Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Add Anna Kournikova

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

---

This is sort of a test for me. I am trying to calibrate how much interwiki count and page views weigh on determining vitality. Miss Kournikova has 73 interwikis and gets about 100k daily page views. She is also formerly the number 1 ranked doubles tennis player in the world and 20-25 years ago she was among the most googled sex symbols in the world. She has ranked at the top of sexiest women in the world charts in the U.S. and U.K.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not one of the 50 most vital tennis players. J947 † ^edits 22:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Not one of the all-time greats in tennis. Then after being awarded FHM's sexiest women in the world in 2002, she retired from professional tennis in 2003, therefore limiting her prominence. Even in FHM's 100 Sexiest Women (UK) lists Anna appears in the top 10 for only 3 years (meanwhile Kelly Brook has appeared for 10 years in the top 10, and won once). In FHM's All-Time list, Anna was 8th. Overall, not prominent enough, in my opinion. starship.paint (RUN) 16:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

   User:Starship.paint, I am not sure you are undervaluing her by strictly judging her as a sex symbol and strictly judging her as an athlete. She is the only athlete ever to win either the U.S. or U.K. version of the listing. Her intersectionality is what makes her vital. You could sort of say she is regarded as the sexiest athlete of the 1995-2017 era as both the only one to win and the only one on the 2014 All-time list.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

   We simply value the intersectionality differently, I am afraid. starship.paint (RUN) 07:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

   It's not an particularly encyclopaedically vital title. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

3. Per above. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

• Pageviews are mainly a measure of how «hot» a topic is, though vital articles do have more views compared to the average. Interwiki count, on the other hand, is a bit more reliable because when creating a Wikipedia on other languages you translate the topics that're essential for a broad understanding of our world/society. The Blue Rider 22:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Interwiki links and page views are a useful metric, so I might tentatively support. Tony, since you seem to be interested in sports and likely more knowledgeable here then me - what about Iga Świątek? I can say that she is very often mentioned in Polish media in the last few few years (and I am not interested in sports, I just keep seeing her name in the news every week...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  Iga Świątek is eligible based solely on her athletic prowess. She is a four-time major winner and currently ranked number 1 in the world. Her nomination would be like nominating Pat Mahomes or Nikola Jokić. She is right at that point where if she hung it up tomorrow she is probably still deserving of consideration for the list and is likely to improve her candidacy each of the next few seasons if she can stay healthy. She has potential to be an all-time great and is almost there already. Nominating Kournikova as a tennis player is more like nominating Meghan Markle and pointing out she was a serious actress. Kournikova was basically the most fantasized about, googled athlete/sex symbol in the world at the turn of the millenium. She was a blonde-haired beauty that was good enough at tennis to play at the highest level. As far as singles goes, she was more fun to google than to watch. I think the problem was back then a 25-29 inch television was a big screen. She might have been more fun to watch on a 70 inch screen than on what was common 25 years ago.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  User:Piotrus, if you do support, I think it would be my first nomination that you supported other than Miracle on Ice where you basically told me to nominate it in an above discussion. Still waiting to see if you ever support any nomination that I make without having to talk to me about it first.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  Not sure what your point is... I did support cover art yesterday. Shrug. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  I may have that one because your support is listed in the oppose section. Is there any other nomination of mine than Miracle that you have supported. I guess I should really be coming after User:J947 who I don't think has supported any nomination of mine.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  Tony is coming after everyone who hasn't supported his proposals enough times, ahaha.

Honestly, I think that your liking for sports blinds you a tad on what is vital, american baseball team's seasons and an american college basketball event are nowhere prominent enough to be on the list. Miracle on Ice is a good proposal though. I applaud your musicians proposals and the accolades comparisons are somewhat useful albeit insufficient. I've also noticed that bias gets in the way when you propose articles where you're the (main) author, specially art-related ones. I like that you challenge opposes that don't provide much reasoning, it's a good practice.

Not trying be inconvenient, just giving some feedback on your interactions here at project. I hope you find it useful. The Blue Rider 15:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

User:The Blue Rider, I have posted 2 art-related nominations for which I was the main author, one of those was by request. Are you saying I am treating my discussion with User:Piotrus at the Cover art nomination differently than at the Anna Kournikova nomination? I have also participated extensively regarding art articles in which I was the main author where User:Cobblet seems to think I was the only one who treated him fairly. Do you read that differently? Also note that I withheld my comment for several weeks on that subject. In the View of the World nomination, I was documenting a lot of my own learning.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Further, regarding VAs for which I was the main author, this is a new discovery. I have spent a lot of time with VAs because I use the authors as a guide to creating templates. I have used VA to guide my editorial activities for years. I was using it before there was a level 5 to help determine authors for which I could create works templates. Back then, I barely had any ties to VA as an author. I don't even know when Campbell's Soup Cans got listed at VA4. In September, I discovered I was the primary author of 6 of the VAs. Then another one more recently. Now, I wonder if any were missed. I also wonder how the 7 were selected and what makes them vital.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• I feel deeply uncomfortable with the tone of this nomination, uch. It's hard enough getting women featured on here without nominators talking about women like this.... --Grnrchst (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't read the full nominator's text yet but indeed that information isn't relevant; she is notable and possibly vital for being a tennis player. The Blue Rider 20:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd be more than willing to support addition if someone makes a new nomination that actually focuses on her accomplishments as a tennis player. I just can't with this one though, it's thoroughly tainted by the nomination text and the subsequent comment in the discussion thread. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

She is not vital as a tennis player. She is like a cross between Meghan Markle and Jenny McCarthy. Markle not vital as an actress or a royal, but is vital. McCarthy is not vital as an actress, host, or model but is vital. If Kournikova had become royalty or a main cast role on an ongoing show, we would be viewing her vitality differently, but she is merely the muse for Enrique Iglesias.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

There are zero mentions of Anna Kournikova as a sex symbol in her article. She dedicated her whole life to tennis, achieved numerous victories, won Grand Slams titles and was ranked No. 1 and No. 8 in doubles and singles, respectively; that's why she is notable. People do sexualize female athletes but that doesn't overshadows their accomplishments. The Blue Rider 10:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@The Blue Rider: - There are zero mentions of Anna Kournikova as a sex symbol in her article. That's a misleading comment, have you seen Anna_Kournikova#Media_publicity: Kournikova was named one of People's 50 Most Beautiful People in 1998[47] and was voted "hottest female athlete" on ESPN.com.[48] In 2002, she also placed first in FHM's 100 Sexiest Women in the World in US and UK editions starship.paint (RUN) 15:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I did see it, but what's your point? An ESPN and FHM ranking is what defines her vitality?? Absolutely not. The Blue Rider 19:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

As I have stated above, she is vital by intersectionality. She is neither vital solely as a tennis player nor as a sex symbol. She is the sexiest athlete of a generation (the only athelete to win either the U.S. or U.K. 100 sexiest women contest and the only athlete in the top 10 in the 2014 All-time ranking). Judging her merely as a sex symbol is not sufficient. Consider her as the sexiest athlete of her generation.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I was just pointing out the incorrect comment, The Blue Rider. Although I will say that if any single person been effectively top-ranked for a sex symbol for many years, I could consider that a claim to vitality. But that is not the case here. starship.paint (RUN) 07:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Sex symbol is a thing. And that concept should be vital. Will propose it shortly. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Add Tory Burch

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.

---

She is consistently ranked among the 100 most powerful women by Forbes and is a billionaire. Her brand is important and adding her would make the fashion designer list 40% female.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
2. She is only of only a small group of women who became a billionaire in her own right (i.e. no family business/male business partner etc.). Might not be a Level 5 fashion designer, but is a female Level 5 businesswoman/entrepreneur? Aszx5000 (talk) 11:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. An economically "powerful" women isn't necessarily a vital women; having a relatively unknown luxury shoe company isn't outstanding enough. The Blue Rider 21:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not think that Burch is on the level of Coco Chanel, Miuccia Prada, Pierre Cardin, Christian Dior, Guccio Gucci and Gianni Versace. starship.paint (RUN) 03:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint, I know you considered her as a fashion designer. What about if we look at her as a billionare businesswoman like User:Aszx5000 pointed out above. Is she vital as a business woman. Does that angle move you to possibly neutral or support?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Moving to neutral. Her brand is more successful than I originally thought, but my original concerns remain. starship.paint (RUN) 13:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

1. Full disclosure: I was the page creator of this article.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:28, 8 November 2023 (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.

Decrease socialite quota

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.

---

At present, there are fewer than the 40 articles in the quota. Some seem to be misclassified or not really VA5-worthy. pbp 21:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Retain quota of 40

Decrease quota to 35

Decrease quota to 30

Decrease quota to 25

1. pbp 21:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
2. From a quick count, I can identify about 13 or 14 entries that fit better elsewhere or I think should be removed entirely. Totalibe (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Decrease quota to 20

1. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 00:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

I think we can safely assume that anyone accepting a larger reduction (e.g. to 20) will accept any lower reduction (e.g. to 25). starship.paint (RUN) 00:33, 6 January 2024 (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.

Former VA4 articles suggested for addition to VA5

While I'm nominating these I'm not voting on them yet. J947 † ^edits 04:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Add Ed Bradley, John Chancellor

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.

---

Two American broadcast journalists who used to be on the VA4 list. I don't know these, so won't vote, but I thought I'd go through old VA4 entries in the knowledge that they likely merit a VA5 spot. J947 † ^edits 00:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thx for your efforts. Probably a fun learning experience. Keep it up.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
2. More worthy than Skip Bayless and Colin Cowherd, proposed for removal above pbp 16:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Good catch. Jusdafax (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Chancellor. Just 9 interwikis, start-class article with a claim of being pioneer from an obituary, and those tend not to be very netural. Not seeing anything that makes him vital. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose Chancellor per Piotrus starship.paint (RUN) 02:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose Chancellor, also per Piotrus. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2023 (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.

Add The Way You Look Tonight

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.

---

In the same vein of the above. Removed in 2013. J947 † ^edits 01:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Vital at this level. Jusdafax (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The nom does not explain why this is vital. 10 interwikis, I don't see any claim of signfiicance in the lead (one version was a bestseller, so what?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose Important but not vital. Not as important as other listed songs like Bohemian Rhapsody, or missing songs like?... Sweet Child o' Mine? There are more important musicians and whole genres missing, I cannot see a reason why this would be vital, there must be hundreds of songs as important or more important than this one.  Carlwev  09:42, 6 December 2023 (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.

Add Avdotia Istomina

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.

---

Previous VA4 entry. Our article calls her "the most celebrated Russian ballerina of the 19th century". Was she? J947 † ^edits 04:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. That claim is not repeated on ru or pl wiki, where the article is also very short, just like here. If that claim could be properly sourced, she could be vital. As things are... I'll just ping User:PamD in case she is looking for some interesting topic or knows who else might be interested in improving this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

   Neither ballet nor Russian are my specialities, but I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dance. It's interesting to see that the claim was in the article from its creation as an unsourced stub in 2005. Perhaps @Ghirlandajo, who created it and is still editing, could help here? PamD 09:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

2. Unsourced claim lands me here. starship.paint (RUN) 02:48, 7 January 2024 (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.

Add Jennifer Saunders

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.

---

Previous VA4 entry. English actor and comedian. J947 † ^edits 04:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Totalibe (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 38 interwikis is not bad, but what makes her vital? Not seeing anything in the lead, no Oscars or equivalents I can recognize, no section on legacy or cultural significance? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose, little known outside of the UK. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
3. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 02:48, 7 January 2024 (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.

Add Ben Stiller

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.

---

Previous VA4 entry. American actor. J947 † ^edits 04:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Totalibe (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
2. 70 interwikis and a dedicated article on List of awards and nominations received by Ben Stiller. Seems a league above all the other proposals I opposed above :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Support I think he is awarded enough that I can honestly support based on his importance. He has 70 interwikis.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
4. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 02:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• I am having a lot of difficulty distinguishing between how much I personally like him and how vital he is. I will not be the first of second voter on this one.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Add Herzog & de Meuron

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.

---

Previous VA4 entry, removed in 2014. Swiss architecture firm. J947 † ^edits 04:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Discuss

33 interwikis. Not terrible but I think V5 firms are generally names that at least a decent proporiton of people would know. I don't think this is a well known brand outside its field. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:38, 6 December 2023 (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.

Remove Parrhasius (painter) and Zeuxis (painter)

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.

---

Previous VA4 entries, removed in 2016. Greek painters. J947 † ^edits 04:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Hmmm. The first is said to be "one of the greatest painters of Ancient Greece." but the article is poorly referenced and has just 19 interwikis. The second one has 32 interwikis and a bit better article, but no major claim of significance. Could change my mind if sources for their significance are found and added. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Per Piotrus, seems obscure but remain open-minded. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Remove Parrhasius - even the Greek wiki article on him is a stub. starship.paint (RUN) 02:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Looking at our list, we definitely have room for at least 5 ancient painters. We list 5 famous flute players, 5 notable tattooists, 6 pseudoarchaeologists and pseudohistorians, etc. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

   @J947 Flute, fine, but how come any of the other categories is vital?? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

@Piotrus and Aszx5000: I've reframed this as a removal proposal since I missed that these are already listed, sorry 'bout that. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks, I moved my vote accordingly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Sorry Piotrus, I already moved your vote to the right place. J947 ‡ ^edits 08:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Add Charles Oman

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.

---

Previous VA4 entry, removed in 2014. British military historian, likely too obscure even for VA5 but he's one I thought I bring up for discussion anyway. J947 † ^edits 04:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Not seeing what makes him vital. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Not an obvious level 5. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2023 (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.

Add Harry Reasoner

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.

---

Former VA4 entry. American journalist, also likely too obscure even for VA5. J947 † ^edits 04:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Not a lot of journalist with 3 Emmys that are excluded to my knowledge. I remember his contributions to 60 Minutes.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. He won three Emmy Awards but I don't think that's enough for V5. Just 10 interwikis. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Not an obvious level 5 candidate. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Relative low amount of interwikis. starship.paint (RUN) 02:50, 7 January 2024 (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.

Add James Joseph Sylvester

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.

---

Previous VA4 entry, removed in 2014. 19th-century English mathematician. J947 † ^edits 04:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. 40 interwkis. "Sylvester invented a great number of mathematical terms such as "matrix" (in 1850), "graph" (in the sense of network) and "discriminant"." That's not bad, I can see some vitality here. Math is not my field, however, and there may be other more vital methematicians - feel free to disagree with me or suggest a swap. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Support In addition to the terminology he coined, "He made fundamental contributions to matrix theory, invariant theory, number theory, partition theory, and combinatorics." The VA5 page for STEM people is at 1266/1500 (although the VA5 list is overall over 50 000).--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per above. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Yeah for a mathematician he looks clearly VA5 from what I can see. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
5. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:25, 15 December 2023 (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.

Add Sam Smith

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 Sam Smith 5 Grammys, a Golden Globe, an Oscar, 2 multiplatinum albums, 7 #1 singles as lead and 2 more as featured. Groundbreaking LGBTQ performer.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Per nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. It might be personal bias, but I always have trouble seeing how these recent anglophone musicians are essential to the comprehension of our society. I find it baffling that the quota given to just pop musicians (880) is more than x3 bigger the one given to all philosophers (275). The Blue Rider 15:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

   Bloody hell, we have 880 pop musicians here compared to 60 at VA4? That's almost double the general increase for people. I know that the inclusion of pop culture was a prime motivation for many people as to this level of VA, but please. Need to start a proposal to reduce that quota – not massively, that's vindictive against GuzzyG whose input was very valued here, but by 100–200. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

2. Per The Blue Rider.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Per The Blue Rider. starship.paint (RUN) 05:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Per Blue Rider. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2023 (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.

Move The White Stripes

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 Blue Rider, Hawkeye7, and Grnrchst: The White Stripes are currently listed in General Rock which is oversubscribed by 11% (111/100 articles), but should they be in the alternative music (26/25 articles) subcategory of Rock. Half of their 6 grammys are in Grammy Award for Best Alternative Music Album and 2 of their 3 #1 singles are in Alternative Airplay.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Per TonyTheTiger. — The Blue Rider 13:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Per nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
4. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 15:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
5. per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2023 (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.

Modern military proposals

Add Andrew McNaughton

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.

---

It surprised me that we have a bunch of people from Germany, France, the UK, the US and Australia from the World Wars, but nobody from Canada

Support

1. pbp 17:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The pageviews for this article are exceptionally low (~30-40 daily views) for a potential VA. Even if he "should" be vital it doesn't appear the public agrees. SnowFire (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Just 10 interwikis. SnowFire makes much convincing case than the nom. Canada is not the country that shaped WWI (or WWII). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Notable but not vital. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Add Rodolfo Graziani

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.

---

It surprised me that we have a bunch of people from Germany, France, the UK, the US and Australia from the early-to-mid 20th century, but nobody from Italy to represent their participation in the World Wars or their conquest of Ethiopia

Support

1. pbp 17:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Definitely should be some more Italians on the list, and this guy is certainly vital. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

• For other Italian military commanders, I would also propose Luigi Cadorna. He was chief of staff through most of World War I and became rather infamous for his ruthless and uncaring attitude towards his own troops (infamous even for the WWI, mind you). --Grnrchst (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@Grnrchst: Add Cardona to your military thread? pbp 19:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Add Alfred von Schlieffen

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.

---

We have a bunch of modern German military leaders, but not him and IDK why. (This is the Schlieffen of the Schlieffen Plan). pbp 17:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 17:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Totalibe (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Seems like an obvious choice for addition. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Remove Noah Gordon (novelist)

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

---

I've never heard of this author, he is only on 28 interwikis, only 2 of his novels have English Wikipedia articles (and 4 and 9 interwikis for each), and none of his works have won any major prizes (nor has he himself won any major literary prize). Maybe he is extremely popular internationally like it states on the article but I can't seem to find strong evidence of this. Writers and Journalists is currently oversubscribed so I think this is an easy candidate for removal. Also, I am new to Wikipedia - this should go under the Writers and Journalists section but not sure how to transfer it over. Aurangzebra (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. by User:Aurangzebra 08:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
2. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Also, to answer your question, the "new topic" button does not work for these specific pages. For the subpages here, you need to type it into the bottom of the desired section manually. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

   Makes sense - thanks! Aurangzebra (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

4. Welcome to WikiProject Vital articles! Good catch, definitely not vital. The Blue Rider 23:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

• I've transcluded the proposal to the right section. The Blue Rider 23:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  thank you! Aurangzebra (talk) 07:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Add Debbie Allen

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.

---

She is one of the most critically acclaimed dancer/choreographers out there.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Nope. The Blue Rider 20:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

1. 29 interwikis is nothing special. I might support or abstain if the claim the nom makes was in the article, with a reliable citation, but this is not the case. From what I see, she is a reasonably succesfull actress, but not necessarily vital. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

   User:Piotrus, She has 4 Emmys for Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Choreography. What do you need to see?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

   @TonyTheTiger A referenced claim in the article that "She is one of the most critically acclaimed dancer/choreographers out there". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

   User:Piotrus, Primetime_Emmy_Award_for_Outstanding_Choreography#Choreographers_with_multiple_wins shows she has the most wins and second most nominations in this category. I have added a source from 2021 when she still held the record for both.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

   @TonyTheTiger: Thank you. I've moved my vote to neutral (discussion will do). I have trouble seeing her as particularly vital, still, but I no longer feel like opposing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:39, 11 December 2023 (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.

Remove more modestly notable rock bands

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.

---

These bands have had modest success. No multiplatinum albums. At most 1 #1 single.

Captain Beefheart discography seems to have no certified album and none charting above #20. No successful singles. His bio says he has a cult following despite little commercial success.

Blue Öyster Cult discography 1 platinum album, 1 #1 single, no grammys

The Band discography 1 platinum album, no #1 single, only a lifetime achievement Grammy

King Crimson discography Only 1 certified album (platinum), no #1 single, no grammys

Elvis Costello discography 2 platinum albums, 1 #1 single (alternative airplay), 2 Grammys

Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Support all apart from Captain Beefheart and King Crimson, per Totalibe (which I oppose). Captain Beefheart is another case like Frank Zappa, and his cult following, despite the little commercial success, suggests that he is influential. — The Blue Rider 19:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 05:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Captain Beefheart and King Crimson - per Blue Rider for Captain Beefheart, atlhough you could argue his notability is more tangential to that of Zappa's, but Trout Mask Replica at the very least is highly influential. King Crimson is one of the most widely influential progressive rock, rivalled by only a few others such as Yes and Pink Floyd (both of which are listed here). In the Court of the Crimson King alone has maybe one of the most famous album covers of all time (you'll likely recognize it even if you don't know where its from). Undecided on Blue Öyster Cult. --Totalibe (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
2. oppose Elvis Costello, not sure about the rest. Also, why not include a link to the artists page in addition to the discography Lorax (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose King Crimson I thought earlier this was about removing discographies, but no, those aren't listed anyway, merely used as supporting material for the proposals.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose removal of Elvis Costello. He's the most acclaimed British songwriter of his generation. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2023 (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.

Remove Christine Blasey Ford

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.

---

Note: I've preemptively already removed this as a possible WP:BLP issue. I was shocked to see that the woman who publicly accused a Supreme Court justice nominee of sexual assault was listed as a Level 5 Vital activist, since 2019, added by GuzzyG. She is a psychologist and has worked as an academic. The word "activist" does not appear in her article. I leave this up for discussion. I do not think she is vital anyway. starship.paint (RUN) 09:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: May have a little more specificity as to why you think she and/or her inclusion is a BLP violation? I don't see any BLP tags in her article. pbp 20:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: - including her as vital is not the problem. Including her as an activist is the problem. We are calling a potential victim an "activist", with no references to back it up. That is potentially defamatory? starship.paint (RUN) 22:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: This somewhat begs the question, "what is an activist? Who gets to be placed in the activist category?" Here's my general thought:

1. If it says in your lede that you're an activist, you can be classified as an activist
2. If your claim to notability is through a particular advocacy, cause or movement, you can be classified as an activist
3. If your claim to notability is as the founder or head of a non-profit/NGO/something similar, you can be classified as an activist
4. People associated with anarchism and related philosophies and movements can be classified as an activist

If I'm on the right track, maybe I'll start a s pbp 20:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: (3) seems a bit vague, I think there may be exceptions to it. starship.paint (RUN) 02:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Probably, but can you go down this road a little farther? Are the exceptions certain categories of NGOs? Are the exceptions where being head of an NGO is overridden by something else? pbp 02:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: - for example, I see Iran Martial Arts professionals Union being listed as an NGO, then is their founder Ali Haghshenas an activist? Also please always ping me if you want my input. starship.paint (RUN) 03:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: OK, I think what you're saying is that if the NGO has a principal purpose associated with one of the other subcategories of people, people should be categorized under that subcategory rather than activists? Am I on the right track? pbp 16:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: - more like, if the NGO's main purpose isn't activism, then its people should not count as activists? starship.paint (RUN) 22:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 09:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Agree with your reasoning but I do feel like we need some representative from the whole #MeToo/sexual assault advocacy space on this list. See my proposal below. Aurangzebra (talk) 09:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Miscellaneous#Victims would have been a better place to list her. Not vital enough anyhow IMO. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Per above, plus US and tabloid centric. Seriously, this is US trivia, not vital, I'd oppose this at V6 too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
5. The Me Too movement is possibly VA5 but I don't think Ford herself is pbp 16:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Remove George McGovern

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

---

I think we need to throw this one out into the aether. McGovern got trounced in 1972; Humphrey, Romney and Kerry all lost closer elections, and Humphrey was VP too. pbp 19:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Weakly. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

   Unusually, his VP candidate Sargent Shriver sometimes receives greater pageviews than him: Shriver could be a potential addition into some section. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

   Shriver married into the Kennedy family, which is vital at this level. pbp 13:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

3. He wasn't president. What is so vital about him? starship.paint (RUN) 02:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Seems pretty average. Cool name for a politician but what makes him vital? The lead doesn't suggest he has influenced the world's history. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Support. not vital. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
6. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Firsts

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

---

I've noticed that several of the recent American politicians take their vitality primarily from being the first ______ to _______...and none of that type of politician is nominated for removal. If we're reducing the size, do we want to commensurately reduce the number of firsts as well? Here are examples...

• Nancy Pelosi was the first female Speaker of the House
• Kamala Harris was the first female Vice-President, the first African-American Vice-President, and the first Asian-American Vice-President
• Hillary Clinton was the first female nominee of a major political party, and the first female to win the popular vote in a presidential election

Now, each of those three seems safe. Pelosi was a very influential figure during Obamacare and the Trump impeachments. Hillary was, in addition to her close loss in 2016, First Lady and Secretary of State. Here are some others:

• Shirley Chisholm was the first black woman to be elected to the United States Congress and the first Black woman to get votes at a nominating convention (she did not win nomination
• Geraldine Ferraro was the first woman to be nominated for Vice-President (she lost badly)
• Michelle Obama was the first African-American First Lady
• Margaret Chase Smith was the first woman to serve in both houses of the United States Congress, with a total Congressional service of 33 years, 24 in the Senate

We also have Barack Obama, a VA4, and Daniel Inouye, a long-serving Senator who also earned a Medal of Honor for getting his arm blown off when he served in the 442 during World War II. pbp 21:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• We can remove all of the latter four women, plus Kamala Harris, who certainly doesn't seem to have the same amount of impact as Pelosi or Hillary. starship.paint (RUN) 09:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
• These are the best bets to remove if removal is warranted. The very fact of being first doesn't confer great vitality IMO. J947 ‡ ^edits 10:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
• Jesse Jackson the first African-American to win a presidential primary (as important as first Black woman getting votes at a nominating convention, which is named above)-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Blue Rider closes

@The Blue Rider: There is currently a discussion about whether or not it's acceptable to close as passed on 4-3. Don't you think it would have been better to wait until the discussion had closed before closing 4-3 discussions? @J947: @TonyTheTiger: @Starship.paint:, @QuicoleJR: thoughts? pbp 17:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I reopened one of them already, since one of the opposes was just added yesterday. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't invalidate anything. I will reclose it. The Blue Rider 19:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

It means that discussion was still happening, which means it probably should not have been closed. I will not reopen it because I do not want to start an edit war, but I strongly believe it should stay open for at least a couple more days. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The proposals are from +2 weeks, people already had enough time to vote. It would be appropriate to close, but I will reopen it nonetheless. The Blue Rider 19:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

No, New Order and other nomination have been removed/added with 4-3 as well, so I see no reason for these nominations to be an exception. Plus, you should either ping no one or all the editors from the discussion, pinging editors who voted mostly in disfavour is skewering things. The Blue Rider 19:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

New Order is a terrible example to bring up since it involved votes being mistakenly assumed, and at least one person switched from voting for all the removals proposed together to specifically opposing New Order after I posted a rationale specifically opposing New Order (as it was a group nomination). Others who voted before on the group before never even commented again so they may very well have changed if I were to ping based on that. Totalibe (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The votes were mistakenly assumed but that doesn't invalidate that after the clarification the proposal was closed as passed with a 4-3 vote rally... The Blue Rider 10:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the need to close these. There's no need for quick archival anymore and discussion is ongoing. They can at least be kept open for a month; I've been very active on this project recently and even then I only just got my votes down in time. For that reason I have more problems with the 3–2 close but really, eh, I don't mind. But: with consensus trending towards oppose, it seems uncouth for someone who supported 80% of these (or indeed someone who opposed most of these) to sweep in and partake in controversial closes. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

It's common practice for users to close a proposal they're involved in; all VIT's closers also partake in voting. My closing was a direct consequence of purplebackpack89's, if a 3-4 gets closed as failed then 4-3 gets closed as pass. Finally, consensus was trending to oppose as much it was to support. The Blue Rider 23:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, there is indeed urgency to archive discussions. The page is at +250k bytes, that's still way too much and this proposal is by far the biggest. The Blue Rider 23:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

250K, Schmu-hundred fifty K...the page being long doesn't mean closing things hastily, esp. if they are at a consensus that wouldn't hold up per rules likely to be enacted in mere days. pbp 17:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The 60% rule is only going to be applied to nominations after 7 of December, so this wasn't closed hastily. The Blue Rider 10:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: - no, in general, there is no need to wait for 2 weeks if 4-3, until the new rules actually change. I think 7 participants is not a small number. But, in this case, I think The Blue Rider should not have closed it at the time, chiefly because QuicoleJR had just pinged TonyTheTiger to reconsider their vote. I would let Tony decide before closing. TheBlueRider closing a close discussion in their own favour makes it slightly worse. starship.paint (RUN) 02:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

pbp clearly wants the 60% rule to come into effect so these proposals fail and QuicoleJR pinged TonyTheTiger after I closed the discussion in an effort for the Jerry Brown's proposal to also fail; everyone is trying to favour their side. The Blue Rider 13:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I had the idea before, went to go do it, and saw the discussion closed. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Again with the nefarious assumptions, Blue... pbp 18:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

You specifically opened a discussion saying that perhaps we should wait for the 60% rule to be voted on before closing these nominations and the proposal was clearly going to pass, I don't see how I'm making a nefarious assumption. The Blue Rider 10:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

All discussions must be closed at a certain point and what happened here is that some users didn't like the current consensus because they have strong opinions about the subjects up to discussion, but that doesn't mean my closure wasn't valid; it was according to the rules of the project. Sometimes things get added or removed contrary to your will but you have to suck it up, reopening these discussions would be a big and wrong precedent. Please stop putting into question and ganging up against my closure. Thank you. The Blue Rider 10:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@The Blue Rider: - my bad, you are right, QuicoleJR only pinged Tony after the close, that wasn't very good form as well. Without the ping before the close, The Blue Rider was indeed at liberty to close it per current rules of the project. Maybe from 4-3 it could have become 4-4, or it could have become 5-3, or stayed at 4-3, nobody knows. starship.paint (RUN) 16:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, the consensus can change at anytime to either sides. Thank you. The Blue Rider 22:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I will admit, in hindsight, it was probably a bad decision, but we are a bit too far in to change it now. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Add Toni Braxton

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 Toni Braxton (discography) with 7 Grammys, 3 multiplatinum albums, and 7 #1 singles (3 country wide and 4 adult) she seems to have similar or superior creds to a lot of people included in the list such as Erykah Badu discography (discography) with 4 Grammys, 1 multiplatinum albums, and 6 #1 singles (3 country wide and 3 adult)

Support

1. As nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
2. 45 interwikis. Reasonable, although consider my support weak. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. No more pop musicians please. The Blue Rider 00:10, 18 January 2024 (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.

Add Andrzej Sapkowski

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.

---

Polish fantasy writer, creator of the well known The Witcher franchise. Likely the most famous Polish popculture writer, since Stanisław Lem  5 is kind of old. 50+ interwikis. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nom Totalibe (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Significant non-English writer. starship.paint (RUN) 02:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
4. How is The Witcher's author not VA5 yet? QuicoleJR (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
5. --Thi (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
6. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The Witcher franchise is not influential enough to list both the author and the video games, unlike the Harry Potter books/movies and J.K Rowling. The Blue Rider 16:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

   The Witcher is a series of books, games, and a TV show. It is extremely popular and I would say it qualifies. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2024 (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.

Add Kings of Leon

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 Kings of Leon (discography) 4 Grammys (including the major category Grammy Award for Record of the Year), 5 multiplatinum albums, 2 #1 singles. Kings of Leon are underappreciated because as an American band they had 3 multiplatinum albums in Australia and the UK before having a major hit album in the US. Having done better abroad in smaller markets, I think EN WP is underappreciating them. Above I nominated a bunch of modestly successful classic rock bands for removal to offset this.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

More removals below.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
2. 47 interwikis. Conditional support IF there's quota to fill. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Remove more rock bands with modest numbers

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

---

This following group of bands are bands that I have heard of and have an affinity towards, but their numbers are not impressive when considering vitality:

The Allman Brothers Band (discography) 1 competitive Grammy and 1 lifetime Grammy, no multiplatinum albums (3 platinums), 1 #1 single

The Byrds (discography)0 Grammys, no certification evidence and barely a top 5 album, 2 #1 single (both quintessential classic rock songs)

Cream (band) (discography) 1 lifetime Grammy, no multiplatinum albums (many platinums), 1 #1 single

The Go-Go's (discography) 0 Grammys, 1 2xplatinum album, 0 #1 singles

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support. Update: except The Go-Go's, per QuicoleJr. "We Need a Women in Music". The Blue Rider 13:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support all except The Go-Go's. They are widely considered the most successful all-female rock band of all time according to the article, so I would say that they are vital. The others do not seem vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Support most but undecided on the Go-Go's Totalibe (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Support all, we can look to adding other female musicians in other fields. starship.paint (RUN) 05:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

   User:Starship.paint, Feel free to look above at The Chicks, Gwen Stefani or Faith Hill (or even Toni Braxton).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

7. Support to all. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• Cream has their lead vocals and guitarist, Eric Clapton, also listed as VT5. Would you say that this person is more vital than the band, TonyTheTiger? — The Blue Rider 20:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Clapton important? He has 6 or 7 multiplatinum compilation albums on top of several multiplatinum studio and live albums. That says people can't get enough of his best stuff. He is legend.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Alright, in that case since the section is overbudget I will support the proposal. — The Blue Rider 13:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• How important can the Go-Go's be with only 21 interwikis. I think that is the least of all the bands in the three sets of band removals I have posted recently.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  Interwiki links aren't everything. This band was very influential. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  As evidence of this, The Go-gos have 1 more interwiki link than Miracle on Ice, which you proposed below. They also have more interwiki links than 1972 Miami Dolphins season, which you also proposed and only has 2. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  You also! Nevertheless both The Go-Go's and Miracle on Ice are, at most, borderline vital so it's okay if they have 20s interwiki links, which by most standards is already a good number. The Blue Rider 22:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  I understand, my point was that interwiki links are not the defining factor in vitality. I was using some articles they nominated as examples of that. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. The Blue Rider 22:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  User:QuicoleJR, Interwikis across disciplines is meaningless. For musicians 20 interwikis is modest and may not be meaningful. Demi Lovato has over a 100 interwikis, but we are heading towards her being swapped out by someone with only 91. I am just saying that I have nominated about 30 different musicians for add/remove and the Go-gos had the least. For single day sports events 20 interwikis is a ton. None of the last 3 Super Bowls has 20.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  I just think that they should not be relied on too much. I am sorry for the confusion. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2023 (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.

Jurist removals (and one add!)

Almost two-thirds of the jurists list are Americans; that's way too much (Compare politicians/leaders, where people are complaining about Americans taking up less than 10% of the list) There are about 20 United States Supreme Court justices, several of whom didn’t leave a lasting mark. There are also several American “ambulance chasers”, high-profile celebrity lawyers, again with a bunch of Americans. If we’re cleaning up American politicians, let’s clean up jurists as well. pbp 17:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Grnrchst: @Piotrus: @Wasted Time R: @J947: @VickKiang: @Totalibe: @Starship.paint: @Curbon7: @The Blue Rider: pbp 02:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support removing all listed here per balance issues above. Feel free to copy my sig to any sections here, I can always change my mind later, particularly if someone makes a good counterargument. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Had trouble locating these because jurists are actually under philosophers, historians, political and social scientists, not "miscellaneous". Please keep things sorted correctly! --Grnrchst (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Remove Gloria Allred and/or Melvin Belli

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.

---

How many American “ambulance chasers” do we need on this list? Johnnie Cochran is probably the only celebrity lawyer we need. pbp 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
2. per nom, Cochran is enough. starship.paint (RUN) 03:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
3. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Support, although remove Melvin Belli if we only remove only one Totalibe (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Support. None of these will have any enduring notability. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
6. Remove both (and probably Cochran too). J947 ‡ ^edits 20:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
7. per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
8. Support Belli per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Allred I believe her activism for women's rights makes her notable at this level. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

@Purplebackpack89, Starship.paint, and Piotrus: are you supporting both?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, remove both pbp 16:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: - remove both. starship.paint (RUN) 02:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Both. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 11 December 2023 (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.

Remove William J. Brennan Jr.

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.

---

We don’t need every United States Supreme Court justice. pbp 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

   --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. He seems like someone we should showcase as vital. Irish Times In the opinion of many people he was the most influential member in the Supreme Court's history. Tulsa Law Review (1995) - Brennan is in the top 10 greatest American Supreme Court justices ever as the most influential Associate Justice. starship.paint (RUN) 03:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
2. The article implies he was one of the most influential members of the Supreme Court. Totalibe (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Agree with the above. J947 ‡ ^edits 10:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
4. per above.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• @Piotrus: - could you take a look at the links I posted above? Thanks. starship.paint (RUN) 01:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
  • @Starship.paint: Sure. Struck my comment abvove, you make a good case here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:23, 5 December 2023 (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.

Remove Harry Blackmun

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.

---

We don’t need every United States Supreme Court justice. pbp 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
2. He isn't highly rated (page 46-48), we should only feature the best, removing him gives space for other countries' jurists. starship.paint (RUN) 04:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

   That's an extremely helpful find, thanks. J947 ‡ ^edits 10:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

3. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Support, pretty much based off the resource starship.paint found above. J947 ‡ ^edits 10:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
5. per nom and above.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Author of Roe v. Wade strikes me as more significant than other SCOTUS Justices proposed for removal. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Remove Vincent Bugliosi

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 murderers he defended are more notable pbp 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 03:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
3. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
4. His vitality seems to hinge solely on his prosecution of the Manson Family rather than any other high-profile cases. Totalibe (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
6. per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Remove Roy Cohn

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.

---

We have McCarthy, do we need Cohn too? pbp 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 03:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
3. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

   TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

4. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose, actually. Cohn receives almost the same pageviews as McCarthy. He had a role to play with the Rosenbergs and seems to have been a very influential figure way later in the '80s too. Just screams "vital, vital, vital". Based on that I'd actually rather list him than McCarthy. Looks to have been remarkably important, and not just thanks to being McCarthy's (very prominent) sidekick. J947 ‡ ^edits 10:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Per J947. The Blue Rider 21:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Switching to neutral.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Move or remove Kimberlé Crenshaw

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

---

I’m not sure if she’s vital, and her bio suggests more of a social scientist than a jurist pbp 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
2. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. She coined the term intersectionality which is an important concept in the study of gender, race, and other minorities. The term jurist includes legal scholars, which she is one. Maybe the judges and attorneys should be separated from academic legal scholars? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal, but move to sociologists, which is well under quota. Her coining the term intersectionality, which is a big part of her vitality, points towards this being more suitable. Totalibe (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Hanif Al Husaini. The Blue Rider 10:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
4. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
5. I would prefer move rather than removal per Hanif Al Husaini. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

1. @Totalibe: The term sociology is not mentioned in her article at all, even as a category. Do we have a category for gender or feminist scholars? That might be relevant. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

   We do have a separate section for "other social sciences" which seems like a better fit (with some similar entries like Shulamith Firestone). I'm not sure of the technicalities on what is considered to be a "sociologist" or not so that might work. Totalibe (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2023 (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.

Remove Alan Dershowitz

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.

---

How many American lawyers we need anyway? pbp 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
2. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This guy's legend is so large that I kind of think we should make space with other subjects.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
2. He is an extremely high-profile figure. Totalibe (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
3. One of the most notable US laywers today. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

1. Comment: I've noticed the two opposes above. I concur he is borderline vital, but I don't think his is "extremely high-profile" and US is overrepresented. This figure is not important outside US. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:31, 5 December 2023 (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.

Remove Melville Fuller

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.

---

True, he was Chief Justice, but not among the most influential of Chief Justices. pbp 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Yeah he seems lowly rated. [1] starship.paint (RUN) 03:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
3. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
4. That smidge or two below the required level. J947 ‡ ^edits 10:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
5. Seemingly not that influential based on reversals of his opinions.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
6. Not on a par with other SCOTUS justices. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Remove Mike Godwin

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

---

I think it’s too early to tell if he’s influential or not pbp 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 03:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
3. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Godwin's law aside. Totalibe (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Probably shouldn't be listed as a "jurist", by any stretch. J947 ‡ ^edits 10:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
6. Legacy unclear.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Remove John Marshall Harlan

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.

---

We don’t need every United States Supreme Court justice. pbp 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Right values, wrong time. The Great Dissenter must not have been very influential. He should make way for other countries' jurists. starship.paint (RUN) 05:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
3. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Highly rated, long serving. While his influence isn't staggering, Harlan seems vital to me for his values; as a philosopher. J947 ‡ ^edits 10:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

   @J947: If guys like John Kerry are getting removed, why should this guy stay? pbp 20:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

2. Ahead of his time.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose His dissents make him one of the most significant SCOTUS Justices. Ahead of his time, as others have said. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Remove Lawrence Lessig

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.

---

Law school dean and fringe candidate. If we’re considering removing Bernie Sanders, why should we keep this guy? pbp 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 03:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Categorisation aside, doesn't seem to have sufficient lasting importance to my eye. Creative Commons  5 is listed (which covers it). J947 ‡ ^edits 10:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This guy founded Creative Commons-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Fair point re comparison with Sanders, perhaps, but tat the same time, Curbon7 and Tony make good points. Lessig is an important activist and to a lesser degree, scholar. Perhaps he should be moved to activists rather than where he is now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

1. No opinion yet, but the nomination statement is drastically flawed. He's not just some law school dean, he is most known as the founder of Creative Commons. Curbon7 (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

   @Curbon7: @TonyTheTiger: Let me ask you this, though...does founding Creative Commons make him significant as a JURIST? Wouldn't it make him more significant as, I don't know, a PUBLISHER? pbp 16:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

   I'd support moving him to activists. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:21, 5 January 2024 (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.

Remove Abner Mikva

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.

---

Aside of the footnote that he served in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the Federal government, what’s the case? His legislative service was as a back-bench Congressman, his judicial service was in the lower courts, and his executive service was at a second-tier position in the Exec Branch. Certainly less notable than John Kerry or Hubert Humphrey. pbp 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Six interwikis only. Seems trivial relative to vital articles. starship.paint (RUN) 03:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Totalibe (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
4. J947 ‡ ^edits 10:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
5. peripheral to true vitality.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Remove Roscoe Pound

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.

---

Posner’s and Pound’s biographies suggest that Posner is now more cited than Pound. I get having one widely-cited American legal scholar; two, not so much. pbp 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 04:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
3. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
4. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I disagree with the nominator's rationale. There is room for both. Curbon7 (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
2. per Curbon.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Remove John Paul Stevens

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.

---

We don’t need every United States Supreme Court justice. pbp 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
2. He isn't highly rated (page 46-48), we should only feature the best, removing him gives space for other countries' jurists. starship.paint (RUN) 04:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
3. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per starship.paint. J947 ‡ ^edits 10:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

1. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Remove Clarence Thomas

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.

---

We don’t need every United States Supreme Court justice. For a number of years, Thomas was noted for asking few, if any, questions from the bench and writing few, if any, opinions. Thurgood Marshall is on the list to represent African-American jurists. pbp 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
2. per nom. Thomas is so far to the right that I'm not sure how much influence he has compared to someone like Kavanaugh. Consider File:Graph_of_Martin-Quinn_Scores_of_Supreme_Court_Justices_1937-Now.png. starship.paint (RUN) 03:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

   Other examples of intellectual conservatism from the Thomas era on the Court are Rehnquist and Scalia pbp 15:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

3. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Very tentatively, as ethnic representation complicates this call. I fear his influence will be seen as insular; even more confined to the U.S. and his time period than others. J947 ‡ ^edits 10:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'd argue the controversies surrounding his swearing in combined with his continued long-lasting influence help tip the balance in his favour. Totalibe (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

   And 38 interwikis, that's the most out of the others I've seen here. Hmmm, maybe I should switch to neutral. Anyone else feels like making an argument for keeping him? Ping me :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

   Interwikis can be attributed to recentism. The rest of the current Supreme Court justices have between 31 to 49 interwikis. Newest justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has 34. starship.paint (RUN) 06:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

2. Per Totalibe-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Remove Byron White

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.

---

We don’t need every United States Supreme Court justice. pbp 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
2. He isn't highly rated (page 46-48), we should only feature the best, removing him gives space for other countries' jurists. starship.paint (RUN) 04:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
3. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Totalibe (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
5. J947 ‡ ^edits 10:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
6. Long-serving but not sure he had the same impact as others. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Due to his elite athletic accomplishments combined with his high level legal stature, i find him unique.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Add Henry Martyn Robert (or add Robert’s Rules of Order)

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.

---

Author of the definitive American parliamentary text, Robert’s Rules of Order pbp 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Add Robert's Rules.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Concur with adding Robert's Rules, as a prominently used standard. Curbon7 (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose. Would rather parliamentary procedure, insofar as the topic is vital. J947 ‡ ^edits 09:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• But just 4 interwikis... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:17, 2 December 2023 (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.

American jurists: A page one rewrite?

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.

---

Perhaps we should start from 0 on American jurists and build up to 20-25. That would mean cutting 50-60% of the jurists we have now. John Marshall, Earl Warren, Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Darrow are unambiguously KEPT IN. What are your druthers after that? pbp 18:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Grnrchst: @Piotrus: @Wasted Time R: @J947: @VickKiang: @Totalibe: @Starship.paint: @Curbon7: @The Blue Rider:

pbp 18:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

What about this method for mass trimmings?--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• I'm okay with either method. Though, should we separate judges from lawyers? starship.paint (RUN) 01:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I feel like nuking the section and starting over is a bit excessive. Even if it is a bit slow, I think sticking to the normal procedure would be best. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2024 (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.

Remove Andriyan Nikolayev

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.

---

Support

1. Third Russian cosmonaut to fly into space. Two flights, just orbiting the Earth. Not too special, I think, and he has an average of less than 100 pageviews per day in the last year. Space travelers is over quota (61/60). starship.paint (RUN) 03:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Did not live a lasting legacy as far as I can tell from this article. Enforcing quota argument means he gets the axe. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
3. per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Per nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Remove Lawrence of Brindisi

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.

---

A Catholic saint, but there are very many of them (Template:Catholic saints). Spoke many languages, but does not seem vital. Plus, we are over quota in religious figures, and Catholics are the largest group. starship.paint (RUN) 13:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. starship.paint (RUN) 13:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Support if we are over quota, he does no seem that special compared to many other Catholic saints. Just under 30 interwikis. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Seems to have been a bit important back then but not enough for VA5. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Remove François Fénelon

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.

---

A Catholic archbishop, apparently best known for writing The Adventures of Telemachus, which does not seem to be a famous book. Plus, we are over quota in religious figures, and Catholics are the largest group. We will achieve the exact quota if this and the above two proposals pass. starship.paint (RUN) 13:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. starship.paint (RUN) 13:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
2. " Today, he is remembered mostly as the author of The Adventures of Telemachus". So, not remembered very well. 36 interwikis, but we are over quota. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
4. per nom.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Remove Valery Larbaud, add Octave Mirbeau

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.

---

Valery Larbaud is a writer with only 27 interwikis and a Start-class caliber English article. His most notable contribution is the novel Fermina Márquez which received some votes for France's prestigious Prix Goncourt in 1911 but did not win. The novel's article only has 2 interwikis and is a stub class article on English Wikipedia. It is worth noting that in 1950, Fermina Márquez was nominated by a jury panel of French intellectuals as one of the 12 best French-language novels of the first half of the century; however, 4 of the 11 other authors on this list are also not in VA5 and for good reason. He also has a minor literary prize named after him.

I would like to suggest replacing him with Octave Mirbeau who was extremely influential in turn-of-the-century literary circles (in fact, he is one of the earliest to recognize Larbaud with a Prix Goncourt nomination). He has many novels, plays, and short stories that have their own English Wikipedia articles. Several of his books have been widely translated and adapted into film (such as The Diary of a Chambermaid which has been adapted into film four times) and many of his plays have been viewed as precursors to the works of Ionesco and Brecht. Perhaps most interesting of all, he has a whopping 143 interwikis.

Support

1. Support both as nom Aurangzebra (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Support both per nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 10:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
4. czar 20:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
5. Support. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
6. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

• I am not strongly opposed to keeping Larbaud. I frankly don't know enough about him to be 100% definite in my judgment. However, I do believe that if Larbaud is included in this list, so should Mirbeau. I mainly suggest removing Larbaud to balance out adding Mirbeau since it seems like Larbaud's bona fides are a bit scant. Aurangzebra (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
• This subject makes me wonder if there is a list of subjects with most interwikis that are not vital. Surely, it would be packed with pop culture, but it could reveal some gems.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  I found this which appears to have that info. If I have time later, may write a quick script to extract the top people that don't have a match on VA. There are some interesting tidbits on here that I'm curious about. For example, the most interwiki-ed person is David Woodard, a conductor I've never heard of before. From a cursory skim, the next two most inter-wikied people we don't list are Corbin Bleu and Sung Jae-gi, neither of whom seem particularly VA5-worthy. Aurangzebra (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2024 (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.

Remove Jirō Akagawa, add Kōbō Abe

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

---

I think this is an easy swap: despite being an extremely prolific writer, Akagawa has not written any internationally known works, he hasn't won any major literary awards, and none of his books are bestsellers. His work has been adapted into movies, TV shows, and video games but from my cursory research, it does not seem like any of these adaptations are more than stub-class articles and their limited success has been localized to Japan (if that).

Kōbō Abe on the other hand has 50+ interwikis and has been described as Japan's Kafka. He has won three of Japan's most coveted literary awards: the Akutagawa Prize, the Yomiuri Prize, and the Tanizaki Prize. His most famous work, The Woman in the Dunes, achieved international success and was critically acclaimed by VA4 authors Kenzaburō Ōe and Yukio Mishima. The film based on the book is considered one of the greatest Japanese films of all time. Ōe himself stated that Abe (among several others) paved the way for him to win the Nobel Prize in 1994. According to the source on his Wikipedia article, he was in consideration for a Nobel Prize nomination himself but died too early. He was also a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He is definitely both an icon of Japanese modernist literature and surreal/absurdist fiction.

Support

1. Support both as nom Aurangzebra (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Support both per nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 10:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Support both TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Good swap. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

• Much like my proposal above, I am not completely opposed to keeping Akagawa. Maybe he is a legend in Japan. But I do know that if Akagawa is on this list, then Abe should definitely be as well.

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

Remove Roxana

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.

---

Seems to only be important as one of Alexander the Great's wives. Unlike some other famous spouses in history, this one does not seem to have made much of a mark on the world.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
2. 53 interwikis but the lead indeed does not say what makes her important outside being recorded in historical texts, and there is no legacy or such section. Not vital. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Lacking vitality claim; none in article's Legacy section czar 15:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
4. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

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.