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I'd actually rather remove Magellan. Da Gama gets slightly more pageviews and Magellan's expedition was Spain's attempt to find an alternative to Portugal's Cape Route which da Gama had established 20 years before. Moreover both Columbus and Magellan represent Spanish exploration, which is also already covered by the recently added Spanish Empire. Cobblet (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Depending on what the target quota for "People" is, we may cut both. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I cannot see a good reason to cut both Magellan and da Gama when John Milton was just added. Was Paradise Lost more important than finding a sea trade route to Asia? Cobblet (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Apart from Shakespeare, we could probably remove every writer from this level. If "But John Milton" is consensus, I'll just wait until it's ripe to nominate him for removal before touching the biographies again. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

??? The removal of Homer, Virgil, Dante, Cervantes, Voltaire or Goethe would probably never pass, just for starters. If you think Shakespeare is important enough to be the only writer on this list then I have something to tell you... Aza24 (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2021 (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.

This has been closed excessively quickly (so quickly that I considered reverting it) but I must speak further in favor of removing Vasco da Gama (and Magellan). By what argument are 3 of the most important ~125 biographies those of explorers from around 1500? By what argument are even 2 of the most important ~125 biographies those of explorers from around 1500? Certainly it is the case that Columbus is vital; his impact on the Columbian Exchange and European colonization of the Americas justifies his presence on this list. Vasco da Gama had the good historical fortune of making a more historical voyage than Bartolomeu Dias or Afonso de Albuquerque, but is hardly more important than them in any historical sense. I disagree strongly with the suggested consensus above, and hope the decision will be re-considered either now or in the future. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

This nomination was closed earlier than our usual 15-day window, but for it to pass it would have had to receive 8 more supports (and no more opposes). This seems like an appropriate WP:SNOW close under the circumstances. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Or I get one more support, and convince two of the oppose voters (one who merely said "no reasonable evidence") that they should instead support the removal, by providing evidence and arguments in favor of my position. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Ideally you should be putting your evidence and arguments in the original nomination. You can always re-nominate this at a later date if you want, but reopening this nomination with 5 opposes already on the board is highly likely to result in the same outcome. But if you feel that strongly that this nomination should continue, have you tried asking the closer to re-open it? Rreagan007 (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Remove Ferdinand Magellan

The second most famous explorer from around 1500 AD. Possibly only the third most important (note discussion above on Vasco da Gama). With other articles at this level being weak interaction and Algeria, one explorer from around 1500 AD (Christopher Columbus) is sufficient.

Support

1. as nom User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per my comments in the discussion on da Gama. Cobblet (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support, the event itself was just not nearly as influential as the other explorers on the list. It had minimal impact, and really only effected Magellan himself, who of course became rather famous for it (even though he was dead). The earth was fully understood to be spherical by educated Europeans at the time (I'm not well versed in the Eastern scholarly opinion of the time, but it would not surprise me if it was the same), I doubt this impacted that opinion at all. And to Zeklia's comment below, we don't have any representative of the moon landing on this list. Aza24 (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Not as important if we're doing cuts. It's a technicality, but Juan Sebastián Elcano weakens him a little.. We have 2 land explorers, 5 sea explorers and 1 arctic explorer - so it wouldn't be out of line to lose one of the sea explorers. GuzzyG (talk) 06:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support per above -- PaleoMatt (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
6. Support If you want room for other biographies. Magellan and his journey are mentioned in Age of discovery. --Thi (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose We represent people based on how they are central in encyclopedia and how are essential to human knowlage, why we need to learn/know about them. Magelan is one of the most important and influeniar explorers a in early age of discovery. After Magellan world started much more often accept/belive fact that earth is geoide. He really fits among 100 people or less. I knew about him when I was 5 years old and I really think this is useful to learn about him just as learn about Copernicus, more useful than learn about say Amundsen. I would also add to the level 4 Lapu Lapu who had interaction with him but as his rival he has been National Hero in Philipines. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

   In fairness, Earth's roundness was already widely accepted in the West in the Middle Ages.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

   I am convinced and sure Magellan's circumavigation of Earth is very seminal event to human history and Magellan's biography as early piooner for age of discovery is enough to be considered vital at this level. I disagree with Aza24 doubt's I doubt this impacted that opinion at all. When Columbus reached to Americas' landspace he called Indigenous peoples of the Americas Indians because of our orientation about 40 000 euator was not so obvious dururing that time (also education was not so predominant/common during that times). I have knew about the link with you reffer above before (I even mentiones Eratosthenes in the past, see: [1]) but I think that Magellan (for better or worse) is just too central and important figure in encyclopedia to be not considered vital just at this level. I also must disagree with the event itself was just not nearly as influential as the other explorers on the list. To be fair, Magellan has way more achivements than most other explorers on the list at least in terms of "Ranking of the most influential people of all time" (see here, here and just use ctrl+f to compare Vasco da Gama with Magellan, for example). Biography Magellan is way more important than this single event which was influential, he has been credited as early piooner of sea exploration regardless of his death (BTW, I would also add to the level 4 Lapu Lapu especially that national heroes are underrepresended and we currently have trend to add them there: [2]). Dawid2009 (talk) 08:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

2. Oppose Magellan's circumnavigation of the Earth (granted, much of it was taken while he was dead) is a seminal event in history not unlike the Moon Landing. He is one of the world's most well-known explorers. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 6:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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 Journalism

I think there is too much overlap between news and the production of news to warrant listing both at this level.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support I had for long time on my it to nominate for removal Dawid2009 (talk)
3. Support Journalism is absolutely integral to modern life, but we do have to cut a few articles and journalism is sufficiently covered by News and Publishing in my opinion -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 6:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per above -- PaleoMatt (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  19:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
6. Support. I agree that there's too much overlap with other listed articles at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
7. Support per nom. News, Publishing, and Mass Media have too much overlap. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
8. Support - Interstellarity (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2021 (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.

Remove Nut (fruit)

Nut (food) was forked from this article in 2019, leaving it to only deal with the botanical definition of a nut. It certainly isn't a vital food article at this point, but even if the articles were merged back together, I think culinary nuts are less vital than a kitchen staple such as cooking oil, or staple crops such as bananas or legumes (although we don't list legume at level 4 because Fabaceae is listed there – that discussion is perhaps worth revisiting), or sources of natural fibres such as sheep or cotton which are not represented at this level.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support swap with Nut (food) I disagree that the latter isn't important (peanuts, cashews, walnuts, etc.); we already have textile at this level to represent cloth materials.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Not vital food article, for example Vegetarianism would be better option. --Thi (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  19:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support. Legume is probably more vital to list. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
6. Support per above, I may support a swap for legume once we have more breathing room with the articles -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
7. Support - Interstellarity (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
8. Support swap with Nut (food) per John M Wolfson -- PaleoMatt (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The listing doesn't make sense after the article split. Not entirely happy just removing it, but not seeing a good swap. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Remove Abu Nuwas

Normally I would suggest swapping him with Rumi, but since we are in the business of getting rid of articles, I thought I would suggest a cold removal. Abu Nuwas nets very few page views on Wikipedia, never surpassing 250 views in a single day. While he is culturally important, I do not think he is even the best representative of Middle Eastern literature. The lack of attention readers give to his article indicates that he is not a key figure for an English-language encyclopedia.

Support

1. Support as nom -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 02:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support. He's not vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support swap with Rumi or Ferdowsi per Cobblet. Aza24 (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support swap with Rumi per Cobblet.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support swap with Rumi per Cobblet. Interstellarity (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
6. Support swap with Rumi per Cobblet. The removal of Rumi was always a mistake, Persian literature is one of the most important and one we should cover. Abu Nuwas isn't really as comparable in importance and in the lower tier of this list. GuzzyG (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
7. Support swap with Rumi per Cobblet. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
8. Support removal If you want more space for other entries in this section. --Thi (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose but would support a swap with Rumi or Ferdowsi. Having one representative of Middle Eastern literature is more important than listing five writers from the British Isles, particularly when English literature is also listed. Cobblet (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

For anyone curious, I did some research into Abu Nuwas a while back (with the intention of working on his article because he's on this list) and found that he is not even close to the level of any other figures on this list. There are certainly more prominent Arab poets as well. Aza24 (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

If people are insisting on a swap, I would prefer Rumi to Ferdowsi, given the former is vastly more popular with users. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Remove Pierre-Simon Laplace

Not quite on the level of Euler or Gauss. As pure mathematicians go, his contemporary Lagrange and the later Poincaré, Riemann and Hilbert all have similarly strong cases to be made for them. His most significant work was on celestial mechanics, but Johannes Kepler should come before him in that regard, and a previous proposal to add Kepler did not achieve consensus. Another applied mathematician who again arguably has a better case to be listed is John von Neumann.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Laplace represents the French world's contribution to mathematics, but then again we list Descartes under philosophers, so I suppose that will suffice. If he is to be replaced, however, I would prefer he be replaced by a non-20th century figure, such as Riemann or Hilbert. If we want to add von Neumann, I would prefer he be swapped with one of our 20th century mathematicians (Turing, Noether, or Godel). I will also add that, in my opinion, Srinivasa Ramanujan is also worthy of our consideration, especially for geographic diversity. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

   Descartes was of course a formidable mathematician in his own right. Between him, Lavoisier, Pasteur, and Curie, I think our coverage of France's contributions to math and science is still adequate. I'd be the first to acknowledge Ramanujan as the most badass 20th-century mathematician, but I don't think his contributions in pure math rise quite to the level of impact that Gödel and Noether's eponymous theorems have had. Cobblet (talk) 06:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

   Sadly Ramanujan died at 32. If he had lived longer and had a longer career, he'd probably be on this list. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

3. Support Per my previous nomination. No new mathematicians are needed. --Thi (talk) 07:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support I remember the Laplacian but not much else. I think Hilbert would make a great replacement.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support - Not worthy at this level. Interstellarity (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
6. Support In every way i track importance this guy is a outlier compared to other figures we list. I have no clue on maths/science or anything of the like but i trust Cobblet's judgment alot, so i can support this. GuzzyG (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
7. Support per all above -- PaleoMatt (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• Neutral doesn't make the cut purely as a mathematician, but was active in other scientific fields. If we're keeping the biographies quota above 125 there may be room on the list for him. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:26, 28 April 2021 (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 Fyodor Dostoevsky and Franz Kafka

German- and Russian-language literature both have two representative on this list (Kafka/Goethe and Dostoevsky/Tolstoy respectively) while other languages only have one: French (Voltaire), Chinese (Li Bai), Japanese (Murasaki Shibiku), Italian (Dante Alighieri), MENA (Abu Nuwas), Spanish (Miguel de Cervantes), and Latin (Virgil). Out of the four Tolstoy and Goethe are by far more vital and influential, so we can safely remove both Dostoevsky and Kafka, as we really only need one representative of these languages.

Support

1. Support as nom -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I think German- and Russian-language literature have had a somewhat disproportionate impact on at least Western literature, so their overrepresentation is justified. Kafka is a good representative of the surreal, such that there is the word kafkaesque. Ditto for Dostoevsky, who wrote Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov, among others.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Why are we picking on other world literatures when we have five writers listed from Britain and Ireland in addition to English literature? Dostoevsky and Kafka get significantly more page views than Milton. Cobblet (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

   This is an English-language version of the encyclopedia, and therefore English language authors are going to be over represented in comparison to other authors. Milton’s influence on English literature is far more profound than either Dostoevsky and Kafka, and he is commonly listed as the second greatest English-language author behind Shakespeare. His popularization of blank verse as a medium of English narrative poetry has had a far greater impact on literature than either Dostoevsky or Kafka who, while important, do not rise to the level of this list. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

   The inclusion of English literature means that it is already overrepresented relative to other literatures, even if we were to list as few as three English-language authors (ancient Greek is the only other language with three). It would be fair to list twice as many English-language writers as writers of other languages if English literature could fairly be said to be at least twice as influential as the literature of any other language; but I don't see a case for that argument. English literature should suffice to cover technical innovations like Miltonic verse whose influence is limited to English-language writers. It's natural that the "editor of several volumes of Milton Studies and coeditor of Milton's Legacy in the Arts" considers Milton second only to Shakespeare, but we simply do not have room for everyone's favourite English-language author. Cobblet (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

   The number of English-language authors on this list is, in my opinion, already satisfactory regardless of the inclusion of the English literature article. We have Shakespeare the Playwright, Milton the Poet, Austen the Satirist, Dickens the Novelist, and Joyce the Modernist, with Twain being added in order to represent the United States. Of these five I will still contend that Milton and Shakespeare are the strongest. If your complaint is that Milton’s influence is too narrowly focused on the Anglosphere, then you ought to support removing Austen or Joyce first. The English literature article scant covers Milton’s innovation in verse or rhyme, and as a general rule I prefer biographies over overview articles like English literature as the former are more popular with users. None of this is to mention Milton’s legacy as a pre-liberal thinker, his defense of free printing in Areopagitica and his advocacy for religious toleration greatly inspired tinkers like John Locke. To drive home my point, most English-language universities have whole classes dedicated to Milton and his work, while Dostoevsky and Tolstoy tend to be taught in one Russian literature class. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

3. Oppose mainly per John M Wolfson's well-put explanation. Once again these nominations fail to realize that most figures on this list effect far more than their narrowly assigned designations. Dostoevsky's influence on philosophy, psychoanalysis and existentialism is profound. Kafka in the same manner. This checklist of nationalities was a helpful thing to keep in mind before, but is now getting obsessive and unproductive. Believe it or not, not every country has had the same impact on every field... Aza24 (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose These authors are influential in general culture. Kafka also represents Jewish literature. --Thi (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2021 (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.

Cleanup time

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles#Cleanup time. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion: Overrepresentation of writers

Hello, Wikipedians,

The number of writers on this list does not sit right with me. There are currently 21 writers listed. Literature and storytelling are important, no doubt, but why are there thrice as many fiction authors as musicians, when music is also a very important component of human culture? Why are there five more people in the writers category than there are people listed in the philosophers and social sciences category (16)? That category involves a much broader field of study than just literature. Why are there more fiction writers than there are scientists (20)?

In his book The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, Michael Hart has only two storytellers on his list: William Shakespeare (#31) and Homer (#98).. Compare that figure to the roughly 23 scientists he has on his list, most of whom appear on this vital articles list.

The book 1,000 Years, 1,000 People: Ranking the Men and Women Who Shaped the Millennium only lists the following ten authors in its top 100 people of the millennium: William Shakespeare (#5), Dante Alighieri (#30), Leo Tolstoy (#34), Voltaire (#36), Miguel de Cervantes (#44), John Milton (#53), Geoffrey Chaucer (#62), Charles Dickens (#70), Murasaki Shikibu (#73), and Fyodor Dostoevsky (#77).

The book The 100 Most Influential Books Ever Written lists the works of only eight fiction authors: Homer (Iliad and Odyssey), Virgil (Aeneid), Dante (Divine Comedy), Cervantes (Don Quixote), Shakespeare (First Folio), Voltaire (Candide), Tolstoy (War and Peace), and Kafka (The Trial).

References

Comparing these lists we can come up with a selection of authors who have been absolutely canonical: Homer, Virgil, Dante, Cervantes, Shakespeare, Voltaire, and Tolstoy. This is seven people, or equal to the number of musicians we have. I do not think any more than this number is appropriate because it removes room for more vital people. Is Fyodor Dostoevsky (#77) really more vital than Jean-Jacques Rousseau (#19)? Is James Joyce (#171) more vital than Niccolo Machiavelli (#40), the father of political science? Is Johann Wolfgang Goethe (#131) really more vital than the Wright Brothers (#23-24), pioneers of flight? Is Rabindranath Tagore (#897) more vital than Frank Lloyd Wright (#160) or Florence Nightingale (#120) or Johannes Kepler (#33)? I think you guys could free up a lot of space by kicking out most of the writers and adding people from fields that you don't cover, like architecture or nursing. I am not making any nominations. These are just my thoughts Splitzky (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC) Splitzky (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I obviously agree. I'd personally rather have The Divine Comedy and Don Quixote than Dante and Cervantes, but consensus here feels otherwise. Homer is (like Euclid) barely historical. Having 20 writers is too many. We have no actors (unless you count Shakespeare), while the level-4 list has a lot. We can't have no writers at this level, but we certainly don't need 2% of the list (and 16% of the biographies). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

And of course many of the philosophers were also writers; in some cases the distinction is blurred. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

There are a few reasons why this has happened:

1. There are eight articles listed under literature. There are 200 listed under science and another 99 under technology. So it makes sense to add some extra biographies of writers to counteract the imbalance in the rest of the list.
2. The idea of listing a writer's magnum opus rather than the writer's biography has been brought up before. In fact at one point we listed Don Quixote, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Iliad, the Mahabharata, and Shahnameh. We eventually removed all of these (swapping the Mahabharata for the Bhagavad Gita). As it turned out, it was enough trouble trying to choose a list of writers – trying to choose a list of writers and a list of literary works at the same time was even more challenging. Let's say we swapped Dante and Cervantes for The Divine Comedy and Don Quixote right now. Are we then saying that these are the two works of fiction for which Wikipedia needs a high-quality article the most? Are we saying that these two works are most representative of literature as a whole? I think we made a reasonable decision to focus just on writers at level 3 and leave the problem of choosing representative literary works as a task for level 4.
3. Among the various aspects of human culture, literature is one where the contributions of specific individuals have traditionally been the most well studied and understood. Historically, individual authors and their works have been given a status that has not been given to people in many other fields such as music. This is a cross-cultural phenomenon. It is why the current list of writers is able to cover over 2500 years of history and written literatures of many cultures, while the list of musicians covers 300 years and we cannot agree on a non-Western musician to add (although we did at least add Tagore).

Further to that last point, one has to be careful not to read too much into the categorizations. It wouldn't be entirely wrong to list Sappho and Tagore as musicians, and we certainly could've listed Voltaire as a philosopher rather than a writer. Most of the religious figures could be validly described as philosophers. We could've listed Avicenna, Descartes, Archimedes and al-Khwarizmi as scientists. Cobblet (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Cobblet: Thank you for getting back. I wanted to know, instead of listing authors by their works, have you tried swapping them in favor of their [language] literature page? For instance, swapping Goethe and Fafka with German literature, or Abu Nuwas with Arabic literature, or Fyodor Dostoevsky with Russian literature, or perhaps subsuming Milton, Austen, Dickens, Twain and Joyce all under English literature? The benefit of these pages is that they presumably cover a broader set of topics than a biography could. For instance, the Russian literature page discusses Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, but it also goes over Nikolai Gogol, Alexander Pushkin, Ivan Turgenev, Boris Pasternak and Maxim Gorky. All of these authors are important to literature, but could not conceivably be added in their own right. If we already have English literature listed, why not list the literature of other languages? That way we could conceivably clear some of the less important authors on this list while maintaining only the most vital ones, that way giving room to add biographies from more diverse backgrounds, such as architecture, nursing or aviation Splitzky (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC) 04:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC) Splitzky

Indeed, to cover people we otherwise hadn't able to find room for was precisely why we added English literature in the first place. But there are those who prefer biographies over overview articles. Perhaps it may not seem that way from recent discussions, but I suspect picking literatures of specific languages rather than individual writers could spark even more controversy. For instance, it seems relatively uncontroversial that Rumi is a better choice than Abu Nuwas, but is Persian literature a better choice than Arabic literature? And while your proposal would obviously improve the diversity of human activities represented among the biographies, it might not have an equally positive impact on their historical and cultural diversity – note how all three of your suggested additions are Anglophones active between 1850 and 1950, for example. Cobblet (talk) 06:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Realistically, 20 writers is ok. The only issue is that there's too much in favour of English lit. The only two solutions i see to untangling it would be to move Voltaire to social scientists/philosophers (where hes listed on the level 4 list) and swapping Dickens with Victor Hugo or removing Austen and Twain for Emily Dickinson, to cover a woman/American in one. Hugo absolutely is on Dickens level, but might be more controversial to remove on a English list and Twain/Austen are both more famous than Dickinson so would not pass - but as i see it these are the only two options to keep what we represent while getting a cut (or two) in and even if hard, might represent this list better overall while cutting down. GuzzyG (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually the proper/fairer answer would probably be cut Austen/Joyce and add Virginia Woolf. Woolf was swapped for Austen in a time where we had E Hemingway/Joyce/Kafka and no Dickens, so in a representative way Austen was better for time. Now to sought out this over reliance on English language authors it's probably best for Woolf to replace Joyce/Austen. It's the best pay off importance wise probably. GuzzyG (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I am neutral on this discussion as of now, but I just wanted to comment that I oppose moving Voltaire to philosophers. Voltaire is best known as a writer and man of letters who used his fiction to explore his personal and political philosophy. While Voltaire's philosophy is important, especially in the realm of religious toleration, it is largely derivative of other liberal thinkers, particularly John Locke. Voltaire is the rightful representative of French literature. Hugo is not Dickens' equal, and neither Dickens nor Hugo nor any other English writer but Shakespeare can be said to be equals with Socrates or some of the people we don't already have. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

From all my research, writers are the singular most dominant figures when it comes to study. (with religion/science/politics being the most dominant on world impact). I don't offer personal opinion on here and by all available metrics Hugo is absolutely Dickens equal and this is easy to prove because writers are the main figures written about, unlike something like chefs where it is wishy washy. Let's go over the bad metrics first, Victor Hugo 27,069,311 world pageviews [3] and Charles Dickens 26,968,062 world pageviews [4], nice and equal, not bad when there's way more English speakers and Dickens is more frequent in Anglo pop culture, in there it shows 165 Wikidatas for Hugo and 155 for Dickens - equalish.

Now, let's get into real metrics - Hugo has 288,000 on Google scholar [5], Dickens has 206,000 [6], (now you may say Victor/Hugo are more commons terms but John Smith has 152,000 [7], so by all considerations this is accurate - not bad considering most of the top tier universities are in English speaking countries [8], which should favour Dickens. Now Google books search, which changes often so less reliable but Hugo has 8,410,000, [9] while Dickens has 8,370,000 [10], mostly equal. (John Smith has 5,090,000 [11], so it's likely to be legit.) Now Google NGrams, Hugo had English until 1930 and Dickens only really got a big boost over him in 2000. [12], not really impressive for a main writer of the language (as we'll see in the French version next).. In French it's not even close, this is a proper main language writer's dominating. [13]. In German it's closer with Hugo winning [14], In Italian Hugo wins [15], In Spanish Hugo wins [16], In Chinese Hugo wins [17] (to back up popularity diff in China even more, here's likes on one of China's top sites Hugo has 22641 [18], Dickens has 4955 [19]. In Russian Hugo wins [20]. Now if mentions in books/scholar aren't enough, let's analyze library holdings (and the closest thing we have to general readings), but with a reminder this is heavily bias in favour of English writers, because most places in America have a library, which is much bigger than France in this regard. Here's Hugos overall stats 23,183 works in 67,791 publications in 46 languages and 391,607 library holdings [21], with his top two works by stats - Les Mis having 2,648 editions published between 1753 and 2020 in 24 languages and held by 26,863 WorldCat member libraries worldwide and Notre Dame having 2,664 editions published between 1800 and 2020 in 32 languages and held by 25,723 WorldCat member libraries worldwide. Meanwhile Dickens overall has 25,032 works in 96,502 publications in 55 languages and 1,288,659 library holdings, with his top two works by stats - A Christmas Carol having 2,753 editions published between 1457 and 2021 in 33 languages and held by 27,298 WorldCat member libraries worldwide and Oliver Twist having 1,908 editions published between 1837 and 2021 in 45 languages and held by 27,662 WorldCat member libraries worldwide. This is the main thing Dickens beats Hugo in, but as i said not representative because America's bigger than France and Hugo is only known for two works inside Anglophone countries. Either way, by good reads his top two works [[22]] are up there with Dickens [23].

Either way, any personal opinion or subjective method aside he is absolutely up there, beating Dickens in things such as scholar results, which would have to mean he at the very least has more of a wider base of studies. Les Misérables (musical) and The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996 film) place him in popular Angolophone conscious too. I know you like Bloom and Hugo isn't in Bloom's main 26 here The Western Canon, but this is definitely not a negative on Hugo and by all measure - my assessment is fair - they're on the same level rather than not. My favourite author is F. Scott Fitzgerald, im bias towards Banjo Paterson and i also enjoy John Keats and Sylvia Plath (and own almost all their main works - including Dickens/Hugo/any book on the level 4 list with a easy to get English translation...), but i would never suggest any here because they do not fit my critera and in my opinion - by any reasonable metric Hugo is the French equivalent of Dickens at the very least. There should be extra weight towards representatives of the Official languages of the United Nations. (although we're about to lose our Arabic one, we cover the Quran though so we're not totally missing it. Anyway, in light of any other evidence (and this is only some of what i check) i think Hugo does stand next to Dickens.... GuzzyG (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I think Dickens is more relevant for English speakers, but to be clear, I don’t think either of them should be on this list. There are more important people from more diverse fields who should take their places. I’m a fan of OPs seven: Homer, Virgil, Dante, Cervantes, Shakespeare, Voltaire, Tolstoy. Plus maybe Twain. We do not need more novelists, as no others are absolutely essential. — Zelkia1101 (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

For context, I was the user who suggested swapping Milton for Joyce, while the former was cold added. After giving it some thought I have to agree with this poster and User:力. 21 writers is way too many representatives of that field. Nobody is arguing that masters like Goethe, Dostoevsky, Dickens, Kafka, or Sappho are not important or they their contributions are not notable. However, these writers fundamentally do not add anything new to the list, and their presence takes up room that could be used to add representatives of fields we miss. For instance, we have 21 writers, but no representative of political science, architecture, agronomy, aviation, nursing and patient care, jurisprudence, oratory, sociology (Marx kind of fits, but where’s Max Weber?) or space flight. Why is this? If the proposal is essentially to remove 2/3rds of the writers and replace them with other representatives, then I’m okay with that, essentially. Let’s keep it to the essentials. My only qualm might be that I would like to see another English language author kept. Perhaps Twain, as he can be a representative of North American literature while Shakespeare represents the Commonwealth. Since a great majority of our traffic comes from the US and Commonwealth, we can have room for two. —- Zelkia1101 (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I've argued before for Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier and even Imhotep (who failed). Wright brothers failed before and so have both Yuri Gagarin and Neil Armstrong. I've argued for Nightingale. Marx pretty much takes the sociology spot. I would love for philosophers/social scientists to have 20 (Hugo Grotius/Cicero/Niccolò Machiavelli and Francis Bacon, Cicero/Bacon failed.). No Agronomy figure would fit on this list. Even figures from the sections on the level 4 section we miss (Entertainment/Sports/Journalism) have failed here (mainly Marilyn Monroe/Pele, journalism is being removed itself let alone any figure). Modern computers are areas we also lack, with Steve Jobs/Bill Gates both having failed. I've suggested Dance and Design because women are the top figures (Isadora Duncan/Anna Pavlova and Coco Chanel). Most angles have been tried and tested, but even as a advocate for many things i think 20 writers is a appropriate target (and with Nuwas swapped for Rumi and without Milton - as good as it gets). Goethe and Sappho being absolutely essential especially. Kafka is the only one i'd support cutting. Wagner and Disney would have to go before Goethe, Dostoevsky, Dickens or Sappho. I was strongly against Dickens/put up Dostoevsky for removal before too.... GuzzyG (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Neither Goethe nor Sappho are encyclopedically essential. Per OP’s post, neither shows up on a top 100 list. Of course both are important, but fiction authors have had much less of an impact on world history than social scientists of scientists proper. There is absolutely no reason to have 20 writers — Zelkia1101 (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with the list of 21 authors, but I can also do with the 7 plus Mark Twain per Zelkia1101 and a woman (Austen?). As Cobblet says, writers are prone throughout time and cultures to be overrepresented in consciousness anyway, so it's not inexplicable that we should overrepresent them on our list. One field that is underrepresented on here is business; Henry Ford is our only businessman, and people are resistant to adding Rockefeller for whatever reason.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Business being underrepresented is for three things in my opinion, (like activism and MLK or Steve Biko) it's too country specific and harder to pick one in comparison to other figures of that same industry in another country, there's not really alot of historical analysis on business figures being historically important compared to science or politicians or artists and business people are still kinda new in a historical sense. One of Rockefeller, JP Morgan and Carnegie and one of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates will be listed one day. But even as a arguer for Rockefeller, it's hard to any of them on the level of anyone listed here. (after cuts). Plus Disney is pretty much more business figure than filmmaker. (Even if i think he should be gone). GuzzyG (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Once Elon Musk gets people to Mars I think he's a shoe-in to the list and would be willing to ignore the "no living persons" rule to put him on, but that'll take a decade or so.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I have been taking a few notes and compiling a list of replacement articles. Here's what I've been thinking so far:

• Sappho swapped with Florence Nightingale
• Sophocles swapped with Mansa Musa
• Li Bai swapped with Wu Zetian
• Rumi/Abu Nuwas (whoever is on the list by the time the nom comes up) swapped with Pāṇini
• John Milton swapped with Cicero
• Johann Wolfgang von Goethe swapped with Bruce Lee
• Jane Austen swapped with Coco Chanel
• Charles Dickens swapped with Niccolo Machiavelli
• Fyodor Dostoevsky swapped with Frank Lloyd Wright
• Mark Twain swapped with Max Weber
• Rabindranath Tagore swapped with Akbar
• James Joyce and Franz Kafka swapped with Wright brothers.

Keep Homer, Virgil, Murasaki, Dante, Cervantes, Shakespeare, Voltaire, and Tolstoy. Let me know what you guys think — Zelkia1101 (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I would keep Twain and one of the women, and have Howard Hughes instead of the Wright Brothers to be both a businessman w/ Ford and a representation of mental illness; I'm otherwise fine with the changes. That said, we don't have a lot lot of writers on here, so I'm similarly fine with the status quo.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I added Lady Murasaki instead of Twain because I thought we needed a woman writer, and Murasaki is arguably more vital than Twain. Tolstoy represents 19th and 20th century literature and Shakespeare represents English literature better. I think it would be silly to have 9 writers when we have 9 religious figures, who are much more important. As for Howard Hughes, the Wright brothers are far, far more historically influential than him. I don't see the case for him being added. — Zelkia1101 (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I think Twain represents American literature and satire, although the latter is also Voltaire; I'd still think the former makes him vital enough given the US's dominance in the Anglosphere. I'd personally rather have Austen than Murasaki, although that would have to be sussed out during a nom. Also fair enough with Hughes, I was just spitballing during this brainstorming session.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the above about keeping Twain and another woman (maybe adding Woolf) as otherwise we have no American writers and only one English-language writer total. Not sure how I feel about Wu Zetian; Taizong of Tang seems like a better pick—he certainly represents Sui/Tang/Song as a whole far better than Wu Zetian. Pāṇini and Mansa Musa feel like huge stretches. Though it would be nice to add an African leader, Mansa Musa himself doesn't really have significant political or military accomplishments; I would think adding the Mali Empire is more sensible. Aza24 (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Apart from Austen or Woolf, Dickinson is still an option. I see Pāṇini as a swap with Tagore and am happy as long as one person to represent South Asian culture is listed. I prefer Mansa Musa over Rockefeller (or any other modern industrialist not named Ford or Edison) at least. Much as I think Tang Taizong would be an excellent choice for the list, I have no problem listing Wu Zetian instead – her biography is about as exceptional as it gets in the otherwise male-dominated history and historiography of China. Cobblet (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, we're not a list of exceptions, are we? The issue with Wu is that there is still substantial debate in China over the actual breadth of her accomplishments (our article on her is mostly OR and doesn't cite any Chinese historians). Taizong is the standard go to for "greatest emperor", and Wu was only able to enact her reforms because of the monumental beginning that Taizong had. Aza24 (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

We're not a list of paragons either. Put simply: Wu Zetian rivals Qin Shi Huang as the most controversial emperor in Chinese history. Cobblet (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

As regards Mansa Musa, the problem is that Africa and people of African descend are vastly underrepresented on this list. Mansa Musa is the quintessential native African leader. Shaka may be another contender, but I don't think he's influential enough. Sub-Saharan Africa deserves to be represented beyond just Mandela — Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, and can support Mansa Musa for that and his obscene wealth.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Most interesting suggestions. Definitely a strong step forward. I'd keep Li Bai, Rumi, and Kafka. I cannot support adding Bruce Lee (not over Sun Yat-sen, no matter how badly one might want to list another actor), Frank Lloyd Wright (the weakest of these three IMO; we have an architect in Michelangelo and if I had to pick another one I'd go with Mimar Sinan) or the Wright brothers (Ford suffices for transport when other modern areas of tech like telecommunications and materials aren't represented at all). I like everything else, but nursing and either the Mali or the Songhai Empire (I actually prefer the latter) should be added along with Nightingale and Mansa Musa. If everyone else really wants Bruce Lee and the Wright brothers, my suggestion is to take out Wagner (classical music will survive with Bach/Mozart/Beethoven) and either van Gogh or Rembrandt (one Dutch artist is enough; I prefer removing van Gogh). Cobblet (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The thing with removing Wagner is then we have our representation of the art music tradition ending at Beethoven (1827), while our visual art tradition continues well into the 20th century. In this sense, we'd then have no real representative of romanticism or modernism in classical music (Beethoven is hardly romantic, in the grand scheme of the period). Wagner is helpful because his music covers everything after Beethoven until at least world war two, perhaps even further, and everything in the 20th century can justly be seen as a continuation of his ideas, or a reaction against them. In this sense he covers composers like Tchaikovsky, Chopin, Liszt, Brahms, Stravinsky, Strauss, Mahler; Beethoven alone definitely doesn't. I could see swapping Wagner for Stravinsky; but seven musicians really doesn't seem like too many... Agree about Rembrandt and van Gogh, but the decision seems impossible to make. Aza24 (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

With the original list of writers proposed by Zelkia, literature ends with Tolstoy. I'd keep Kafka over Wagner. We need an expressionist (in any field) and literary modernist more than a late romantic composer, and I disagree that Beethoven does not adequately represent the Romantic period – the entire period is a reaction to his music. Cobblet (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I was debating between Rumi and Lady Murasaki and chose her instead because we ideally needed a woman and a non-Westerner. On second thought, because Rumi is much more popular with users than Murasaki, I might be inclined to ditch her and add him with the rest of the eight. As for Bruce Lee, we need an actor and a sportsperson. He has three things going for him: (1) He's a prolific martial artist, probably the most well-known (2) he is a prolific movie star and (3) he is a non-Westerner and Chinese, both domains we do not cover as much as we should. As for Frank Lloyd Wright, architecture is so important I don't think just having Michelangelo will be enough and Mimar Sinan is not well known enough. The Wright brothers are must-adds for me. They represent the development of aviation, probably one of the most consequential inventions of the late modern period. Ford, who did automobiles, does not cover it in the slightest. I am also opposed to poaching from the artists, especially since we have a bloated writers list that needs to be pruned further — Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Zelkia about Frank Lloyd Wright; Michelangelo is known as an artist writ large rather than an architect, and I didn't know who Mimar Sinan was until I looked him up after you mentioned him. Wright represents various late-19th/early-20th century architectural styles such as the Prairie School and whatever the Guggenheim and Fallingwater are, and is "the" quintessential Chicago, and by extension American, architect, beating out Sullivan, Burnham, and Mies van der Rohe. I'm neutral on adding Bruce Lee; it'd be nice to have another actor, and if we include one it'd be him, but maybe it's not quite as sorely needed as other fields.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

If another architect can "trump" Frank Lloyd Wright, I can maybe see it being Christopher Wren, but not anyone non-Western if we only have one true architect (as opposed to other polymath).  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

That's just not true. The most impactful today is Le Corbusier, primary figure of modernism in Architecture and who has 17 sites on three continents listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, compared with FLW's eight, just in the US. By most world metrics, Le Corbiuser is the bigger name. I've been advocating for a architect on this list for years and unless we're specifically going for a English language bias, it should be Corbiuser. GuzzyG (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I admit I forgot about Corbusier, he's also a good one.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I am fine with either Le Corbusier or Lloyd Wright as long as we get at least one devoted representative of the field. — Zelkia1101 (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Le Corbusier is better than FLW. But I bring up Sinan not only because his technical mastery was unsurpassed in his time, but also because the architecture of an entire empire was built in his style. Nobody else in the history of architecture can claim that. A modest person once wrote: "Two architects have come on earth. The first one is the Ottoman architect Sinan and the other one is myself." Guess who it was? Cobblet (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree Sinan would be the best choice for a sole architect. The Muslim world is very important too and the Ottoman empire should a have cultural figure listed. it'd make even more sense if Rumi/Abu Nuwas are removed. If a sole person had the architecture of the UK/US molded after them they'd be listed. The only other concern is who would be better to list between Kalidasa or Pāṇini? GuzzyG (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I fully agree with Zelkia's list, considering i have been suggesting most of these names for years (except Wu Zetian or Max Weber). Only two i wouldn't support removing are Li Bai and Goethe. Henry VIII, Ben Franklin, Stalin, Wagner and Disney can all go before them. There is no way Goethe is any less fundamental to German culture than Wagner (and no way is Kafka more vital than Goethe) and Li Bai is a representative of a fundamental literature. I think we should cut down to 100 biographies and cover more countries (better way of being diverse)/art subjects instead, but if we have this number than most of these swaps are not so bad. GuzzyG (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Remove Socrates

Now before you have a knee-jerk oppose, hear me out for a second. Socrates did not write a single philosophical work, in fact, the entire knowledge of his thought or ideas is only known through other writers/philosophers, most famously (and importantly) Plato. Also keep in mind that we have no legitimate way of confirming that all of the ideas and opinions Plato credits him with, as he is merely a character in his dialogues. Sure, he is a well known figure, but fame by itself has never been the deciding factor for this list, and we already have two Greek philosophers (and the Ancient Greek philosophy article), whom Socrates himself adds nothing to. In the end I don't think he fits with the rest of the figures on the list, an important person, yes, but not Vital level 3. Aza24 (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. nom
2. Support per my previous comments here. Cobblet (talk) 03:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support as someone somewhat responsible for this poor addition (back when i didn't understand strict standards and was more idealistic..), i can only join in and say this should have never been added. Socrates influence is covered, his biography itself is not vital in particular for this level. Now i understand there's nothing comparable with this comparison on the level of importance to history itself, but it's like how J. D. Salinger was removed on the level 4 list because we list The Catcher in the Rye, where as his biography itself is not important or "vital". Socrates biography is not important because we cover Plato. Nothing super, mega important is added to our coverage of this list because of Socrates himself. GuzzyG (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support If you want to add some other biographies. --Thi (talk) 11:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong, strong oppose -- Although he does not have any output of his own that is not contained in Plato, Socrates is a supremely influential intellectual figure and personality in the Western World, and he nets roughly the same page views as the rest of the SPA group. I am also cognizant of the criticisms from the above entry. Removing Socrates while we have 21 writers seems ludicrous to me, especially since Socrates's reputation excels almost all of them (admittedly I contributed to this problem by having Milton cold added). It makes absolutely no sense that we would poach social scientists when there is already a bloated category that could use trimming. How do we include James Joyce on this list but leave out Socrates? It would be a grievous error. The last people we should be removing is philosophers and social theorists, as they are vastly underrepresented. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

   Page views are a little unhelpful, given that thousands of other articles probably receive more page views, but would never be accepted here. However, to your point, all of the religious figures can be seen as philosophers to some extent, and more succinctly, Franklin, Goethe, Voltaire, Tagore and Shen Kuo can as well Aza24 (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

   I think my intention in mentioning page views is clear: there is roughly comparable public attention given to Socrates as is rendered to Aristotle and Plato. Franklin, Goethe, Voltaire and Tagore’s contributions, even when combined, still dwarf Socrates’s place in Western philosophy and culture. I’m sorry, there just simply is no comparison —- Zelkia1101 (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

2. Oppose - Socrates is what influenced later philosophers like Aristotle and Plato. I think he is as vital as those two philosphers. Interstellarity (talk) 10:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
3. You do have some good points, but unfortunately the knee jerk must prevail here. His historicity is rather irrelevant for this list, IMO (we list Jesus, whose existence is similarly strongly thought but unproved); in historic thought and "popular culture", Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are all three considered a cohesive and coherent grouping/lineage, such that Socrates would be conspicuous in his absence from the list. Although it seems excessive to list all three, we have a tradition of listing all members of an important enough group; we list both Julius Caesar and Augustus, and all four of the fundamental forces even though weak interaction wouldn't make it here on its own.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Socrates is absolutely a vital biography for Level 3 -- PaleoMatt (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I'm not convinced either way yet, but having Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle on this short list does feel excessive. I must also agree that Socrates is the least vital of the three. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

This is the discussion (if one can call it that) which resulted in Socrates being added. Cobblet (talk) 03:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Well that's embarrassing. I'll likely support once I've worked out the argument beyond "quota reasons". User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Just as a comment, i didn't mean historicity (or Abraham/Moses would be removed..). Jesus biography is supremely important as his life/actions are. We know of Socrates life/actions through Plato, hence it should not be a priority to list Socrates life when his contributions appear through Plato. We don't list Raphael and that is also a famous/important third. Considering Caesar/Augustus have months named after them i don't think it's a fair comparison with someone (Socrates) who does not. Their life is tied to months, you can know everything about Socrates by reading Plato, so why is Socrates himself important? GuzzyG (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Swap: Remove Bengali language, add Swahili language

I was really surprised not to see Swahili here – a major African language with a long literary heritage, a lingua franca in huge parts of Eastern Africa, and an official language of the AU. Yes, there are more L1 speakers of Bengali, but it’s not only a numbers game. For South Asia we already have Hindustani, which like Swahili is more international. Bengali is more strictly limited to Bangladesh and adjacent areas in India. African culture is not very well represented in the list; adding Swahili would remedy that to some extent. --Telepanda (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.
2. Support. Bengali has a relatively large number of speakers, but it doesn't seem particularly vital to list at this level to me. Portuguese is probably more vital to the English Wikipedia and we recently removed it. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

   We didn't actually remove Portuguese in the end. Cobblet (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

   Aa, I see it survived by one vote. Regardless, I supported its removal and I support this one as well. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

3. Support addition Swahili deserves to be here, we are lacking in African culture and it is practically the lingua franca for a good chunk of the continent. I'm not convinced we should remove Bengali though, it is a rather large language... -- PaleoMatt (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Swahili is a much more important language in culture and history than Bengali, which is contained and historically isolated. We need more articles pertaining to Africa than what we have now. Hindustani will have to suffice as the representative of the subcontinent. — Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Bengali has a lot of people, but Hindustani has even more.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
6. Support addition Niger–Congo is the largest language family by number of languages, and third largest by number of speakers. It deserves to be represented and Swahili is the obvious choice. Cobblet (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal Bengali handily beats Swahili and Portuguese (another recently suggested removal) in page views. It has more than three times the number of speakers than Swahili and its literary heritage is just as rich as Swahili's. I don't consider Bengal a less significant cultural region than East Africa, and the Bengali diaspora is very much an international one. I'd rather remove Brahmic scripts if push came to shove. Among the alphabets the only one I'd keep is Latin. Cobblet (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal per Cobblet. With approximately 228 million native speakers and another 37 million as second language speakers,Bengali is the fifth most-spoken native language and the seventh most spoken language by total number of speakers in the world.— TheWikiholic (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Ludwig Wittgenstein

Besides religion (for obvious reasons) for every designation of people we have at least one representative figure from the 20th century, except philosophy. In fact, our most modern philosopher (Nietzsche) died right on 1900! The primary reason that Wittgenstein should be added, is both this, and that he is a very good candidate for being the most important philosopher of the 20th-century (see here). I would also direct your attention to this poll on a prominent philosophy blog, where Wittgenstein arrives in first place easily. The fact is, that there is no figure who perfectly fills up the 20th- and 21st centuries of philosophy in the same way to Avicenna does for the Islamic Golden Age. But Wittgenstein is a good bet, and probably the best; his inclusion would give us a real representative of philosophy of language, which is completely unrepresented, the Monist side of Philosophy of mind (only the dualist side is represented), the first representative of Logic since at least Aquinas, and an attempt to fill the void we have now. Finally I point you to here where four of Wittgenstein's books are included, because "Wittgenstein towers above all other 20th century philosophers to such an extent that it is surprising to find any books not written by him included in such a list." Aza24 (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom Aza24 (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. This is a very good choice for an area we are lacking in. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Gödel and Wittgenstein are arguably the two most important 20th century philosophers, with others (including Bertrand Russell, Imre Lakatos, and Peter Singer) not being vital enough for this level. Mao Zedong is a political leader and we can ignore him for quota purposes User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I don't agree that we are lacking in philosophers. I don't consider any single 20th-century philosopher sufficiently dominant within that academic area or within the broader public consciousness to list. Contemporary philosophy is enough. I'd be more open to adding philosophy of language. Cobblet (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose I'd prefer a 20th-century social scientist to a 20th-century philosopher, given how more important the former had become than the latter at that time. Heck, I'd prefer Hegel to Wittgenstein given his practical impact in the world (via Marx and other students of his dialectics) with his philosophy.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Other listed figures represent cumulative knowledge (science, mathematics, logic, see Gödel) or canonical authors and artists (Nietzsche's works can be read as fiction, from aesthetic viewpoint). Their legacy is secure. For example Thomas Aquinas, Wollstonecraft, Smith and Marx are founding figures in Catholic philosophy, feminism, liberalism and socialism. Social philosophers have given practical impact in the world. I think that it would be more useful to add more philosophical topics, for example branches of logic would be worth considering. Kant was by some definition the last canonical philosopher, central figure for both analytic and continental traditions. Philosophy of mind, Analytic philosophy and monistic philosophies are not listed at this level. For example Marx is representative of materialistic philosophy. Wittgenstein has also his critics, for example M. Pigliucci has called him "one of the most overrated during the last century" [24], [25] --Thi (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The social theorists who need adding are Cicero (oratory), Niccolò Machiavelli (political science), Max Weber (sociology -- French counterpart lists him), and Hugo Grotius (jurisprudence). I will be suggesting some of these articles as swaps for literatue biographies soon. I do not necessarily oppose Wittgenstein, as he is certainly more vital than Goethe, Kafka, Austen, or Rumi, and I am always up for more social thoerists to be added, but I would like to see those whom we are gravely missing added first. — Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest swapping Wagner for Max Weber. I'd support removing Dickens and Joyce for Cicero and Machiavelli. I don't think we need Grotius. Cobblet (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment not voting on the nom per se, but I just want to point out that Turing and (especially) Gödel, though listed as mathematicians, are also 20th-century philosophers. --Trovatore (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Put the atop template in the section?

Virtually every other page on Wikipedia puts the {{atop}} template after the heading, rather than before. The main advantage is that auto-archive scripts work. Archiving with the current form requires editing the entire page and not just a single section. We should switch to that. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

1. Sure.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I think this has been discussed before. For whatever reason it's just how it's normally been done on these pages. I don't really have a big preference either way. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Remove Year

We list two units of time but don't list units of measurement for any other fundamental quantities. I think calendar sufficiently covers the notion of a calendar year that we don't need to separately list it. Nor do we need to cover the various astronomical definitions of a year at this level – they're pretty esoteric.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
2. I'd support removing this and day to free up some space. To the extent they are human constructs they are covered by calendar, and to they extent they relate to astronomical phenomena (axis of rotation, orbit around the Sun) they are certainly Level 4 worthy but not Level 3 worthy; indeed, the latter is already covered by orbit.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per discussion above; too much overlap with calendar, which should cover the various agricultural issues related to year. I will oppose removing day if proposed, as I don't see anything else regarding the difference between night and daytime. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per everyone else. GuzzyG (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Day and Year seem different to me than other units of measurement as they are not really constructs like other units of measurement but are based on naturally occurring phenomenon, specifically the rotation of the Earth on its axis and revolution of Earth around the Sun. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Remove Day

If we are going to remove year, then I see no reason why we would keep day listed. I'm opening this nomination now because I think both articles should be assessed together.

Support

Oppose

Discuss

Swap: Remove Neutron and Proton, add Carbohydrate and Lipid

If something on nuclear structure absolutely needs to be listed, better to list atomic nucleus than to list both neutron and proton. But I'm not even convinced that's necessary. We already list a lot of topics related to atomic and nuclear physics and their practical applications. Meanwhile for cells, we do not list cell nucleus nor any other organelle, nor cell cycle.

I didn't oppose the addition of hormone since we have nothing on cell signaling or the endocrine system in animals. But carbohydrates and lipids are fundamental building blocks of life – as biomolecules go, these should be a much higher priority. (Protein is listed, while DNA and RNA are listed separately rather than nucleic acid.)

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support additions I was surprised they weren't already on here.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Other articles cover atomic physics reasonably well. --Thi (talk) 11:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removals Protons and neutrons are the constituent parts of the atomic nucleus and serve as counterparts to the listed electron (I'm aware the latter is more important historically and with electricity, but I digress). I might be convinced with a swap for quarks, but even that's a bit debatable given the niche knowledge of the latter. We have enough space on here that we don't need to remove these.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

• The Biology section is already the largest section in the sciences. And endocrine system probably would have been a better article to list at this level than hormone. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  These topics, along with protein and hormone, could just as easily go under (bio)chemistry as under molecular biology. And Life is level 1 after all. Cobblet (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Swaps: Cleaning up literature

As of my writing this post, there are 21 literature biographies among 129 total biographies listed as level 3 vital articles. This accounts for roughly 16% of all biographies. There are more fiction authors represented here than there are scientists (20) and social theorists/philosophers (16). There are nearly three times as many writers listed here than there are religious figures, explorers, musicians, mathematicians, and visual artists. While the written word is important, this is a gross overrepresentation of one discipline that essentially forces us to ignore other achievements that have yet to be covered here. I do not understand how we could have more writers than we do religious and thought leaders, when the latter are vastly, vastly more influential.

For this reason I am proposing a series of swaps to remove a little less than 2/3rds of the writers and add in their place representatives of fields we do not cover, such as nursing, oratory, fashion, political science, architecture and aviation. I have also taken pains to include political figures from parts of the world we underrepresent, such as Africa (Mansa Musa) and South Asia (Akbar). Where I propose a person of a certain underprivileged minority be removed, I have swapped them with someone who likewise represents that identity. I believe that these changes will make this list a much more diverse and better represent the sum total of vital human achievement than it does now. The writers I have decided to keep are only those that have been the most profoundly influential on human history, as supported by the facts in Splitzky's post. They are:

1. Homer - His Iliad and Odyssey are, along with the Bible, the central canonical texts of the Western canon. Beyond his works' profound influence on poetry and epics, Homer is perhaps the most influential figure in developing the Western plot structure and the Hero's journey. Everything from epic poetry to the romance genre to science fiction and fantasy pulls from tropes initially realized by Homer. Principal representative of Ancient Greek literature.
2. Virgil - Author of the Aeneid (the essential Latin-language text), Georgics and Eclogues. Represents the Roman arts. In many ways tied with Homer as the most important epic poet. His works have been greatly influential in literature (he was the central inspirer of contemporaries like Ovid as well as later works like Divine Comedy, The Faerie Queen, Os Lusíadas and Paradise Lost).
3. Rumi - Supreme author of the Persian language and arguably the most important writer in the Islamic world. Author of such works as Masnavi and the Divan-i Shams-i Tabrizi. I think that Rumi should be our representative of non-Western literature for two reasons: (1) He far surpasses both Li Bai and Murasaki Shikibu in most metrics. Compare their pageviews on wikipedia, or their Google trends (you'll notice that Rumi beats out both Tolstoy and Twain pretty comfortably), or their ngram counts, where Rumi trounces the rest. (2) Rumi's case is further bolstered by his credentials as a transformative figure in Sufi mysticism.
4. Dante Alighieri - No language owes more to one person than Italian does to Dante. Dante is arguably more important to Italian than Shakespeare is to English. Aside from writing the canonical epic Divine Comedy, Dante's decision to use a vernacular Tuscan dialect instead of Latin was unprecedented. That Tuscan dialect Dante used would later become the modern Italian language as it is spoken today. None of this is to mention Dante's influence on Christian art and aesthetics, especially in his depictions of hell, as well as his other works like La Vita Nuova and his pioneering of terza rima.
5. Miguel de Cervantes - Author of Don Quixote, Novelas ejemplares, and La Galatea. Supreme writer of the Spanish language. Along with being one of the most widely read and circulated works of fiction in the world, Don Quixote is the foundation of modern Western literature.
6. William Shakespeare - What needs to be said? By far the most performed playwright and the most widely read English-language author. His influence on the theatre as well as on the English language with the thousands of neologisms he coined or popularized is immense. Critic Harold Bloom has said that Shakespeare is the center of the Western Cannon, with all other traditions sprouting out from him. Practically every major English-language author and tradition draws from him.
7. Voltaire - Likely the weakest person out of the eight. He represents French literature as well as satire. His novel Candide blisteringly criticized Leibnizian optimism, religious mania, and intolerance. Beyond his influence as the supreme French-language author, Voltaire was an important thinker and philosopher of the liberal tradition whose ideas greatly inspired the French and American revolutionaries.
8. Leo Tolstoy - Representative of 19th-20th century fiction. His prose epics War and Peace and Anna Karenina are considered some of the greatest works of fiction to have ever been written. Beyond his influence as an author, Tolstoy was a huge influence for the various 20th century nonviolence movements led by figures like Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela.

Now, the swaps

Remove Sappho, add Florence Nightingale

We already have a vital representative of Ancient Greek literature: Homer. Sappho, whose body of work has mostly been lost to history, is influential in the development of lyric poetry, which is why I suspect she was added to this list. While Sappho's contributions to poetry are important, she is beaten out in terms of vitality and influence by Florence Nightingale, the founder of modern nursing. The development of nursing has been hugely influential in modern medicine and physiatry, and we are lacking a good representative of the field. As a social reformer Nightingale led various efforts to improve sanitation and patient conditions, her efforts being extremely successful. We could also use another woman in the science category; we only have Marie Curie out of 20 exemplars of that field. In terms of popularity, according to Pageviews Nightingale's page is usually viewed over twice as much in a single day as Sappho's.

Support

1. Support as nom — Zelkia1101 (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support although we really should list nursing first. But is there another case in history where a woman was singlehandedly credited (rightly or wrongly) with creating an entire profession? Cobblet (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support It's only bad from a POV of removing ancient women, but fine. GuzzyG (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support removal if other articles are wanted, but I don't know if we have room for both Nightingale and Nursing at this level. --Thi (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support addition Nightingale is a good addition to an area we are lacking in. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
6. Support, but if nursing is added, then this will have to be removed. We don't have room for both. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
7. Support removal, neutral on addition upon keeping Jane Austen as the female writer. I'm still debating the addition, since we already have Marie Curie as a female scientist/inventor and should perhaps consider nursing instead.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
8. Support removal per nom Splitzky (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal Sappho is too important to remove at this level, her poetry is still very influential and has been for centuries. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

If the addition passes, Mary Seacole should be considered for level 4. Cobblet (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Remove Sophocles, add Mansa Musa

Sophocles is important for his development of tragedy plays like Oedipus Rex, but we already have the more influential and notable tragedian in William Shakespeare. We don't need another dramatist given the holes we have in this list, and his contributions are not vital enough for inclusion on this list. We are sorely lacking in representation of Africa on this list, particularly Sub-Saharan Africa. Futhermore, a vast majority of this list is white and European, with only two Black individuals (Nelson Mandela and Louis Armstrong). This is a striking racial, ethnic, and geographic disparity. Mansa Musa is a good representative of the region. Aside from being arguably the wealthiest man who ever lived as well as extending the Mali Empire, Mansa Musa is likewise associated with the construction of centers of learning in Timbuktu that would later received Ibn Battuta and become hot beds for Islamic scholarship. Since we do not list any of the three African empires (Ghana, Mali, Songhai), Mansa Musa is an excellent addition to the list who represents a time and region (medieval and Africa) we do not cover very well. Mansa Musa is likewise more popular with users. I'll also add that adding Musa will obviate the need for Rockefeller, since the latter is largely known only for his wealth rather than any technical achievements on his own part.

Support

1. Support as nom — Zelkia1101 (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support although again I would like to see one of the Sahelian kingdoms added as well. I'd suggest adding Songhai, which eventually grew to become the largest of them all. Cobblet (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support I've long wanted to nom both Mansa Musa and Songhai Empire. Both are essential to cover for this list. GuzzyG (talk) 05:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Sophocles isn't as important as Aristophanes, IMO. More sub-Saharan African representatives are needed.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support removal per nom Splitzky (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Sophocles is absolutely Level 3 vital and I don't think he should be replaced with someone relatively unknown in comparison simply to "represent" Africa. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

   Relative unknown? Manda Musa gets on average twice as many views as Sophocles? How many dramatists do we have when we literally only have one person on this list to represent SubSaharan Africa. Shakespeare represents drama and tragedy. Obviously Sophocles is important but we do not have remove for everyone important writer especially when others need to be added — Zelkia1101 (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

   Page views are not everything, we shouldn't be adding and removing people solely based on that. A better source would be Google Ngram where Sophocles completely outweighs Mansa Musa. I really don't see why we need to represent Sub-Saharan Africa for the sake of it, the region throughout history was not so important until modern times... and we have been facilitating that as we have Nelson Mandela listed and have recently been adding more African countries and there seems to be consensus that Uganda should be added down the line. I think adding a broader article to the History section would be a much better idea. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

   you are correct. Page views are not everything. You suggested that Mansa Musa was an unknown. That’s untrue, and that’s why I cited page views. The question is not of page views, but of representation. We already have both Shakespeare and Goethe to represent drama and tragedy. We have nothing to represent Ancient Africa. Zero. How many dramatists do we need? Sophocles, Sappho and others are obviously important figures, but we have absolutely way too damn many authors on our list. Drama and tragedy are covered by Shakespeare. Sophocles adds nothing to this list his other writers don’t represent, whereas Mansa Musa is absolutely new. There is absolutely no reason to have more writers on this list than explorers or religious figures. — Zelkia1101 (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

   I completely disagree on the notion that we shouldn't have more writers than explorers or religious figures. Yes, I think we need less people on the list overall but literary figures are some of the most influential in history and ideally we should have around 15. I don't think the Vital Articles list should be built around "lets remove this person that is important and well known for someone less well known just for variety reasons". Sophocles and Sappho are way more important than Mansa Musa and I don't think the latter being from Sub-Saharan Africa should give him a pass in any way. If you proposed Songhai Empire it would be a different story, I would support that most likely. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

   it is counterproductive to compare the “influence” of Mansa Musa and Sophocles is faulty because they represent fundamentally different fields of human achievement. Again, nobody is arguing my that Sophocles is unimportant. That said, his craft has already been covered by other people on this list. Sophocles is important to dramas, but Musa is also very important to Sub-Saharan African history. The difference is that we cover drama enough, and not Africa enough. We do not need three dramatists on a list of 130 most vital articles especially given the overlap — Zelkia1101 (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

   It appears likely that after the dust settles, we will still have more writers than explorers or religious figures. As for Mansa Musa's significance, there aren't many people in history who caused a 10-year recession just by going on a holiday. Cobblet (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

After the removal only Shakespeare and possibly Goethe would represent drama. --Thi (talk) 11:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think this is a bad thing, really. Shakespeare is the supreme dramatist, and it looks like Goethe won’t be removed. I don’t think we need more than two representatives of drama while we only have one leader or figure from sub-Saharan Africa. — Zelkia1101 (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Thi:, You are the user who earlier made (failed) nominations to swap Homer with certain his litarary works, and later You were the only user who nominated Greek Mthology two times for addition. Would it be (in Your opinion) productive to swap Homer with Greek Mthology (based on Homer and his works are wiedly described in that article) and keep Sophocles instead? Greek Mthology is thing which reached/gained impact to popular/general culture. The list coinstain only 1000 articles and among them topics related to Eastern culture which have less (or about the same) pageviews what Greek Mythology on Japanese Wikipedia. We so strongly defend Markuki Shibiku on this level but Greek Mythology has probably more pageviews on JAwiki than almost any cultural topic (including most recent ones), about the same what the Shibiku's book on JAwiki.

collapsed for length

Comprasion of West and Eastern topics by pageviews on Japanese Wikipedia - to try find which the most archetypical/popular topics, potentially can be the most famous in general culture. Marusaki Shibiku 655 per day on Japanese Wikipedia The Tale of Genji 1150 per day on Japanese Wikipedia Shinto 981 per day on Japanese Wikipedia Greek Mythology 1133 per day on Japanese Wikipedia Ancient Grece 380 per day on Japanese Wikipedia Homer 157 per day on Japanese Wikipedia Sopholes 40 per day on Japanese Wikipedia Leo Tolstoy 360 per day on Japanese Wikipedia Charles Dickens 266 per day on Japanese Wikipedia Greek Literature 21 per day on Japanese Wikipedia English Literature 25 per day on Japanese Wikipedia Odyssey 284 per day on Japanese Wikipedia Illiad 208 pageviews per day on Japanese Wikipedia Bible 353 per day on Japanese Wikipedia Mary, Mother of Jesus 393 per day on Japanese Wikipedia Our Lady of Fatima 402 pageviews per day on Japanese Wikipedia Jesus 1355 pageviews per day on Japanese Wikipedia Bruce Lee 1305 pageviews per day on Japanese Wikipedia

Or that You personally would oppose such swap of Homer and prefer listing either of Homer and Greek Mythology (or either of Greek Mythology and Greek book(s)) if anything? (above I made bit wall of comment but this is just my humble suggestion what we can consider as global/general culture which why I made collapse to read discussion easier and less hardly). Just a humble suggestion/question. Personally I would prefer to be focussed on cut of writers much but I am also wondering how we potentially could make room for Greek Mythology if other people would agree/consensus. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Remove Li Bai, add Wu Zetian

Li Bai is an influential poet, but given how powerful China has been on the world stage for the past few millenia it is odd to me that we only have two Chinese leaders. Wu Zetian, the only empress regnant of China, presided over a very productive reign. As her biography states, "Under her 40-year reign, China grew larger, corruption in the court was reduced, its culture and economy were revitalized, and it was recognized as one of the great powers of the world." Empress Wu presided over a mass expansion of the Chinese frontiers and a reorientation of the Chinese state. She is also a female leader. An alternate for her might be Sun Tzu or Sima Qian.

Support

1. Support as nom — Zelkia1101 (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support addition per my previous comments. With the possible exception of Qin Shi Huang, no other Chinese emperor's legacy has attracted so much controversy. Britannica: "The transformation of Chinese society in the Tang period from one dominated by a military and political aristocracy to one governed by a scholarly bureaucracy drawn from the gentry was promoted by her policy. [An example Europe followed 1100 years later, I might add.] The significance of this aspect of her rule was long obscured by the prejudice of Chinese historians against an usurping empress and her many acts of cruelty toward opponents. She established the new unified empire on a lasting basis and brought about needed social changes that stabilized the dynasty and ushered in one of the most fruitful ages of Chinese civilization." Cobblet (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support removal I think Li Bai honestly could be cut, to English-speakers he is not as important but I can see why people want him to stay. PaleoMatt (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support removal per nom Splitzky (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose swap or removal Li Bai is more central to Chinese culture and identity than any of its emperors. Everyone in China knows at least one of his poems by heart. Tang poetry is as central to the world literature canon as the plays of Shakespeare or the novels of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy. Cobblet (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal of the key poet of Chinese history. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Li Bai is foundational to the world canon. Wu Zetian can be swapped with Catherine the Great. Peter the Great is more important, we list both Lenin/Stalin and we cover a woman from Catherines time (Elizabeth I), we cover no women from Wu's time. It's a much better swap. GuzzyG (talk) 05:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Li Bai is universally known poet. --Thi (talk) 11:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose addition I feel like she is only being suggested because of her gender, not strong enough in my opinion to be added. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Murasaki Shikibu, add Pāṇini

This list already contains many fiction writers like Murasaki. She is important for the publication of The Tale of Genji, but we she is not among the most vital writers and is not the most vital non-Western writer (see Rumi comments above). We have no representative for linguistics or philology, nor do we have a representative of Ancient Indian culture beyond Ashoka. To that end, I nominate Pāṇini to replace Rumi or Abu Nuwas, whichever one is on the list at the time. Although he is somewhat obscure, Pāṇini is known as the first true grammarian, and his publication of the Aṣṭādhyāyī, the first real philological text, essentially defined Sanskrit grammar. Pāṇini was recognized for his extraordinary influence by Ferdinand de Saussure. Linguistics, philology and language studies deserve to be recognized before the 21 authors we currently have, as does India given its impact on history.

Support

1. Support as nom — Zelkia1101 (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support addition Great choice of a non-Western thinker with an ultimately global impact. Cobblet (talk) 04:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support addition Per my previous suggestion, he represents a discipline we lack (linguistics). GuzzyG (talk) 05:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support removal Shikibu is overrated by people on this level in my opinion, we have other female writers which are more vital already. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support addition, neutral on removal A good choice for grammarian, don't really care enough about Murasaki to counteract the strong opposed below.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
6. Support removal per nom Splitzky (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose removal Murasaki is more than just a foundational writer in one of the world's great literatures and author of what may fairly be called the world's first novel, although either of those things alone would suffice to make her vital. She also represents the most notable occasion on which women in a male-dominated society were able as a group to surpass men in the same creative endeavour. It was the women of the Heian court like Murasaki, Ono no Komachi and Sei Shōnagon, writing in Japanese using mostly hiragana, who produced most of the literature of enduring value from that period, while the men struggled with Chinese, the language of formal education and prestige.[26][27][28][29] If one woman from the entire history of the creative arts of the world is vital, it must be Murasaki. Cobblet (talk) 04:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose removal We need atleast one woman as a writer and Japanese literature is one of the essential ones. The rest per Cobblet. GuzzyG (talk) 05:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose addition we don't need another South Asian writer after Tagore. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

In response to the people suggesting that Austen's vital because she's been on the £10 note since 2017: Murasaki's been on the ¥2000 note since 2000. Cobblet (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Remove John Milton, add Cicero

I'm saddened to make this nomination, since Milton was my nomination a couple of moons back, but he quite simply is not vital enough for this list. Cicero, on the other hand, is an extremely influential figure in Western rhetoric and culture whose works touched off the Enlightenment and inspired many of its most prominent figures like John Locke and David Hume. Particularly important about Cicero is his reintroduction and repopularization of Hellenistic philosophy into the Roman world as well as his development of the humanities. His works like De Officiis were hugely influential to the European ruling class.

Support

1. Support as nom — Zelkia1101 (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Foundational Roman thinker. Per my comments here. [30]. GuzzyG (talk) 05:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support addition I don't nominate people usually, but Cicero was one I was thinking of nominating so he gets my support. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
6. Support addition per nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
7. Support removal per nom Splitzky (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal we literally just added John Milton and I still believe his work makes him fully vital at this level. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal per PaleoMatt.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, add Bruce Lee

This nomination may be controversial, but hear me out. Goethe is influential in German literature, but we have too many writers, and while I understand people like him he should go. What we do not have is an action (beyond actor-director Chaplin or Shakespeare) or an athlete. Bruce Lee hits both birds with one stone, as a prolific martial artist and a well-known actor. Bruce Lee is much more well-known by the public, and his influence on Chinese and American (and worldwide) cinema and culture is arguably much more profound than Goethe's on Germany. We also need more representatives of East Asia and China, given how much of the population lives there and how little we have of them. I know people hate it when I break out the pageviews, but Lee trounces Goethe as well as most other famous deceased male actors. Needless to say, page numbers are not everything, and there is no denying that Goethe is extremely influential. However, Goethe offers this list nothing other than narrow German-language representation (is Sturm und Drang really more important than a sports figure?)

Support

1. Support as nom — Zelkia1101 (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support removal Kafka remains my choice for a German-language writer. Cobblet (talk) 05:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support removal Goethe is not very well known or read in Englis-speaking countries. If all writers except Shakespeare can be questioned, we can choose Kafka, who also represents modern literature. --Thi (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support addition Having another actor at this level (and a non-western one at that) is a good idea. Also is well known in English-speaking regions. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support removal I never really got why Goethe was so important in Germany, and I think Kafka is more important for an English-speaking audience.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
6. Support removal per nom Splitzky (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
7. Support removal Kafka fits as the one German writer on the list as per Splitzky's original rationale during most general discussion about writers, and as per other comments. FAQ says about chronogical diversity. I belive we need just one writer on that level which represent 20th century especially that we have some pop culture stuff. In addition, Kafka represents also Jewish literature and Goethe has been added to that list later than Kafka. We have too many writers on that list and we should clean up 19th century where we have some overlaps beetwen fields and nationalities. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. There's no need for "an athlete" on this list, and we shouldn't grasp at straws to kill two birds with one stone. Goethe is not one of the five authors I would remove first. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose addition since Li Bai is also being suggested as a removal. As I noted previously, Li Bai is far more central to Chinese identity and culture than a pop icon like Bruce Lee. I wouldn't even call him the most vital person to be associated with Hong Kong: that would have to be Sun Yat-Sen. Cobblet (talk) 05:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Although i support Lee in spirit (as combat sports is up there with things i know the best), i can't support this on five notions, one - i do not agree that Goethe should be removed - he is arguably more central to Germanys cultural canon than Wagner/Frued/Marx (or Weber), two - as Cobblet said Lee is not comparable to Sun Yat-sen or Lu Xun, three - the next actor should be a woman Sarah Bernhardt or Marilyn Monroe; four if we're being proper our one athlete (yes, contrary to above "an athlete" would fit) should come from Association football because it's played in mostly every country and preferably Pelé or Diego Maradona representing a cultural figure from South America. five - sports in some form has been around longer than filmmaking and some form has impacted most cultures (as in you wont find a film equivalent of stuff like Marn Grook or Mesoamerican ballgame). So with both Disney/Chaplin, a athlete would not be out of place and because sports are not typically studied unlike film, it does not change it's wide ranging impact on human life. Lee would fit on a 200 list, Goethe would fit on a 100 list, so can't support this - we're just gonna have to wait a couple decades for athletes to get recognised properly, most of the top athletes (Like Babe Ruth/Don Bradman or Diego Maradona) enter their countries folk mythology anyway, once they last for a lil while longer they'll be acknowledged, we're in no rush - it's not like sport will suddenly disappear culturally and every athlete forgotten (not for a couple centuries atleast lol) and once athletes and actors images enter the public domain it's going to create a onslaught of their image being used in their field (ex: Marilyn for glamour, Maradona as representing the game). TLDR; we're not in a rush for actors or athletes, theyre still kinda new to history, just let time play out and for them to prove themselves. We can cover other fields in the meantime. GuzzyG (talk) 05:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose, just not seeing the sense to this. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose addition Clearly not as good option as Li Bai. --Thi (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose removal I do not see a good reason to remove Goethe. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
7. Oppose addition. Bruce Lee is simply not one of the ~130 most vital biographies on the English Wikipedia. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
8. Oppose addition we already have Michael Jackson and the Beatles for modern-day pop culture.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Just to overemphasis how bad a removal of Goethe would be, heres Google NGrams in German, where Goethe beats every German on this list (and every viable German candidate). It's the best way i can show how bad this would be. He's only beat by Marx for a short period when East Germany is at it's peak - this is complete dominance. Part 1 [31], Part 2 [32] and Part 3 [33] (post-posting, forgot Wagner [34] - worse he beats other German authors in English too - [35]. What expert on German literature would say Kafka is sole representative more than Goethe or even figures like Rainer Maria Rilke, Friedrich Schiller, or Thomas Mann? Kafka gets 585,000 google scholar hits [36]. Goethe gets 1,560,000 [37]. There's no possible way Goethe is not the singular most important figure in German literature and it's especially not Kafka. GuzzyG (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Remove Jane Austen, add Coco Chanel

Jane Austen is also an important literary figure, but we list too many and her influence is particularly contained to English literature. I was wavering between Coco Chanel and Harriet Tubman. I will choose Coco Chanel as fashion is not well represented on this list despite being an integral part of modern-day culture and society, while abolitionism is represented by Abraham Lincoln and women's rights by Mary Wollstonecraft. It would be nice to have an ethnic minority woman on this list (other than Kahlo or Hatshepsut).

Support

1. Support as nom — Zelkia1101 (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Design is a fundamental area of arts and would be better to cover than more English writers. A hard sacrifice, but widens the base of what we cover. GuzzyG (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support addition per nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support removal per nom Splitzky (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Austen is well known all over the world by all kinds of people. He represents both English literature and female authors. There is now example of activist at this level and Harriet Tubman fits as national hero in English-speaking country. I'm afraid that Chanel would take place from some other figure who is backed by consensus. We should look this from users viewpoint. Since Austen is on the £10 note and Tubman will likely be in $20, I can imagine that some user will be wondering why they are not listed. Both Fashion and Design are at this level, handicraft not so much. Chanel is not better choice than Walt Disney and we have talked about removal of Disney. Austen is more likely supported by the consensus and Tubman's inclusion is also likely. --Thi (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Removing Austen is ridiculous in my opinion, we need some female representation on the writers list and she is one of the most influential figures in English literature and she is even on the British £10 note. Chanel is definitely not vital enough for this level... -- PaleoMatt (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Not a good swap. Austen is more vital than Chanel. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose removal I'd keep Austen as the female writer and remove Sappho instead.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

@Thi: is there any reason why Murasaki Shikibu, who will not be removed, cannot represent female writers and Shakespeare cannot represent English-language literature? What does Jane Austen bring to the table? — Zelkia1101 (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

It depends on how many biographies are listed. Now there will be perhaps 30 politicians and 13 writers. Both writers and leaders are symbols of their era. William, Henry and Elizabeth are all listed but not for example Louis XIV. --Thi (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Chanel doesn't have much competitors in her field (fashion/design). Disney has 4 fields (animation/fairy tale/business/film), with the right promotional push to bring awareness Winsor McCay would be up there, Hayao Miyazaki is up there with acclaim and if Nightingale and nursing can't both coexist i don't know how animation (a genre of film) and a animator both can (along with film/comics). Disney get's alot of his stories from figures like Brothers Grimm, Hans Christian Andersen, Charles Perrault and even Aesop is up there, i don't think animated versions of these tales stand out. He's definitely not on the level business wise of John D. Rockefeller, J. P. Morgan, or Steve Jobs - if we mean business people with their name in the company, why not Sam Walton?. Not even entertainment business wise considering both P. T. Barnum and Louis B. Mayer. He's not on the level of filmmakers such as Akira Kurosawa, Alfred Hitchcock, Sergei Eisenstein, D. W. Griffith, the Lumière brothers or Ingmar Bergman. Nicéphore Niépce invented photography and that's worthy as it leads to film. Why again are comics greats like Osamu Tezuka, Hergé or Jack Kirby not in the convo? Can we really say Disney stands out among all others of his type, atleast moreso than Chanel? GuzzyG (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Remove Charles Dickens, add Niccolò Machiavelli

Charles Dickens has some pop culture credentials in the Anglophone world, but he is not vital enough to be on a list of the 130-so most vital authors. Niccolò Machiavelli, on the other hand, is considered the father of political science. His most famous work, The Prince, is a foundational work of political science and statecraft. His Discourses on Livy is an extremely important work of European historiography. He is listed as the

Support

1. Support as nom — Zelkia1101 (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support removal, neutral on the addition as I may prefer some of the other additions proposed over this one. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 05:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support per nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
6. Support removal per nom Splitzky (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
7. Support removal per all the above, no comment on addition (yet). Dawid2009 (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Dickens is one of the most well-known English authors. This is the English-language Wikipedia, English literature should be prioritised. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal. Other than Shakespeare, he is the most well-known English author. He's vital to the English Wikipedia at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal Dickens or Victor Hugo, both are well-known in English-speaking world and internationally. --Thi (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Important and well-known are not synonymous with vital. Dickens and Hugo do not represent anything we fundamentally lack. We have too many authors and they just aren’t transformative or vital enough to be listed — Zelkia1101 (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Fyodor Dostoevsky, add Le Corbusier

Dostoevsky is important as a psychological novelist, but is that really more important than the entire field of architecture or engineering, which we do not represent? Le Corbusier is probably our best ambassador of the field, given that his designs have had a much stronger though much less pronounced influence on modern-day architecture than Dostoevsky's work has had on literature.

Support

1. Support as nom — Zelkia1101 (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support removal of Dostoevsky. Cobblet (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support removal Sinan is the better architect to list. Ottoman empire is important enough to list a cultural figure from. He's on the wikimedia list, so it wouldn't be out of place. GuzzyG (talk) 05:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Tolstoy is enough to represent Russian literature, an architect would be good at this level. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support addition, neutral on removal I would slightly prefer Frank Lloyd Wright, but that's just a personal preference and Le Corbusier is probably objectively better per the above discussion. Sinan is completely unknown in the western world, so is unsuited to be "the" architect on this list. Dostoevsky is important per the earlier discussion, but not so much as Kafka.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

   If Sinan is unknown in the West, how is it that Le Corbusier cited his Süleymaniye Mosque in Vers une architecture for the notion that "a plan proceeds from within to without"? If Sinan is not "the" architect, why did a certain person who is somewhat qualified to offer an opinion on the subject say that he was?[38][39] Cobblet (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

   That's great that Le Corbusier is able to cite him as such, and certainly enough for Level 4; why not just add Le Corbusier instead? He is both more recent, more Western, and more secular, having designed (as a consultant) the UN Headquarters and a whole UNESCO World Heritage site. As said in the Coco Chanel discussion, design in of itself (as opposed to art or engineering) is rather underrepresented on this list.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

   Oh, so now we need people who are more Western and more recent? Selimiye Mosque, Süleymaniye Mosque, and Mehmed Paša Sokolović Bridge are all UNESCO World Heritage sites, and especially the first of these is recognized as the pinnacle of Ottoman design, as any art history student knows. Hagia Sophia and Topkapı Palace, both of which he restored, are far more famous World Heritage sites than any single work by Le Corbusier or FLW. (Hagia Sophia and Topkapı are visited by more tourists in a year[40] than Fallingwater has received in the house's entire lifetime.[41]) Apprentices of Sinan completed Stari Most (the most well-known landmark in the Balkans not located in Istanbul or Athens) and Sultan Ahmed Mosque, again both World Heritage sites. What did Le Corbusier and FLW's students achieve? Which Nobel Prize-winning novels did either of their works inspire? Cobblet (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

6. Support removal per nom Splitzky (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition Currently there seems to be no clear consensus about architects. --Thi (talk) 11:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose addition. If I were going to add an architect to the list it would be Frank Lloyd Wright. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Michelangelo is an architect and Archimedes is an engineer. Most inventors could also be called engineers. Moreover Le Corbusier, like most modern architects, is influential only as a designer – I'm not aware of any advances in engineering that could be credited to him. Again I go back to Mimar Sinan as an architect who excelled as both designer and engineer – it's thanks to him that Hagia Sophia still stands today, to name just one example of the latter. Cobblet (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Remove Mark Twain, add Max Weber

Mark Twain is not notable for much other than publishing The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Max Weber, by contrast, is a founding force in sociology and and extremely important contributor to political theory. He is extremely important for developing his theory of the state, and we owe to him conceptions like the Monopoly on violence, charismatic, traditional, and rational-legal authority. Twain is sufficiently represented by English literature.

Support

1. Support as nom — Zelkia1101 (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Weber (1,300,000), Marx (1,160,000) and Adam Smith (1,100,000) are the only people on any of the level 3/level 4 lists in social science (not philosophy) to have over 1 million results in google scholar on a full name basis, - which speaks to the breadth of his work, ofcourse this probably has many false positives but someone like Sigmund Freud has only (646,000) or the top modern academic Noam Chomsky having (126,000). Weber is just way more important than Mark Twain (187,000 btw) via impact of his work. The latest three modern philosophers listed,Friedrich Nietzsche has (337,000), Immanuel Kant has (441,000) and John Locke has (333,000), which again - speaks to the massive spread of Weber's work. GuzzyG (talk) 05:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support addition. Weber is better choice than Freud. --Thi (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support addition per nom. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
6. Support addition per nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
7. Support addition per nom; a great choice for a subject area we are lacking. Aza24 (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
8. Support removal per nom Splitzky (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal American literature is deserving of representation here. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal. I'm pretty sure that the father of American literature is vital for the English Wikipedia. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

   @Rreagan007: technically that would be Washington Irving, but he's not important enough for this list unlike Twain.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

   Not really, he was kind of just a British-style author in America. Plus if being first corresponds to the epitaph (which is dubious—would Marlowe really be called the "Father of Elizabethan" literature over Shakespeare?) then Thomas Paine could be seen as first. Aza24 (talk)

3. Oppose removal Per above; Twain is also known for his satire.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose removal per above. --Thi (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose removal per the fact that we'd then have not a single American author. Aza24 (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Rabindranath Tagore, add Akbar

Tagore is rather irrelevant in terms of the other writers we list. Akbar was a supremely influential Muslim-Indian leader. His reign represents Islamic rule of India. He was extremely successful in expanding the frontiers of his kingdom and is notable for his religious syncretism and toleration. He was also a prolific patron of the arts and an extremely effective administrator. As I said before, India deserves to be represented more, and Akbar is arguably more fit to be on this list than either Tagore or even Suleiman the Magnificent.

Support

1. Support as nom — Zelkia1101 (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support but somebody who represents South Asia's contribution to the humanities is needed. Therefore I oppose the straight removal of Tagore if Pāṇini is not added. Cobblet (talk) 05:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Not irrelevant at all and with the right Western promotion so that in the West his accomplishments are understood fully - he'd be accepted here, but Akbar is vital too and with a bunch of cuts to writers, makes more sense than Tagore. GuzzyG (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Good swap, Akbar is very well known historical figure. --Thi (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support addition per nom. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
6. Support Panini works as the new south Asian literary figure.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
7. Support removal per nom Splitzky (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal Tagore is a perfectly fine representative for South Asian literature. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove James Joyce and Franz Kafka, add Wright brothers

Neither James Joyce nor Franz Kafka approach the same influence that the Wright brothers have had. Both are ranked #28 on Hart's list of the 100 most influential people to have ever lived. Writers are covered enough. We have no one to demonstrate the leaps of innovation the human race has made in both aviation and space flight. Alternatives could be Amelia Earhart or Neil Armstrong, but none of them rise to the importance of the inventors themselves. Any basic encyclopedia would have Orville and Wilbur Wright in it. Cannot say the same for Joyce or Kafka. There are very few modern installments on our list that can match the influence that Wright brothers have had on the world, whether in terms of tourism, economics, technology, transportation etc. They are arguably superior to both Tesla and Ford in their innovation, and more influential in most respects.

Support

1. Support as nom — Zelkia1101 (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support removing Joyce Cobblet (talk) 05:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support The Wright brothers are fundamental but there's no way Kafka is the singular figure of German literature, so if Goethe is up for removal, it should be Kafka. The solution to the puzzle of 20th century lit would be to cover a South American cultural figure - either one of Machado de Assis (bonus covering a Black author too..), Jorge Luis Borges, Gabriel García Márquez or Pablo Neruda. We don't cover South American cultural figures at all, this would be a start. GuzzyG (talk) 05:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support removing Joyce per consensus, if Jane Austen is in this level. The choice of Wright brothers puzzles me slightly. Neil Armstrong is listed as Hero of Aviation number 1 and the Wright brothers as number two. Aviation or Apollo 11 are not listed at this level. Space race would have covered Armstrong, Gagarin and others. --Thi (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

   Armstrong and Gagarin were just doing their jobs rather than having a more "active" role in space exploration. I think space will be best represented by Elon Musk once he gets people to Mars.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

5. Support addition Honestly the Wright brothers should have been here for a long time... -- PaleoMatt (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
6. Support removal per nom Splitzky (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
7. Support removal Joyce at this level can be covered by few other articles. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removing Kafka One representative of 20th-century literature should stay and Kafka's exploration of alienation, absurdity and irony remains perfectly relevant to modern society. Far ahead of Joyce in terms of page views. He also represents German (Goethe is also proposed for removal) and Jewish literature. Cobblet (talk) 05:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose removing Kafka Modern writer is needed. --Thi (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose removals Joyce and Kafka are very important to modern literature. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose removing Kafka per earlier discussion; Kafka represents the surreal and the (aptly-named) kafkaesque.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

For those who are opposed to Kafka because we need a modern writer, wouldn’t Tolstoy suffice? — Zelkia1101 (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Tolstoy represents realism; Kafka represents modernism. Anyone who falls under the umbrella of existentialism or magic realism (including many of the great Latin American writers such as Borges and García Márquez, of course) owes far more to Kafka than to Tolstoy. After removing Dostoevsky, we need Kafka all the more. Cobblet (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

As for the Wright brothers, they won a race to the patent office. Brilliant work, but their claim to fame rests on being first more than on being unique. Obviously not everyone thinks any less of them for that, but I do. Cobblet (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I’m sorry but this seems like empty moralising. I don’t know why you think this list should have a representative of modernist literature and absolutely nobody to represent aviation or flight. If you have any other suggestions, I’d love to hear them, but it’s inexcusable that we would allow Kafka on this list and not a single representative of what is arguably the most valuable and transformative mode of 20th and 21st century transportation, as well as one of the defining triumphs of the late modern period. — Zelkia1101 (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I understand your point of view. You'll notice I'm not actually opposing adding the Wright brothers. I just see their contributions as more incremental than disruptive, that's all. Kafka revolutionized world literature; aircraft revolutionized transport; the Wright brothers did not revolutionize aircraft design. You don't have to agree with any of those opinions at all; and even if you were to agree, there are still valid reasons to list the Wrights, such as if you believe, as you do, that aviation matters so much more than Kafkaesque literature. Cobblet (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I see your point, but I will stress that a lot of key inventions involve incremental but enormously influential steps. The Wright brothers are not like Gutenberg in that they didn’t singularly invent air flight, but their contributions to the field are the most vital and important, and that’s why they should be listed. As for Kafka, he did revolutionize literature, but so did Shakespeare, Dante, Homer, Cervantes, Sophocles, Virgil, etc. The point is we have too many revolutionaries in literature and too few revolutionaries elsewhere. — Zelkia1101 (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I've supported 10 of your 13 suggested removals for writers. I think we are mostly on the same page on that front. I also recognize we have a ton of science and technology articles elsewhere on the list. So I'm not as keen on adding more people in those areas. Cobblet (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

How do we consider something vital?

The recent string of proposals in changing the people list have made me think this, for the most part I have disagreed with most of these proposed changes while some have agreed with almost all of them. I think a consensus should be met by the users here on how we should consider something vital for the list, this is obviously very subjective but a lot of recent proposals to me have struck out not as "vital for a list of 1000 articles for the English language Wikipedia" but more so trying to fill arbitrary quotas so certain things can be "represented". If we can gether a more clear picture of what we should consider vital enough for the list, it would make future proposals and maintenance of the list easier. I do not see eye to eye with the notions of some removals of extremely important influential figures just to be replaced with others because they "fill a gap" but I would be interested to hear the positions others hold. I guess my real question is this, should we be trying to fill every small gap at the expense of the most influential and well-known? Which of those two sides is really "vital"? -- PaleoMatt (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

If someone desirous of learning asked me to recommend 1000 Wikipedia articles for them to read, which ones would I recommend to them, assuming that each article I recommend magically turns into a featured article regardless of its current status? Cobblet (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

These are the criteria I generally use, for reference. I specialize in biography, so my coverage is skewed that way:

1. Popularity with users - pageviews aren't everything, but we shouldn't have articles on this list that few users look at every day (think Abu Nuwas). There are different thresholds for this requirement. A biography should have more views than a general page (e.g. Abstract algebra), since Wikipedia users are especially predisposed to biography.
2. Importance - The page in question should reflect something important about the world, nature, mathematics, science, the arts, culture, society, politics, innovation, etc. If it's a biography, the person should ideally be the best of the best in their field. I have used the term "supreme human achievement" to describe people who fit well. Such people will be inexorably associated to their field of study by the general public (Darwin and biology or evolution, for example). If it's an event, then it should be supremely important to the development of human history and, more particularly, to the lives of people who inhabit history.
3. Uniqueness and variety - One of the less followed rules in my opinion, especially given my recent proposals. Not only should the person or topic be important and popular, they should also represent something that is not represented on the list already. For example, we have no representatives of aviation or flight, a crucial part of the modern world, whereas we currently have 21 authors on our list, of which only six or seven are of any supreme importance. Franz Kafka is great, but he fundamentally does not add anything spectacular to this list. Furthermore, we should not have major holes in our list. Ideally, we would have an even spread of articles that fully represent each important field of study. It's no good if you have an excellently curated list of writers if you have very little representation from Africa, for example.