Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20
FAILED/NO CONSENSUS
No consensus to add, 3-1. Removal failed, 1-3. Cobblet (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

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

swap: remove Computer Science, add Information technology

Information technology (=IT) is more general article than Computer science, Computing, Computer and Telecommunication.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support addition --Thi (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support addition (Ios2019 (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)).
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal No reason given for why specifically computer science should be removed. Cobblet (talk) 05:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Weak Oppose Per the names of the articles, Information Technology is a technology (application), Computer Science is a science. I prefer the science in this case. RJFJR (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Computer Science is not Science per se, don't be mislead by the name.Viztor (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  1. Oppose removal --Thi (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED/NO CONSENSUS
No consensus to add, 5-3. Removal failed, 1-6. Cobblet (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Swap: remove Telecommunication, add Nonverbal communication

Nonverbal communication according to sociological research is more often used type of communication than speech, writting etc. It is also illogical to list Telecommunication ahead of it.

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support addition, oppose removal – I've been thinking about NVC, but considering that Telecommunication has valid support a level up from here, I believe it to fit easily into this level. J947 (c), at 04:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support addition, oppose removal as telecoms is vital to our civilisation now, but non-verbal communication is also fundamental.178.236.245.66 (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support addition, oppose removal as above. 31.173.35.205 (talk) 08:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support addition, oppose removal – This is a pile-on vote. Both are fundamental to society today. The argument I would make has already been made. InvalidOS (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)).
  2. Oppose Telecommunications is all our long range communications that make modern civilization possible. (Possibly willing to add nonverbal communications but not as swap.) RJFJR (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose addition on procedural grounds. I share Rreagan's concerns below. Cobblet (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Review country list

There are inconsistencies in the country list against the principles stated in the FAQ. Odd inclusions would be at least Taiwan (yes large GDP but not even always seen as a country, and small, and history is that of Big China), Israel (in current form new, tiny, GDP only 32nd or 33rd, like fellow innovators Singapore, Ireland and Denmark, the latter three not being here), and Columbia (29th on population only), when most of Africa is missed (at least consider adding Kenya, for example), as well as the Nordics, one of the largest European countries, Ukraine, birthplace of Rus culture, and the hyper-influential Greece. I will propose a swap of at least one more of these, but maybe the best thing would be to do a "from zero" check.79.104.5.174 (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Discuss
  • Reading the page, I think the solution might be implied by a point made below. Level 3 cannot accommodate all 194-207-218 countries or near-countries, so maybe an answer is to have the major ethnic divisions of humanity, and just the "Top 10-12" countries. I don't think there'd be much hardship in identifying those.178.176.23.66 (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The FAQ was meant to summarize current consensus, but it was written a long time ago and consensus can change and evolve over time. We aren't bound by what the FAQ says. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

New rule to wait a week after a vote has received enough to pass

In light of Charles Dickens immediate pass after getting 5 votes, i propose a rule change where when a vote is at its required amount it has to last a week, so editors that have commented in a discussion can get a chance to vote without it being instantly passed in the middle of a discussion, especially when it's controversial (such as having the same amount of writers as scientists) and especially when there's multiple opposes already.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I see no need for this added layer of bureaucracy. There is already a very high bar of 2/3 majority with 5-vote minimum to pass a nomination. And the last vote and comment on that nomination before I voted and passed it was 2 weeks ago, so it's not like it was some kind of surprise that it was on the verge of passing by one vote. If anyone had something else to say about it, they had plenty of time in which to do so. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    By this way, nomination for Sweden also should be passed. Why you did not closed it too? Dawid2009 (talk)
    It hadn't been open for 15 days. Cobblet (talk) 05:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose The process is slow enough as it is. We should be encouraging people to participate and !vote promptly. Cobblet (talk) 05:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose No need. --Thi (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  4. Opposee Agree with Cobblet. I think the 15-days barrier is already sufficient to protect against. Also, since the list changes regularly: no problem with Dickens being on for a while until we come to our collective senses and bump him for de las Casas or something. AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  5. 'Oppose Ok, if there is consensus and even opposers support ex aquo status, I will be accept it too. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Comment This discussion has been closed in way "after 15 days". I have suggestion to change guideline related with just 15 day (not 30). Discussion can not be closed after 15 days by the same person who voted in the last 10 days but did not voted earlier. Rreagan closed this discussion during the same edition when he did the vote (from 4-2 to 5-2, but not from 4-2 to 4-3 so it was dicide role). In this new proppesed guideline Rreagan would have to wait for 10 days (or 6 days to wait from 24 days after nomination to 30 days after nomination). Yes, I also closed discussion about "Trade union" when I did vote by weak support from 4-0 to 5-0, but it was at least well after 30 days and even if I would be oppose it still would be: 4-1 (I could keep it with 4-0 as no consus but it was really well after 30 days). Eventually we could ainclude guideline which would require that person who is going to close the discussion firstly should give rationale in discussion to courage other edotors for reaction (Some people did not voted because of most belived it even does not have any chance to pass when we have already English literature and English writer from the same era) or semething other, Idk... Dawid2009 (talk)

If they believed that, why didn't they say so at the time? The more frequently and promptly people participate, the better the discussions we'll have. I appreciate that Rreagan007 is one of the few people to take the trouble to close discussions regularly, and I don't have any problem with what he did here. Cobblet (talk) 05:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I did not voted because of I waited to see longer discussion and we have literally plenty of discussions which had not closed after 30 days as failed but had been closed way latter as passed ([1] - for example this could/should? be closed after 30 days as failed by score 3-3). And we usueally do not close discussion as failed due to we do not have many active editiors in that project (so I also assumed that nomination for snow pass will not be after 20+ days). Honestly I do not have any pretensions to Rreagan and I really do not have any problem here but I think that our new guideline (maybe my suggestion, which maybe is littly less complicated than GuzzyG's or something littly other) could really help our process. Currently there is a very high bar of 2/3 majority with 5-vote minimum to pass a nomination; but If we would also include guideline that user who close a discussion need to firstly do vote ten days before closing thise discussion. n that case people would have littly more time for vote and BTW we would escape from results like 4-0 vs 4-1 (which score has bettter support, 4-1 or 4-0?). In that case possible would be change score from 3-0 to 4-0, from 4-0 to 5-0 or from 4-0 to 4-1 but not keeping just 4-0. I also support Cobblet idea's to closing the discussions quite fastly and if we decide to make any change in quideline I would prefer focussing only on the proces related with 15 days, process for 30 is perfect. What do you think? Dawid2009 (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not my "idea": it's the rules, which you know well. If you choose to wait, you run the risk of waiting too long. If you want discussions closed more quickly, you're welcome to do it yourself, especially since you've opened so many of them. Cobblet (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

While we're on the topic, I note that this discussion was not closed with the required number of !votes. Cobblet (talk) 05:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

This discussion originally was technically connected with this discussion so if we consider Wumbolo's and Ios2019's votes from original shape of the discussion we had actually 6 votes to close this discussoion. However as result of closing I have made here clear mistake (Thanks Cobblet for note, because of it was my clear oversigh and I sorry for it) because of in the best way this discussion should be closed as result for removal, not swap. I have removed Satelite navigation from level 3. I did not changed level in archives yet because of after separations I do not know how do it technically (or maybe GPS should nt be removed?) but always we can make renomination and ping users. BTW I think we could consider to make eventual new guideline how long discussion should be opened when there is new relevant subsection under original nomination. What do you think? We quite often open nomination by subsection (often new swap, sometimes swap instead just removal) Dawid2009 (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can tell there is no consensus for a straight removal of GPS – Rreagan did not !vote in that discussion and brought up the swap separately; and I explicitly opposed the straight removal. User:Rreagan007, can you clarify: are you OK with just removing GPS and not adding satellite navigation? Cobblet (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I have no problem with that, but if someone proposed adding satellite navigation back to the list I would probably support it. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I personally didn't vote yet out of wanting to be considerate and respectful and not out right dismissing a proposal which obviously went against everything this list had done recently (removing clutters of recentism in the arts, only to add to it in a worse way). Especially as i was waiting to see if Gizza had changed his mind from when we discussed writers and he called Dickens "second rank" [2], by opening the floodgates to Dickens, we open up to having no legitimate reason why writers the likes of Hugo or Twain are not on here. Now we have the same amount of writers as scientists now and 5 English writers in the last two centuries. This list moves very slow so it's fair for me to expect a discussion to continue, when the votes finalize obviously then i would've voted. Next time i am just going to have to ignore discussion and just vote, lesson learnt. But this addition calls into question the removal of Stravinsky, Chopin, Kurosawa, Hitchcock and Dali. Honestly with Dickens either Poe, Joyce or Hemingway have to go now. GuzzyG (talk) 07:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I will just say that it was not my intention to slam the door shut on any ongoing discussion. The Dickens nomination was just one of several nominations that I was going through and passing all at once to try to clear things out, and as I said above it had been 2 weeks with no discussion on that particular nomination. I too had been waiting to vote on that particular nomination, as I was somewhat unsure about it and wanted to see if other people came along with further discussion before I voted, but they never did so I voted based on my general intuition and off of what discussions had taken place. Since we had some room on the list, I decided that Dickens was a worthy addition. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate your willingness to listen to others before saying your piece. But you have to balance that with the fact that we're also waiting to listen to you. This isn't about "ignoring" discussion, but how to participate effectively in one. Cobblet (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
FAILED
3-3, failed. --Thi (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2019 (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.

Single criterion for countries

Not sure if it has been discussed before, but if we are going to list any countries, I think WP:ASB provides a strong argument that the ones listed should be the largest by population only, i.e., currently the 35 largest. While we are pretty close to that already, applying this standard to would lead to the following changes: Adding (in population order) Myanmar, Kenya, Algeria, Ukraine, Sudan and Uganda; removing (in alphabetical order): Australia, Canada, Israel, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan. No change to Eastern Europe representation, or in the number of former UK colonies. Australia (continent) could be added under the continents/is covered under Oceania.

Support
  1. As nominator. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support This seems logical, and more importantly, "clean". No fuzzy criteria. And the outcome is almost surprisingly fair, Kenya and Uganda would give much more balance to Africa, being key to East (and vertically Central) Africa, Sudan and Algeria would give more balance around Northern Africa, east and west, Ukraine is one of the major blocs of Europe for population and food supply, and Myanmar is a big and long-standing Asian player. They would replace several countries which look subjective. The only one which might be controversial is Australia, but when you consider objective share of the world population, which is the right measure for countries, it and Canada are not very logical inclusions.
  3. Support Vital Articles are always going to be controversial selections so best to at least have some straightforward entry criteria. 2-4 of the current 35-36 countries are anomalous, and this would tidy things up.79.134.212.134 (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Population should be a very significant consideration – I'd even say it should be the primary consideration – but I don't think it should be the only consideration. How far do we want to push the logic of egalitarianism? Should we only take the 18 largest metropolitan areas in the world? The four rivers whose drainage basins contain the most population? Cobblet (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose A country is not just a collection of people. It is a political entity with history, a cultural system, unique relations with others, and more. Population is of course important, but it should not be the only consideration. There are many Chinese provinces with more population than all the proposed additions. CMD (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose WP:ASB is essential task for meta-version of vital article list on Wikimedia and other similar project on Wikimedia wchich is still under construction, and just these two projects should be helpful for other vital lists in various language versions (including vital article list on English Wikipedia obviously) for better organisation, some sugestions but none of these lists in Wikipedias should be very excatly copy from meta list stil even among 1000 articles, no matter it is Esperanto Wikipedia or English Wikipedia (in other case all these lists on Wikipedias would make no sense and could be delted as double copy from meta list). Currently list on Wikimedia is more biased in western towards than this list (due to handful of active editors there) but version on Wikimedia should be helpfu for English Wikipedia (not English Wikipedia for Wikimedia). I do not see why we have to change guideline in FAQ that this list is taiored to readers of English Wikipedia. Finally I think that when we list (just for examples) 120+ people or 70+ articles related to history we should have way more than 50 countries and cities (combinetly) which are comparable to Singapore, for the diversity. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
While Australia is a country it is also a continent (by some people's lists.) RJFJR (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
This would justify, maybe, inclusion as a geographic object, but not as a country. I'd be quite open to no countries at this level, ALL at Level 4, instead having continents and regions only at Level 3.178.176.23.66 (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
What do you think about suggestion to pick certain countries by region (If Scandinavia will be featured article, linked countries from Scandinavia also autopmatically will be corrected by 'guideline to FA' and we will have more described articles about countries; same with Central America and Central Asia)? I would also probably support adding Race (human categorisation) and/or Biological anthropology and swapping Nation with Community due to fact community is more similar to Ethnic group Dawid2009 (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
4-4, not swapped Gizza (t)(c) 22:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Lake Victoria, add African Great Lakes

Similar to Great lakes, the broader, encompassing topic is superior (see what I did there?).

Support
  1. Support as nom. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support as general is more logical than particular for this type of classification system.192.176.1.83 (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support, more broad. InvalidOS (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I agree with Cobblet's comment below. The Great Lakes are more notable as a collective unit than any of the individual lakes are, while Lake Victoria is much more notable than the African Great Lakes collectively, and in comparison to any of the other African Great Lakes individually. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Listing Lake Victoria is clearer option. --Thi (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  3. Weak oppose – They are merely a group of lakes. They aren't very close to each other and aren't often referred to collectively. And pageviews can function as good barometers in determining representatives in very close areas (geographic and not so). J947's public account 02:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Going to agree with the others that Lake Victoria is probably more notable and well-known, and such more vital to the field African geography than the system as a whole. Going broad is not always better , and this case proves it. Swordman97 talk to me 21:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Discussion

Although the proposal makes sense, I'm reluctant to support it, partly because I don't think there's any academic or popular consensus over exactly which lakes constitute the African Great Lakes, although everyone agrees they'd include Lake Victoria, Tanganyika and Malawi. Also, Lake Victoria consistently gets more hits than the other lakes or the African Great Lakes.[3] In the case of the Laurentian Great Lakes, Great Lakes gets more hits than any of the individual lakes.[4] Cobblet (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, added. --Thi (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Kahlil Gibran, add Abu Nuwas

Abu Nuwas is called as one of the greatest of all Arab writers.[5][6] Abu Nuwas has been controversial figure, "but on the whole his verse is accepted as part of the heyday of the Abbasid tradition. Not to accept that is to ignore the quite stunning imagination of the poet and his unsurpassed mastery of Arabic. ... I think it is useful these days to show ... that in the glory days of the Abbasid caliphate Islamic society tolerated voices such as the libertine chants of Abu Nuwas and his cohort." [7]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom and previous discussion now in the archives. Gizza (t)(c) 10:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support had greater impact on Arabic literature. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support per previous discussion and my original suggestion. GuzzyG (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)).
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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.

Questioning Kahlil Gibran on level 3

I'm questioning whether Kahlil Gibran should be in Level 3 Writers list next to Shakespeare and Tolstoy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.249.122 (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Please see, and consider contributing to, the conversation above. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3, not swapped. --Thi (talk) 07:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Swap: remove God, add Theism

Support
  1. As nom (as alternative option) Dawid2009 (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose – With Christianity being the most prominent religion in the world, followed by Islam, both of which are monotheistic, I think God can stay, but I still think Theism could maybe be on here. While Theism is more broad, I think God and Deity are more familiar to readers. InvalidOS (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose God is too important article. --Thi (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose When it comes to page views, God is way ahead of Deity and Theism, even when those two are combined. Cobblet (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

I am neutral for now (I woud support swap one of these two for theim) so I made alternative nomination. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3, not removed. --Thi (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2019 (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 Electromagnetic radiation

Almost completely redundant to Electromagnetism. And to Light, for that matter.

Support
  1. As nom UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not redundant at all. If it was, you would expect the electromagnetism article to discuss the electromagnetic spectrum and the different forms of electromagnetic radiation; Planck's law and old quantum theory; and wave properties of EM radiation such as superposition and interference. It mentions none of those things. Compare Britannica's articles on electromagnetism and electromagnetic radiation, which divide the topic in a similar way. Electromagnetism is such an enormous topic that it makes sense for encyclopedias to do this, rather than try to cover the principles behind both electrical circuits and optics (for example) in the same article. Cobblet (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Vital at this level. --Thi (talk) 09:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above. Gizza (t)(c) 07:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
6-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2019 (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.

Proposal: Remove Dementia

Dementia is already covered by Mental disorders. Interstellarity (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Presumed Support by nominator.
  2. Support as covered by the broader vital article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support per the above. Dementia is already covered by Mental disorders. --TheSandDoctor Talk 13:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support per overlap. GuzzyG (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support if Old age will replace this. I am not sure that Mental disorders covers Dementia sufficiently. --Thi (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support Not quite vital on injury level and even being under quota we have too many important topics missed. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Just as a reminder, Dementia was added to the list when Alzheimer's disease was removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Alzheimer's diease is specific article about diease just like Schizoprenia o Major depresive disorder (which were on the list). We added Major mental disorders instead Schizophrenia while ago and later we removed major depresive disorder due to more general articles like neurology/psychiatry/neuroscience all are missed. At least one of them probably should have priority for FA (after thinkink about it more personally I would probably choose neuroscience). Dawid2009 (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I suggest a swap with old age. Cobblet (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
--Thi (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Add Sexual revolution

When we have picked space race ahead of History of transport, Sexual revolution fits perfectly ahead of History of human sexuality. Adding history of human sexuality would be problematic for this level due to far too many overlap with Human sexuality. It was recently closed but it was closed as "no consensus", not as "failed". I think we still could consider that when we are under quota.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3, not added. --Thi (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Add Central America and California

In my opinion we should ratonally going to remove more physical-geography objects from North America and add other geography objects from North America. We try add something beetwen North America and South America for ages. Carribean did not get attetion due to it is similar to Mediterranean Basin. Carribean Sea did not passed due to it is necesarry ahead of American Mediterranean Sea; so what is the best option if not Central America? If we are going to tairoling this list to readers of English-language, California require representative. Same Calaifornia has nearly 50% more population than Australia (not mention to fact than North America is older continent than Oceania so would suggesting that three countries from North America is not enough). It is also the most significant subdivistion on subdivisions by GDP over 100 billion US dollars list

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. We don't have any country subdivisions on this list, and I see no reason to start by adding California. I also don't think Central America deserves to be listed separately, as it's simply part of North America. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose There was no interest in adding Central Asia and the case for Central America is weaker. And if 150+ countries (including six with larger populations than California) aren't vital, I'm not convinced any country subdivision is vital. Cobblet (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose to specific. RJFJR (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2019 (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 Comedy

Covered by Humour.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support. I agree that we don't need to list both as there is too much overlap. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Not any more vital than tragedy, which we've also removed. Cobblet (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 13:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
--Thi (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

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

add Swahili language, Turkish language and Malay language

Two supercentral languages which are missed on this level. In my opinion every supercentral language should be listed among 1000 the most importsnt articles.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)17:41, 26 April Added Turkish to nomination
  2. Partial support as Swahili yes, Malay dubious. Supercentral language is not enough reason but Swahili is a lingua franca for a large region and high population for a long period.178.236.245.66 (talk) 06:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Malay and Swahili The list as currently constructed exaggerates the dominance of Indo-European languages. We probably should list a few more non-Indo-European languages, since they're spoken by over half of the world's population. Malay and Swahili represent Austronesian and Niger–Congo languages, the two largest language families by number of languages. Statistics on language speakers are nothing more than extremely rough estimates, but Ethnologue does rank Indonesian and Swahili in the same ballpark as Portuguese, German and Japanese; Turkish ranks slightly lower. Cobblet (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose "Supercentral" languages is just a theoretical construct from one author. There appears to be little agreement that this theoretical construct is right/useful (1000 Google Scholar hits is great, but only 171 use the term "supercentral") or any consensus on which languages are part of that. Even more to the point, the argument from de Swan appears not to be that these are "Super Important" languages, but instead that they serve an important colonial role in his World Systems Theory approach. Indeed, the articles that cite this work, argue that languages like Nigerian Pidgin English should be considered a Supercentral language...so, it is a debatable construct to say the least. Finally, I agree with Cobblet that fewer languages seems reasonable at this point (Japanese has been there from the beginning, but the case seems weak. And I'd probably be fine with German and Portuguese getting cut also). AbstractIllusions (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Malaysia, Kenya, Uganda are possible additions, Japanese and Portuguese languages removals. --Thi (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Another important language which maybe is vital on this level is also Hebrew language (in archives we can find failded nomination to swap Hebrew language with Portuguese language).Dawid2009 (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that de Swaan's theory of language hierarchy has received much acceptance in the scholarly community, let alone the general public. I also don't see why you've omitted Turkish, another one of his "supercentral" languages. I agree that Swahili and Malay (and Turkish) are among the most significant languages not currently listed, but would like to see some discussion on why we need to list more languages at all. Cobblet (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
@Cobblet: Yes, I forgot about Turkish and now I added it. I have decided to check how list was looking years ago and I noticed that list of cities and list of countries growed up, meanwhile we have quite few languages now. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
--Thi (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2019 (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 Deity, add Theism

We have quite overlap beetwen Deity and God. What do you think about swap Deity for Theism?

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Theism and God have too much overlap (monotheism). --Thi (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

There is a lot of overlap between the two, as God is a subset of Deity. I would rather remove God than Deity however, since the article on God focuses on the monotheistic God, and would thus leave out the polytheistic gods of various religions. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I have started nomination to remove god because of I noted that some big Wikipedias like German, Polish, Italian have redirects from deity to god but I agree that on English Wikipedia article about god certainly is more focussed on monotheism than polytheism. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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.

Thoughts: Analytic Philosophy and Contemporary Philosophy?

Kicking this one around for a while and can't figure it out, so figured I'd ask for suggestions (or tell me to kick rocks). But half the article on Contemporary Philosophy is (appropriately) about Analytic Philosophy. And, as it notes, Analytic Philosophy is a dominant tradition currently in the academy, but not the only one. There is thus significant overlap between them, but also a problem of only listing Analytic Philosophy and not its alternatives. I first said: delete Analytic Philosophy because of overlap with Contemporary Philosophy which is a broader and more inclusive article. I then said: No, analytic philosophy is too important (and the better article of the two), let's delete Contemporary Philosophy, but then do we add Continental Philosophy? Not sure. I've now gone back and figured: Contemporary Philosophy covers 1. the professionalization of philosophy, 2. Analytic Philosophy, and 3. Continental approaches, so it is the more vital article because of scope (defined in terms of 'the encyclopedia is most improved if X article were a Featured article'). But interested to hear ideas, particularly anyone who thinks we should keep both. AbstractIllusions (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Now that we've removed postmodernism (which is partly rooted in continental philosophy), I don't see why we should privilege analytic philosophy, especially when we also don't have anything to represent any contemporary approaches to non-Western philosophies. Cobblet (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2019 (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 Analytic philosophy

Per above discussion. The history of 20th century philosophy can be found from the article about Contemporary philosophy. It is said above that the half of that article is about analytic philosophy. For example German Wikipedias article seems to talk mainly about continental approaches. It is possible to write about both in one article.

Support
  1. As nom. --Thi (talk) 09:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per my comments above. We already list contemporary philosophy which covers both analytic and continental approaches. The former is not more important than the latter. Cobblet (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support due to overlap Orser67 (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. Although this list's number of articles is currently under quota, actually this article should still be removed since if it is kept then contemporary philosophy should be added as well, there are more than 6 vital articles (at least analytical chemistry, birth, first aid, Cai Lun, Augustine of Hippo, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Johannes Kepler, John Dalton and Gregor Mendel) which should be added, and the list can contain only 1,000 articles.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3, not added. --Thi (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

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

add Theology

When philosophy is level 1 article and religion is level 2 I think it technically can fits om the level 3. It is one of 7 articles which are put as "basics" on the level 4 and it is parent article for eschatology (which I nominated above). Some time ago we did not add Folk religion due to this concept is "too academic" but I think theology is quite general.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose it's the formal study of religion but we already have religion. RJFJR (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jurisprudence is maybe the most vital missing article from social sciences and humanities. --Thi (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose unnecessary at this level with religion already included. Orser67 (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
--Thi (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

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

add Neurology, Psychiatry

When we have related articles on the list (psychology amd medicine on the level 2, philosopher and neurologist Sigmund Freud or mental disorder/dementia on the lvel 3) and we are under quota, I think we could consider add at least one o these two. In archives we can find discussions where people suggested even specific examples like major depressive disorder or schizophrenia. Neurology and psychiatry often reolve around each other so I would probably support either of these two. What do you think?

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

add Neuroscience

After thinkimk about it more it seems to me that Neuroscience is broader thsn e g neurology just like anthropology seems be more broader than ethnology; and BTW, after thinkink about it more, personally I would probably swap psychology and emotion (on the level 2, covered by mind, not quite vital like medicine) for hygiene (we removed sleep and we have health, disease, sport on the levdl 2) and human behaviour.
Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 04:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Neuroscience is also significant part of cognitive science. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

To an extent, there is an overlap with brain and nervous system at this level. As well as intelligence, sense, mind, etc. Having the topics doesn't necessarily mean we can't also have the study (for example we have both ecosystem and ecology) but it does weaken its case. Gizza (t)(c) 02:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@DaGizza: Neurobiology is also redirect to neuroscience. All cognitive sciences articles are way more vital than biological engineering. I would even support subtopic one of these, because of evolutionary psychology would be the only article which covers things like anthropology of religion, cultural anthropology etc.. After thinkink about it more Evolutionary psychology should be listed wjhen we have primates but instead Folk Religion we could add less generic article (Maybe Chinese Folk religion but I would also consider swap western esotericism for Indian philosophy and Chinee philosophy, because of we have at least three Greek social scientifists and several Greek natural philosophers). We are under quota so these discusions about psychiatry/neurology/neuroscience should be closed as PASSED or FAILED, no NO CONSENSUS. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I think we can continue discussion about these topics at separate nomination below (Sigmund Freud and psychiatry). --Thi (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3, not removed. --Thi (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2019 (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.

Popular culture was removed from Level 2 as redundant to entertainment (and culture, folklore, sport, film etc).

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Strong oppose Just look at the extensive coverage of pop culture at level 4. If serious discussions have taken place to create a quota of 250 pop culture articles at that level, it's obvious this is a vital topic at this level. If we can list both folklore and folk music, we can list both pop culture and pop music. Cobblet (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Consider the name, this is an important "gathering" topic for all of humanity. 31.173.35.205 (talk) 08:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  3. Strong oppose Pop culture is something that a lot of Wikipedia, and the internet in general, is based off. It is not redundant to remove, at least not on this level. Swordman97 talk to me 21:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

If popular culture is seen as as an umbrella term, I wonder why Handicraft was not listed for similar reason. This article discusses how the term has been used in cultural studies and other similar contexts. We have removed for example Prose and kept Novel and Short story. The list contains a large article called Entertainment, which talks about different forms of popular culture. Mass media is also related to entertainment. --Thi (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
3-2 after 60+ days, not added. Cobblet (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Add First aid

High-importance article. Subject which the English Wikipedia should have featured-class article. It goes without saying that the subject is useful to know in everyday life.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  3. Weak support We list article about Abortion despite fact we do not have pregnancy or women's right. However whe when we list Police on level 3 I would except adding Emergency medical services and Medical emergency to level 4 because of these ones are noteven on the level 5 yet. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Plenty of people don't know first aid. People who do know first aid did not learn it by reading Wikipedia. No reason is given for prioritizing this article ahead of thousands of other top- and high-importance articles, including many things useful to know in everyday life, such as how to breathe, eat, or use a toilet. Cobblet (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Does not rise to the level of the other articles on this list. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Article about first aid probably would better fit to wikiversity (with video examples) than to Wikipedia. I would consider add security ahead of first aid. E-mail probably is liated ahead of online chatting due to authenticitation significance but there were suggestions that security is broader and more general topic than authentication. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

First aid is among the 800 main articles of my printed encyclopedia. It is also in my two encyclopedias which have 5,000 large main articles. --Thi (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Thi:What are the exact names of the encyclopaedias you mentioned above?--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
It is not really important, there are so many different reference books. --Thi (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: Add more African cities

I think we should remove swap some Asian cities with African cities. The only African city listed is Cairo and Africa has more people than all but one of the continents. Any thoughts? Interstellarity (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The UN's World Urbanization Prospects projects the world's urban population at 4.3 billion in 2019. Asia accounts for 54% of that; the Americas, 19%; Africa, 13%; and Europe, 13%. If we were to divide 18 cities by those percentages, Asia should get 9.7 cities, while it currently has 9.5 (Istanbul counting as half). If any continent should lose a city strictly for population reasons it must be Europe, which has 4.5 cities but "should" only have 2.5 by this measure. That is not to say that population should be the only deciding factor: I don't think it's a good idea to swap, say, Rome for Lagos. The only point I'm trying to make is that Asian cities are not overrepresented. I wouldn't mind adding a second African city without removing any from the list. Cobblet (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Since we're under quota, we could just add an African city or two. Lagos, Kinshasa and Johannesburg are the strongest contenders. If we stick to tailoring towards English speakers (which some members of the project support), Lagos having a significant population speaking English as a second language and Johannesburg having both native and non-native English speakers may edge Kinshasa out. Gizza (t)(c) 22:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I support adding at least Lagos. I think that at minimum can be done without removing any articles. As for removing Rome, I would be strongly against it because of its very strong historical, religious, and cultural importance at least on par with Mecca or Jerusalem. If an article had to go (and I'm just spitballing here) I would probably say Mexico City or Sao Paulo, but I don't know whether I would remove one of those just to add Johhanesburg. Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 23:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, we should (add some more). But I think the splurge the past couple of years is leading to some redundancy issues where we list the largest cities and the large countries. So, there is only one city listed that does not have its country listed (Singapore, and that's a bad case obviously). We need more cities that capture significant parts of society that find no other space on the list. Rather than making sure that we are capturing more of the universe, we are largely duplicating efforts. So, I'd like to move away from the "Population/economy in 2019 as proxy of vitalness" toward a more comprehensive list. This should include I think 10 vital cities based on pop/econ in 2019 and 10 cities vital that capture aspects we don't capture elsewhere: e.g. Amsterdam, Kumasi (Accra could be cool too), Timbuktu, etc. (I've proposed before that a good way is to think categorically here and the proposal below for Brasilia could open doors for us listing an example of a modernist, planned city like Gaborone, an example of a suburb, I've been told the largest is Ekurhuleni but am skeptical, and other types of urban communities that people live in.) We should also do a better job including the rural world, nomadic populations, regional governments (California or Gauteng), etc. Anyway, just my thoughts. still mulling over Lagos on its own merits, but am concerned with the redundancy on the list. AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
It all sounds like WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, to me. We don't need to represent Africa or anyone else. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Windmills looks like dragons to some. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
The overlap between the cities and the countries was my biggest concern too and what made me hesitant for awhile. Along with the lack of coverage of rural and nomadic parts of the world. Urban Sub-Saharan Africa is growing and becoming increasingly influential across the globe though, so I think it's valuable to learn about it (in this case its leading example) in a hypothetical encyclopedia containing 1,000 articles. Gizza (t)(c) 00:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Add Lagos

PASSED
10-5 Lagos added Dawid2009 (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)(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.

Per above discussion.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 23:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support We can add Lagos after more African countries are added. Interstellarity (talk) 10:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Because Lagos metro area has between 16 and 21 million people, which would make it the largest metropolitan area in North America (it is already the largest city in Africa). It will be a top-5 city in the world long before 2050 in terms of population (I have no idea how, quite frankly). They are adding 77 people per hour. Because it is 1/4th of the largest economy in Africa. Because it is the second largest film production center in the world (ahead of Hollywood). It is now the center of West African art. Because It is where Afrobeat was created by Fela Kuti. Nigerian Pidgin from Lagos is the fastest growing English dialect in the world. They have one of the most vibrant fashion influences in the world today. Lagos is one of my least favorite cities quite frankly, but does it measure up to the other cities in terms of classic vitalness? Without a doubt. (I would vote oppose on Kinshasa, undecided but leaning oppose on Jburg). AbstractIllusions (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support As the previous answer highlights, Lagos is a very significant city. I've been, and it's not an easy place, but it is big, active, economically and culturally significant, and growing on all fronts. 31.173.35.205 (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support per my comment above Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 13:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support per 3) above.79.134.212.134 (talk) 07:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  7. Support per AbstractIllusions. Swordman97 talk to me 21:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  8. Support an African city is required. GuzzyG (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  9. Support but only because a)it would be the only city from sub-Saharan Africa, and b)it's one of the twenty most populous metro areas. Separate to my vote, I would be against adding any further cities, and would favor removing either Mumbai (or Delhi) on a "one city per country rule." Orser67 (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  10. Support Urbanization is a global phenomenon and Sub-Saharan Africa is no exception. It should be represented by one city. Cobblet (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose More African countries are needed. --Thi (talk) 09:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  2. What makes Lagos vital? You feel guilty about something? Chris Troutman (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    Guilty? Gizza (t)(c) 00:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. We don't need any more cities at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, slightly tentatively – Overlap with Nigeria is significant, and cities aren't what we should be focusing on. Countries are more important and underrepresented. Cities are usually considered at this level of vitality when they've had a long history of being fairly vital, or exploded very much into a major city that symbolises development (e.g. Shanghai is an option for this level). Quite possibly in a few years, but Nigeria is enough for now. And I'd prefer Johannesburg as an option for now. J947's public account 23:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  5. MEGA Oppose Swahili language as third the most significant non-indoeuropean language (along with Japanese language, after Arabic language and Chinese language) requie representation of African culture. Lagos is not among 20 the most significant cities. African countries just like Kenya also clearly are not among top 40 countries but at least would be much better choice than Lagos. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

@Cobblet: I previously crossed vote because of honrstly I assumed/though that both votes were posted by the same IP from Russia which recently were doing odd editions here. Now I see that clearly first vote was made by IP from Romania and second one by IP from Estonia. I should checked IP because of this project quite often is edited by IPs or new users. Thanks for note. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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.

Thoughts on Removing Sao Paulo for another Brazilian city?

This isn't necessarily a formal proposal, I just searched through the archives real quickly though and didn't see any discussion on what the rationale was for having São Paulo as an article at this level over another Brazilian city. While Sao Paulo does have the highest population, both Rio and Brasilia both have arguments for why they could be in the list instead. Rio is arguably the more name-recognizable city, was the historical capital of Brazil under Portuguese rule, and is one of the most popular tourist cities in South America, with many iconic attractions like the Christ the Redeemer statue. The argument for Brasilia is the opposite: instead of cultural and historical importance, it has political importance, being the capital and diplomatic hub, and stands for the future development of the continent and as a testament to humanity that we were able to just build a city in the middle of the jungle. Just thought I'd throw that out there for discussion to hear what you guys think. Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 00:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed here and here. Cobblet (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for directing me to those, it seems like the idea of removing Sao Paulo was a hard no then, but that adding another South American city was a possibility. Have your thoughts changed at all since then or anything? Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 00:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
They haven't: personally I don't find Rio culturally and historically significant enough to outweigh Sao Paulo's size and economic importance. Cobblet (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
5-4, not added. Cobblet (talk) 03:31, 27 July 2019 (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.

Proposal: Add Birth

We have Life at level 1 and Death at level 2, plus things like Birth control here at level 3. It seems reasonable to add a concept as foundational to biology as birth here. - Sdkb (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom - Sdkb (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support – Surely as important as Pregnancy. Not as vital as Death, but surely belongs at this level with Death at L2. J947's public account 21:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support, would also support removing pregnancy if this got added if someone proposed that Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 12:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  4. Strong support Historically and culturally important jus like death and more important than name which is listed. Name covers name day we should have something what cover birthday. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support as a major event of life. Arguably the major event of life, only comparable to Death. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Neither death nor life should be vital topics for an encyclopedia to discuss. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    Sorry, I'm a little confused by your statement — are you suggesting we should not have Death (level 2) or Life (level 1) on the VA list? - Sdkb (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Pregnancy and Infant are included. --Thi (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. I prefer listing pregnancy over birth at this level, and we don't really need both. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Redundant to pregnancy at this level, though I would favor replacing pregnancy with birth. Orser67 (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

I just want to note that the Pregnancy article we currently list at this level is on human pregnancy, not the more general articles on Pregnancy (mammals) or Pregnancy in fish. The article on Birth is the general article for animal birth, not specifically on human Childbirth. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
1-2, no consensus. --Thi (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Add Chinese folk religion

Chinese folk religions is practiced by a vast population in China though hardly well organized, Its sheer size should not be ignored just because it is unlike institutionalized religions. Viztor (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Presumed Support by nominator.
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I would rather have the general article on Folk religion or Ethnic religion at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Other articles on this level includes all different sects of the Christianity and Islam and Buddhism. Viztor (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
We also include some more general religious articles like Shamanism and New Religious Movement. Chinese folk religion seems like a very unorganized and nebulous religion to me, and I think is less vital to the English Wikipedia than the main articles on folk religion or traditional religion. But we'll see what other people think about it. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
By its nature, it's unlike institutionalized religion. That's culture difference and does not demise the cultural importance of it. The key is the shared similarities. For example, most villages worship Tudigong, and most Chinese mafias (Tiandihui, also some Japanese mafias) worship Guan Yu, similarly, most fishermen Mazu, the career-based worship tradition is different from Christianity, but is a culturally predominant belief system. The case for European folklore religions is that they're largely replaced by institutionalized religions and demised before it formed a coherent system. However, that's just no the case in China. Therefore, considering the amount of practitioners, it is already important, and can not be replaced by a folklore religion article, which is largely a etymology of the word and does not describe the belief system.Viztor (talk) 07:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
And it's not a ethnic religion Viztor (talk) 07:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
The key is those believes is often considered as an integral part to Chinese identity, take another example, look at all the different Chinese dynasties, what makes them all Chinese? Those Emperors can choose Buddhism or Taoism as they like, but what they can not ignore is the worship to the Tian, regardless of what religion they choose if they choose. And think about what makes all the different Churches of Christianity level-3 important. Thanks.Viztor (talk) 08:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  1. Oppose, on the basis that there is not a general folk religion article as of yet Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 00:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
If so, I think your vote might be premature. Viztor (talk) 07:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
1-2, no consensus. --Thi (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

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

add Nation

At least one example of community should be listed at this level. I do not see how encyclopedia should describe definition of Nationalism before definition of Nation.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. There is a lot of overlap between nation and ethnic group, which is already listed. Historically, nation and ethnos/ethnic group were used interchangeably. And as you point out, nationalism is also listed. We don't need to list both at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Not as important at this level as Nationalism. --Thi (talk) 07:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
Can someone explain the distinction between nation and country (which we have)? RJFJR (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
A "nation" in the traditional sense is a people group, very similar to what we think of today as an ethnic group as I point out above. "Nation" is also used as a short hand for nation state, which traditionally is a state or country for a nation/people/ethnic group. We don't really think like this very much anymore in our multicultural/multiracial/multiethnic countries, but traditionally Germany was seen as the nation state of the German people, England was the nation state of the English people, Italy for the Italians, France for the French, etc. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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.

Question

On this list of vital articles, Suicide is categorized in social issues. However, on List of articles every Wikipedia should have, it is categorized in Biology. How should it be categorized? Interstellarity T 🌟 14:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Both are reasonable. On the one hand, it's a cause of death with associated risk factors, pathophysiology, and epidemiology. On the other hand, it's a topic with serious cultural and social implications – law, religion and philosophy all have a lot to say about it. Cobblet (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
@Cobblet: I'm fine with both of them. Should we let the community decide what is best? Interstellarity T 🌟 16:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes. I don't care too much about how the list is arranged or sorted, unless there's something clearly wrong about the way in which that's done. What really matters is which articles are on the list. Cobblet (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Consistency is good, but there is no one right way to categorize some topics. I prefer suicide where it is on this list, but am open to arguments to move it. I don't get too hung up on consistency between this list and the meta list. I'm more concerned about consistency within the different levels of this list, but even then there are some good reasons to have articles be categorized differently at Level 3 vs Level 4 & 5. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
1-2, no consensus. --Thi (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2019 (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 Grand Canyon, add Ocean current

Ocean currents are more general, worldwide phenomenon. For example Gulf Stream influences the climate of Europe and America.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition. It would be very strange to list ocean current when we don't even list ocean at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Since we e list Great Wall of China but not Statue of Liberty, I support keeping Grand Canyon. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
--Thi (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2019 (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 Pierre-Simon Laplace

Gauss and Euler are listed, as is the History of mathematics. Maybe third great mathematician from 18th and 19th century is not necessary.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I will not vote yet but in my sense Euler and Lalpace are maybe two weaker mathematicians. Alan Turing clearly should not be listed among mthematicians. Newton is much more known for fact that he is one of the greatest mathematicans of all time ([8]). Dawid2009 (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Euler is the most important modern mathematician in my opinion but even if Laplace and Euler are the weaker two on the list why does that mean they should be removed? 9 Mathematicians is enough. I'd even support Fibonacci and Blaise Pascal on here. All because there's a weakest person on every field listed here, doesn't mean they should be removed. Our numbers are fine right now, probably too low. GuzzyG (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion the number of biographies should be closer to 100. 500 5% = 25; 1,000 10% = 100 (Level 3); 5,000 15% = 750; 10,000 20% = 2 000 (Level 4); 50,000 25% = 12,500; 100,000 30% (Level 5) = 30 000. 125 is maybe a reasonable compromise, because we don't have official list of 5,000 articles. 150 is possible, but 125 has been mentioned before. Also the number of countries is too low. --Thi (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-1, added. --Thi (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Add Old age

Child, Adolescence and Adult are already listed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Old age is generally considered a distinct stage in the human life cycle, and is not any less vital than the other stages we've listed. There are specific physiological consequences of old age, specific cultural and social norms associated with the elderly, and specific social programs that address the elderly. All of these are important topics not well covered by other articles. Cobblet (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support When we list abortion we should excatly cover many parts of life. I would also consider swap child with childhood. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support Orser67 (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Old age is just the latter part of adulthood. I don't think we need to list it separately. As a side note, I also don't think we need to list infant separately either, as it is just the earliest stage of childhood. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
Nominator is convinced. --Thi (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Add Fossil

Paleontology, study of fossils was added recently. Fossil itself is probably as popular concept.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. We don't need both paleontology and fossil at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
Nominator is convinced. --Thi (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2019 (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 Benjamin Franklin

One of the most famous Americans of all time, but not as vital as George Washington from the same period. As an inventor he is not as vital as Edison, Tesla, Turing or other physics or mathematicians listed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. As you say, he's one of the most famous Americans of all time, both in his own time and today. He's probably the 2nd most important statesman in U.S. history, second only to Washington. I would honestly remove Abraham Lincoln from this list before I would remove Franklin. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn by nominator. --Thi (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2019 (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 e (mathematical constant)

Mathematics section is now quite large. 0 and π are more famous mathematical constants in general culture.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose as e is quite famous and important and a highly viewed article. Would be retarded to remove it. Cunftinger (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

I do not see why we should remove highly viewed article for something like History of physics. Personally I also think that either of 0 and π are more vital than Fibonacci number (which significance is important also for exaample in fractal geometry and natural philosophy) but it just me. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
2-3, not removed. --Thi (talk) 08:46, 28 July 2019 (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 Natural satellite

Covered by planet and Moon. Natural satellite technically does not belong to the level 3 when for example continent is level 3 article and solar systems are level 4. I do not see how Natural satellite can be more vital than Biome when we have already planet and Moon, solar system and so plenty planets. Natural satelite gets less hits than dwarf planet. It can be vital but obviously not when we have other articles like planet, moon, solar system, several other planets etc..Dawid2009 (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support a bit too generic. I doubt people are looking for an article on natural satellites. Gizza (t)(c) 04:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We list the generic article on planet as well as all 8 major planets in our solar system individually. I think we should list the generic article on moons (natural satellites) as well as the article on Earth's moon. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I agree with Rreagan007. It's by no means the most highly viewed astronomy page, but it still ranks higher than orbit, telescope, and physical cosmology. Cobblet (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. Support Usually people are looking up such articles as Saturn, not general articles about satellites. Orbit and Planet are listed. --Thi (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC) Neutral now. --Thi (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
4-5, not added. --Thi (talk) 08:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Add Shanghai

See Global city. There is no reason not to. Viztor (talk) 07:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nomViztor (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  3. Weak support, would prefer a swap – I'm not a big fan of many cities at this level but this has crossed my mind a few times before. It is the example of urbanisation, so I think it should be here, however tentatively. J947's public account 00:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  4. Weak support This is valuable for discussion. Shanghai has larger population than whole Australia so later or earlier IMO could be swapped for Hong Kong/Singapore/Taiwan. Australia is important country but the only reason why we list Australia is fact that it is big English-speaking country. Ausyralia is not listed due to fact some people consider it as continet. In that cause someone could arguing that Singapore is more votal because of city is levrl 2 article and continent stil is level 3. Dawid2009 (talk)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I think there should be one city per country, if this is added there would be 3 locales within Chinas boundaries on the list. (Beijing/Hong Kong/Shanghai). Los Angeles was rejected for this reason i am pretty sure. Either way i think we should cover one city from every continent first and Lagos, Dubai and Sydney are the only other cities i would support; also Sydney is on the global list too. GuzzyG (talk) 09:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. We don't need any more cities on this list. Would consider a swap for one of the cities already listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Countries come first. Swap is possible. --Thi (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose for all the above reasons. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose I can make an exception for Hong Kong and Beijing due to Hong Kong's history and special status (and Beijing's clear status as a vital city), but in general I think there should only be 1 city per country, and even in the case of China I don't think there should be three. Also, while Shanghai is very populous today, it only emerged as a major city in the 19th century and doesn't have quite the historical importance that most other cities on this list have. Orser67 (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Swap for Hong Kong would be fair IMO. Thoughts? J947's public account 21:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me why Shanghai is more vital than Hong Kong. Can you elaborate why you think one is more vital than the other? Rreagan007 (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Shanghai has larger population than Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
--Thi (talk) 08:49, 28 July 2019 (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 Rocky Mountains, add Ice age

Three other mountain ranges are listed. Ice age formed the Great Lakes and many other geographic features. The causes of ice ages are interesting topic, scientists are still working to understand them.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support removal We have clearly too many physical-geography objects from North America and few political-geography obkects from North America. Rocky Moutains are part of North American Cordillera which are not on the level 4 yet. I would support keep either of Rocky Moutains and American Crdillera on the level 4. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. If we are going to list an article at this level about climate chance, then we should just list the article on climate change. I also think the Rockies are important enough to list at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose North America comprises 16.5% of the world's land area but only 7.5% of its population. Its physical geography matters more than its human geography. The Rockies are the second longest mountain range in the world; the list would make no sense without them. Cobblet (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. 2nd longest mountain range in the world that crosses 2 predominately English-speaking countries is vital for the English Wikipedia at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    Procedural note @Rreagan007: I'm sure it was an oversight, but you appear to have voted twice. --Trovatore (talk) 02:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
    Sorry about that. I had forgotten that I had already voted on this nomination. Rreagan007 (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
--Thi (talk) 08:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Swap: remove Radar, add Satellite navigation

Several users were supporting addition of Satellite navigation and have agreed each other that it is more important topic in Navigation than GPS and Radar.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support addition Satellite navigation or GPS is useful at this level. --Thi (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal. I see both as vital at this level. --Thi (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

I closed previous discussion finally as passed because of J947 have said that he also would support removing GPS (even WP:SNOW he said) and we have also other situation when Reagan considered Carlwev's comment from other section. However if will be consenus that procedural process for remove GPS was wrong I am opened to make two new discussion: "swap GPS for Satellite Navigation" and second one: "remove Radar". I think we should discuss it again. There were various opinions but I closed this discussion littly too early. After these discussions I think that we should have at least one of these two articles: Satellite Navigation or GPS (IMO Satellite Navigation is better). Dawid2009 (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
Radioactivity and electromagnetic radiation are already listed, and there is currently no interest to add general article. --Thi (talk) 09:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Add Radiation

Basic concept in Physics. "Radiation comes in m­any forms and is all around us, all the time." [9]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)--Thi (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We already list electromagnetic radiation, and forms of particle radiation are covered under radioactive decay. This article essentially just duplicates material already found in those articles. Cobblet (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
Users seem to be quite satisfied with current number of biographies (129). Psychiatry was discussed earlier. --Thi (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Swap: remove Sigmund Freud, add Psychiatry

Freud's psychological and clinical theories are now old-fashioned, but he has a place in the history of psychiatry.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition. We already have psychology on the list, and I think there's probably too much overlap between these two to list both at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose To quote Britannica: "Freud may justly be called the most influential intellectual legislator of his age. His creation of psychoanalysis was at once a theory of the human psyche, a therapy for the relief of its ills, and an optic for the interpretation of culture and society. Despite repeated criticisms, attempted refutations, and qualifications of Freud’s work, its spell remained powerful well after his death and in fields far removed from psychology as it is narrowly defined. If, as the American sociologist Philip Rieff once contended, “psychological man” replaced such earlier notions as political, religious, or economic man as the 20th century’s dominant self-image, it is in no small measure due to the power of Freud’s vision and the seeming inexhaustibility of the intellectual legacy he left behind." Psychiatry overlaps too much with mental disorder – it would be like listing both cancer and oncology. Cobblet (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
Currently there seems to be no interest to remove either Laplace or Noether. --Thi (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2019 (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 Emmy Noether

Great mathematicians are brilliant minds, but History of mathematics is listed at this level and I am not sure that an example of female mathemetician is absolutely necessary at this level. Everybody knows Marie Curie, but Noether is lesser known figure.

Support
  1. Support. --Thi (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Noether is a key figure regardless of her sex. Her symmetry theorem explains how conservation laws are the inevitable result of symmetries in the universe, and has revolutionized modern physics. She also revolutionized the fields of algebra and topology by pointing out a fundamental connection between them, which led to the new fields of algebraic topology and category theory, which have had far reaching influence on all of Mathematics. Her insights are vital into understanding how we now think about physics and mathematics. 99.203.42.195 (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I think there are a few obvious reasons why Noether receives less attention than other notable women scientists, although her contributions to modern physics and math ("the most creative abstract algebraist of modern times", according to Britannica) match up well against the contributions of any other scientist or mathematician on the list:
    1. Her contributions are difficult to explain to the layperson;
    2. As a Jewish female mathematician working in Nazi Germany, her work was unsurprisingly neglected, and she died not long after she left for the US, so she never got the recognition she deserved, particularly since there's no Nobel Prize for math or theoretical physics;
    3. She didn't die tragically young (like Rosalind Franklin or Ada Lovelace) nor tragically gruesomely (like Marie Curie), denying an easy "sell" of her story to a general audience.
    Fortunately, as editors of Wikipedia, we don't need to worry about whether a story will sell, and we are both educated and open-minded enough to understand who and what is deserving of recognition. Cobblet (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
--Thi (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2019 (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 Smoking

Not as widespread addiction as in the Mad Men era. Alcoholism is more important issue and we have voted against Dementia, which affects millions of people.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose WHO: "In 2015, over 1.1 billion people smoked tobacco." That's twelve times more than the number of people with cancer in 2015. Even if we were ever to eradicate tobacco use completely, the fact that smoking was eradicated would still make it a vital subject, like smallpox. Cobblet (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose smoking is at least ten times more vital than the novelists being discussed above (Poe and Twain). It would easily fit in a Top 500 list too. Gizza (t)(c) 22:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose it's an important habit, economic activity, and cause of death. Orser67 (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose still important (and nominator admits was more so in recent history). RJFJR (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Swapped, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2019 (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 Pasteurization

Louis Pasteur, Milk#Pasteurization and Cheese#Pasteurization mention pasteurization. Maybe article about pasteurization process is not necessary at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

There should be something on the list about food preservation. A swap wouldn't be a terrible idea. Cobblet (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Pasteurization; add Food preservation

Food preservation is vital for human survival. High-importance article in Food and drink project, more general topic than pasteurization which is at least partly covered by other topics.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support. Food preservation should definitely be on the list, and we can probably afford to lose pasteurization from the list as it is covered in the article on food preservation. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom GuzzyG (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support seems like a fair trade. - Sdkb (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Swapped, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 08:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Edgar Allan Poe; Add Mark Twain

Poe is one of the many classics of English literature, which we have at this level. The list contains other short story writers such as James Joyce, whose Dubliners was very influential collection. "Like Charles Dickens, Twain achieved immense success with his first book, became his nation's most famous and best-loved author, and has remained a national treasure ever since – America's most archetypal writer. - Twain's writings have reportedly inspired more commentary than those of any other American author." [10] Hemingway said about his Nobel prize: "I cannot but regret that the award was never given to Mark Twain." Edgar Allan Poe can be seen as part of European literary tradition, whereas William Faulkner called Twain ‘the father of American literature’. History.com: "His ability to swiftly and convincingly create a variety of fictional characters rivals that of Charles Dickens. - Perhaps it is too much to claim, as some have, that Twain invented the American point of view in fiction, but that such a notion might be entertained indicates that his place in American literary culture is secure."[11]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support I think Twain is a more important American writer than Poe, and other sources I've looked at that rank American writers seem to agree with that. Many of them rank Twain as the most important American writer, so I definitely think he should be on this list. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Being the father of a national literature is absolutely vital! While our list is different than the Wikimedia meta list and we have different standards, it's worth noting that Poe or Hemingway for that matter are not listed while Twain is. [12] GuzzyG (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support pbp 16:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support addition of Twain. Orser67 (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
6-0, added. --Thi (talk) 09:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Add Kenya

As the article says, Kenya is the world's 48th largest country with a population of more than 52 million people. Kenya is the 27th most populous country. Kenya's economy is the second-largest in eastern and central Africa.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support I think it would be reasonable to include all countries with a population over 50 million, so I'd support the addition of Myanmar and Kenya. Kenya is the most populous English-speaking country not currently listed. Its history, which stretches back to the very beginning of human evolution, has been enriched by its status as a centre of trade between Africa, Arabia, and South Asia for millennia. Its diverse indigenous peoples are some of the best-studied and most well-known in all of Africa. The presence of one of the four main UN offices in Nairobi adds to the country's international prominence. See also comments below. Cobblet (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom GuzzyG (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support. Certainly more, or even much more, vital than several of the countries already on the list. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support for representation. J947 (c), at 04:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

According to the latest update of the UN Human Development Report, 3.818 billion people live in a country with high or very high human development, while 3.659 billion people live in a country with medium or low human development. We list 24 countries (including Singapore and Taiwan) with high or very high human development comprising 3.254 billion people, or 85% of the total people living in such countries. We list 12 countries with medium or low human development comprising 2.838 billion people, or 78% of the total people living in such countries. Based on that, we should add a few more countries in the latter category. Myanmar and Kenya would be a good start in that direction; Uganda, which is expected to have 50 million people by 2024, is also a possibility. Cobblet (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
--Thi (talk) 09:12, 15 August 2019 (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 Portuguese language

Not as global language as for example Spanish language.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. VERY STRONG OPPOSE! Removing languages from this level IMO frankly is worse idea than removing all planets from level 3 due to solar system. I assume good faith but I can not support this vote. Even Hebrew language is more vital than most people whose we list. We have 400th (in academic range) University on level 4 but we have few languages on all levels. How do you want removing languages when we list last native speakers of death languages on level 5? It is not accident that language is level 1 article and I say it as person who tried remove it from this level Dawid2009 (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. If I were going to remove a language from this level, it would be Bengali. They have roughly the same number of speakers, but Portuguese is more important to the English Wikipedia being a Western language. Rreagan007 (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose The list could use more languages, not fewer, since language itself is a level 1 article. Cobblet (talk) 23:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. Portuguese is not only popular in Portugal; due to colonization, it is also widely used in Brazil, Angola and Mozambique.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

If there was a language to remove, it should be Greek since the article is predominantly about Modern Greek, which isn't vital. It could be replaced with Ancient Greek. Also the area in which Bengali is spoken was part of the British Empire and still is part of the Commonwealth of Nations, so it is arguably more vital from an English-speaking perspective. Bengali also consistently gets more page views on enwiki than Portuguese over the past 4 years [13]. Not that I agree with Portuguese being removed. Gizza (t)(c) 03:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

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

RfC of interest

this RfC may be of interet to the members of this project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

FAILED
3-3, not added. --Thi (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Add History of physics

We list History of mathematics and I think it would be easier to read and write History of science with this article.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom GuzzyG (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Weak support history of physics and history of chemistry to replace history of agriculture as I believe those sciences are more important than agriculture, marginally. I concur that there should only be one more of discipline-specific histories. J947's public account 23:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I see no reason to privilege the history of physics over the physics of astronomy, biology, chemistry, or any other scientific discipline. Cobblet (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose makes no sense to include the history of one branch of science in detail over the others. Gizza (t)(c) 03:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Cobblet and DaGizza. RJFJR (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

This would be last "History of" article, although personally I think that History of Christianity would be useful due to its coverage of different concepts and eras and the topics importance to English-speaking world. --Thi (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
2-6, not swapped. --Thi (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Swap: remove Great Pyramid of Giza, add Pyramid

I think that it would make sense to list more general article at this level. Pyramids can be found from different eras and continents.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom, no specific piece of art should be on this list GuzzyG (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The list must balance the general with the specific. It needs some exceptional works of cultural expression and the Pyramid of Giza is as iconic as they come. Cobblet (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Imo the current set-up with the Great Pyramid and the Great Wall of China as the only works of art is perfect. These important cultural artifacts have lasted for thousands of years and have had a significance to millions or even billions of people. Orser67 (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Cobblet's reasoning. I might be open to a swap with Giza pyramid complex, since they're typically thought of together, but I don't think it should go. - Sdkb (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose as one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World (and only surviving one.) Sdkb's comment about changing to the complex is interesting. RJFJR (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  5. Weak oppose. I've opened a swap with the complex. J947's public account 22:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  6. Oppose The Great Pyramid of Giza is more vital than most biographies on the list. Doesn't make sense to remove it on that basis alone. Gizza (t)(c) 22:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Swap with Giza pyramid complex
  1. Weak support but it does remove a fair bit of the historical significance of the Great Pyramid. J947's public account 22:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Giza pyramid complex is not on level 4. Instead level 4 lists this and the Sphinx. Cobblet (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
2-3, not added. --Thi (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Add Morocco

A culturally and historically important country in both Africa and in the Arab world.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom GuzzyG (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose There are three other Arab countries (Algeria, Sudan, Iraq) with larger populations than Morocco, two of which are also in Africa. I don't see why Morocco should get in ahead of all three. Cobblet (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Not large enough in population. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. Per Cobblet.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, added. --Thi (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Add Political party

Party politics is important topic in political science. Political parties are essential to democratic systems. "Political parties perform an important task in government. They bring people together to achieve control of the government, develop policies favorable to their interests or the groups that support them, and organize and persuade voters to elect their candidates to office." (Cliffsnotes)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom GuzzyG (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support. Political parties are indeed vital to democracies, but they're also important in non-democratic countries. E.g. the Communist Party controlled the Soviet Union and is the dominant power in China. Orser67 (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  5. Weak support —J947 (c), at 01:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Hard to say whether this or election is a better choice and whether either is necessary when democracy is listed. And for balance, a non-democratic mechanism of obtaining and maintaining power should then be added too. Maybe something like propaganda. Gizza (t)(c) 22:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion propaganda is less vital than something like economy Dawid2009 (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Definitely. Economy (edit: and Machine) are IMO the two main topics missing from this level. Definitely top 500. J947 (c), at 01:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
2-5, not added. --Thi (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC))

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

Add Yuri Gagarin and Neil Armstrong to Level 3: Explorers

Even before their appearance on the Main Page these two articles averaged over 1 million views a year. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Gagarin one should be listed and Gagarin is obviously first. My previous Gagarin nomination failed here. Obviously aviation and space exploration is a massive hole in our list, but there's bias against astronauts here. Amelia Earhart would be a good add and i would like to see if Cobblet might consider a compromise. Wright brothers didn't get support either but Earhart would be a good compromise since it'd add a woman to a section where there's none. Also the fundamental flaw with Cobblet's argument is that unlike Triana and Elcano, Gagarin and Armstrong DO get the credit, Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs and if that rule is applied elsewhere, it should be applied here to.. If Triana and Elcano got the equivalent stature awarded to Columbus and Magellan they'd be on here instead of them, that's just how it is and how life works. We shouldn't be activists with history, we're only here to track how it's played out and space explorers clearly get more coverage in modern times then any other explorers other then the continent "finders" like Columbus and Cook. Gagarin's impact can be summed up in the fact that he made it possible for everyone to see that we can leave our planet and that impact is immeasurable, yeah other people helped him but he himself symbolizes the fact that humans can be bigger than our planet and can leave it and potentially live in another, anything else that happens in space is derivative to him because he showed it was possible to enter it and make it out alive. Who knows what impact his trip has had on artists relating to science fiction or scientists or future space explorers. To say that the first human leaving earth is just fame diminishes what it represents. If climate change destroys our world and humans are on another planet he will symbolize being the first person to leave earth, if climate change destroys the world and we survive in space then finding the new world means jack to that society and then within centuries will be forgotten. Space is everlasting, continents can sink; ask Zealandia. Now obviously this next bit is conjecture, but to me Gagarin represents a turning point in the world, if Earth survives and is always inhabited, he will still always be known but his stock will be lesser then other explorers on this list but if humans have to leave earth then he will be the Columbus of space, every human in space goes back to him proving it is possible. After 5000 years in space no other explorer on this list will matter, atleast no one on Gagarin's level, just like thousands of years of other BC empires that used to matter don't now. TLDR: Gagarin's historic stock can never go away as it's stuck down with a anchor in history no matter what happens on Earth, but it can significantly rise in unprecedented levels if we have to live in space and on other planets. The other explorers frankly depend on Earth surviving. That matters and it's conjecture on if it happens but it proves Gagarin's worth to me either way and that's why i support his nomination and the difference with Korolev can be summed up, but if humans live in space it'll never be HOW did we get here but WHO got here first and that's why Gagarin is more important than Korolev.GuzzyG (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose One million views a year is not that impressive when plenty of biographies receive a million views in a month. Armstrong was removed from the list years ago. Astronauts have a hard job, but they don't come up with the plan for actually getting to space – they follow orders more than they give them. For me, Sergei Korolev, JFK and James E. Webb are the people who demonstrated the vision and leadership that makes them comparable to the explorers of yore. Saying that Neil Armstrong should get credit over them is like saying Rodrigo de Triana should get credit ahead of Columbus because he spotted land first, or that Juan Sebastián Elcano should get credit ahead of Magellan for actually completing the circumnavigation. Cobblet (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Listing Gagarin/Armstrong/Krikalev/Scott Kelly (astronaut) ahead of Korelov and other important eenginners (Whose influence is essential not only for history of astronautics but also development/futurology of transport/eengineering) or NASA personalities is such like giving prirte for better feautureed article for Brigitte Bardot ahead of Coco Chanel and other fashion designers. More recognization =/= not more vitality. Amundsen is listed on the level 3 because of he discovered Northwest Passage which had influence on history of trade. Other listed explorers had also revolutional impact on changes in history be changing political history, finding regions where human can do natural resource etc. We list Northwest passage on level 4 and we list age of discovery which cover arctic explortion but just does not cover space exploration or NASA. Gagarin’s should not be compared to Magellan because of people in medieval era needed scientific method to show that earth really is geoid. Generally I also do not understand why we need more explorers and scientifists (I would support James Watt ahead of Korelov anyway) when we list only 9 religious and none religious woman figure. Beyond that we are still missing important articles like Fall of the Western Roman Empire, History of religion, Mask, Tatoo, Decorative arts, Security, Pop art, Folk art, machine and craft. We are also under quota because of articles which are nt failed usually are too early closed as "no consensus". Dawid2009 (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. The difference between these astronauts and other explorers is that a)they're primarily notable for one particular expedition, and b)they were not the overall leaders of the expedition and, proportionally, were not quite as important to the success of the expedition as earlier explorers were (though I know Armstrong at least does deserve a lot of credit for his on-the-scene leadership and actions). Personally, I would add Moon landing and Sputnik 1, while leaving out Vostok 1. Orser67 (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose These were just guys following orders. If we ever have the Armstrong Base on the moon, ping me and I will consider changing my !vote. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Gagarin and Apollo 11 are currently covered by Space Race. --Thi (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
  • Cobblet, I would agree if any of the three you mentioned actually went to space. Choosing JFK would be like choosing Charles V. There may be other reasons to include them but does that subtract from this; I don't think so. Daring to be the first to be shot up in a rocket or actually go to another celestial body has to count for a lot. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm less impressed by astronauts "daring" to do things when it's the engineers who did all the preparatory work to ensure their success. The spacecraft designer's work impresses me more than the work of any pilot. Titov or Nelyubov would've gotten the job done (and all the credit) if Gagarin didn't, but as history showed, nobody was able to replace Korolev. Cobblet (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
As I've said, I'm not convinced that "vital articles" serves any real purpose in the first place, and I generally agree with Cobblet's remarks (minus the details of the three Russian names that are unfamiliar to me). Still, I feel it's worth noting here that it was Armstrong's icy skill (and not a small amount of luck) that brought Eagle down in one piece. A lesser pilot might well have smashed it on a boulder in the planned landing area, or run out of fuel before finding a suitable spot. --Trovatore (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Please stop casting aspersions at each other and focus on the vitality of the two candidates pbp 20:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC}, expanded 15:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@GuzzyG: Given your track record on level 5, I'm surprised you're now the one accusing others of trying to right great wrongs. And as for their cultural notoriety, I'll reconsider my position when Gagarin and Armstrong get countries and galaxies named after them. Cobblet (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

What's with the low blow? My "track record" is what? On a list I WAS the primarily instigator of and primarily builder of because i envisioned a goal of a COMPLETE biographical dictionary, in which i've spent THOUSANDS of hours on? Is it wrong to improve articles of people prominently on "best of" web pages or "Did you know" list [14] which get to close to 10mil views and over 100k in multiple foreign languages, is it not "vital" for us to have such a article a FA(or have you lost focus of the point of these lists)? If fighting for a better website is my track record then it's one i am glad for. But since i am forced into launching my own independent biographical dictionary not dependent on restrictions, i will leave level 5 as a failed project. Back to the point of this nomination, you (or wikipedia) can't change the fact that space exploration is hugely important and no matter the role the Astronauts get all of the publics imagination and credit, to claim Gagarin isn't one of our top 129 articles to have improved seems ludicrous. No, there's no new countries named after them, but if space gets colonized you can count on habitable things to be named after them, certainly Gagarin's chances stand higher in history than Roald Amundsen. In that case it's even more of a shame you opposed the Wright brothers too, since their merits should double after Charles Lindbergh. My original point may have hit a nerve, which i didn't mean but that's what it seems, no kid grows up thinking i want to be Korolev just like no person knows Triana and Elcano, that's just how history is and that's how historical figures are, anything other is the definition of righting great wrongs. It speaks volumes that this niche VA project itself got visited by new people wondering the exact thing, where's the astronauts??? Astronauts are the biggest thing regarding exploration since Cook, the arctic explorers never had a higher hold on the public then space ones. Who had the greater peak [15]? Who has the higher attention of our readers [16] or [17]? He has a losing difference in worldcat, but considering the 45 ish years Amundsen has...[18] [19] or anything else [20]? Take in the fact that Western mass media tends to not promote Gagarin in favour of Armstrong, (should i redo all these tests with Armstrong???) there's just no comparison. But Amundsen did it himself! (poor Lincoln Ellsworth or Umberto Nobile). Oh and now we mention Amundsen let's go back to your opposition of the Wright brothers because of "competing claims", (again since we're being arbitrators of history), then what about Frederick Cook, Robert Peary and Richard E. Byrd? Are we picking and choosing now? or do we accept that just like Amundsen, Gagarin and the Wright brothers both WIDELY get the credit and RECOGNITION for it and thus that's why they're vital then anyone else on their missions or with competing claims. If having a contry named after you means your cultural contributions are without comparison (no comparison on if finding a new continent is more important then being the first explorer out of Earth), then why isn't Amerigo Vespucci on this list, someone who has two continents and one of the biggest countries named after him? Also why is Space exploration a level 3 article but Arctic exploration is not on any of them? 20th century exploration can be summed up by Amundsen/Scott/Shackleton/Mawson (Arctic), Gagarin/Armstrong (Space), Lindbergh/Earhart (Aviation), Cousteau (Underwater) and Hilary/Norgay (Mountains), whose names are the most likely to survive considering the trajectories of the world and current exploration? It's not hard to answer. Chief Designer may not have gotten credit but that's by Chief Designer's own doing. GuzzyG (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
TLDR. If you don't want personal comments, don't impugn motives on me and then turn that into a straw man. For the record, I did not oppose the addition of the Wright brothers. Cobblet (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
See that's why i said it and still stand by it, you just dismissed every argument i made because you know it's true. TLDR, Umberto Nobile is exactly in the same position as the Chief Designer but that's going to be ignored or explained away, to refer to the Chief Designer as anything different or say he's more notable then Gagarin or Armstrong is complete historical revisionism and to refer to the Chief Designer as anything other then that title is the definition of righting great wrongs. To take it into pop culture it's why filmmakers like Sergei Eisenstein, D. W. Griffith, Edwin S. Porter and Auguste and Louis Lumière are not listed over Charlie Chaplin, because in any other case and in any other person we go by the person generally given the attention/credit. Where's the straw man? You had a chance to prove me wrong but you just went straight to personal comments and dismissed every argument in return as "TLDR". In fact this exact situation played out when my nomination of Geoffrey Chaucer got denied but Charles Dickens passed, again the founder of English literature (engineer,except he wasn't nameless in his lifetime like the Chief Designer) getting passed over for the pop culture poster boy of modern English lit. (Kinda like how Gagarin was used by the Soviets as the poster boy, while the Chief Designer was purposely hidden). This whole list rests it's back on pop culture name recognition and to not have astronauts on such a list is probably the biggest omission. GuzzyG (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Less than a year ago you accused me of upholding "the conservative orthodoxy of what should be in a encyclopedia" (I stand by my comments on your track record there); and now you're accusing me of "historical revisionism"; all because I don't conflate notability with vitality, and because for me, the essential measure of the vitality of an explorer is what they discovered, not their name recognition. Space exploration is in its infancy; what Gagarin or the Apollo astronauts can be said to have discovered impresses me significantly less than what the other explorers on our list achieved. If Elon Musk or somebody else establishes a colony on Mars, that for me would be comparable to what Columbus did. I expect it to happen within my lifetime, and I personally don't feel a need to add Gagarin or Armstrong as a placeholder until it does. Cobblet (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
You continue to take shots at me personally and refuse to address my argument instead of why Amundsen is being treated differently while being in the same position and why someone only referred to in their own lifetime as the "chief designer" while Gagarin was chosen to be the front of the mission is anything less. I never called you the "conservative orthodoxy" i said the idea that we can't list niche sports like competitive eating is. I never said you directly are engaging in historical revision but the idea of referring to someone who WAS ALWAYS MEANT TO BE HIDDEN hence "chief designer" is. Stop cherrypicking things that i have said somewhere else out of context and inserting them in this argument where there's no comparison or actually address my arguments and not me, that's all i ask. Your over the top reaction attacking me for no reason when i was friendly in my vote, in which i now do not understand why i am being attacked, can only be as some sort of grudge for astronauts, anyway this kind of discussion is not helpful. i hope others take into account the actual argument and that it's maybe time for Amundsen to be removed as well then. GuzzyG (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
So you didn't "say" I was "engaging" in orthodoxy or activism/revisionism, only that the ideas I was expressing were exactly those things... OK then. Your arguments with respect to Armstrong and Gagarin vs. Amundsen and Korolev are exactly what I'm talking about when I speak of conflating notability with vitality. For me fame is just one component of vitality, and a less important component than one's actual accomplishments. Gagarin and Armstrong are unquestionably among the most famous of astronauts, but I think opinions may legitimately differ on whether they're also the "greatest" of astronauts. I think we will see "greater" space explorers (i.e., people who will discover things of greater significance) within our lifetime. Nevertheless you're entitled to express your position. I don't see your opinion as "ludicrous", or the result of a "grudge" or a "loss of focus", or a response to "hitting a nerve". Cobblet (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I know it seems hard for you to actually understand my argument but i NEVER equated purely between a Gagarin vs Amundsen comparison. I equated the fact that Amundsen got help from Umberto Nobile exactly the same way Gagarin got help from the Chief Designer. Wouldn't by your EXACT argument mean that Nobile should get the SAME credit as the Chief Designer? For you to accuse me of a "track record" of "absurdly butchering" the list that WAS CREATED EXACTLY FOR PURE TABLOID POP CULTURE AND NOT HISTORICALLY IMPORTANT (like level 3/4) articles because our readers need FEATURED articles on those HIGHLY VIEWED topics while i linked statistics in places like ngrams while you use buzzfeed and quora as sources says it all. I mostly use hard statistics and i know you'll dismiss that but when peoples memories and emotions go connected to time periods or accomplishments the ONLY way historians can accurately judge impact is on tracking mentions in scholarly articles and books and THIS is where Gagarin has more vitality then Amundsen because it take out the SUBJECTIVE opinion of what is better and relies solely on reception to culture (books) and academia. Gagarin wins every time [21] vs [22] and [23] i never go by my opinion. To state that the first person to go into space will not be as historically important does sound ludicrous and that's not a insult, it's just generally baffling to hear. Subjective opinion is Dawid saying Amundsen is more notable for the northwest passage but every single way to track mentions spikes only after going to the northpole of which Nobile was the engineer AND pilot of. I was only trying to find consistency in opinion but you're bringing up close to a year old discussions of me, i meant no harm in my post but whatever, but i am not going to take distortions of my arguments on the chin. Either discuss the comparison between Nobile and the Chief Designer and explain why someone who was supposed to be anonymous is more vital then the poster boy. Is the person who built Columbus ship vital, or are we not being consistent? I can take your hostile attitude on the chin but i can't take your inconsistency, because we can do this for everything, a swap with Elvis for Chuck Berry, a swap with Chaplin for Griffith or is it only in this case the engineer/pioneer of something is chosen over the poster boy? They certainly have more of a case because people in real life actually knew their full name over Korolev. But if academic mentions is fame and buzzfeed/quora is notability then i have no need to discuss any further because that's above my head. If you don't think someone with these numbers [[24] can't get on a 1200 sports people POP CULTURE/TABLOID list, then that's your opinion, i don't need this kind of condescension because of it. I still contend that having 50 niche sports people is better then another 50 soccer players, but that has no merit in this discussion, either address my actual arguments or just don't respond, but stop with bringing up this irrelevant personal stuff. PS I don't even equate fame with Gagarin, the western mass media seems to avoid him in favor of Armstrong. But if i was to poke the bear here, guess what Gagarin has over the other people here? He WAS THE FIRST PERSON IN HIS AREA of exploration. Polo wasn't the first in China, Battuta wasn't the first in the Islamic world, Zheng wasn't the first in the multiple places he went, da Gama wasn't the first in India, Magellan never completed his circumnavigation, Cook wasn't the first in Australia and not only did Amundsen have multiple competing claims (you know, American encyclopedias may place Cook, Peary and Byrd first, that arguments valid according to you using the same one against the Wright brothers, so consistency) but he had multiple people with him to the north pole, mainly his ENGINEER and pilot Nobile. So Gagarin was the first in his area unlike any other explorer? Just fame, no historic vitality. All i ask for is no insults, just consistency across everything, there's so many Korolevs to the other people on this list that this list needs a major look over if that is important.

TLDR: since a paragraph might be too long

  1. 1. Don't distort my arguments
  2. 2. Explain how Umberto Nobile is different to the Chief Designer.
  3. 3. Explain realistically how Korolev who was just known as the Chief Designer has any more merit then Gagarin, and then compare that to how Chaucer didn't make it in over Dickens when it's a similar thing in another field.

if you can't address my points and resort to further personal attacks then i rest my case. GuzzyG (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Amundsen achieved plenty (South Pole, Northwest Passage) without Nobile's help. Nobile did nothing of note outside his one collaboration with Amundsen. The one thing of note Gagarin did was overseen by Korolev. Korolev was involved in plenty else (Sputnik 1, Laika, Luna 2, Luna 3, Tereshkova, Leonov) besides sending Gagarin to space. I don't see how this is a sensible comparison.

Fame is relatively easy to quantify, at least if we ignore issues of data selection and interpretation. Accomplishments are not. (By the way, you asked me whether Gagarin or Amundsen had the greater peak, but your own graph does not show that Gagarin was more famous than Amundsen was in their respective lifetimes.) This is why I look to the opinions of people, particularly those who actually know a thing about the topic, rather than solely relying on big data. I don't believe everything on Quora, but if I listen to you, I think it's reasonable of me to listen to people there as well. What you will see there is not just a discussion over which astronauts are most famous, but also on whose accomplishments were "greater", which for me is more relevant to what this list is about.

A more traditional and authoritative source refers to Amundsen as "one of the greatest figures in the field of polar exploration", and Korolev as "the guiding genius behind the Soviet spaceflight program." It does not say that Gagarin or Armstrong were "greater" than later astronauts or "guided" their work, just because they happened to be earlier. And that's my point. Armstrong may be a more famous astronaut than Aldrin, but IMO that doesn't make his accomplishments greater than Aldrin's, and for me his fame alone doesn't make him so much more vital than Aldrin that he should be included while Aldrin should be excluded.

I am most definitely not an expert on English literature, so I don't know why you're asking me to explain the result of discussions I was frankly not qualified to participate in, and did not do so except to say that I didn't think we needed more writers (of any language or era). I do know that I understand the English of Dickens mostly fine, and Shakespeare moderately well, but have to read Chaucer in translation. That may not matter to you, but perhaps that's why the first English writer we list is Shakespeare and not Chaucer. Cobblet (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll address this by saying i accidentally linked the Spanish language version. That's on me, but Gagarin does have a higher peak there. (and Amundsens primary spike always revolves around the north pole). But it's missing the point to focus on the accomplishments of astronauts, Gagarins vitality rests on the fact that he is the first person in space, if one day humans HAVE to live in space, he will signify the transition more then anyone else because that's what he proved was possible, Korolev will never signify that transition. Also i have to use translation for most of the listed writers, is that really why someone shouldn't be listed, because their language is outdated? Should Virgil be removed? GuzzyG (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
If you're allowed to speculate, I'll speculate as well. I think the person who would best symbolize living in space would be the first person to actually live in space, i.e., permanently inhabit space. Or perhaps the first person to be born in space, whether on a spacecraft, or in a colony on Mars. And maybe one of those people will actually discover something of note, i.e., do what an explorer is supposed to do.
Or maybe they won't. If you think it's missing the point to focus on the accomplishments of astronauts in the way I focus on the accomplishments of explorers, fair enough – you're saying I shouldn't compare apples to oranges. In that case, we should not be comparing Amundsen with Gagarin in the first place, and we should make a separate category for astronauts if Armstrong, Gagarin, or someone else gets listed in the future. That's a coherent viewpoint. I don't see how I'm an "activist" for not sharing that viewpoint, but whatever.
You asked me to speculate on why other participants on this page specifically chose Dickens over Chaucer. I didn't expect you to interpret my response as criteria to be applied to all writers in general. Weren't you upset just a moment ago that I was taking your words out of context? Cobblet (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
This is my only answer on this subject as i do not want it to drag out, from my updated support vote - "Gagarin's historic stock can never go away as it's stuck down with a anchor in history no matter what happens on Earth, but it can significantly rise in unprecedented levels if we have to live in space and on other planets. The other explorers frankly depend on Earth surviving." Continents sink, you yourself have said "If Elon Musk or somebody else establishes a colony on Mars, that for me would be comparable to what Columbus did. I expect it to happen within my lifetime" so you believe we are going toestablish colonies in space a "new world" perhaps, infact THE new world, about 20 thousand years pass, climate change sinks land, every human now lives in space.... jump by 5, 000 more years of history, now humans have been purely living in space/on another planet, who's the most notable explorer to the average person? Amundsen? The Arctic disappeared over 10, 000 years ago. First circumnavigation of earth? Who cares, humans have not cared about Earth for over 5, 000 years? Finding the "new world"? Huh, you mean Gagarin the first person in our new world? Say by then we're hyper advanced with one language and one government, George Washington who? American government, what? Why should i read Shakespeare who's over 25,500 years old? These will not be mainstream subjects, only known by educated people like Sargon of Akkad is. Whose historic stock lasts longer, the person who invented cars, is stuck to a religion which could completely disappear, founded a defunct government, wrote in a language now completely mixed/changed/dead, artwork who is potentially outdated, MUSICIANS lasting 25k years? Chaplin/Disney? Unlike Columbus, Gagarin was actually the first into the ACTUAL new world that even you admit will have colonies. Climate change is a real thing and it's looking like space is our only option for civilization. Even if it does not happen guess what? Never gonna change or go away, first person in space, can't ever be devalued. Even if someone does something more noteworthy, if they invent a new space technology or they step on the moon, the moon could go away in 50k year, the tech 25k, Gagarin will still never not be the first person in space. Leif Erikson was never a real first, so he was removed. First European, which is a technicality. Gagarin is the only explorer that would be on this list with an actual first person in a area, not a feat tied to one planet, but of eternity. Yes, there could be multiple space personalities, but we list Da Gama, Columbus and Magellan from roughly the same period, why can't we list multiple space people when that happens? If you can't see how people's vitality is tied to the one thing they're known for (ex:Shakespeare - English Lit, Chaplin - Film, Magellan the earth existing, Lincoln the state of the USA) and realize that once the things that they're connected to change over centuries or even completely fade away so does their historic stock. Gagarin's never fades, it's physically impossible unlike everyone else on this list's anchor. Forever current and relevant no matter what happens in this earth. Forever FIRST IN SPACE. If it's year 222,000 and we're in space and this same list is built, who is more notable Magellan or Gagarin, who would you bet on, the first person to enter space in which we live or circumnavigated the Earth? You can say space colonies won't happen or climate change won't happen but the former you've already admitted and the latter is entering conspiracy theory territory. That's why Gagarin is vital, because opinion of him can't change, it's a rock. First in space everyone else's achievement is centered on someone else or some thing like climate change not destroying earth, would you take that bet aswell? Even scientists reputations are dependent on if someone in the future does not completely reinvent the science in a unprecedented way. In 225k years more scientists more important than Einstein will come along, but Gagarin does not have to worry, first in space still. The final question would be, no matter what happens to the earth or society, whose reputation has the least potential to change and achievement still be current for eternity? Gagarin would be top 25/50 very conservatively on this list in that case. GuzzyG (talk) 02:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Gagarin forever and forever, a hundred years! You might as well start the level 2 nomination while you're at it. Cobblet (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Mocking my argument with memes is all it seems you can do. Answer the simple question, out of all of the people on this list, would Gagarins achievement not be in the 25 most secure reputations? If you can't explain that it shows, no artist will last as long as the man who first entered space, if we move to space all accomplishments on earth mean nothing but the first person in space means something, why can you only use memes agaisnt me and not arguments agaisnt me? If you only rest on current fame and can't think ahead more then one thousand years in the future, what does that say when you ignore my argument in favor of buzzfeed, quora, the big lebowski and rick and morty memes. Answer the question, if the argument is weak it should be easy. I'll answer the only actual answer myself, "That's all conjecture and crackpot "forever and ever" type thinking" humans living in space in 225k years may be conjecture and climate change may never happen but guess what will happen, Gagarin still being known in 225k years as the first person in space if humans even exist and that isn't conjecture, it's fact. Saying Shakespeare or Washington will still be relevant in that many years IS conjecture because they don't have one thing in stone. Washington being the modern day Ur-Nammu (hint: they're forgotten). But space will always be relevant to this earth whether we're forced to live in it or we are not. Thus the first person to be in it will always be taught in schools as such and yes that matters, if you're implying im crazy like that rick and morty clip over saying this fact then yes i am crazy. But it DOES show Gagarins vitality. Anyone that has a clear and certain path to being taught in schools till the end of time should absolutely be on this list. GuzzyG (talk) 05:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
You're right, Guzzy: I "can't think ahead more then [sic] one thousand years in the future." I'm clearly not qualified to respond to the "arguments" and "simple questions" of someone who can deduce what will happen 225,000 years into the future "till the end of time." You win! Cobblet (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Obviously you have a personal issue with me, that's fine, i still respect you and think you're one of the smartest people on this project but it shocks me you'd rather insult me than try to answer a question that legitimately stumps me. You can come up with legitimate doubts on other peoples legacies. Most listed politicians can end up like Ur-Nammu, most religion founders like Zoroaster and most writers/artists like Apelles or Kālidāsa. But i can't think of how space gets any less prominent to humans especially if we have to live there, i asked for your opinion but you'd rather take personal shots at me and mock me and call me crazy and that's fine. But i was only asking questions. For someone who has said "This isn't about "ignoring" discussion, but how to participate effectively in one" before [25], your behavior shocks and disappoints me here. I said that because you accused me of thinking of only current fame, so i changed my opinion and thought ahead to the future and got stumped so i asked for your help but instead you call me crazy, i was only doing what you asked. but whatever, clearly you're not going to contribute seriously, sorry about whatever misconception you have of me. I never meant to insult you. GuzzyG (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
2-2 after 30 days, no consensus. --Thi (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Add Parasitism

More influential for people than rodents. IMO parasites fit when we list Malaria or Infection.

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom GuzzyG (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Just one of many aspects of animal behaviour. Cobblet (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I don't see it as really important topic at this level. --Thi (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Insect is already listed at this level. Perhaps you meant Mosquito. --Thi (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I thought about parasites (redirect to parasitism). I have corected my nomination. Thanks for note Dawid2009 (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
2-3, not removed. --Thi (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2019 (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 Johannes Gutenberg

Printing and Book are more vital topics. https://lithub.com/so-gutenberg-didnt-actually-invent-the-printing-press/ James Watt is not at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom GuzzyG (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose While the nomination rationale is true, Gutenberg should still be at this level. Rated the most important person of the 2nd millennium AD by the book 1000 years, 1000 people. pbp 20:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Michael H. Hart's book The 100 (2nd edition) regards him the 8th most important figure throughout human history.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
    Despite my opinion, it is important to note that Cai Lun is above Gutenberg on that list. J947 (c), at 01:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. Weak oppose per PBP; he pretty much made literature a much more mainstream discipline in the western world. J947 (c), at 01:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
3-4, not removed. --Thi (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2019 (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 Walt Disney

I think that only Charles Chaplin is really vital at this level as filmmaker, as film is not very old art form. Henry Ford represents influential businessmen. Animation is important topic.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Disney is not the next vital director or businessman on this list, purely his name recognition is from his company. If Cleopatra was denied for being just famous, the same should be applied to Disney. He didn't impact the economy like Rockefeller or Morgan and he didn't impact film like Griffith or Eisenstein. Ric Flair influenced Japan with Puroresu and even put on a show of over 150,000 in North Korea, impacting another genre in the same overview, ie: anime is just Japanese animation aka obviously Disney would have a impact on every form of Animation. Animation and Comics are not big enough to require a representative here. Ub Iwerks was also one of the main forces behind Mickey Mouse as he was Disney's lead animator. GuzzyG (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support removal, though for a different reason. There is a point where the thing that a person founded becomes greater than its founder (the reason we have Tang dynasty and not Emperor Gaozu of Tang at this level; there are many other examples), and we have reached that point with The Walt Disney Company, which is certainly (now that it has Star Wars (franchise), ESPN, Marvel Comics, The Muppets, The Simpsons etc., etc.) more significant than Walt Disney. And since we have no companies at this level, we should not have this (now less significant) company founder either. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose for the same reasons as in the previous removal discussion 7 months ago: "His cultural influence and legacy have had an enormous impact on the English-speaking world and beyond. For example, Disney's animation success had a profound influence on Japanese anime." Rreagan007 (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I think he's vital enough for this level in animation, moviemaking, television, theme parks, and just "the business". In many ways, Disney the man was Disney the company. pbp 22:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, somewhat tentatively. J947 (c), at 04:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Disney has been ranked in the top 100 the most influential people of 2nd millenium ahead of Chaplin ( [26],[27]) by " A & E's Biography" but it is not the only historical ranking where Disney is way ahead of Chaplin. Here Disney also is ahead of him (Disney is in top 500 meanwhile Chaplin is 795th). However both rankings are bit odd. First one pick Bill Gates ahead of Allan Turing; in second one person like Cortes is not even in the top 1000 most influential people of 2nd millenium but the book include sports people, entertaiments and even quite unrecongizable 18th chess player. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

That first list has Disney ahead of Picasso, Franklin, The Beatles, Stalin, Elizabeth I, Mandela, Joyce, Bohr, Bolivar, Armstrong, de Gama, Suleiman, Heisenberg and Austen from our list, i didn't bother to check the others. In that case we should remove all of those too right since these lists you base the removals you've done say so? Why just Chaplin since Disney is apparently more important? Should we swap Gates for Turing? I nominated Jobs who has done more and it was unanimously opposed. I can see why we've had so many bad deletions and adds from and too our vital lists if these are the type of lists based off on. In any case, let's be honest; Disney is on here for a Animations/Comics add, he's certainly not top two filmmakers by anyone in film (or number one from your lists) and he's certainly not top two in business either (where he should be listed if he's on this list.) His company should be listed but we list none and his wouldn't go in over Standard Oil or the Dutch East India Company. Disney should be honestly only on this list if we create a animation/cartoons/comics section. You're telling me opening Disneyland is more important than Saladin fighting agaisnt the crusader states? Or William the Conqueror conquering England? But yet his impact on amusement parks is listed here like amusement park designers are vital at all (you'll never see Frederick Ingersoll, John C. Allen, Charles I. D. Looff or Marcus Illions on the level 4 list. Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, Hitchcock, Eisenstein and Griffith are all more important than Disney in his only two claims other than Animation. Disney being on this list makes no sense considering everything else, these lists of yours certainly don't make it make anymore sense. GuzzyG (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
It's worth noting that the 1000 Years, 1000 People emphasizes effect on "wisdom and beauty". As such, artists, authors, scientist, philosophers, musicians, filmmakers and even athletes tend to do well on their list, but military and political leaders, eh, not so much (For example, Beethoven and Shakespeare are higher on that list than Washington and Hitler). pbp 16:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Also, I think people are falling into the trap of looking at Disney as either only a filmmaker or only a businessman. You've got to look at him as both. pbp 16:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Here's a quote from when Arnold Schwarzenegger was nominated for the level 4 list Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 59#Add_Arnold_Schwarzenegger and opposed. "he is notable for many things, but vital for none." or do we have different standards on different levels? Arnold was the top bodybuilder, and popular in acting and politics; just like Disney, top animator, yet only popular in films and business, yes animating is more important than bodybuilding but why are the arguments not valid? Just create a Animation section, because that's our only valid reason of listing him and if that idea is "unnecessary or pointless or would look weird" i think that says enough about his place on this list; or you know there's always a "amusement park design" section possibility. GuzzyG (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
"Only popular in films". Disney has more Oscars than anybody and he's "only popular"? pbp 01:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Is Georg Solti on the level 4 list for having the most grammy awards?? Do we build our vitality to culture based off American pop culture awards? does Saladin get discredited for not having a oscar? Does winning multiple Best Animated Short Film, Best Documentary Feature and Best Live Action Short Film awards as a producer, make you vital in any other way than popular? Where's the established film and business sources directly establishing Disney as one of the top two filmmakers or businesspeople like he will be listed as here? Does producing Flowers and Trees, Bear Country (film) and others like The Alaskan Eskimo and winning a oscar for them give you a place on a top 129 people of all time list? Does producing those shorts make you more vital to film history than Sergei Eisenstein, D. W. Griffith, Auguste and Louis Lumière, Ingmar Bergman, Luis Buñuel, Alfred Hitchcock, Akira Kurosawa, Satyajit Ray, Leni Riefenstahl, Georges Méliès or even Steven Spielberg? We can't honestly list Disney as the top two in film or business, both which are wrong. There's no "combine everything small like amusement parks" option, we could create a animation/comics/cartoon section, that's the only thing that will make him have a accurate spot on this list. GuzzyG (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
You're equating "top in film" with "top in direction or cinematography". Disney shouldn't necessarily be on for the shorts you mention, but he should be on there for being among the first (if not the first) to make sound cartoons, and for Snow White, the first animated feature film. And why does he have to have his own section? At present, we have a filmmaker/actor known for creating a certain character and embedding his films with a certain gestalt, and then Disney who represents something else entirely. If we have only two filmmakers on this list, it stands to reason that they'd represent different aspects of filmmaking and the film industry. Saying drop Disney for Eisenstein would be like saying drop Elvis for George Frideric Handel (when we already have Bach) or Franz Josef Haydn (when we already have Mozart). Finally, it surprises me that your tack against Disney seems to be the opposite of what you've been arguing at the Lv 5 list. pbp 04:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
No, i am equating the lack of the impact on the field of film as a whole, not on a certain niche genre of film. Battleship Potemkin had more of a impact and influence on film as a whole. Battleship Potemkin or Alexander Nevsky (film) are not comedies, unless you mean silent films can only have one representative; in which case there's plenty more impactful sound/drama directors, clearly. Saying a genre film like animation should be represented over dramas because it's something different is like saying J. R. R. Tolkien should be on to represent fantasy literature/something different. Someone like Ingmar Bergman or even Hitchcock/Kurosawa is clearly different than Chaplin and represents films other better. Almost like the LVL 3/4 lists are supposed to be based on influence and actual importance unlike my specifically made pop culture list for names that are popular but not vital. I'm surprised that with people like Disney on this list, it's more like the level 5 list than not. I'd prefer to stay on the trend of removing people like Chopin/Dali/Disney in favour of the truly missing people like Saladin, Ashoka and William the Conqueror, all of which have a legitimate case agaisnt animation itself. Arguments in favour of Disney over people like that make this list exactly like the Boogeyman level 5 list than not. GuzzyG (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Also i forgot to include this before but Disney didn't make the first sound cartoon [28] or the first animated feature film. [29] [30]. Neither Quirino Cristiani, Lotte Reiniger, Ladislas Starevich, Mikhail Tsekhanovsky or Dave Fleischer are on the level 4 list. Yes, the "first" film may be lost currently but it still counts. Also technically Computer animation has wiped out Disney the persons actual style of animation and had just the same level of impact on the animation industry but John Lasseter is not on the level 4 list and Steve Jobs (Toy Storys executive producer, funder of Pixar) got unanimously rejected to be on this level. So let's consider that "combine Animation films + business into one package" argument again, wouldn't that apply more to Jobs? Animation producer that completely changed the style of animation, technology businessman (company bigger than disneys), changed the music industry, phone industry.... or is that a different case? Just asking. GuzzyG (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
Not swapped. --Thi (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Swap: remove Poland, add Ukraine

Proposing since my purely objective country selection proposal failed; Of countries in Eastern Europe, Ukraine has larger area, larger population, and larger largest city (Kiev larger than Warsaw). Any other differences are purely subjective.

Support
  1. As nom. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support addition of Ukraine. More countries are needed. --Thi (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal of Poland. --Thi (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removal of Poland. Poland was established in the 10th century and has either been an independent state or at least a geopolitical concept since then. It was quite influential for much of that time, especially in the 15th, 16th, and early 17th centuries. Whereas Ukraine only became a truly independent state in 1991, and prior to that Ukraine was often split between various countries. Additionally, Poland is the only West Slavic country listed, whereas Ukraine would make two East Slavic countries. Orser67 (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Ukrainian language has about 35 milion natove speakers. Polish language has + 45 milion native speakers and more understandable each other dialects. It also due to fact that Poland has far more long stabile history. However I would rather support having either of Ukraine and Poland or swap Poland for Eastern Europe. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
2-3, not added. --Thi (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Add Predation

Arguably evolution's most important "invention". (So far, that is . . .)

Support
  1. Support as nom. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose, one example of animal behaviour. On par with parasitism. And disagree with the assertion that it's more vital than history of agriculture. Gizza (t)(c) 22:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Gizza with respect to the ethological perspective. If instead we're looking at this from a historical perspective, surely evolutionary history of life ought to be added first. Cobblet (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per previous comments. Evolutionary history of life woud be good addition. --Thi (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

In my opinion it is more vital than History of agriculture and I would consider add animal behaviour to thi level too. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-2, removed. --Thi (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2019 (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 Arch

Historically important invention, but Beams are more important in modern architecture.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom GuzzyG (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support not convinced that arch is any more vital than door, roof, tunnel, stairs, column, wall or even building (though it's a tad generic). Gizza (t)(c) 22:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support. Absolutely unneeded here. J947 (c), at 04:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support useful but not vital. RJFJR (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose History, the arch was a revolutionary advance over the principles of post and lintel construction. Such revolutionary technological advances should be listed. Post and lintel construction is cheap and thus preferred in many modern contexts, but the cost-effectiveness of an architectural system or element has little to do with its significance in the history of human innovation. Cobblet (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn. --Thi (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Swap: remove Armour, add Industrial design

Good design increases sales and ideally makes products more ergonomical and ecological (Sustainable design). Important topic in business and technology. Edit: Armour is part of Military history and in my opinion general article suits better for this level. Armours are nowadays used by professional, design is part of everyday life.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose No rationale for removal. Industrial design is just a footnote in the long history of applied arts – something like folk art would provide a much better overview of the area. How could it be necessary to cover ergonomic design at this level when human factors and ergonomics is not listed at any level? Also industrial design does not intrinsically relate to sustainability, which moreover is not even on the level 3 list to begin with, and seems the much more vital topic. Cobblet (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose addition. Undecided on the removal at this stage. Industrial design is a subtopic of design, which could be the vital topic at this level (but again undecided if design makes it). Gizza (t)(c) 06:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose addition per Gizza. I would support the addition of design. J947's public account 23:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

My view is that Handicraft is the other half of applied arts. I proposed the addition of Handicraft but it failed, as did some environment-related proposals. We live with furniture and eat and drink from tableware. These objects can be made by hand or by industrial process. I think that these objects are necessity, just as architecture which is listed. Many architects have been also designers, for example Alvar Aalto, who thought that "objects should be essential, beautiful, useful and democratically available to all". [31] --Thi (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Thi: Do not delete the comments of any other talk page contributor – I will strike my comments when I find it appropriate to do so. Many articles on the level 3 list could be described as part of military history; you have still not explained why specifically armour should be removed. To me, trying to represent household objects on the list with industrial design would be a bit like trying to represent written communication on the list with digital communication. Specific classes of household objects like tableware would be a more reasonable addition. Design itself could also be considered. Cobblet (talk) 03:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
For the archives, this is what Cobblet was referring too. J947 (c), at 04:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I now tried to correct my mistake by marking my addition to my comment with Edit. – Either Design or Industrial design is fine for me, but currently Design seems to be more about planning in general. We list both Civil engineering and Infrastructure, not just Road, Bridge, Canal etc. Radio etc. are listed as subtopics for Telecommunication. Clothing and Furniture are currently in Everyday life section. They could also be at Technology, for example under the title Design and handicraft. Similarly Photography, Pottery and Architecture could be in Technology or in Arts (I think that in the Archives there have been some mention of potential historical overlap between the concepts of architecture and construction). – There are six subtopics to Weapon (in my opinion Military history could also be at this section, because it contains the section about technological evolution): Armour, Bow and arrow, Firearm, Knife, Nuclear weapon and Tank. Bow and arrow and Firearm are used also in hunting. Knife has been significant tool in history, just as Wheel, but it is probably not necessary at this level. Nuclear weapons are issue in world politics. Tank seems to me more similar to Artillery, which was swapped for Military history. In my opinion it could be swapped for Aviation, for example. --Thi (talk) 10:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I perceive no rational chain of thought here, just a series of unconnected personal observations and opinion. There is still no rationale provided for why specifically the article on armour that should be removed. Nor does the revised rationale for industrial design make sense: is anything that increases sales of a product vital, and more so than sales itself? It doesn't help, of course, that the proposed addition and removal have nothing to do with each other. Cobblet (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Then I will archive this and start new, separate nominations for removal of Armour and addition of Design. There was some confusion, I thought that contrast between industrial design and craft-based design would have been useful, because there is currently another proposal for addition of Craft. Please excuse the mention of sales, I tried to find some short phrase to describe the position of design in industry. It is not easy to describe abstract things with my bad language skill. I am grateful to all who help me to find right words. --Thi (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Thi, we all understand that industrial design is quite important. That is why it is on the level 4 list. You do not need to describe its relationship to business or sales or technology or quote Alvar Aalto to prove this – we know this already.
There are about 9000 level 4 articles that are not on level 3. When you nominate industrial design for promotion to level 3, you are saying that in your opinion, that article is more deserving of promotion than most, if not all, of the other 9000 articles. If you really want to convince others that this is the case, you need to give a good reason. Just saying that the article is important will not convince us that it is more important than the other 9000 articles.
It is good that you brought up the comparison between industrial and artisanal design ("craft"). This is the first time in this entire discussion that you have brought up something to justify the inclusion of industrial design on level 3. You are arguing that if there is a consensus that artisanal design is worth representing on the list, industrial design is in your opinion equally important, and therefore should also be represented.
There are two problems with this argument. One problem is that not everyone may agree that industrial design and artisanal design are equally important, and you haven't justified your opinion that they are. I might ask you to do this, but there is an even more serious problem: we have not actually added craft to level 3, or even to level 4 – Dawid's proposal has no other !votes in support on that level. Until we actually add something craft-related to the level 3 list, this line of argument remains weak.
Your English is fine. Your ability to present a reasoned argument needs work. Cobblet (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
2-1. --Thi (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2019 (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 Werner Heisenberg

Cobblet convinced me that he is important figure, but I am not sure that both Heisenberg and Bohr are absolutely necessary at this level. I think that the People section needs trimming. I would rather add History of physics.

Support
  1. Support. --Thi (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. If people like Francis Bacon are not listed then Heisenberg who is less vital shouldn't, his area is covered by Bohr. GuzzyG (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. This figure should be kept, since he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for the establishment of quantum mechanics. Besides, I don't think that the people section should be trimmed. Instead it should be expanded a bit.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

I am uncertain about this removal. pbp 22:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
3-2. --Thi (talk) 08:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Add Zoroastrianism

The meta equivalent page also contains this religion, and it influenced Judaism substantially, thus it should be added as well.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Historically important religion that still has >100k followers. Orser67 (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom GuzzyG (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. As I state in the previous remove discussion, it's just too small and niche of a religion to be included at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Zoroastrianism was removed last March, see rationale there. --Thi (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Zoroaster is the better choice since he not only the founder of Zoroastrianism but influenced many other religions and philosophies. Gizza (t)(c) 03:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
4-3, not added.

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

Add Michael Jackson

I propose the addition of Michael Jackson. The FAQ about vital articles says that "Individuals within the People section represent the pinnacles of their field". In this case, Michael Jackson really represents the Pop music pinnacle (and development), while for example Elvis Presley (who is already included as a vital article) doesn't represent the Rock music pinnacle at all. Expanding the field to Music (or Modern Music), the importance and influence of Michael Jackson is undoubtedly great and impossible to overlook (In addition, his influence on other artists goes beyond Pop music artists). To this day, more than 10 years have passed since his death and he has influenced the success and the way of making music of new artists (for example Bruno Mars) and is still really present; if we compare this to Elvis Presley, who died in 1977, in those posterior 10 years until 1987 he didn't have the remembrance and influence in the musical panorama that Michael still has.

Apart from that, he also greatly influenced in the development of music videos (since Thriller and also decades later with new techniques and innovations), and his legacy in Dance is widely known and timeless (e.g. The Moonwalk).

Finally, it should be added that Michael Jackson exceeded the limits of simply being an artist, a musician, as few have done. He was received as a head of state in several countries of the World, bestowed and even crowned in Africa. After his death there were dance tributes (flash mobs) in practically all the main cities of the World, and his death was even described as a trancendental event in the Internet's history due to its impact on search engines and social networks at that time, without forgetting that his funeral was more followed by TV than that of any head of state in the World ever.

In conclusion, I propose that Michael Jackson be included in Level 3. -- Salvabl (talk) 09:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. -- Salvabl (talk) 09:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Michael Jackson is part of the history of the world and its music. Awvazquez (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Michael Jackson is the only king of pop it's not up for debate. He's the reason why modern music is the way it is today. He created a lot of dance moves, he broke down racial barriers and opened door for black artists, and he also influenced a lot of great artists such as beyoncé. Some of you all may compare michael jackson to elvis presley and say that elvis is greater, but we know that's a lie. elvis didn't have the same impact michael had and till this day have. ten years after his death he's still breaking records. On the other hand, elvis couldn’t achieve that even 5 years after his death. Also some of you all may compare Michael Jackson to beyoncé. again, we know it's a lie. Michael Jackson have fans from everywhere, from every continent, from every country, from every village. Michael Jackson was know worldwide if you go and ask a child if he knows Michael Jackson he'd tell you who doesn’t, even if they never listened to his music, everyone knows michael jackson. michael had a huge impact. beyoncé is great too i'm not saying she's not great, but she said it herself if it wasn’t for michael she would have never performed. Michael Jackson was a great philanthropist as well we should always remember that. He always told his fans that they should help the poor. while on tour, he'd make a time to visit orphanage's and hospital's. Throughout his life he donated more than 300M to charities. Michael Jackson was the most disrespected celebrity ever. He had to endure with racism, he had to deal with greedy parents, he had to deal with police brutality, he had to deal with people making fun of his vitiligo, he had to deal with false rumors, he had to deal with the tabloids and the media, and he was bullied on a global scale because of his appearance. they called him weird, they called him sick, they called him wacko jacko (which is also a racist nickname the word jacko was the name of a monkey and it was used against black people way before michael), they called him a child molester even though there was nothing that proves that. In conclusion, i want everyone to know of how a great person michael was. He used his platform to promote social issues (scream, they don't care about us), he wrote songs ( we are the world, heal the world, earth song, cry.....etc) to spread awareness about these issues. Also he was an innocent man and he died one, don't believe the media lies. And please stop disrespecting him he doesn’t deserve the slander. May his legacy live on and may his soul rest in paradise.Smilexmj (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
    This is Smilexmj's first and only editpbp 00:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
    Firstly Smilexmj, Beyoncé is miles off Jackson and Presley. Don't compare them on the same plain. She isn't on our list of 2000 people, let alone in consideration for the top 150. Secondly, in regards to your point that 'everyone knows Michael Jackson', that may be true for the most part, but take the example of Donald Trump. Everyone knows him, to a greater extent than Jackson, but he isn't even in the top 2000 people. That is because this list isn't measured by fame, it's measured by vitality. Everyone may know Trump and Jackson, but we need to think about them in the gauge of the history of civilisation. That's over 10,000 years, but really the last 3,000 are the important ones. You have to think about Jackson in that way, with 150-odd places. Thirdly, that he was a famous philanthropist is as important in vitality as if he was famous to the same extent for not giving to charity. Goodness does not matter in judging vitality.
    Fourthly, to add on to what I said before, it doesn't matter how a great person michael was, what matters is the effect he had on civilisation. That's what we should be judging him on. Fifthly, about that same phrase, i want everyone to know of how a great person michael was is ill-warranted. If you think a place on this list will make people know how a great person michael was, that is wrong. No one really reads this list, it's for editors to know which articles to develop. Those articles aren't meant to let people know how great a person was, but rather provide a neutral point of view. Sixthly, we don't aim to right great wrongs. What the media says is truth to us if we trust it as a reliable source.
    Seventhly, saying that Jackson isn't one of the 150 most is not slander, and that could be taken as a personal attack. Eighthly, and this is just a query—why, all of a sudden, did you decide to make your first edit Wikipedia in a very-hard-to-find backdraft of it? Cheers, —J947 (c), at 04:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
    Long statement full of unnecessary "data" and with a lot of subjectivity and personal opinion, but I think the only thing that matters here is whether it is support or opposition votes. Salvabl (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
    @Salvabl:: Most forums, including this one, ignore socks in counting votes. WP:DUCK would suggest that FanDeLaVerdad and Smilexmj are socks. pbp 15:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  4. Michael Jackson is one of the famous person in the world and he deserves be there FanDeLaVerdad (talk) 05:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
    I smell sockery... I really doubt anyone who actually wanted to add him would not look on the ToC. J947 (c), at 07:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
    For the record, FDLV made a new section about adding Jackson two sections below this one and that's what my comment is pertaining to. J947 (c), at 19:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. We have fewer than 150 people at this level and I have a lot of trouble believing he's one of the 150 people most vital to the course of human history. pbp 17:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. I think that Louis Armstrong represents on the list popular music, American art and African-American music. Critic Harold Bloom has said, "The two great American contributions to the world's art, in the end, are Walt Whitman and, after him, Armstrong and jazz." --Thi (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose It's hard to compare Jackson to Saladin, Ashoka, William the Conqueror, Alexander Graham Bell and Geoffrey Chaucer who are missing and are inarguably more important than Jackson in world history. Pop music is too new for two representatives, especially if film is just on the edge of having two. Come back in 50-75 years, it doesn't matter if Elvis doesn't break records today, he was the first pop worldwide superstar and that's why he's vital, not because of any records. I'd even put Édith Piaf over Jackson because we need a woman in music more than two male pop singers. Also if fame was of pure importance, especially 20th century fame, i would rather we have Marilyn Monroe than Jackson too, we have no actors either. GuzzyG (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

I may support a swap with Elvis. On the one hand, MJ is more recent but by swapping MJ with Elvis you get one jazz, one rock and one pop representative of 20th century music. That to me is more balanced and reflective of modern music than one jazz and two rock. And in the world of rock, the Beatles are more influential than Elvis. I don't support a straight add because 20th century music doesn't need a net increase. Gizza (t)(c) 22:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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.

The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money

This article is currently listed under the topic "Art", but as an influential work in economics, it seems like it should be classified under economics or social sciences or something. I'm not sure if there's another reason to put it under art, and I'm also not sure what needs to be changed other than the talk page banner to make a reclassification take effect. -- Beland (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Beland: at the moment, all non-fiction literature is part of the "Literature" section which in turn is a part of Arts. For example, On the Origin of Species is also under the topic "Art" instead of "Science". You could move all non-fiction out to other sections instead of Art but whatever we decide upon, it should be consistent. Gizza (t)(c) 00:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Mass reclassification would make sense to me. -- Beland (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@Beland: Selection is diffrent on various levels. For example geography section on the level 3 include some articles which are put in Earth Science at level 4 and level 5. I assume if we will have more active editors on level 5, many articles from sections like life, arts, society etc will be spit on to other own page. In the archives there were suggestions to move academic journals under educaton. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
That seems a bit inconsistent. It makes sense to me to work like a library card catalog, where journals would be under education only if the content of the articles pertain to the field of education. -- Beland (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
2-2, no consensus. --Thi (talk) 13:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Add Comedy

Important type of performing art (level 2) which involves humour (also level 2oops, actually level 3; thanks Dawid). Seems at least as important as Opera, Comics, or Epic poetry, all of which are listed at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Sdkb (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support We list 'humour on level 3, not 2 but I disagree with result of recent "consensus". Going by such rigoristic logic we could say that soul should be removed due to overlap with spirituality. There are missed things which are more vital culturally than comedy just like decorative arts but when we are under quota and we list young things like vido games we should keep space for either of humour and comedy. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Comedy is covered by Humour and other topics are needed. --Thi (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I don't see how comedy is more vital than any other literary genre. Narrative seems more vital than any particular form or genre of narrative. Cobblet (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

It was removed recently: Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_15#Remove_Comedy --Thi (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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.

Countries

What criteria makes a country a vital article? Population? Area? Population density? Economy? Influence? Interstellarity (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

IMO, all of the above except for density. Cobblet (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
IMO, mainly influence with a little bit of population, but that generally goes with influence, as do area and economy. J947 (c), at 04:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
IMO, area is important only if it revolves for example around natural resources which later put impact into economy/relations with other countries. Normally area is not absolutly important and technically is important just as population denisty. None country is important due to fact that for example is the biggest country on the continent by area and many people can note that on the map (it would be the most possible subjective opinion against population IMO). Dawid2009 (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED/FAILED
Not swapped (4-2), Myanmar added (6-0). --Thi (talk) 07:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Swap: Add Myanmar, remove Jakarta

I think that countries are in general more vital than cities. Myanmar is the largest of the mainland Southeast Asian states with population of 54 million. Jakarta has population of 10 million (30 million in urban area). It was announced in 2019 that Jakarta will no longer be the capital of Indonesia.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Awvazquez (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support the proposed country is more important than the proposed city. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support addition Myanmar is the only country with over 50 million people not listed. Cobblet (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support Myanmar. Orser67 (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal The world's fourth largest urban agglomeration (30 million people is more than three of the countries on the list) and the seat of ASEAN is self-evidently vital. Lagos hasn't been capital of Nigeria for nearly 30 years and yet has lost none of its economic and cultural importance; one would expect the same to be true of Jakarta, the second most economically productive city in Southeast Asia (and expected to surpass Singapore within the next ten years). Cobblet (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removal Jakarta probably doesn't have quite the history or name recognition (in the English-speaking world) that most of the other cities do, but the Jakarta metropolitan area would be by far the most populous metro area not listed. Especially if you don't count cities in countries that already have other cities on the list (although Seoul would be somewhat close). Orser67 (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
1-0, no consensus. --Thi (talk) 08:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Add Health care

Efficient health care system is also much discussed economical and political question.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
1-1, no consensus. --Thi (talk) 08:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Add Political philosophy

Many ethical questions are political questions. (Philosopher Bernard Williams emphasized that often politics should come first, not ethics. [32]) Political philosophy is in my opinion more important addition to Philopsophy (or Society) than Free will or Existence, because general articles (metaphysics and onthology) are listed. The list contains ideology, which is discussed in political science. The inclusion of John Locke is example of political philosophys importance: his contributions to political theory are reflected in the United States Declaration of Independence.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Ideology is "a form of social or political philosophy in which practical elements are as prominent as theoretical ones". That seems more relevant at this level than pure political theory. In any case the topics are close enough that I see no reason to list both. Cobblet (talk) 06:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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.

Heading to project

I think this project needs to consider adding some explanatory notes about how it works right at the top of the project page. I've often seen people quoting "vital article" as equivalent to something meaningful on Wikipedia, yet the project is something to which very few people contribute. What's really important is that people outside Wikipedia aren't misled by the projection that the community as a whole have sanctioned the selection of articles here. Indeed, the project has not many more pageviews per day than my own talkpage. In summary, while the articles may be considered "vital" by the handful of users working here, there inclusion/exclusion is not a reflection of community standards or consensus. This needs to be reflected front and centre to avoid misleading our readers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Why does this project in particular need that? Everything on Wikipedia reflects only the consensus of those who participate. pbp 19:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
As I noted, people are mistakenly quoting "vital articles" as if they are some kind of selected items which have a community consensus. It's not true, the articles here have a consensus of a handful of people. There should be a clear note at the top of the VA page which makes it clear that these items have been selected by a few users, and that has no bearing on the quality of the article nor the community at large. The project gets just a few more hits than my talk page so it's clear it's not something that should be promoted as a Wikipedia view on what is and what is not "vital". All I'm saying is the project, while it's fun for those involved, is not a reflection of the community's ideas as to what should be "vital". If the project could get 150 or more users involved with the decision-making, that might be different, but right now people are voted on and off the list by two or three individuals. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
There's numerous things that are wrong with what you've said.
  1. At Lvs. 1-4, a minimum of five supports are necessary for an article to be removed or added. There are many, many AfDs, CfDs and MfDs that are closed as delete with fewer than five delete votes, and wiping an article (or other topic) completely from Wikipedia has much more serious rammifications than designating it for vitality.
  2. Everything on Wikipedia operates on the consensus of those present (no matter how large or small the number), so this also operating that way shouldn't be a surprise to anyone
  3. If it were so necessary to say that it operates on the consensus of those present, why only a notification as such for this project? Why not for all projects?
Frankly, I can't take your proposal seriously at all: it smacks of a lack of understanding of this project, and of Wikipedia in general. But, since you only starting talking at this page earlier today, maybe you should participate further before telling everybody else how this project is supposed to be run? pbp 19:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
That's fine, I'm sure you have your own opinion and your own understanding of my post here. My chief concern is, as I said, that people stumble upon the VA project and believe it to be something sanctioned by the community or WMF and start heading out to other parts of Wikipedia, or the world, saying that Wikipedia has declared so-and-so or such-and-such to be "vital". There's no clear caveat at the project homepage to state that it's just the opinion of a handful of users. As to your points, "five" votes is nothing when we have people being elected to admin with 300+. That's not even content related. What is the breadth of voting at VA, i.e. how many different users have voted regularly on what should and should not be included? To your second point, sure, everything works on consensus, but nothing claims to be "vital" apart from this "project" which has as many page views as my talk page. To your third point, I think that's now covered in the previous two points. The issue remains: the project claims to be deciding on what is and what is not "VITAL", but yet only a handful of people are doing that. It's misleading and while I'm not averse to it continuing to occupy people's time, it should be made clear that it's not about VITAL articles, more just a group of articles that a minuscule portion of users prefer. Absolutely I would encourage those users involved to spend all their time working there, but as I noted from the outset, it's not a globally agreed list of "vitalness". It should be made clear. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Looking at Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles, or even Wikipedia:Esperanza, there is some discussion of the mechanism. As time goes on, there is something to be said for expanding on the history of some of these processes so future editors can get a better understanding of the rationale behind them, not "reinvent the wheel" and maybe make them more pertinent or useful (or not). IIRC this list has attracted criticism as being highly subjective in the past. I was about to write that a lot fewer people know or care about this page than Good or Featured Articles or DYK but I actually have no idea if that is true. I recall looking at this page years ago but not really getting involved with it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The more I think about this (and other pages), the more I think a page with the foundation and timeline is a good idea. I have done this a bit at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Collaboration and Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Dinosaur collaboration (actually looking at them could be more) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Cas. That's the point entirely. The findings of this project have been cited at other places, e.g. WP:ITN, but there's no substance behind that, and my chief concern (as noted) is that people who aren't familiar with Wikpiedia will take one look at the list of "LEVEL ONE SELECTED VITAL PEOPLE" (or whatever) and decide that's what Wikipedia as a whole has agreed. It's clearly not the case. Some level of reality needs to be applied, and that should be in the introductory notes where it should state that "at least five people" have to decide if someone is "LEVEL ONE VITAL". Or whatever. We have 20 million visitors to the main page every day so they should be told that the VA are selected by half a dozen individuals. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
There is no "Level one selected vital people". The first level they appear at is level 3. That coupled with your use of the words "or whatever" really tells me that you should spend a little more time learning how this project actually works and a lot less telling everybody else what to do. pbp 20:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
So that completely underpins the point. If I (with 14 years experience here without being banned) don't understand the point of the VA project, how does anyone else. I'm not telling anyone what to do, I'm just looking out for our readers who are not commensurate with even the simplest Wikipedia machinations, nor should they be. Cas' point is a great one, and backs up my point. Stop making this a personal issue Purple, it's about the content and our audience. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
The real question is whether Uga (mascot) is really an article that would be found in any half-decent encyclopedia...  — Amakuru (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Uga's at Level 5; this is level 3. I didn't put him there, and if you believe he shouldn't be there, you can nominate him for removal and I just might support you. FWIW, Level 5 still needs a few more months to get the kinks out. pbp 20:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely! ROFL...didn't see that... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Of course not, and it'll take two people to vote it off and three people to vote in H'Angus in his place. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hey Purplebackpack89, I can see you've devoted alot of time here and that's great. We're all trying to think things out here. Any discussion that questions status quo has the potential to be (unintentionally) confronting so please just bear that in mind. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, my comment here was related to the fact that "vital article' has somehow become meaningful (as a marker for "notability") to a few individuals around Wikipedia, and yet it has little or no provenance. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness. If you want there to be more editors here, you could easily add one by yourself participating in add and removal discussions. pbp 21:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
You're missing the point I've made many times. This project needs to make a proper declaration as to its provenance. It's nothing to do with my contributions. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I've said it above, but I'll say it again: this project's provenance is no different than any other Wikipedia-space project and, unless all Wikipedia projects are required to have a statement of provenance, this shouldn't need one either. pbp 21:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
You're missing the point I've made many times. If someone is pretending that Wikipedia believes an article is "vital" with a consensus of five votes, we need to tell our readers that. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Personally I can see one or two scenarios in which vital articles is a useful thing to have - the WP:Core challenge is one, where we need a fixed set of articles that are eligible for a competition. Doesn't matter too much on the precise boundaries of that list, so we can defer to the one that's already been written. Another use is for editors who are sitting with idle fingers and wish to improve an article on an unspecified topic; picking one from the vital list would be a good thing to do. Obviously some people find it fun to sit here curating the lists and having debates over which of Leeds or Belfast is more worthy of a level-4 slot. That's their prerogative. What should not happen, though, is that the choices made in these pages spill out into any other unrelated areas of the project. The fact that something is listed here and some other topic is not listed here does not mean the community has officially decided that the former topic is more notable than the latter. The participation in this project is simply too low for it to make that determination.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
YES. I'm definitely not here to spoil people's fun working in isolation on lists, but what becomes problematic is when suddenly someone declares "a vital article" as something, a thing. It's not. VA is just for fun, it doesn't mean anything to the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I disagree, @Amakuru:: I think VA is a better metric of community consensus of vitality than anything else we've got, and if we need to trot out a metric of vitality (anywhere, for any reason), it should be acceptable to use this list to do so. pbp 21:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Claiming that a community of half a dozen can determine "vital" articles is beyond a joke. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
{Sigh} The community is more than half a dozen, please stop making inaccurate comments about this project... pbp 21:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, 13 editors have edited this talk page since 2018. My mistake. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay okay, let's try and keep this looking forward. @Amakuru: I think you meant Wikipedia:The Core Contest? There is also a list at Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Articles that was actually begun by Black Kite (where did that list come from in the first place? I thought it was Danny....) Funnily enough people kept coming up with really big important articles that weren't on any list and when I tried to think about score-weighting, at least one person ((user|PresN}}?) objected to the inclusion of any vital or core list. I do think it is interesting how folks come up with these lists and I think everyone wants better coverage of broad material. PresN squarely related it to the number of wikipedias a page exists on IIRC. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I think this discussion touches on a larger issue of whether VA should be seen as internal (for editors) or external (reader-facing). Rambling Man, your main concern seems to be predicated on this list being referenced externally, but I note that VA tags only ever appear on talk pages, which are internal and which very few casual readers visit. I think it's reasonable to expect that anyone visiting a talk page is also likely to be familiar with the basic fact that consensus on WP is determined by those present. Sure, I'd love to see greater participation here, but I don't think the consensuses are invalid — the rigor of the lists this project has produced should be self-evident.
Now, all that said, I think it's always good to provide more information to anyone who visits this project about its background and about what exactly it means for an article to be vital. (I sometimes get the sense that even the active contributors here are going by slightly different definitions.) The background page looks like it could be developed into something useful. I'd also like to see more information about what distinguishes this project from its close neighbors, such as the list of articles every Wikipedia should have (and, in some cases, I'd like to see outdated/redundant projects merged into this one). Sdkb (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The main thing that should be changed is we should remove the word "vital" from this project, obviously it's a loaded strict sounding term and lists like the level 5 list were meant for pop culture articles which are specifically non vital. People just can't get past "vital" so it should go. How i interpret these lists are articles which need improving from a wide variety of areas, the higher the list, the higher the importance. That's all. No need for such a big fuss. Stu Ungar being on the level 5 list under the word "vital" looks funny because poker players are not subject to mass media in a way association football players are or have academic type sources citing their non existent papers; but we have a Poker wikiproject and we should absolutely cover "important" articles from every wikiproject. Any other complaints seem like nitpicking over nothing. If someone cites the level 5 list to nominate someone like Doyle Brunson to recent deaths they're not wrong, he's the top poker player, whether you see poker as important is a subjective opinion; we as a encyclopedia should be neutral and he dominates his field, as a completely emotionless, dry, neutral encyclopedia, he's the top person in his field, transformative figure and thus should be listed (all though, yes, RD lists anyone with a sourced article now); he only does not make it if you consider the natural gut reaction of "poker players are not vital! they're just card players! they haven't cured cancer!". But the level 5 list would not be used for a blurb nomination and never should be, this level 3 list you're on, Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr are the only people alive and both would get a blurb; so again i do not see what the big fuss is. Seems like a mountain over a molehill to me and a unneeded bureaucratic measure. Look at the level 4 list and point out people that would not qualify for such a list, (other than actors/athletes; cause you know cultural context hasn't set in for them yet and it's impossible for the average person to think of contemporary figures as "icons"). Replace poker with any field and that's how the level 5 list (let's be honest the most controversial) was built; infact just remove that list, it's not a big deal; i'm the main person that's edited it and i support it's removal now; i've long abandoned it anyway and started on my own independent project/soon to be website. It was never meant to be people just adding anyone. But a accurate study of every kind of way to measure culture and a way to track EVERY FIELD. I just never thought people like Frank Neuhauser and Armi Kuusela being listed would cause such a backlash. It's lucky none of the 19th century dog fighters i found have wikis. (or many other comprehensive (yet, shocking!) fields i've found in my years of research into fame and "importance" in a wide variety of fields, no matter how small). If a encyclopedia at it's core can't be and isn't expected to be all encompassing than it should not be called a encyclopedia. If you think Doyle Brunson isn't as important to have a featured article on as Michel van der Aa based on the cultural prestige of one field compared to the other being a "common" persons field (where a mockery feeling takes over at just the sight of it), than yes these lists must be offensive; in that case i'd recommended the Britannica; that's what it's for. GuzzyG (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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.

Background

Okay I have created Wikipedia:Vital articles/Background. I will ping some early users so this can be fleshed out. I think it is important to preserve these details before too much longer. Anyone is free to add to it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Should this be folded into the FAQ page? Sdkb (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Nice find! Yes I think a merge would be good. Err, why is the FAQ on the talk page? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@Sdkb: have folded it in now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
2-3, not added. --Thi (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Add Cai Lun

Of all top 10 figures of The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History (2nd edition), only Cai Lun is not listed, which is illogical since his contribution to the world was more substantial than some of the figures currently listed, e.g. The Beatles.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. pbp 20:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose Article (and maybe ecen sources) about Cai Lun are purly associated with creation of Paper. He should not be compared to Gutenberg who revolve around Gutenberg Bible, History of literature through Age of Dicovery or Age of Enlightenment. Article on Al-Mu'izz li-Din Allah is not desribed purly as "inventor of pen" but he is not listed even on the level 4. Even though paper is one of the Four Great Inventions I am still not convinced than someone like Sima Qian is less vital to representation East History/East culture. In the archives there were also suggestions to add clay as parent topic for traditional ceramic. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Given that he's only known for one factoid (inventing paper), paper is enough at this level. Orser67 (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Orser67. --Thi (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

This was also proposed last year. Cobblet (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Add 1

If 0, the additive identity, is a vital article, shouldn't 1, the multiplicative identity, also be a vital article? InvalidOS (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

No. Cobblet (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
0.999... is more interesting. Edwardx (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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.

Hilbert?

David Hilbert was an important mathematician. currently, he's at level 4 - I think he deserves an upgrade. Fr.dror (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 10#Swap, Add Emmy Noether and Kurt Gödel, Remove David Hilbert and Gottfried Leibniz. Cobblet (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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.

Reworking architecture section

Art section is low proportionally to the level 2 bcause of we removed many articles related to architecture (for example we removed either of coloseum and arch but we did not replaced it with Roman architecture). Based on factt wecan list musical instrument and singing would consider addition of gardening and architectural engineering (construction maybe is redundant to infrastructure, not sure thugh). Pyramida da Gizza was suggested to swap for pyramids but Taj Mahal never has beed suggested to swap for Temple. Thoughts? Dawid2009 (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The architecture section is small because several topics closely related to architecture are listed under Technology and elsewhere, e.g., garden, construction, several types of structures, masonry and other building materials, etc. Architectural engineering is a very niche field, at least in English-speaking countries, and seems weak even for level 4. Taj Mahal is a mausoleum, not a temple, and I think sacred architecture would be a better choice than temple. Cobblet (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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.

Security ?

I suggest to add security as wide and important topic. I do not understand why we need police on level 3 when we do not list Emergency medical services and Fire department even on the level 4. Either of jurisprudence and judiciary missed. Should not we also swap Cryptography and few weapons for completly other but important missed articles? Dawid2009 (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

We do not need to list both security and safety at level 4, while at level 3, I think liberty is enough to cover the concept of freedom from risk of harm.
Level 4 already has firefighting and ambulance; I'm not sure it also needs articles that describe the institutionalization of these services. Police are an essential component of government – rule of law vanishes when there is no police to enforce the law – so the difference in vitality makes perfect sense to me.
I see obvious redundancy between jurisprudence and law, and even more obvious redundancy between jurisprudence and justice, which already covers natural law and aspects of what the jurisprudence article calls normative jurisprudence. Meanwhile I do not see obvious redundancy between cryptography and any other article on the list. It is pretty clear to me that cryptography adds more to the list than jurisprudence does. Cobblet (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-7, closed per Wikipedia:Snowball clause. --Thi (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Swap: remove Reformation, add Fall of the Western Roman Empire

While Calvin was unique, Luther has been taken as the one historically responsible for the Protestant Reformation (regardless of his intent). Reformation is a topic which should be covered by: Luther and (moreover) Christianity, history of religion, Protestantism etc.. Listing Luther and reformation is too overlap because of it is like listing Marks & Marksism /Napoleon & Napoleonic Wars/Bahai Faith & New religious movement etc. (not mention fact we rejected/removed morality and humanitarianism as redundant to social equality or ethics). Even though Reformation was more influential than East West Schism and influenced Counerreformation (and later revitaliations of Protestantism by groups like Moravian brothers etc.) I am also strongly oppose to add history of Christianity because of IMO listing history of christianity ahead of Easter or Mary of Nazareth is nearly like listing History of Islam ahead of Mecca.

Fall of the Western Romar Empire had much more foundamental impact on history of Western World.

Support
  1. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose These are not convincing arguments. I could just as easily argue that the fall of Rome is covered by Ancient Rome and so should not be added; or that because other historical periods can also be covered by other articles on the list, we should also remove every single one of those. Cobblet (talk) 04:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I'm not buying the arguments. While Luther is cited as the first and most influential among Protestant Reformers, the Reformation is about a whole helluvalot more than just Luther. I also agree with Cobblet's reducto above pbp 03:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose The Fall of the Western Roman Empire is at a similar level of vitality to the Revolutions of 1989, which was removed over five years ago. Gizza (t)(c) 11:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per above. GuzzyG (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose especially addition. Status of Luther and Reformation can be discussed, but the Fall of the Western Roman Empire is just a subtopic of Ancient Rome. --Thi (talk) 11:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - The Reformation is vital at this level. Suggest snow close. Jusdafax (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Orser67 (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_15&oldid=1137398133"