Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 64

Swap Joan Miró for Cristóbal Balenciaga

Balenciaga was the dominant force in 20th century fashion a area which we undercover relative to its importance on modern day culture while Miro was yet another average great painter of the 20th century which does not have an impact on modern everyday culture.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose In my view there are already enough fashion designers listed. Joan Miró was "universally acknowledged as an artist of the first rank who played an important role in the imaginative life of the 20th century" according to New York Times obituary. "Miro will be remembered, with Max Ernst, Rene Magritte, the young Salvador Dali and one or two others, as the embodiment of the spontaneous imagination as it was nurtured in the art of the 1920's and 30's." Miró and Henry Moore are only artists on the list who represent biomorphic abstraction and surrealism; Yves Tanguy and Alexander Calder are not listed. Miró is both popular and "one of the greatest modern artists and a highly influential figure in 20th century Spanish painting..." [1] --Thi (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Not the first fashion designer I would add. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose agree with previous statements. --Spaced about (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove The Color Purple

According to what's written in its article, The Color Purple shouldn't be on this list. It seems as though the books' greatest achievements are winning a Pulitzer Prize for Fiction and being listed on a poll of "UK's best-loved books" (a poll in which the books ranked at 136). This is clearly not enough to be mentioned here. This subject has been brought before, here, but it was a swap between Alice Walker, the book's author, and the books itself. The swap was initiated, 5-0. Fr.dror (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Fr.dror (talk) 10:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose sometimes things are more important than superficial things like list placements and awards, on a list of 53 modern fiction books, removing this would just make this list less diverse. Eugene Onegin and Things Fall Apart can't be the only two books written by people of African descent. We're even under coverage here, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings and Beloved (novel) have a case too. GuzzyG (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose per GuzzyG. Neljack (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose Much discussed novel: "Though the novel has garnered critical acclaim, it has also been the subject of controversy. It is 17th on the American Library Association's list of most frequently challenged or banned books. Commonly cited justifications for banning the book include sexual explicitness, explicit language, violence, and homosexuality." Dimadick (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose Culturally significant. I would also support adding I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings and/or Beloved (novel) per GuzzyG. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

I actually agree now with GuzzyG; although I tend to not have arguments talking about "foreing representation", I do agree that both of those novels hav a case. Plus, if we're talking about represantation, adding I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings would give us a representation of featured articles! So I'm conviced to change it to a swap. But two questions: 1. how and where to open it? 2. which is better-fitting, Caged Bird or Beloved? and does The Color Purple has a better case than both of those which is not listed at the article? Fr.dror (talk) 10:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Remove Harvest festival

We have article about custom related to Equinox between summer and autumn but we do not have other Equinox/Solstice festivals. How Harvesr festival is more vital than eostre, saturnalia or Saint John's Eve? Even local slavic versions like Dozhinki or Kupala Night have comparable pageviews in number of forgein languages. I think that when we are over quota we could make room for these types of customs on the level 5.

Support

1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose while we don't have Thanksgiving, as this is the only article covering it. I'd be potentially open to a swap, or to adding it in addition; I'd need to first check how important harvest festivals in other parts of the world and historical harvest festivals are. - Sdkb (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose per my comments below and the fact that harvest festivals are found throughout the world. I would rather have this article than Thanksgiving, which only really applies to the U.S. and Canada. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose Significant period for agricultural societies. Dimadick (talk) 10:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose per others. J947 ^(c), at 20:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose per above and previous discussion in 2014. Gizza ^(t)(c) 21:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

@Dawid2009: are you suggesting that we have a variety of different examples rather than the general article? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Since we are way over quota in this section I was looking for where we could do some cuts. I noted that we cover all customs related to Equinox/Solstice except the summer (for example Saint John's Eve). Easter and Christmas debatedly cover Equinox/Solstice of Spring and Winter. I would compare Harvest festival rather to older traditions like eostre and saturnalia than christmas and easter which are much mre promient and I do not see why we need to cover all Equinox/Solstice except the Summer but I do not see issue with keeping only Easter and Christmas. Dawid2009 (talk) 08:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I still don't quite understand your reasoning, as harvest festivals aren't really related to an equinox or a solstice, so I'm going to to oppose for now. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Harvest festival was added here. J947 ^(c), at 23:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Remove Arthur Conan Doyle

Ok so this one will be controversial, but we've been consistent with keeping to the list the book/franchise and not the author and we list Sherlock Holmes; there's nothing else in his biography other than his support of spiritualism but i'd rather list Daniel Dunglas Home in that case.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 07:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Support per my previous proposal. --Thi (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Not a one hit wonder. He is the creator of Professor Challenger and one of the pioneers in the lost world subgenre of speculative fiction. Dimadick (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Weak opose Writers are littly overrepresented but tgey do not come first. When we can list for example creator of star wars I think we can keep author of arguably the most notable lirerature character. Doyle outside Sherlock's franchise had not more influence than e g Lewis outside Alice in Wonderland (we list both) but still better than e g author of Pinocchio outside Pinocchio. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose Philburmc (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose Hyperbolick (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Andrew Mellon

It has been said that his most important legacy was the establishment of the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C.[2] He doesn't seem to be as important figure as others at this level.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Weak support I can buy that we have too many American business titans, and Mellon's as good a remove as any. I don't put him on the same plane as Carnegie, Rockefeller, Ford or Disney. The #4 political figure in the 1920s may be true, but the 20s wasn't a great era of American politics: we don't (and shouldn't) have #s 1, 2 or 3 pbp 01:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
3. Support We need to be super strict now and you can find a Mellon equivalent in any major country. Only thing that separates him from the likes of Howqua is western media and scholarly attention, compare accomplishments and they're on the same level. I'd take Jeff Bezos today and add him before i'd add Mellon of the 20's. GuzzyG (talk) 11:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose Mellon's legacy is a bit more important than establishing the National Gallery; he was one of the most successful businessmen of the late 19th and early 20th century United States and his bank, Mellon Financial (which was established by his father, but which became hugely influential under Andrew), still exists today. He also has the second-longest tenure as U.S. Treasury Secretary, and, subjectively, I would rank him as the fourth-most important U.S. political figure of the 1920s after Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. I think that, by combining his business career, his political career, and his legacy as an art collector, he should just barely make the cut. Orser67 (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Orser67. Mellon was on par with Rockefeller or Carnegie. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Orser67. --Spaced about (talk) 10:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

1. If a late 19th century businessman was removed, I would instead suggest Leland Stanford or Cornelius Vanderbilt, neither of whom had quite the impact Mellon did outside of business. Same with J. Paul Getty. Orser67 (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Leland Stanford doesn't have the impact? He was Governor of California. He founded the pre-eminent private college on the West Coast. pbp 21:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it's particularly close. Mellon was one of the most powerful Treasury Secretaries (which itself is one of the more important Cabinet positions) in U.S. history, while Stanford served two years as governor and later served as one of ~90 U.S. senators. And Mellon also helped found an important educational institution, as well as the National Gallery of Art. Orser67 (talk) 03:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Add Pocahontas

I am aware we are over quota and recently I even made quite many proposals in bios area but... Do we list any Native American Woman (except La Malinche who de facto represents just Metis' and has overlap with Herman Cortes)? Given fact for example Maria Martinez was earlier nominated nominated to level 3, I think abnese of Potahontas among 10 000 is actually shockingly. I have very-short (popular science, non-academic) encyclopedia which include Julius Cesar and Pocahontas but just not Cleopatra for diversity reasons. I belive it could be even better choice for the diversity than Tall tale, Jack the ripper or Marie-Antoine Carême, not? Dawid2009 (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Nominator.
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 09:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
3. Support I'm leaning towards addition. Pocahontas is maybe the most famous Native American woman ever, although Sacagawea is other option. --Thi (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Important pop culture figure. --Spaced about (talk) 09:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC) You don't have to be an activist or a political leader to be influential. Influencing little kids via a Disney movie is any propagandist's dream. The peace message she gives is important to a large portion of our societies and Pocahontas, romanticized or not, also symbolizes the respect for nature that is important to native Americans. She is a good choice for the list.--Spaced about (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose After looking at the other individuals at level 4 and level 5, I just don't think that Pocahontas rises to the level of long-term significance necessary to be included at level 4. She's more significant as the subject of Hollywood movies than she is for anything she did in real life. Orser67 (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Orser67. Pocahontas is a notable figure, but, in the long run, she really isn't that significant. Sacagawea might be a good option to represent Native American women, although I'm inclined to suggest Wilma Mankiller personally. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
3. Oppose Pocahontas's fame is entirely a result of western romanticizing. Adding her won't do much to help improve the representation of Native American culture, since what she represents isn't Native American culture but rather Western stereotypes about Native American culture. Sdkb (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Sdkb. J947 ^(c), at 22:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
5. OpposeThe Disney image romanticizes her and makes people over assume her actual contributions to the world. It's like Cleopatra not being on the level 3 list, she didn't really do anything with lasting impact on the world. We shouldn't define Native women by Western pop culture. Wilma Mankiller is the choice if a native woman should be listed. Sacagawea would be a better choice than Pocahontas, although she's a bit similar to La Malinche, there's people like this in every region like Bennelong and Omai, they just don't have the Disney marketing team behind them. We don't even list John Smith (explorer) GuzzyG (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
6. Oppose --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

Sacagawea may be a better choice for her role in the Lewis and Clark Expedition, exploring the Louisiana Territory and later influencing the suffragette movement. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Thi had closed this discussion according to the rules but then Dawid2009 reverted it with this edit summary:

It should be longer time discussed, not keeped after handful comments. Listing so many white man sportpeople ahead of Pocahontas is littly nefarious. Pocahontas can be considered more closer to level 3 than 5 (for example 5000 articles), as long as some people belive that sport figures could be on the level 3

I then reverted it with this edit summary:

you can't really just revert a closure based on your opinion in the discussion. Reverting a premature closure is fine but your edit summary doesn't convince me.

Dawid then re-reverted it:

We have discussions from 2018. One of them (add skill) was even nominated by user who now is blocked from Wikipedia. Why discussion after month should be closed if we have discussion from 2018 in 2020? My last describtion of changes was wrong and yes, I used unnecesary in un-called for one English word, but but revert not, as long as we have other discussion opened

As I want to avoid further editwarring I'll take the discussion here. The difference between #Add Skill and this discussion is that in this discussion there are opposers and ones that offer strong arguments, whereas the other proposal remains unopposed and thus perhaps a prematurely closure would not be beneficial. I think that we need to transform VA into a consensus-building discussion closed by impartial editors by the strength of the arguments given to resolve problems like this and conform it to the rest of the 'pedia. What do others think? J947 ^(c), at 22:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I 100% agree with "we need to transform VA into a consensus-building discussion closed by impartial editors by the strength of the arguments given to resolve problems like this and conform it to the rest of the 'pedia." We need to do it based on the strength of the argument and not by voting, i say this as someone who is horrible at typing a good argument with my nominations too. The number system can be flawed and it'd encourage more debate rather than unexplained votes, which is healthier discussion wise. Also numbers can be misread like here [3] Where Orser87 only voted for the addition of Twain; but it was counted as a removal for Poe aswell anyway. It'd be much better if we actively sought more participation from other members and a standard approach to discussion like elsewhere throughout this site and turn this from a niche project into a well rounded one. It'd be much better for these lists. As for the sportsmen dig; since i'm the one open athlete supporter (and astronaut, architect, and actor as they're important today) on the level 3 list, i'll say that our sports category is probably one of the most diverse by the total percentage of people. I get athletes are a easy "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" importance dig but of the four that i'd support (just one) being represented on the level 3 list Pelé, Jesse Owens, Bruce Lee and Muhammad Ali none of whom are white and would actually make the level 3 list more diverse (we list no Asian 20th century culture figure, no African American and no South American figure other than Bolívar), so i don't understand the equivalence between athletes on the level 3 list and Pocahontas. This reverts back to needing to go by standard wiki votes discussion based on arguments, where such a simple false equivalency of "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" would be discouraged. GuzzyG (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we should lengthen the time the proposals stay on the list at level 4. It is very time-consuming to scroll through the lists and often the voicing of an opinion takes some research. I think that's the reason why some proposals are not closed at the earliest possible date. How does this look:

   After 30 (currently 15) days any proposal may be closed as PASSED if a) at least five !votes have been cast in support, and b) at least two-thirds of the total !votes support the proposal.
   After 60 (currently 30) days any proposal may be closed as FAILED if it has a) earned at least 3 opposes, and b) failed to earn two-thirds support.
   After 90 (currently 30) days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal hasn't received any !votes for 30 or more days regardless of the !vote tally.
   After 120 (currently 60) days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if it has a) failed to earn at least 5 support !votes, and b) earned less than two-thirds support.

--Spaced about (talk) 09:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC) -- edited to correct mistake --Spaced about (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Generally that is how it's enforced anyway, as you've noted. From others' recollection Malerisch back in ~2013 used to enforce these strictly but no other regular closers have done so. I think the best thing to do is change the rules as so:

Choosing vital articles takes place via a consensus-building discussion.

• A discussion may be closed after 30 days has passed since the discussion was opened or relisted if a consensus has been reached involving a number of participants.
• If there is little discussion in that time period; then the discussion may be listed again for a further 30 days. A discussion may be relisted until a different result is applicable.
• If the discussion has attracted a high amount of participation but a consensus cannot be found, then it may be closed as no consensus.
• A discussion may be closed early in some circumstances but this is not to be abused.
• Use common sense. If a viable option was proposed late in the course of a discussion then a relist may be necessary. There are many other examples where common sense should be exercised.
• Closures may be contested via the bold, revert, discuss principle.

• This should either be closed now or closed the second we hit 90 days. Do we need another Native American woman? Maybe. Is there consensus right now to put Pocahontas on? No. (This as of the votes at 21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)) pbp 21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

  I reopened this because of during process (before my reopening) the current results was 3-3, not 4-6 and we have VERY OFTEN situations when something is pass from such score after limiting time. Addition of folklore was changed from just 3-3 to 6-3 after very long time, nomination addition of Lagos had even hrder process time to result 10-5 and same with removal of Neil Armstrong from the level 3 yeaars ago with score 10-5. I do not courage editors to keeping discussion over time (just as skill from 2018 to 2020) to wait when we will be over quota or equel quota (at 2000 people) but keeping more comments here (not handful like during 3-3 result) will help our process not only in light of this discussion but, also if Pocahontas will be renomineted again in future. Either way I see relative chance to keep this discussion for the 90 days. We also need to remember that this is list of articles which should have priority to FA. Pocahontas as B-class article in last 4,5 years was edited by almost 633 editors and among very the most cannonical biographies you will never find any which was edited by +600 editors in last 4,5 years because of most of them is already featured (it is not caused due to fact that they are not famous and they were often edited in last 15 years when users proved them to FA, not last 5 years) Look, how it is, Well written articles probably always have more pagewatchers than number of users who edided the page menwhile worse like B-class have comparable number of editors to number of pagewatchers (for example article (C-class) on Thomas Aquinas was edited by 493 users, meanwhile article (GA class) on Da Vinci by 281 users, despite fact Da Vinci is more famous). One user at Wikiproject:Football said to me that actually/really purpose Vital articles project is listing worse articles, not already in the last resort and the same thing said @Sdkb: at the proposal of swapping Saladin with Wagner on the level 3. One person ont hthe Wikiproject:Association football (@Eagleash:) said to me that in the rast resort VA should be room for articles which have worse status of article, I agree with that and I also can add to this that often edited artiles which still do not have positive quality (for example C-class) especially are good candidates. I also echo similar statement of @Sdkb: on the level 3 with proposal to remove Wagner with Saladin. In last 4,5 years Pocahontas (not by number of edits but by number of editors) was one of the most often biographies on the Wikipedia and maybe/potentially the most often edited not very recent (I say except very recent like Donald Trump and except people who have a lot of edits also thank to death during last 4,5 years like Muhammad Ali, I do not say about recent who died quite ago like Marlin Moneroe who were littly more seldon edit) biography (by number of users edited the page at last 4,5 years, not by number of edits) and should be so fastly closed? Even though I am aware that maybe waiting when we will be (maybe after adding people like Geronimo) under quota or equel quota (2000 people) would be better soulution; I am not sure about 30 days as long as we have plenty discussions from 2018 (should we closed all or most longer than 90 days proposals or better wait?), and I think this discussion could be better researched. I am confused why on the level 3 people say: "without Presley twould not be many other stars in pop cultural context" in light culture but not say "Without Pocahontas, people like "John Smith could be less famous in cultural cotext", even if we are at " Without John Smith there would not be that discovery and Pocahontas" why we do not say same about comparing coaches/inventors of sport to sport stars? (the only entertaiment creators/pioniers on the list are probably: Lumierre Brrothers, one instrument maker and James Naismith who invented basketball without dribbling) I also agree with J947 that closing discussion by someone who did not participating in discussion maybe would be more interesing. For exmple, what do you all think to current proposal addition of deity on the level 2 should be closed not by supporter or opposer by by neutral observator? Dawid2009 (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  This is a lot, Dawid2009. Can we try to be concise? Sdkb (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  VA doesn't serve only to promote articles to FA; its main service IMO is as a centralised watchlist, though that function isn't working currently. If we do make the jump to a consensus-building discussion then impartial closers will be necessary. Also, the template {{pb}} would be useful for you Dawid. J947 ^(c), at 03:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  Wikipedia edits isn't everything. Historical influence has to factor in too for level 4, if Princess Diana is not getting added than neither should Pocahontas. I wasn't saying that John Smith should be added, he's too regional and that's why i brought him up, if we had him than maybe it would be bias to leave her off but we don't. I'd much prefer articles like the Trưng Sisters being listed over Pocahontas, we barely list any women in that area. Also Leo is more of a pop star compared to Aquinas but it makes sense in a academic way if Aquinas gets more edits since he's more academically important. As i've said before "light culture" or "high culture" are irrelevant for this list. You can't compare Marilyn Monroe or Muhammad Ali, both central figures of their parent topic of film/sports to Pocahontas, who is a 20-21 year old only known for her portrayals. Other than other people's portrayals of her, what is her actual influence? It's why we don't have James Dean. We need actual influence for this level. We miss many actual Native leaders so it would be weird to single her out. I'd prefer more aztec/inca etc people instead. GuzzyG (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  I just understood what you meant. No we wouldn't say that about John Smith because without John Smiths romanticized stories about Pocahontas her reputation wouldn't exist. GuzzyG (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  Romanticization of Pocahontas (but in purly cultural context for that field) in some kind also culd be called causing other people related in that field more famous , where Pocahontas is centralised figure in that phenomen. Personally I would be more afraid with current listing either of Tarzan and Johnny Weissmuller ahead of Edgar Rice Burroughs (up to two articles ahead of one who started something) than just Pocahontas ahead of John Smith (explorer) (especially if we list Gutenberg ahead of for Cai Lun) but I would be also interested what other users think (not just me, GyzzyG and Spaced about as we three said already really a lot, now we could also give chance for other users to keep futher comments, at least for now/ a while) Dawid2009 (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  She is important as a symbol more than a real person, that's true. That soesn't affect her being vital. We list dragon killer Sigurd from Norse mythology or high flyer Icarus from Greek mythology. She compares more to those figures than to Native American leaders. --Spaced about (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  Google nagrams shows that Pocahontas was promient figure during long stage, for last centuries, not decades and her best peak on that graph was not during last couple years as GuzzyG say. Also, she gets longer and better results than Princess of Diana and better than cultural biographies which rarlier were listed on the level3 and now removed to the level 4.

  If something is here low culture that certainly not Pocahontas. Article on Potahontas for last +15 years/always was more often edited ([4]/[5]) than article on Cleopatra, not mention to last 4,5 years when Cleopatra got be FA menwhile Pocahontas still is B-class article and need more editors. I also aree with Spaced about that Pocahontas do not need to be activist or politician to be listed on this level. How astronauts are culturally more influential than Pocahontas, also when they get less gogle nagrams than she does? This is not „otherstuffexist” because of I compare Pocahontas to various biographies which are more than enough vital for the level 4, I do not compare Potahontas to weaker biographis which are hardly listed here (that graph with Ggarin was used on the level 3 as argument to includison of Gagarin, not on the level 4). I really do not say that astronauts are not vital t least for the level 4. The only my reasoning here is that if astronauts do not need hard cultural impact for importance to the level 4, maybe Pocahontas also do not need be ‘’also’’ activist or politic, and her cultural influence is fair enough for the level 4?. Maybe she could be moved to other section (on the other hand we list article on Homer in writers despite fact article on Homer is not about life of the writer). Dawid2009 (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  You keep making misleading statements that make it hard to consider your opinion, Johnny Weissmuller is obviously listed as a swimmer as he's the best 20th century swimmer, Tarzan is only relevant as it adds pop culture credit to a early 20th century athlete, which are mostly forgotten. He would still be vital without Tarzan. It's outright false to say he's listed for Tarzan or he would be in actors. You know it's standard practice to list fictional creators or the works they come from before their author, that doesn't apply to real life people. I actually want no more part in this conversation, i read up more on Pocahontas and she's apparently big in Christianity as a convert and honestly it seems you have a massive bias when it comes to religious topics, so i no longer want to take part.

• In response to your Gagarin dig, i compared two 20th century European explorers in neutral English (not their native language) Ngrams, you're comparing a romanticized American figure with a Russian cosmonaut, Argentine Tango musician (who yes, should not be listed ahead of Carlos Gardel), and a Indian musician, all of which have no reason to be compared in English, where there's a bias towards them). Diana, Princess of Wales is a bad example, she wouldn't be written about as "princess Diana" just "Diana" so it's not comparable, [6] if we do compare them, Diana went up 2.5 mil from 1981 to 2008 while Pocahontas is at 644, 000, so by your own measure you're wrong and obviously a person with mononyms will fair better against random musicians. When you use ngrams you have to consider the nuance behind it. If you don't think Neil Armstrong is more culturally relevant to the US than Pocahontas, you're wrong (notice you didn't use him?), why use a Soviet when there will obviously be a bias agaisnt them? These kind of weasel arguments are not right. I know you like religion, but no actual historian will say Pocahontas is more important than Cleopatra (no matter what gets edited more, have you factored in that as a popular subject of a kids movie, it could get heavy edits by children and that increases the ratio??) or any of the top 2 astronauts. This list has to be strict. If you think Gagarin isn't vital for this level, despite the fact he's bolded here [7] or Cleopatra isn't than nominate them for a swap with Pocahontas and see what the community thinks. I never said her peak was Disney, i said that's why she's famous today. You don't need to be a activist or politician to be listed obviously, just to do ONETHING that has more importance than culture portrayals and stories John Smith told. You continuously misrepresent me and my arguments, please stop that. GuzzyG (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Also, if we list a young American who is more a symbol of something than actual personal influence on the world that they achieved in their lifetime, Emmett Till would be much, much better as a symbol of and catalyst to the Civil Rights Movement, which is 100% more important. Before you bring it up, yes i have supported people like Jack the Ripper being added before, but his actions resulted in crime being mass publicized and crime being a newspaper and entertainment fixture and people starting to fear walking the street, which IS influence in a way. If Pocahontas is added people like Bonnie and Clyde, Johnny Appleseed, and Ned Kelly have to be added too. It's the same thing. Folklore figures with no actual hard influence. Guy Fawkes should be removed too, he's just a attempted assassin. Gavrilo Princip would be better but we list the event. Instead of listing cosmonauts and foreign musicians, you should have compared Cleopatra and Pocahontas to Tutankhamun, who's in the same boat as Cleopatra, if Cleopatra is denied from level 3, Tutankhamun should be denied from level 4 and swapped for a pharaoh like Khufu, that's the blinding mistake. He never ruled himself and only lived to 19, he's only famous for his tomb. No actual influence, and there is a argument that figures like Cleopatra and Marilyn Monroe or women get treated more harshly when considered having no influence than equivalent men in pop culture. That's the argument to make. I would agree that Pocahontas has the same worth as Tutankhamun, but they both shouldn't be on the list still. GuzzyG (talk) 06:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

  Five things:

1. #Earlier you repatedly say that I am the one who make false/misleading statements meanwhile by using your Logical fallacies (sometimes also by no understanding excatly what I mean) to mislead others (and use fact that I am non-native English users to pove me in consternation). In such situations I always reply meritorical context about entires to all people not what I think about your asperations, even if you call outright that I use false statements, because of I do not want divert atttention from entires to your/our personal problems manwhile you like polemic discussions by long comments and overinterpretatng mine (you are not aware how it is not comfortable for non-native English users). It was already discussed on the PBP's talk page.

   Even now, at your last comment in this discussion, you said littly logicall fallacies and asperacions about me me which I had to ignore for such reasons. For example, now in last comment, you are going to say that I want to remove Cleopatra and astronauts despite fact I inentionally explaineed (just for you to you later do not use that logial fallacies, such situation often results that others say to me that I rite too long comments and I can not keep here any my opinion): I really do not say that astronauts are not vital at least for the level 4. The only my reasoning here is that if astronauts do not need hard cultural impact for importance to the level 4, maybe Pocahontas also do not need be ‘’also’’ activist or politic, and her cultural influence is fair enough for the level 4? you know damn well that I would never support removal of astronauts or cleopatra from this level, I used as example biographies which are more than enough vital for this level because of if I would compare Pocahontas to male figure skater listed on VA4 you would sy that I use "other stuff exist".

   Sometimes you use logical fallacies not due to fact you mislead others but due to fact yoiu do not understand what I am talking about (not what I mean but even what I am talking about). Your earleir comment Also Leo is more of a pop star compared to Aquinas but it makes sense in a academic way if Aquinas gets more edits since he's more academically important had nothing to do to my general view on methotoloy in biographies. In just that comment I said that worse written articles (Human bevahiour vs Human body or Aquinas vs Leo ) are more often edited and that types arguments like Christ Tourtman used in your nomination to remove Wagner ([8]) I only supported kind of your and J947's how process would look. You said about snow, menwhile I said about rain (It was obviously misunderstanding beetwen us - just aying)

   [9] - this diagram is incredibly inflafed. The best peak of Diana is 1780 and it revolve around Diana (mythology) and I used Gagarin instead Armstrong because of surnam armstrong revolve combinetly around all people with surname Armstrong, especially like Louis Armstrong+Neil Armstrong (if we choose the, both of them separatly: [10] overweight them). Honstly I was not ware that google nagrams are bout various languages (yes, belive me it is possible to not note if someone do not read in English as native speaker)

   I am sorry if I have ever insult you, I think no, so I do not know why you call me as activist ,and I am disapointed yoiu again call other users activist (earlier you did it one time the level 5 about feminists and later one time on the level 3 about astronauts). Please GuzzyG, do not do that. I am also sorry that I often make long unclear comments (it was also caused that I wrote a lot of to forestall eventuall logicall fallacies and our misunderstanding) but now I think that better will be if I back to VA if I get my English better or at least limit my participations to voting by saying "per user". I am afraid that now you will have personal problem with me but if you want solute something, you can keep comment on my user talk page and ask me. I am opened, cheers Dawid2009 (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Dawid2009 I have no experience of, or very much interest, in this discussion; please don't involve me. I don't really understand what you have written and attributed to me and it seems to me that it is something of a 'stretch' to make that out of what I did say. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 06:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Eagleash:, @Sdkb: You both did not understood my because of I (a propos this discussion accidentally misleaded Ealeash’ comment with Jts1882’s comment which was very strongly associated with Sdkb’s comment and contents on the level 3 ([11] ) . I am vey sorry for misleading (somehow I assumed that the same user who said to me, that this list offer rather articles than players/biographies, also said that alraady featured articles are less preferable to list on VA than worse written articles); I should remind this discussion better, before ping you; I wanted nobody bothering. The only substance which I was thinking about was that we should resolting how "quality of articles" can "influence on entires to VA", really nothing more. Cheers. Dawid2009 (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Remove École normale supérieure, Jagiellonian University, University of al-Qarawiyyin, University of Hong Kong, Peking University, Complutense University of Madrid, Leiden University, University of Salamanca, Charles University in Prague

I really can not understand why we dedicade FA's high priority for universities ahead of unindependent nations like Igbo people or clearly influential languages like Catalan language. Maybe my choice of the 9 universities which I suggested to cut is not good but it is area which is indeed overrepresented and we are ten over quota at this section (+ currently go quite big inclusionism in this section). I am not expert in education but most of these universities maybe are not more vital to English Wikipedia than Columbia University, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, The University of Edinburgh. Problematic is also article University of Rome which is disambiguation page at the moment.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Too many educational institutions at this level. --Thi (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal of University of al-Qarawiyyin one of the most important Muslim universities and ones located in Africa, supremely more important to history than all of Columbia, Michigan and Edinburgh, massive cultural bias in removing this one. We even have a level 3 alumni in Ibn Khaldun and probably should have two with Maimonides who is on the level 4 list, these two show the level of history involved with this university. GuzzyG (talk) 11:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal of École normale supérieure (one of the most important universities in France) and Oppose removal of University of Salamanca (one of the oldest universities in the world). -- Spaced about (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

• This should be split into several different proposals. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree. I am not willing to weigh in on this many articles without a clearly defined rationale. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not ready to weigh in yet on the idea of reducing the number of universities overall, but if this discussion starts going toward a consensus to support, I do think we ought to give some consideration to the criteria we're using. It currently seems to be some mix of history, prestige, size, and English-speakingness. What made you put the institutions you did on the chopping block? Sdkb (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Add Siphon

A simple technology that has been widely used for thousands of years.

Support

1. as nom power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
3. Support as widely used. J947 ^(c), at 04:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
4. Support historically important tool and technology that is still relevant today Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 13:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  16:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add The Three Stooges

Obvious second to the Marx bros in American comedy groups, but still a highly known and recognised comedy group that had alot of influence on the subsequent development of comedy. Pioneered slapstick comedy.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Per the nain article: "Over half a century since their last short film was released, the Three Stooges remain popular with audiences. Their films have never left American television since first appearing in 1958, and they continue to delight old fans while attracting new viewers. They were a hard-working group of comedians who were never the critics' darlings, a durable act who endured several personnel changes in their careers that would have permanently sidelined a less persistent act." Dimadick (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Abbott and Costello were removed from the list. "The Three Stooges, along with Laurel & Hardy and Abbott & Costello, are one of the few classic-comedy teams to have earned a lasting place in America's collective pop-culture consciousness. They also hold up the worst; though the tricky wordplay of Abbott & Costello's "Who's on First?"still sings, beloved "Stooges" shorts like "Disorder in the Court" feel repetitive and draggy after more than one viewing." (The Atlantic) [12] --Thi (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose While Laurel and Hardy were successful in Europe, the Three Stooges were not. Both represent the slapstick type of comedy in the same era on television. One is enough at this level, and Laurel and Hardy are the better choice for reasons of international success and critical acclaim. If we need one more comedian, that would be keeping Carol Burnett and adding Joan Rivers, in my opinion, but I see no need for additional comedians. The people section is large and already over quota anyway. --Spaced about (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

To be fair to them though, Abbott and Costello are remembered as a one hit wonder and if criticism by critics is a factor enough to override household name status than Cecil B. DeMille and Enid Blyton are among the probably few artists we list criticized for simplicity. GuzzyG (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Add William-Adolphe Bouguereau

One of the most popular and well regarded painters in 19th century France and a master of his style; he might be out of favor today but he covers his time and he represents a style of painting in which we lack and would be much better than our current load filled with 20th century painters.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Academic art is listed I dont't think that we don't need example in biographies. Pre-Raphaelites shared some qualities of academic art and they are more well-known. His "most lasting cultural legacy was his consistent advocacy of the training of female art students". [13] Many other artists deserve to be listed before Bouguereau. [14] --Thi (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Lorenzo Da Ponte

One of the greatest Librettists; a commonly under regarded field which we do not list. Wrote Don Giovanni and The Marriage of Figaro

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Libretto is the general article. I nominated it and it failed. Librettists are in usually not known to general public and I don't think we need example at this level. Giacomo Casanova is more famous example of adventurer and memoirist from the same era. --Thi (talk) 11:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Ismail Kadare

There's plenty of other Nobel winners who are just as important and other countries with a bigger population that are not covered with a writer; what else makes him vital?

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose He has wide international readership and many awards, most recently Neustadt Prize. His name is mentioned annually in discussions of the Nobel Prize. --Thi (talk) 13:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Eugène Ionesco

One of the least influential writers on this list. A quick look on the level 5 list would net many of similar stature.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose His work "inspired a revolution in dramatic techniques and helped inaugurate the Theatre of the Absurd. Elected to the Académie Française in 1970, Ionesco remains among the most important dramatists of the 20th century." (Britannica) --Thi (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Clara Schumann

One of the most prominent and influential women pianists and composers of her day. Championed the works of her husband Robert Schumann and friend Johannes Brahms who themselves are both on this list and is one of the most dominant women in music history. Hildegard of Bingen is the only other woman composer we list, but she's notable for way more then music, Clara would be the first main woman in music history we list, if we list Dolly Parton, we should definitely list Clara. Taking into consideration the bias women faced, especially the ones that get overshadowed by their husbands, she has pretty much the same results up against Robert and Brahms in ngrams [15]. I think she is our biggest missed musician, we may be over quota, but Jacques Brel removal vote seems to be successful so we have room.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Not vital enough as a composer to warrant inclusion, but more significant as a pianist and I think the overall package is sufficient for inclusion. Neljack (talk) 04:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 04:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Dimadick (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
5. Support --Spaced about (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Too many more famous composers are not listed. Nadia Boulanger is listed as a pedagogue. I would love to see the third greatest cellist Jacqueline du Pré added. --Thi (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

• Famous, who decides famous anyway, does Anna Nicole Smith need to be added? (not that pioneering reality television won't be important in about 50 years, as it should)

Let's dissect this because i linked the one objective way to measure importance: book mentions (google ngrams. Let's compare Clara to every other level 5 composer.

• Medieval and Renaissance composers [16] and [17] now, out of these only William Byrd outdoes her, but we list more English composers then women ones so, balance? The real thing to do here is add Clara and swap Benjamin Britten or Ralph Vaughan Williams for Byrd, because he outdoes them clearly [[18]]
• Baroque composers: [19] and [20] no other level 5 baroque composer out does her.
• Classical composers: [21] no other level 5 classical composer out does her.
• Romantic composers (her competition): [22], [[23]] and [[24]] now John Philip Sousa is the only one who beats her and yes he should be added because he represents a unique style, but not at the cost of a woman.
• 20th century modern composers: [25], [26] and [27] now only Charles Ives, Kurt Weill and James Scott beat her, Ives being the only viable contender, we don't list a American composer i think and he should be on here. Weil represents nothing new and he's more of a collab with Bertolt Brecht who is listed. James Scott is obviously because it's a common name.
• Avant-garde/postmodern composers: [28] and [29] now only John Adams beats her, obviously because he has the same name as a president.
• Entertainment composers: [30], [31], and [32] now John Barry and John Williams beat her, Barry because of the naval officer with the same name and Williams absolutely should be on here, film composers and music producers are two of our music sections weak spots, but the most prominent woman romantic composer beats the importance of a film composer (they're untested so far)
• New age composer: [33] Yanni beats her, but it's a common name and New-age music itself would have to be on first before a representative.
• Now, your suggestion of Jacqueline du Pré, she's more famous due to the movie and her medical condition, yes, but did she have more of a effect on music as a whole, [34] Clara again beats every woman listed on the level 5 page under classical musicians, (except opera singers, i didn't compare her with them). (which is another area of concern, why is it filled with American singers? Where's people like Giovanni Battista Rubini, Farinelli, Maria Malibran, why Leontyne Price and Marian Anderson but not Jenny Lind and Beverly Sills? Why Kiri Te Kanawa and not Nellie Melba? Why no Lied singers like Elisabeth Schwarzkopf or Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau. I understand some of the Americans are for diversity reasons, but then why not Mei Lanfang? Opera is the worst section on this whole 2k list, too many people that are alive/Americans, but that's another discussion.

If being famous is important for being vital to classical music, list who you think is more famous and i will check every form of statistic i can find. But do we need more European men? Why is three women, (one under pedagogue) a bad thing? Clara would not be out of place on this list.GuzzyG (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I meant major composers in the context of classical music, canonical composers[35] ("innovation, influence, aesthetic importance and historical significance") Much has been written about romantic composers and Clara's own compositions were forgotten. In 1952, the New York Times had headline “Clara Schumann: Wife of Robert was also a composer”. She was a great pianist, notable composer and an example of female composers who were unjustly ingnored in their times. She would not be as out of place if there is room for more instrumentalist and singers from pre-recorded era such as Malibran. I think that composers are important for example because some of the most well-known contemporary female composers such as Unsuk Chin and Kaija Saariaho have been influenced by György Ligeti and it would be useful to know Ligeti, Anton Webern or Iannis Xenakis first. --Thi (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

GuzzyG I agree that some changes are needed to the opera singers section. In my view, five of the nine - Callas, Caruso, Domingo, Pavarotti and Sutherland - warrant inclusion, but the other four do not (even as a New Zealander, I cannot justify Dame Kiri's inclusion, great singer that she is). I would suggest replacing Nilsson with Kirsten Flagstad They are both Wagnerian sopranos, so are easily comparable, and most critics regard Flagstad as the greatest Wagnerian soprano ever. I think Fischer-Dieskau should also be added - the important lieder singer ever and a remarkably versatile artist. We also don't have any representation of the lower male voice (baritones, bass-baritones or basses). It's no coincidence that both Fiescher-Dieskau and Flagstad have been hailed as the singer of the (20th) century. Going back before the recorded era is more tricky, but Farinelli and Malibran seem to have strong cases. That would leave us at nine singers, as at present. Neljack (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you on everything. I would support the Nilsson/Flagstad swap. If you nominate that swap or any other Opera swap, i would support it. GuzzyG (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Swap Philip Glass for Andrés Segovia

Segovia had more of a unique influence on 20th century classical music and we list no guitarist. Being the top minimal music composer doesn't mean much when we don't list Donald Judd.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Philip Glass is influential figure in 20th century music and American music. I would expect to find him from this level, if contemporary music is included. Segovia was famous in his own time, but many classical quitarists have now other interpretative approaches. --Thi (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Glass is the most influential minimalist composer. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap Ella Fitzgerald for Nina Simone

We already list Billie Holiday but we don't list no female blues singers. We already represent Jazz well but we don't cover the blues barely at all.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Philburmc (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Syngman Rhee

Led South Korea through the Korean war, influential in independence activities before he became the first president.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support good add for this level pbp 16:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
3. He has been considered to be the father of the Republic of Korea.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
4. Support. He does seem to belong on the list, though I'm wondering if it might make sense to swap him in for one of the current Korean leaders on the list, e.g. Seonjo of Joseon or Park Chung-hee. Orser67 (talk) 08:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Dimadick (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
6. Support per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
7. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Hipparchus

"Hipparchus is considered the greatest ancient astronomical observer and, by some, the greatest overall astronomer of antiquity." Important precursor of Ptolemy. "The greatest astronomer of antiquity... His development of the subject of spherical trigonometry places him high among great mathematicians." [36]

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
3. Support RekishiEJ (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Constantine ✍ 19:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Henrietta Swan Leavitt

If we are going to consider add Giordano Bruno, I think we should consider addition of Leavitt. Giordano Bruno suggested that solar system is not center place in the universe, meanwhile Henrietta Swan Leavitt discovered how infinitly large is the universe and that Milky Way is not the only galaxy.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose too minor for this list. GuzzyG (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose per GuzzyG. --Thi (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

• Vera Rubin deserves to be at this level more than Leavitt. Only two women have won the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society. The first was Caroline Herschel (who is already at level 4). The second was Vera Rubin. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Add Ralph H. Baer

He invented video games, without him they wouldn't exist. We list Shigeru Miyamoto, so we can have the inventor too, what other art/entertainment inventors would not be on here? We list Auguste and Louis Lumière.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Dawid2009 (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Lumière brothers are much more well known. --Thi (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Add City Lights

We list no Chaplin film and considering his place on the level 3 list as the only traditional director we should represent one of his works here. City Lights is widely seen as one of the greatest comedies and the greatest Chaplin film. We lack comedies compared to drama here. I see no reason to have this on the list.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
2. Support. It is difficult to imagine a list like this without any Chaplin film. --Thi (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Sdkb (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Dimadick (talk) 11:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. --Spaced about (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Social inequality

Economic inequality is here already, and this is arguably even a bigger scope.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as the nominator.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support as per nom. Social equality is at level 3 and this is arguably the bigger topic. J947 ^(c), at 20:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  21:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Overlaps heavily with social stratification, a level 4 article. Swapping in social inequality for social stratification might be a good, idea, though, since stratification seems to be a narrower subject than inequality. Orser67 (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose overlaps with economic inequality and social stratification are large. --Spaced about (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Gender inequality

Per my argument for social inequality. While arguably economic and gender and such are of lesser scope, if economic inequality can be Vital 4, so should gender one, which affects roughly half of the human society. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as the nominator.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  21:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I don't think we need to add an article that is basically the opposite of a pre-existing level 4 article. I wouldn't necessarily be against swapping them. Orser67 (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above, Gender equality, whcih I would expect to cover the same topic, is already listed. And Sexism is also listed. --Spaced about (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

Overlaps with sexism, but that is level 3, and I still think it's important.  Carlwev  21:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Add Cryptozoology

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Many mythological creatures such as dragons are listed and I think that it is sufficient. --Thi (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Dilip Kumar

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

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose He's a regional celebrity with no international impact. Philburmc (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Any rationale behind opposing the vote to Indias greatest regarded actor? GuzzyG (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

"Kumar is widely considered one of the greatest actors in the history of Hindi cinema. He holds the Guinness World Record for winning the maximum number of awards by an Indian actor.He has received many awards throughout his career, including 10 Filmfare Awards for Best Actor and One Lifetime Achievement for Filmfare Also for Special Recognition FilmFare Award for recognising him as one first recipients to receive a Filmfare Award along with the nightingale of India Lata Mangeshkar and one of the greatest Hindi Music Directors Naushad Ali at the 50th Filmfare Award Ceremony and along with 19 nominations at Filmfare for best actor. He was honoured with the Filmfare Lifetime Achievement Award in 1993. Gunga Jumna (1961), which he wrote, produced, and starred in, also received the National Film Award for Second Best Feature Film in Hindi, the Paul Revere Silver Bowl at the Boston International Film Festival, the Special Honour Diploma from the Czechoslovak Academy of Arts in Prague, and the Special Prize at the Karlovy Vary International Film Festival.

Kumar was appointed Sheriff of Mumbai (an honorary position) in 1980, the Government of India honoured Kumar with the Padma Bhushan in 1991, the Dadasaheb Phalke Award in 1994 and the Padma Vibhushan in 2015. The Government of Andhra Pradesh honoured Kumar with NTR National Award in 1997. The Government of Pakistan conferred Kumar with Nishan-e-Imtiaz, the highest civilian award in Pakistan, in 1998. The ruling political party of Shiv Sena in Maharashtra had objected to this award and questioned Kumar's patriotism. However, in 1999 in consultation with the then Prime Minister of India, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Kumar retained the award.He was honoured with CNN-IBN Lifetime Achievement Award in 2009.

From his awards section, where's the equivalent for Michel Bouquet;how is a actor in a country of 1,352,642,280 people, more than nearly double of Bouquets CONTINENT, regional??? Surely just a regional celebrity, how are we supposed to trust the voting process/integrity of this list when votes out of spite are clear as day? GuzzyG (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Add Amrita Sher-Gil

We need more women artists and we don't have one from India and she was actually influential herself. "She has been called "one of the greatest avant-garde women artists of the early 20th century" and a "pioneer" in modern Indian art."

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Philburmc (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap Vladimir Vysotsky for BTS (band)

Grounds of proposal are international impact. While the former had the USSR State Prize, the latter hold the equivalent Order of Cultural Merit and have address the United Nations General Assembly. K-pop has bigger international visibility than Russian music, but there are no K-pop musicians at level 4.

Support

1. Support as nom. ミラP 23:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose as we cannot judge the impact BTS will have on history. Far too recentist. J947 ^(c), at 03:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Too recent. --Thi (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Support removal, oppose addition. Add K-pop first before adding any individual vocal groups. feminist (talk) 07:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
4. The removal, since Vysotsky influenced many of Russia's popular musicians and actors years after his death, and Russia has been a cultural power.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

• I'm leaning against this proposal, but I don't feel qualified to cast a !vote on it. That said, I do think we ought to list k-pop itself at level 4 (it's currently level 5) before listing individual k-pop bands. I might be persuaded to support elevating it if you want to nominate it, Miraclepine. Sdkb (talk) 06:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

  This, Esports,Podcast and Reality television are the four biggest new forms of entertainment this century and we should list the fields before any people as it's too recent to judge which performers stand out according to our guidelines. YouTube, Mixed martial arts, and Hip hop music are the other three and they're listed. It's worth noting we list no big selling/awarded artists like Elton John and Whitney Houston; pretty sure 2pac is our most recent musician. We should very rarely list living artists at this level, especially ones so recent and the field should be listed before a performer. In short i'd support a nomination of any of the fields, but if reality television isn't getting traction i don't see how a sub genre of pop will, unfortunately. GuzzyG (talk) 08:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Add Vicente Fernández

One of the most prominent Mexican musicians, "The King of Ranchera Music" and "He has sold over 50 million copies worldwide, making him one of the best-selling regional Mexican artists of all time". On the level of our other listed Latin musicians.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose

Discuss

Remove Bill Tilden

"In the United States' sports-mad decade of the Roaring Twenties, Tilden was one of the six dominant figures of the 'Golden Age of Sport', along with Babe Ruth, Howie Morenz, Red Grange, Bobby Jones, and Jack Dempsey." Dempsey is perhaps more famous today, but is not listed. Boxing has three representatives at this level, while tennis has nine.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
2. Support hard cuts have to be made and he isn't the most vital 20s athlete. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Support --Spaced about (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
4. Support. Lenglen is the better representative for this era. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

What do you think about more opened discussion about tennis players to keep all man tennis players except two the strongest and to remove one woman tennis player? Dawid2009 (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree GuzzyG (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Swap Dresden for Leipzig

Larger city.

Support

As nominator. feminist (talk) 08:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

1. Support addition --Thi (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Leipzig may be more populous, but Dresden has historically been more significant. It was the capital of Saxony as an independent realm and remains the capital of the Bundesland. The city's bombing during WWII is also a highly notable event. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Dresden is historically much more important. If we need to add another German city, it's Weimar, in my opinion, due to it's political and cultural importance. --Spaced about (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
3. I'm persuaded by the arguments about historical significance here. feminist (talk) 16:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Judi Dench

British stage acting is already represented by Ellen Terry but Peggy Ashcroft and Sarah Siddons would both better picks than Dench if we needed a second woman (fourth overall with Gielgud/Olivier). Even other stage actresses like Eleonora Duse are more important. If we include men; than Thespis, Henry Irving, David Garrick, Ira Aldridge, Richard Burbage, Edwin Booth, Edmund Kean, Vittorio Gassman, John Barrymore, or August Wilhelm Iffland are all more important to stage acting history. we need to cut down on people that are still alive/contemporary figures.

Support

1. Support as nom.
2. Support Not absolutely essential contemporary figure. --Thi (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose She is not only a stage actress, as the reasoning for the nomination seems to imply, but also an extremely prolific movie star in high culture movies. The fact that she is also a well known stage actress makes the choice even better. --Spaced about (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose Significant film actress. Dimadick (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
3. Oppose - I have reviewed the comments in support but still feel she is vital at this level. Jusdafax (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

Why a 20th century stage actor when we miss so many before the 20th century? What makes her any different than Angela Lansbury, Maggie Smith, Ian McKellen, Derek Jacobi, Vanessa Redgrave, or Jeremy Irons? All of whom other than Irons and Lansbury have been removed from this list previously? Nothing separates her from them, period. Do we have to list every moderately famous actor? Dench has nothing on Daniel Day-Lewis, or would you support all 6 aswell? Where's the limit? Why the extreme focus on "high culture"? Should we list people based on the class of the audience? Do you seriously think any print encyclopedia meant to cover the world would list Dench with a 2000 limit on biographies? Would a French or Italian or Russian or Chinese encyclopedia list her? Will she be in a film textbook? She's only important as a stage actress, unless you think winning the academy ward for best SUPPORTING actress makes her one of the 31 most important actresses in history, a award for Shakespeare in Love which is normally regarded as one of the worst and most undeserving best picture winners up there with Crash (2004 film), awarded mainly due to the connection and campaigning of Harvey Weinstein, hardly an achievement which will build a well regarded legacy for the ages. Or is M (James Bond) a "high culture" movie role that makes someone last through history? How about this "high culture" film Notes on a Scandal (film)? How about Cats (2019 film)? Are performance's in A Handful of Dust (film), A Room with a View (1985 film) and Four in the Morning (film) enough for a placement in the top 31 actresses? Let's add Iris (2001 film), we don't list Iris Murdoch, who is surely more of a more notable British woman, does a performance of her beat the person? Mrs Brown may play a "high culture" role, but is it still relevant to society? Are these (Chocolat (2000 film) and Mrs Henderson Presents) important to film history? How about Nine (2009 live-action film)? Are A Fine Romance (1981 TV series) and As Time Goes By (TV series) important British television shows? Does anyone still watch any of these? Her only relevant role today is in James Bond, a high culture series. Who cares? She's not even a pop culture icon like Lana Turner, Ava Gardner or James Dean, all of whom are missing. Tom Cruise would be the better modern star, or is that not "high culture" enough for your tastes? Dench is just your average well regarded worker, nothing separates her from her contemporaries, nothing makes her important to film history. We'd list over 100 actors by Spaced about's reasoning. Could name hundreds along the lines of Dench or Jason Robards. Strictly analyzing her films shows nothing but fluff and high culture James Bond movies, nothing truly important. There's no harm in removing her and coming back in 30 years anyway to see if she lasts, nearly no contemporary figures should be on this level. Certainly not in fields with hundreds of years of history, only figures like Tupac Shakur that represent something new should be listed as a contemporary figure. Being well regarded in high culture means nothing for a list like this. Other than being a extremely prolific actress, what exactly makes her vital to the history of film? What role is her most notable and is it in a important film? We're over the limit and she just doesn't make the cut. GuzzyG (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The name-dropping isn't helpful as an argument. We know we have a complex problem to solve and difficult decisions to make. Dench is a good outcome of this decision process. I agree that some of the ones you mentioned are rivaling Dench in "vitalness" (vitality doesn't seem right here, so I'll take the liberty to invent a word), especially Vittorio Gassmann and Maggie Shmith. Jeremy Irons and Daniel Day Lewis are white male anglo-saxons, so adding them doesn't add to diversity. Vittorio Gassmann might not be that well known outside of Europe, he also gets a lot less page views than other modern figures at this level. Maggie Smith might be an alternative I would consider swapping Dench for. And, in general, there has to be a balance of high culture, pop culture, and folklore on the list, that's why I mentioned it. --Spaced about (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

No decision added Dench, she's a leftover from when this list was a free for all and people added anything they wanted, in the archives I AM the only person calling her vital, because i had the wrong focus. I asked you specifically " Other than being a extremely prolific actress, what exactly makes her vital to the history of film? What role is her most notable and is it in a important film?" and you glossed over it with mumbo jumbo. Smith was removed by consensus, not vital. I listed those comparisons because they are exactly the same type of actor. If we HAVE to list more regional stage actress it should be Sarah Siddons, Elizabeth Barry or Nell Gwyn they are the important stage actresses. Dench doesn't even take the 20th century, it's Peggy Ashcroft. Dench is a relic of a bad era in the list. I listed every award winning movie of hers and none of it is vital. "significant film actress" off what, james bond? Explain how Dench is vital to world history other than fame, it should be that simple. GuzzyG (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

As I stated directly next to my !vote, I think she is a good choice because she represents both stage acting and film acting. She also represents the type of supporting actress, that means there will not be an answer to her "most notable role", that's just how it is with supporting actresses. She is nevertheless influential, as the article states: Dench appeared on Debrett's 2017 list of (not ranked) 500 most influential people in the UK.^[1] I just don't agree with your criteria: If an actress is known for a major role in an important film, I would examine very closely if we had better list the movie ahead of the actress.

More than Dench, Maggie Smith would represent the type of character actress in addition to supporting actress.

Just for the record: Maggie Smith was removed here.

--Spaced about (talk) 08:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Supporting actors by nature are never vital, her most important roles are supporting. That's not a major actor. Is Walter Brennan a major, world regarded figure? Tell me, why should we ignore pre film stage actors, when stage actors were the history makers in acting, over late 20th century stage actors who were never important? Should we list the other 499 people on that list? That's a extremely bad way to judge influence on world history and to justify a listing in a encyclopedia that covers the 2000 most important figures in world history. Should we removed Audrey Hepburn for Roman Holiday and Breakfast at Tiffany's (film)? Marilyn Monroe for Some Like It Hot? Joan Crawford for Mildred Pierce (film)? Judy Garland should be removed because we list the The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)? Let's remove Claudette Colbert for It Happened One Night and Barbara Stanwyck for Double Indemnity (film)? (the last two i'd agree with, but not for your reasoning). Let me predict your response, "no because they're all iconic actresses and have other ICONIC films they're known for, you can't single out a film, or they won a lead academy award" and yeah, that's exactly my point, Dench is none of that and one listing in a 500 person list in a single country for 2017 list can ever change that. Ask someone on the street to name a Judi Dench performance and they'll likely bring up a supporting James Bond performance, which sums up the merits of her acting career. GuzzyG (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The ultimate judge is the reader: what does the reader want from us? Does the reader want a list of only people who had some major influence on history or widely recognized influence, because who really knows? The reader expects us to educate them, on the one hand. But the reader also wants info on the topics they look up frequently because they are popular topics - in many cases roughly equivalent to page views if you will, but that measure will vary with age and some topics are popular for no conceivable reason. Maggie Smith for instance doesn't make your cut. She is only a supporting actress, or a character actress, portraying weird people, but people love that and they admire the art of acting and so she influences the people directly. Television is in and of itself a highly influential mass medium.

Concerning these lists of influential people: I would assume our list has some overlap with all of these lists.

Whether to keep a person or the work of art or event is a case-by-case decision, we agree on that.--Spaced about (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

But if we go by the reader and contemporary actresses it's always going to be actresses like Angelina Jolie with 65,652,373 with 11 languages having over a mil views [37].

Heres other similar actresses comparable to Judi Dench

Judi Dench's pageviews 14,056,159 with English or German having over a mil [38]

Angela Lansbury's pageviews 14,500,888 with over a mil in English, German and Italian [39]

Helen Mirren's pageviews 16,655,118 with over a mil in English and German [40]

Maggie Smith's pageviews 16,096,694 with over a mil in English and French [41]

Which show's what i'm saying, there's no difference with her contemporaries with similar stage/film careers among the public. add on that she's a supporting actress and there's no point listing her. Meanwhile historic film actresses that are probably mid tier like Ava Gardner get 10,599,081 views with over a mil in English and Spanish [42] so why is a historic actress getting nearly as many pageviews as contemporary figures who would normally be inflated? Clearly Dench isn't a big public star and first you said she's important for high culture status anyway, so why would the public matter? A encyclopedia would list Sarah Siddons, Elizabeth Barry Nell Gwyn, Henry Irving, David Garrick, Ira Aldridge, Richard Burbage, Edwin Booth, or Edmund Kean first because they've proven their historic value and have stood the test of time, and especially ones like Irving who are important to the history of acting and acting as a profession. The only people we should add if we're factoring in the public are Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Cruise, Angelina Jolie, or Cate Blanchett, they're the four most important contemporary actors and Blanchett has stage/film experience, more than Dench. But still i don't think any should be listed. We need to let them stand a bit in history first. We already list so many Brits, which is not a big country for film or acting. Ellen Terry, John Gielgud, and Laurence Olivier are enough Brit stage actors anyway, British stage isn't important enough for 4 reps. GuzzyG (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Swap Franz Marc for Andrei Rublev

We list plenty of 19th/20th century painters but none from Rublevs time/era/style; also clearly Rublev is the more known and well regarded of the two. Marc is our weakest artist along with Richter.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support addition gives more balance to the section in terms of era. --Spaced about (talk)

Oppose

1. Oppose Marc founded the Der Blaue Reiter, important group of German expressionists. He is perhaps among 100 most notable artists in the context of European and Western art history. [43] --Thi (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal he was quite a genius and indeed a very famous painter. Painter biographies make sense because they usually describe their style and have a gallery of their work, compared to scientist biographies, where the real information is in articles about their inventions.--Spaced about (talk) 11:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Robert A. Heinlein

Heinlein popularized libertarian ideas in his novel The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, but now Ayn Rand is listed at this level. I would rather list for example Willa Cather or Louisa May Alcott. Previous nominations: [44], [45].

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Support Only Asimov and Bradbury should be listed from 20th century Sci-Fi, we have so many modern sci-fi writers that it almost equals the amount of people we list from medicine. Way too much of a Wikipedia demographic bias and recency bias. We're over quota and still missing so many important figures. Tell me Heinlein and Arthur C. Clarke are more notable than Ambroise Paré, even listing just Jules Verne would be enough for modern sci-fi lit, we have a level 5 for a reason. it'd probably be better to just list Little Women instead of Alcott, in tradition with other writers known for one work primarily. GuzzyG (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
3. Support I think sci-fi is covered disproportionately, possibly because of the interests of Wikipedia editors. Neljack (talk) 05:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Heinlein is most significant not as a libertarian but as a science fiction writer, as he wrote influential novels such as The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Starship Troopers, and Stranger in a Strange Land. As his Wikpiedia article says, "he, Isaac Asimov, and Arthur C. Clarke are often considered the 'Big Three' of English-language science fiction authors." Both Asimov and Clarke are listed at level 4. Orser67 (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose Dimadick (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Orser67. Jusdafax (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Ella Fitzgerald

Straight removal, as a alternative to my swap proposal, see Cline vote above for my rationale, music should be 150 and Jazz would be perfect at 10, TLDR: not more important in Jazz than John Coltrane, Charles Mingus, or Thelonious Monk. Holliday is the one super historic Jazz singer.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose

Discuss

Add Linus Torvalds

"creator and, historically, the principal developer of the Linux kernel, which is the kernel for Linux operating systems (distributions) and other operating systems such as Android and Chrome OS. He also created the distributed version control system Git and the scuba dive logging and planning software Subsurface" one of the most influential modern people involved with computer science. As time goes on his stature will only grow too.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
4. Support, quite surprised he isn't there already TBH. Constantine ✍ 19:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
5. Strongly Support. per nom. His contribution to the information age has no equal.   // Timothy :: talk  06:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose

Discuss

Swap Hank Aaron for Walter Johnson

This one is gonna be super controversial, but i thought it's worth a shot so hear me out please. We list 6 hitters and no pitchers, we list a goaltender in ice hockey, two bowlers in cricket and a goalkeeper in association football, it's only right we list a pitcher and one pitcher is worth more than 6!! hitters. [46] Johnson is 11 on this list and Aaron is 4, [47] Johnson is 4 and Aaron 5 on this list, [48] Johnson is 12 and Aaron 5 on this list, [49] Johnson is 7 and Aaron is 3 on this list, [50] Johnson is 8 and Aaron 12 on this list. Now Johnsons ranked lower than Aaron often, but pitchers are rarely rated high and Johnson is consistently in the top 10. Ted Williams, Lou Gehrig, Barry Bonds, Honus Wagner, Mickey Mantle, and Josh Gibson have all rated higher than Aaron atleast once on those "greatest of all time" lists and Williams multiple times. Most have been removed too. Aaron's primary achievement is beating Ruth's record, but Bond's has it now and he wouldn't be listed. It's just not a big achievement to be listed over a pitcher. He's one of the greatest hitters but 5 hitters and one pitcher sounds alot better. Every other main team sport lists a bowler/goalie, baseball is no different. Aaron is the weakest hitter by achievements so i chose him.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
2. Support removal --Thi (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
3. Support. Yeah, the logic for balancing away from hitters checks out. Johnson isn't universally agreed to be the best pitcher of all time, but he does top the JAWS (a metric often used during Hall of Fame debates) leaderboard for starting pitchers. Ruth and Robinson 100% need to be on the list, I guess it makes sense to include one non-American baseball player, and Aaron is a reasonable choice to drop among the three remaining players. Orser67 (talk) 05:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I don't find this rationale compelling. The rankings cited by GuzzyG show that baseball experts rate (on average) Aaron higher than Johnson. Now perhaps they are underrating Johnson because he's a pitcher, but I'm reluctant to substitute my view for theirs when they know a hell of a lot more about baseball than me (or probably any of us). And nothing in Johnson's career had the wider cultural significance of Aaron's chase for the home run record. Aaron was also one of the most outspoken advocates of the civil rights movement in baseball and the first black superstar to play in the Deep South.
   If we are going to seriously look for positional balance among sports players, we will need wider changes. Look at the lack of defenders in various sports, including soccer and American Football. GuzzyG is currently proposing to remove Colin Meads, who is the only rugby forward on our list. The rationale for this swap seems inconsistent with that proposal. Neljack (talk) 06:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Neljack. Aaron is on this list for breaking Ruth's record more so than for holding the record for 30+ years. These ranking lists are not as important as impact. No expert would argue that Walter Johnson made a greater contribution to baseball than Hank Aaron. Beyond that, this swap would make three of five of MLB's representatives from the 1920s. If MLB had integrated earlier, Satchel Paige would have probably ended up being the pitcher on this list. But as it stands, no MLB pitcher had a higher impact than any of the current six at this level. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

Those same rankings list Ted Williams higher than Aaron on average too, and other players are listed on one or more lists higher than Aaron, which was my point, that Aaron isn't unanimously the next higher hitter and just one record should not be enough to override expert consensus on hitters placements (as you say yourself), or we'd list Joe DiMaggio whose hitting streak, will likely never be beaten unlike how Aaron's record was and DiMaggio has a bigger worldwide cultural presence compared to Aaron (if you include low search volume, DiMaggio is up there with Ruth himself internationally [51] in name recognition), even Gehrig has a bigger cultural presence than Aaron and was removed. Meanwhile these lists show Johnson is the consensus pitcher with only Cy Young coming close. I'm not too convinced on the rugby backs/forwards point, but by your logic we would list Jack Hobbs and Bobby Orr over Sydney Barnes and Vladislav Tretiak, in which hardly any Cricket expert would list Barnes over Hobbs or Tretiak over Orr, but we seem to have prioritized to represent both bowlers and batters and goaltenders and players, so i don't see why baseball should be different.

I don't see why we need two baseball civil rights activists, when we're ten over quota and it being a highly specialized area. I'd rather list a baseball union figure like Marvin Miller, in that case. But why don't we list James Bevel, Ida B. Wells, Ralph Abernathy, Bayard Rustin, John Lewis (civil rights leader), Medgar Evers, Coretta Scott King, A. Philip Randolph, Fred Shuttlesworth, Jesse Jackson, Stokely Carmichael, Huey P. Newton and Angela Davis all of whom are more notable than Aaron in this area, yet which some have been removed or had their votes failed. Even someone like John Brown (abolitionist) was removed and if cultural presence combined with activism and breaking barriers is the merit than why not Paul Robeson, Jack Johnson (boxer), Dorothy Dandridge, Hattie McDaniel, Dick Gregory or Bert Williams. Even Emmett Till is seen as a catalyst of the movement and probably a better addition than Aaron in this area. All of these would be more important in the area of African-American rights in the United States and moreso than Aaron when we already list Jackie Robinson and Jesse Owens. Let's not even get into other forms of activism in America missing like Marsha P. Johnson, Wilma Mankiller, Cesar Chavez, Bill Haywood, Eugene V. Debs, Mary Harris Jones, Gloria Steinem, Victoria Woodhull, Alice Paul, Bill W. or even Jack Kevorkian all of whom represent different movements and have arguably done more vital things in Activism than Aaron - that's not even getting into activism from around the world and different centuries.

We already list nine people representing African-American human rights activism too, W. E. B. Du Bois, Jackie Robinson, Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Rosa Parks, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr., which while highly important to American history, seems out of place to a worldwide list with a 2k quota when we only have 10 people total representing medicine, 10 Ancient Egyptian Pharaohs covering millenniums, in the modern African political leaders section we have 30 in total, but no more than 9/7/8/6 for the regional quotas of Eastern, Northern, Southern and Central, and Western Africa. We list no African film representative, 7 African writers, 2 African musicians and not even one black person (other than Imhotep) in the visual arts section itself (my nomination for arguably the most important African-American visual artist Jean-Michel Basquiat was denied). I'd prefer to list George Weah over Aaron, we cover American sports so much but hardly noone from African sports itself. We list so many Americans, but we completely ignore African history. Surely adding more Africans is more important to world history than another American baseball player?

I also think sports should be cut to anywhere from 50-80, athletes are not more important than entertainers - yet we list 11 more athletes. The highest level (level 3 esque) Wikimedia list [52] for the worldwide project lists multiple entertainers but no athletes. I doubt a professional worldwide compacted encyclopedia would miss Marilyn Monroe, but not before Babe Ruth and certainly not before Aaron. I'm only proposing a swap because i'm respecting sports set quota of 100 athletes, every athlete up for nomination i'd outright support removing. Only massive athletes who are at the very top of their sport should be listed and no athletes post 2000 (just like most other arts/entertainers, it's weird not to list Tom Cruise or Eminem because they're too "recent" only to have LeBron James on the list). We're 10 over quota and we have the level 5 list, i think we can start being strict on these kinds of biographies. We're missing so many names in medicine and other fields that we can't have so many modern pop culture articles anymore, if they really are vital, they will last the 10-30 more years to set up their legacy and then we can re-add them. GuzzyG (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I of course do not think that Hank Aaron is as important as a civil rights activist as the others you mention. I am not proposing that he be included as a "baseball civil rights activist". I mentioned his activism as a secondary reason - a contributor to his wider cultural significance that could help us to choose between two undoubtedly great players. This is surely a legitimate factor to take into account, or we wouldn't have Jackie Robinson on the list - very few people would say that he was one of the seven greatest baseball players.

I do not buy into the notion that we need positional diversity within sports on the list - if the most important players in the sports play in the same position or area, so be it. I do think Barnes was a greater cricketer than Hobbs (though I opposed removing Hobbs) and don't think that would be such an unusual opinion among experts - Barnes was quite simply the most dominant bowler ever; Hobbs was an extraordinary batsman, but would be competing with a bunch of others for second place behind Bradman. I know less about ice hockey, but would be inclined to have Orr ahead of Tretiak. If pitchers are underrated, I would definitely say that defensive players are underrated in American football - only two have ever won the NFL MVP award. So perhaps you should be nominating Lawrence Taylor instead of Tom Brady.

I did note Williams's rankings when looking at the list. There would be an argument for including him ahead of Aaron, though I will reserve my position on that.

I cannot agree that we should have an arbitrary date beyond which we won't include sportpeople. It is clear that Michael Phelps, Roger Federer, Serena Williams, Usain Bolt, LeBron James and Lionel Messi will go down as all-time greats in their sports. We should be careful to avoid recentism, but we have a mandate to cover the last 20 years just as much as we do any other period in history.

You make a strong argument for reducing the number of sportspeople on the list and, on reflection, I think there is room for a cull, particularly among the larger sports on the list. Neljack (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Swap Jean Giraud for Lotte Reiniger

European comics is already covered nicely by Hergé; while we do not cover women in this section and Reiniger is regarded as the "foremost pioneer of silhouette animation"; a genre of animation we do not cover. Shes also "noted for having devised the first form of a multiplane camera" and her film The Adventures of Prince Achmed is the "oldest surviving animated feature film"

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal per this and previous nomination. --Thi (talk) 11:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Dimadick (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose addition More famous and influential filmmakers are missing. --Thi (talk) 11:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Phil Spector

The architect of modern pop music, his influence is now in every other music producer that's come after him. "He developed the Wall of Sound, a music production formula he described as a Wagnerian approach to rock and roll. Spector was dubbed the "First Tycoon of Teen" " "In 1960, he co-founded Philles Records, and at the age of 21, became the youngest ever US label owner to that point" "Spector is considered the first auteur among musical artists for the unprecedented freedom and control he had over every phase of the recording process. Additionally, he helped engender the idea of the studio as an instrument,[5] the integration of pop art aesthetics into music (art pop),[6] and the art rock genre" are just some of the descriptions he has in his lede.

His two main songs are Be My Baby which is commonly regarded as the greatest girl group song and one of the greatest pop songs and You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin' which is described as ""by various music writers as "one of the best records ever made" and "the ultimate pop record"" and "According to BMI, "You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin'" is the song that received the most US airplay in the 20th century."

We don't list a music producer; which are integral to modern pop music and he's the main foundation figure. His crimes are despicable but we list Bill Cosby too.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I think Robert Goddard is more important addition when early pioneers of technology are considered. The Beatles and Beach Boys popularized the idea of recording studio as an instrument. Recording studio would be useful at this level. Brian Eno is also influential music producer. --Thi (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose If George Martin and Quincy Jones are level 5, Phil is level 6.   // Timothy :: talk  18:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Anthropology of religion

How Émile Durkheim is more vital than general article?

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

It's not the general article for Durkheim. He's one of the founders of sociology.--Spaced about (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Add Jaws (film)

I get we list the Star Wars franchise, but this film is the prototypical blockbuster, responsible for changing Hollywood's priorities into making summer blockbusters. This is a film which completely changed the film history. You can't write a complete history of film with missing Jaws. This would be the one film to represent the blockbuster, Star Wars is on as the most culturally relevant franchise.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose not quite influential enough to be included at this level, and Star Wars covers 1970s blockbusters well enough already. Orser67 (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose One of the many successful films, similar to King Kong and Godzilla which were removed. --Thi (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
3. Oppose I just don't think it rises to this level. It was a good film for its time, but I'd even question if it should be a level 5.   // Timothy :: talk  18:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Move Research to Everyday life

I think Research should be moved up to General. It is hardly limited to physical sciences, it is certainly done in social sciences too. And colloquially, people do 'research' on things in every day life. Also to find it 'just' at level 4, shouldn't it be at level 3 or even 2? Science is at level 1... Perhaps moving it up rather then around would be the best compromise.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. As the nominator. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The Basics section, which lists Research, Scientific method and Science itself, just happens to be in Physical sciences. They could be in Philosophy too, but I don't think that it is a big deal. – Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_11#Add_Research --Thi (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Michel Bouquet

He received multiple awards and is well recognized nationally and internationally. Philburmc (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support

Oppose

1. Oppose Not more important to film history than Indian actors like Dilip Kumar or silent actors like Douglas Fairbanks or Rudolph Valentino (who we do not list); we list enough French actors on this level already. GuzzyG (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Level 5 is good. --Thi (talk) 06:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Swap Thor Heyerdahl for Ernest Shackleton

The Kon-Tiki expedition isn't important compared to being one of the pioneers of the arctic.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Shackleton is a surprising omission. Neljack (talk) 08:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Shackleton was recently featured in BBC program as one candidate for 20th Century Icon along such figures as Albert Einstein and Jane Goodall. --Thi (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Shackleton was truly an explorer, whereas Heyerdahl was an adventurer and ethnographer, who tested theories about migration. He didn't explore unknown territory. HopsonRoad (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose

Discuss

Swap: add Vera Rubin, remove Anders Celsius

The first woman to win the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society was Caroline Herschel (who is already at Level 4) in 1828. The only woman to win the full award since then was Vera Rubin in 1996.

Rubin found the first observational evidence for unseen dark matter in the universe. It has since been ruled out that dark matter could be explained by macroscopic objects (e.g. neutron stars, white dwarfs, ejected planets) that are just too faint to be detected. The only options that leaves are: (1) dark matter is made of a new elementary particle --- the prevalent idea, or (2) the laws of gravity need to be refined at galactic scales. Either way, Rubin's discovery indicated there is some new fundamental physics that has yet to be discovered. It is widely accepted by astronomers that Rubin should have won the Nobel Prize for the discovery of dark matter, but was snubbed (see the New York Times or Popular Science for instance).

As Gabriel Fahrenheit is not on the list, I presume Anders Celsius is not here just because he has a temperature scale named after him. Out of the three temperature scale people, Lord Kelvin is probably the only one who deserves to be at this level. Celsius's contributions to astronomy do not compare to what the other astronomers listed at this level have done.

Most of the astronomers at Level 4 either made major contributions to understanding the Earth's place in the universe (Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Brahe, and to some extent Halley, both Herschels, and Sagan) or to understanding fundamental physics (Hubble and Lemaitre). Celsius doesn't really fall into either of those categories. On the other hand, Rubin clearly falls into the second one.

Support

1. Support as nom. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Contemporary history

With the recent split of modern history, there's a discussion going at the Level 2 VA page regarding the addition of Early modern period and Late modern period in place of modern history. Regardless of the outcome, I think it would make sense to add Contemporary history, which is considered to be either a part of the late modern period or as coming after the late modern period, at least to level 4. Its subject matter doesn't directly overlap with any other current vital article (other than being a subset of modern history), and we already have similar articles like Bronze Age and Classical antiquity (both subsets of Ancient history) at levels 3 or 4.

Support

1. Support as nom Orser67 (talk) 05:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
2. Support as per nom. J947 ^(c), at 18:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. --Spaced about (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
5. Support Dimadick (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
6. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

Larger global impact than 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, broader effect than Financial crisis of 2007–08. feminist (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator. feminist (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
2. Conditional Support per nom. I think this might be a level 5, depending on how the next six months unfold.   // Timothy :: talk  05:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
3. Support mainly because we already have Severe acute respiratory syndrome listed (a similar disease that caused far less death and turmoil). As a minimum swap it out. If the pandemic ended tomorrow (which it won't), its impact has been already larger than many diseases and historical events listed. We can also consider adding coronavirus. Virus types are slightly underrepresented here and at Level 5 IMO. Gizza ^(t)(c) 21:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

   We list SARS? That indicates to me some bad apportioning between different types of disasters, since listing something like that but not 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami is way off, unless SARS has some sort of medical significance independent from the 2003 outbreak. Swapping SARS for coronavirus is absolutely a no-brainer. And whether or not to add coronavirus seems like a question for someone with more medical expertise than me. Sdkb (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

4. Support ... already has had a huge social and economic impact to the world. So obvious this doesn't even need permission should just be added.--Moxy 🍁 23:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
5. Deaths caused by COVID-19 are more than SARS worldwide, and countries with COVID-19 cases are far more than those with SARS.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
6. Weak support — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 18:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
   • No longer weak; this has 460,000 cases now and a huge impact on the world. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 19:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

     Now 659,789 cases and 30,639 deaths, far more than 9/11 (2,996) and far longer (as opposed to only 1 and a bit hours) and most countries (as opposed to just 1). Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

7. Weak support for now. I agree it's very impactful, but I also see Sdkb's point about recency bias. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
8. Weak support. Should be a vital article, not sure whether level 4 or level 5. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
   • It's important to note that all VA levels are very different in scope. In this scenario, it is best to compare where closely-related topics in vitality and area rank on the VA scale. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 05:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
9. Support given the coverage and significance and views I proposed this at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5#Add 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic because I thought to "play it safe" due to recentism so only proposed level 5 but maybe even level 4 might work. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
10. Support Pandemics are by definition high-impact events. Dimadick (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
11. Strong support The world-wide impact of this event totally blows away any recency bias. The repercussions will be felt for many decades, at the very least. The mere fact that multiple countries have enacted martial law is enough to have it among the most important events of the past century. Certainly, in 1,000 years — it might not be that important, but for the foreseeable future of Wikipedia it will be. Wikipedia is only 19 years old — let us not be stale and stagnant already — this will certainly be among the most important events to have occurred for those living in 20 years time, if only for the so-far political impacts — even if everything were to return to normal today. Carl Fredrik ^talk 09:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
    If it is not clear, I am advocating for level 4 or preferably as time passes level 3 (we shouldn't let recentism get in the way of including things that are truly important either). I also contend that the Spanish flu be placed on level 3, alongside what are ridiculously few medical articles there (mostly Black Death.). Carl Fredrik ^talk 09:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
12. Support It is not likely that people just forget this pandemic and its article soon. --Thi (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
13. Support When the entire country of India is locked down, it's no longer a recency question. That's an enduring part of history to come. HopsonRoad (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
14. Oppose for now per a little WP:TOOSOON. I might (and perhaps likely will) support this at a later date, but we just don't know for sure yet whether the virus will have a high death toll, or whether we'll be able to fight it off and just remember early 2020 as that time we all hunkered down for a month or two. I suspect we unfortunately probably won't have to wait too long for further evidence one way or the other. Please ping me before closing this if the virus continues to spread and I may change my !vote. Sdkb (talk) 07:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
    Support increase in cases/deaths over the past week, along with the global reaction, gives this additional significance. The cultural impact of the virus, forcing much of the world to lock down, at this point leads me to support, and the notion that the deaths/economic impact won't rise to a level warranting level 4 is getting increasingly hard to fathom. Sdkb (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
15. Support unprecedented lockdowns, high impact in every area of the world. GuzzyG (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

See also the proposal to add coronavirus itself. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 02:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

This doesn't need to stay open any longer. Let's go ahead and close it to direct our attention to areas that still need it. Sdkb (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Remove Music venue

Music venue is listed along with Museum, Movie theater and Opera house, but perhaps Level 5 is best. Currently the article is little more than a list. Concert hall is a redirect to list of concert halls and Opera house is an example of concert hall. Pub or Nightclub would perhaps be more essential article from modern city culture's perspective.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Spaced about (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
3. Support unclear article. GuzzyG (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
4. Support per nom Orser67 (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove The Tonight Show add Talk show

We should have articles on prominent genres of television before shows. Talk shows have influence internationally, The Tonight Show doesn't. We already list Johnny Carson and we removed I Love Lucy because we list Lucille Ball.

Support

1. Support As nom GuzzyG (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Johnny Carson is already listed. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 02:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
3. Support More vital. --Thi (talk) 08:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
4. Support since we already have Carson. Orser67 (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
5. Support - an improvement Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
6. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• I would oppose the removal of Star Trek. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 02:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Swap James Abbott McNeill Whistler for John Everett Millais

Whistler is a one hit wonder painter; while Millais is a co founder of one of the biggest movements in art in the 19th century; Whistlers a famous expatriate but who had more of the impact on British art? John Singer Sargent covers Whistlers area better. Whistler isn't one of the 2000 most influential people

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support addition According to some modern critics, Millais is underrated artist and the most talented of the Pre-Raphaelites. --Thi (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal I would expect to find Whistler from an encyclopedia. He is widely known in the UK, US, and the world. The Artist’s Mother has been described as an American icon. --Thi (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Whistler was added here. J947 ^(c), at 04:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Remove Les Paul

So i get he's a famous musical instrument maker but is he more vital to that field than Nicola Amati, Bartolomeo Cristofori, Orville Gibson, Leo Fender, Adolphe Sax, Henry E. Steinway, and Gasparo da Salò? His current fame shouldn't outdo other instrument inventors/makers.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support if there was one music-related inventor on the list, it should be Cristofori but even he may not be vital enough at this level. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
4. Support removal. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
5. Support. I'm not a rock music expert, but Guzzy's logic is persuasive. Sdkb (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - I'm surprised by the support for this removal. Paul not only arguably invented the electric guitar, he invented multi-track recording and was responsible for a number of major hit records, and was an innovative and brilliant guitarist. Simply put, he is towering giant who has his own room in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and has been honored with a special Grammy Award. No, removing Les Paul from this list is frankly a terrible idea. Jusdafax (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

Terrible? We're 9 over quota, cover rock music disproportionate to everything else; Bartolomeo Cristofori is clearly (as mentioned) the most important music instrument maker missing, and arguably supremely influential considering he has had more importance for two centuries longer than rock itself (a previous lvl 3 musician Frédéric Chopin built his whole career of his invention and as of yet no electric guitar has made something that's lasted as long as Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven) has) so we directly have Cristofori responsible for previous lvl 3 musicians and lvl 4 artworks, with centuries longer use than Paul's main genres itself. Adolphe Sax should be added for impact on jazz too, if that's our metric. Antonio de Torres Jurado has had just as much effect on the guitar itself, and Orville Gibson, Leo Fender, Adolph Rickenbacker and George Beauchamp are just as important to modern guitar design and Charlie Christian and Sister Rosetta Tharpe are just as important in popularizing it; considering the state of the biases on this list, i'd much rather Sister Rosetta Thorpe.

Multi track recording was done in collab with Ross S. Snyder, which lessens the accomplishment, plus Bill Putnam is more important to recording itself anyway (and he's not on our lvl 5 list). I'd even argue producers like Phil Spector Quincy Jones, George Martin and Sam Phillips are just as important to the overall sphere of recording/producers, to the point where Paul isn't separate.

I know it's popular to erase the accomplishments of women in lists like this or in general to push a singular hero point of view, but most of Paul's hits were with his wife Mary Ford (along with many of his work), so i don't see why we should erase her? Would you support a Mary Ford nom if his hit's are important to world history? Would a person in Bhutan write about Les Paul's hits?

Should what a commercial entity Rock and Roll Hall of Fame decide is important, control history? Is it surprising that Atlantic Records is responsible for the hall of fame and Gene Paul (his son) was the main engineer during Atlantic's peak? Is that not a possible conflict of interest we shouldn't decide importance on? I don't know, but when there's so many people on the same level as Paul, considering Rock isn't the be all end all of art (or music) history like we treat it hereand the fact we're 9 over quota - i just don't think he is a good fit for this list. We list Electric guitar itself. That's how we treat most inventors, listing the invention itself. His hits are irrelevant if you're excluding his wife.

Even though he hasn't won the most important "special Grammy award" the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award, here would be more suitable choices of the winners of this award to cover underrepresented areas that we cover less than more rock people (ignoring the many other winners who won over Paul), Andrés Segovia - classical guitar - of which we cover none, Mahalia Jackson - gospel singer of which we cover none, Jascha Heifetz - arguably our biggest miss in classical musicians, Nina Simone and Muddy Waters - arguably two of our most important missing blues musicians out of many, Harry Belafonte - in Caribbean music we only focus on Reggae, but him (and Calypso) is important too, Public Enemy (band) - a rap group is needed as we list a soloist, two hiphop reps a group and a solo would be good, Thelonious Monk and John Coltrane arguably our two biggest misses in Jazz, now taking this all in - notice non American music and Black American music is at a disadvantage compared to our disproportionate coverage of rock musicians? What makes Les Pauls hits any more important than these musicians hits? If they're of the same level and most of these musicians are not getting any support to be added, than why should Paul? Glenn Miller had alot of hits and got removed, so hits are irrelevant here.

He's the perfect example of a 20th century pop culture bloat, that falls apart under extreme critical examination of every part of his importance. Let's not even mention the scientists and politicians or even religious figures we're missing just to have more Rock music bloat like this. We cover the electric guitar, we don't need him, his bio isn't important to world history.

This list should only list 20th century pop culture figures like Marilyn Monroe, Audrey Hepburn, John Wayne, Coco Chanel, Rudolf Nureyev, Fred Astaire, Monty Python, Harry Houdini, Andy Warhol, Dr. Seuss, Frank Lloyd Wright, Ansel Adams, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Agatha Christie, Pink Floyd, Johnny Cash, Tupac Shakur, Édith Piaf, Maria Callas, Arnold Schoenberg, Alfred Hitchcock, Steven Spielberg, Shigeru Miyamoto, Pelé, Don Bradman, Babe Ruth, Muhammad Ali and Michael Jordan; these are the gold standard biographies of arts/entertainment/sports; these are the biographies that are inarguable against and hold up under any massive scrutiny and will last a long time as long as their forms of activity are important. Any will be in any prominent encyclopedia that covers their form with a biography. (some may not list fashion/photography/video games/dance/sports because they're not big in historical/serious writing yet, but a pop culture encyclopedia like this one should). Either way, these are undeniable top tier artists, unlike lower tier figures like Paul, these are the figures we should list from 20th century pop culture. Everyone else has to stand the test of time and to see if they last.

TLDR: Paul is not a prominent solo musician, he's a inventor of which Bartolomeo Cristofori is clearly the most important musical inventor and Antonio de Torres Jurado out does him in guitar and Bill Putnam outdoes him in recording, we already list the Electric guitar, in which we mostly list inventions over the inventor anyway. Counting his hits erases his wife, Mary Ford who had the same hits. Since he's vital as a inventor only, i don't think i have to list a bunch of other inventors to prove he's not the next one that should be on here. Either way, i don't think it's a "terrible" nomination if you look at everything and consider we are 9 over quota. I don't know about everyone else, but i don't think Paul stacks up to missing figures like Herod the Great. GuzzyG (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Swap: add Tadeusz Kościuszko, remove Maurice de Saxe

I think Kościuszko is more famous and useful to list at this level. He was active both in the American Revolution and insurrection in Poland. Tadeusz_Kościuszko#Memorials_and_tributes "No other historical figure has been so unanimously respected – and even worshipped – in Poland as Tadeusz Kościuszko. The impact of this storied engineer, military general, and statesman, however, spans much farther. You'll find streets named after him in every Polish town and village, of course, from the Tatras to the Baltic. Monuments to him stand across Poland, but also in West Point, New York and Solothurn, Switzerland. Australia's highest mountain bears his name, as does a distinctive mound of earth just outside Kraków. Kościuszko’s portrait even made it on board Captain Nemo's submarine, the Nautilus." [53] Maurice de Saxe is not as vital as Prince Eugene of Savoy, who represents the army of the Holy Roman Empire.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal hes one of the weakest military figures (we should have 50 imo). GuzzyG (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Kościuszko is more vital for English Wikipedia than for example Jagiellonian university which is on the list. Dawid2009 (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add History of political thought

Is it acceptable that history of economic thought is listed but not this one?

Support

1. As nom, although I've never read none of the articles I mentioned in this proposal.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Support. 22:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. --Spaced about (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
5. Strong Support per nom   // Timothy :: talk  05:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Artist

We list The arts at level 1. I think the people who create the stuff we're talking about deserve at least level 4. We list other occupations like Lawyer, Teacher, and Physician at this level. - Sdkb (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Sdkb (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 06:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
3. Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. --Spaced about (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Interesing discussions here and here. Dawid2009 (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Swap Aesop for Aesop's Fables

It's not conclusive Aesop actually had anything to do with the fables and the fables are what is important.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
3. feminist (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add To Kill a Mockingbird

One of the defining 20th century works of American literature, probably the biggest book we're missing, if we're listing stuff like The Call of the Wild this should be listed too. It's a book that's taught in education everywhere in America, no encyclopedia would ever list 53 modern fiction books without this one.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
3. Support per nom Orser67 (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
4. Support Dimadick (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
5. feminist (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
6. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Little Women

One of the most important books in American history, we need more works by women.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
3. Support A commercial hit with two sequels. We need more articles on popular literature. Dimadick (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
4. feminist (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Academic art

Academic art is mostly used as a pejorative term; it has no place in high culture or in pop culture, it's not a vital art style like the others on the list. I couldn't find a discussion in the archive about the reasoning behind the addition. Whoever put it on the list may have meant Neoclassicism which is already on the list.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Spaced about (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose than why do all these sites (including WikiArt) separate it from neo-classicism? [54] [55] [56] [57] [58], with the Met itself seperating it as a different style saying "Academic art, whose standard was ancient classical art, the European tradition, and historical subjects rendered predominantly in painting and sculpture, retained sway through the nineteenth century" [59]. The WikiArt link says "Specifically, academic art is the art and artists influenced by the standards of the French Académie des Beaux-Arts, which practiced under the movements of Neoclassicism and Romanticism, and the art that followed these two movements in the attempt to synthesize both of their styles" which says it's a movement that is a "attempt to synthesize both of their styles", so a distinct movement. I don't think a painter like Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres or Jacques-Louis David can be compared with painters like Thomas Couture, William-Adolphe Bouguereau, Hans Makart or Lawrence Alma-Tadema. It was prominent in the 19th century and needs to be written about in a art encyclopedia to show what the impressionists and the other artists were rebelling against. It being mocked today is irrelevant. Cave painting isn't "high or low" culture either but we list it to write about a movement that was important to represent that time; if we remove Acedemic art; the reader will just jump to other art styles without knowing what they were rebelling against, which would be a negative. Even the Britannica specifies "academic painter" for painters like Couture [60] and not "neoclassical painter" like they do Ingres [61] or David [62]. L'art pompier is the article on the pejorative term, not this one. GuzzyG (talk) 07:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose Dimadick (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap Carol Burnett for Joan Rivers

Burnett has "first female variety host" but Rivers has "first female late night talk show host". Other than that, Rivers is the more known/famous, iconic and influential female comic whose brand of comedy had a direct impact on other women compared to Burnett whose style has had no impact on current comedy.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal per my previous proposal. --Thi (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Support difficult decision --Spaced about (talk) 11:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition Lucille Ball left a lasting legacy, but I am not sure about Burnett, Cosby or others. --Thi (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Thi's previous nomination is here. J947 ^(c), at 04:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Swap Gerhard Richter for Ai Weiwei

If we have to have a contemporary artist Weiwei is the better choice. Damien Hirst or Banksy are all as well regarded as Richter in contemporary art. I'd prefer Mark Rothko over Richter too.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal Mark Rothko would be better choide in my opinion, he is more well known in the context of art history and even popular, but even he is maybe not absolutely essential at this level. [63] --Thi (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Support addition I don't have any view about whether we need more/fewer people in this area, but Ai Weiwei seems plenty vital for level 4 and is from my understanding a more well-known contemporary artist than Rothko. Sdkb (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition I don't think that he stands above all other contemporary artists. --Thi (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap Sergey Solovyov (historian) for Josephus

We already list a Russian historian and Josephus is clearly more vital.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. The writings of Josephus are important source for historians. --Thi (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Swap: Charles A. Beard for Johann Joachim Winckelmann

Winckelmann was pioneer of archaeology and he has been called as the father of western art history. Beard seems to be not as universal figure.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Seonjo of Joseon

Syngman Rhee was recently added and in my opinion the politicians and leaders section should not become too large.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Swap: remove Mark Spitz, add Lin Dan

Contigent about swapping Spitz for Lin Dan was here. Badminton is promient sport in China and is more global than American Football.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal. Michael Phelps is more vital. --Thi (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Support addition, oppose removal Seven golds, all in world record time, in Munich in 1972 was a remarkable achievement and makes him vital in my book. Phelps may have eclipsed him, but he still ranks among the great Olympic athletes. Lin Dan warrants a place too as the greatest badminton player ever. Neljack (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Badminton is one of our most missing sports and we need more Olympic sports coverage rather than American team sports coverage. I'd prefer a woman like Katie Ledecky over Spitz (a third man). GuzzyG (talk) 11:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
5. Support per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Spitz still did things noteworthy enough to be included at this level. pbp 19:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

We don't need Spitz, we need Lin Dan but swimming should have a woman, if we have Lebron - Katie Ledecky should not be a issue, so i don't think swapping people in multiple sports is a good nomination. Also just to make my opinion clear sports and SOME politics people should be the only sections with super modern people because sports historicity is dependent on statistics and records which are broken constantly and politics for obvious reasons. Eminem, Linda Lovelace, Mel Blanc, and Jack the Ripper are the only super modern non sports/politics people i would support and only because their field is very ingrained in 21st century culture. Banksy or Damien Hirst also because we have current musicians, actors and writers but no current artists other than Gerhard Richter. I would also support swapping Carol Burnett for Joan Rivers as Rivers is more integral to comedy AND television than Burnett. Other then those people i have mentioned, our modern (1945+) arts/entertainment coverage is complete. GuzzyG (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Spitz was proposed for removal here. J947^{'s public account} 00:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Swap: remove Vince Lombardi, add Walter Camp

I do not know much about American Football but what do you think to consider swap Vince Lombardi with father of American Football? Lombardi has more language versions than Camp but Camp get better statistics outside Wikipedia than Lombardi: [64], [65], [66].

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal, oppose addition As a coach Vince Lombardi is not as famous and vital as other three football players, who were for example listed in ESPN 100 Athletes of the 20th Century. --Thi (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Support removal, oppose addition Three is more than enough for American Football, which is not a sport that is very big globally. Neljack (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
4. Support removal, oppose addition I have changed my mind. If any coach is vital it's Alex Ferguson, a baseball manager should be next or any sports businessman or olympics leader. American football coach is just too niche on a world stage. Also Pete Rozelle is more important to American football and in American sports history Kenesaw Mountain Landis and John Wooden are probably tied with Lombardi for importance. There's just no clear stand out. GuzzyG (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Lombardi is one of the most iconic coaches in the history of the sport. I would rather swap Jim Brown or Jerry Rice, who don't seem as significant. As GuzzyG notes below, it would make more sense to have a quarterback to represent the sport. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal - per Presidentman. I’ll add that there is a reason when your team wins the Super Bowl, you get the Vince Lombardi Trophy. Jusdafax (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

BTW I am not 100% sure 2 representants is better option for Grindon than one representant. Matthew Webb as maybe 15-th most motable swimmer also is counry-specific but has more language versions and comparable results on WorldCat: [67]. Although on the other hand I note that American Football personalities have good results on Google Ngrams, better than most soccer player (I do not have idea why).

I don't think the only coach we cover should be removed. We need a coach just like we need a music producer (which we don't have either), these are highly important roles. Honestly, we should have a Quarterback to represent American football. If we have LeBron James why not Tom Brady? I would swap Jerry Rice for Brady. Keep Brown to cover a earlier time, if Lombardi's removed, we will need a coach from Association football. O. J. Simpson at the end of the day is the only internationally known/vital American football player anyway. Either way Rice is the one who should go, no matter that he got voted number one, he's just not vital and clearly the vote is outdated now with Brady. GuzzyG (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Lombardi was removed here and readded here. J947^{'s public account} 00:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Swap Jerry Rice for Joe Namath

"In 2019, a survey conducted by the Associated Press of 60 football historians and media regularly covering the NFL voted Namath the league's greatest character" Speaks for itself; Rice is not known outside of inside technical fan knowledge of the sport. Broadway Joe was known nationwide during his peak as the first BIG star of the new NFL.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal Dawid2009 (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Support removal --Thi (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Disagree with equivocating "character" to importance in sport. Otherwise we'd have Dennis Rodman over Michael Jordan. Rice's position record is greater. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose This essentially amounts to saying Broadway Joe should be on this list because he played in New York and wore a fur coat. pbp 21:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose addition Not really needed at this level. --Thi (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose Rice is imho the greatest non-QB NFL player of all time, while Namath is far from the best QB. And while Namath may have gained a level of prominence no previous football player had achieved, he never attained the prominence that, for example, Jordan or Babe Ruth did. If a QB were to be added, I'd favor Brady, Unitas, Montana, Manning, or Otto Graham first. Orser67 (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Kanō Jigorō

From his article: "founder of Judo. Judo was the first Japanese martial art to gain widespread international recognition, and the first to become an official Olympic sport. Pedagogical innovations attributed to Kanō include the use of black and white belts, and the introduction of dan ranking to show the relative ranking among members of a martial art style" "Kanō was also a pioneer of international sports. Accomplishments included being the first Asian member of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) (he served from 1909 until 1938); officially representing Japan at most Olympic Games held between 1912 and 1936; and serving as a leading spokesman for Japan's bid for the 1940 Olympic Games" "His official honors and decorations included the First Order of Merit and Grand Order of the Rising Sun and the Third Imperial Degree. Kanō was inducted as the first member of the International Judo Federation (IJF) Hall of Fame on 14 May 1999."

He's simply the most influential person in martial arts before Bruce Lee.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose

Discuss

Swap Jerry Rice for Tom Brady

I know Rice was voted the greatest in this poll The Top 100: NFL's Greatest Players, but that was before Brady solidified his place, now most sources say Brady is the greatest. Quarterback is the most important and prominent position in the sport and most people around the world associate with the sport and can recognize the term quarterback. They're just culturally more relevant. If we list Lebron, Brady would not be out of place, and i can see Brady having more prominence in Football culture this century and American culture in total than Jerry Rice. There's cultural importance to quarterback, as shown by the disambiguation page [68]. If the The Top 100: NFL's Greatest Players poll was done today it'd most likely be Brady at the top, i think we should reflect that. Most of the reasons in the successful discussion to add Lebron [69] like "He is frequently regarded as the best basketball player in the history of the sport." and "James is now clearly one of the two best basketball players of all time" and if you applied "A couple of years ago, Larry Bird was legit a top six player of all time and LeBron wasn't. Now, the opposite is true" to American football, Brady would be regarded as being in the top 3 greatest players of all time now. Now WikiData stats mean nothing at the end of the day, but the cherry on top is that Brady has the most at 36 [70] of any American football player other than OJ [71] at 44, but that's for other reasons. I just don't see a way Rice will be more important than Brady in history.

Support

1. Support as nom. v(talk) 13:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
2. Support removal --Thi (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
3. Support addition This USA Today poll of sports journalists on the greatest NFL players of all time had Rice at No 1 and Brady and No 2, so I don't think the case for Brady as the greatest is as clear as suggested. I would be content for American football to have another person on the list - I think there are a few team sports we could expand our coverage of slightly. Neljack (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Brady to me isn't the clear best QB of all time, whereas Rice is clearly the best WR of all time, and imo the greatest non-QB of all time. Orser67 (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

• Note - obviously you'll always be able to find opposing views, but whether statistically or historically or whatever, both Tom Brady and Jerry Rice are overwhelmingly considered the greatest of all-time at their respective positions. The one thing going Brady's direction is that "water-cooler" talk always centers around the quarterback since it is the more glamorous position. The question is how many total footballers does the sport get? To me, you start with Brady, Rice, Lombardi, and spiral out from there. I'm not sure why the sport has only three "level 4" members. Baseball has 6, Basketball has 6, Cricket has 7, and Association football has 14. Either they should all be cut to 3 or 4 max to make room for other team sports or Association football should be cut in half alone to add a couple more Football players. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• I disagree that Brady is "overwhelmingly" considered to be the best at his position, at least in the same way that Rice is. Orser67 (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Swap Colin Meads for Dally Messenger

Yes, Meads is Rugby union's greatest New Zealand player of the 20th century, but we list Jonah Lomu who's the most known and Gareth Edwards was voted the greatest player total of the 20th century. But if we list 30 Rugby players on the level 5 list and we have a 15/15 split between union/Rugby league [72], why not have a 2 union/1 league split here? It doesn't make sense otherwise. Rugby league in Australia is one of the three massive Aussie sports up there with Australian rules football and Cricket, but Aussie rules is more region based and Leigh Matthews would be too local, we already list cricket. DaGizza brought up the point once that Rugby league is too region based as it's only mainly played in Aus, NZ, UK, France and the Pacific Islands, but Australia has more population than NZ, yet NZ has two union players. Australia's dominant in league and good in union and Messenger played and excelled in both. Meads/Edwards played around the same time as each other, Messenger was one of the top players of both codes (the dominant one in League) around the early 20th century. So having Messenger/Edwards/Lomu would cover, early 20th century, middle 20th century and late 20th/early 21st century rugby history. We would be able to just say Rugby too instead of specifying union. I just don't see the harm in covering both, when we cover both rugbys equally on the level 5 list. Richie McCaw today would probably be voted as more important than Meads or Lomu; so i don't know why New Zealands greatest 20th century player should be specified when he probaly wouldn't be voted that total, or atleast have strong competition with McCaw/Lomu/Dan Carter.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
2. Support removal per nom. --Thi (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
3. Support addition Neljack (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal I am happy to include Messenger and I would be open to a swap of Meads for McCaw (though I'd prefer to have both), but I think three players or even four is reasonable for a major international sport like rugby. American football has three people on the list and rugby is a bigger sport worldwide than it. Rugby league should not definitely not be covered equally on the Level 5 list, as it is a considerably smaller sport than rugby union. Even if we do add Messenger, we should not amalgamate rugby league and rugby union into a rugby section. They are separate sports. That would be like amalgamating association football and American football under a football heading because they share a name. Messenger is primarily significant for rugby league and should be listed as such. He would not be found on any lists of the great rugby union players.
   I don't see why New Zealand having two rugby players on the list is a reason to remove Meads. Nor do I see why New Zealand's size is relevant; what is relevant is that New Zealand has been the most successful rugby nation and produced many of its greatest players. Nobody seems to object to the dominance of Americans on the basketball or baseball lists, despite them being popular in many other countries.
   Meads is also the other rugby forward we have. GuzzyG has argued in the context of baseball for the importance of positional diversity on this list. That would seem to apply here, especially considering that forwards are the majority of players on a team. Neljack (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal as per Neljack. I would support a cut in sports figures overall but this discussion does not encompass that. No opinion on the addition. J947 ^(c), at 00:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap A. J. Foyt for Eddie Arcaro

If Richard Petty was removed from the list [73] with the justification NASCAR wasn't listed so why should a driver, than Foyt should've been removed too. We don't list the United States Auto Club and Indianapolis 500 and arguably if we're going to list an American driver it should be a NASCAR driver. The world knows of NASCAR, even if they don't watch it. There's no justification for Foyt being listed via the reasoning that Petty was removed. If we had to list another motorsports person Giacomo Agostini, Petty again or Sébastien Loeb would be my only picks. There's no problem with Formula One being the only motorsports listed, it's the only prominent one world wide.

Now Horse racing is listed and it's one of the sports that goes back centuries in various forms. I know there was debates over listing jockeys or horses and then none in the early stages of the list but Shoemaker was listed, who was not the best. With sections listed for it on listed on sports sites/national newspapers in atleast 4 continents (only checked 4 [74] [75] [76] [77] with prominent events that go back centuries (except the Japan Cup) here Japan Cup, Grand National, Kentucky Derby and Melbourne Cup]. Now i know that makes it four contenders and we list many American athletes, but i think for the purpose of this list an American and Arcaro is the better choice out of any other horse racer, America has the biggest population out of all the other countries and probably the biggest fans of Horse Racing. He's also the clear most dominant one "Hall of Fame jockey who won more American classic races than any other jockey in history and is the only rider to have won the U.S. Triple Crown twice. He is widely regarded as the greatest jockey in the history of American Thoroughbred horse racing". Now i know the Olympics Equestrianism sports are completely different, but it'll cover a similar area and be representative of a olympic sport and thus add something new. We should list a representative of a sport prominent for centuries.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
2. Support removal per nom. --Thi (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
3. Support addition - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal Considering Foyt has driven in both open-wheel and stock car racing, I think he is probably the most appropriate figure to represent American motorsport. Either him or Mario Andretti IMO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap Suzanne Lenglen for Edoardo Mangiarotti

"Babe Ruth, Howie Morenz, Red Grange, Bobby Jones, and Jack Dempsey." are regarded as the most important athletes of the 1920s and the early 20th century and we list none other than Ruth, we don't list early stars of sports listed like Arnold Palmer, Cap Anson, Barney Oldfield or Paul Morphy either, so with Tilden up for deletion, we have no need for Lenglen either. We list 4 men and 5 women for 9 total tennis players. I think we can lose Lenglen, she's not a prominent figure and to spread out our range and cover more olympic sports i propose to add the greatest fencer, fencing has been around for centuries. From Mangiarotti's lead "He won a total of 39 Olympic titles and World championships, more than any other fencer in the history of the sport. His Olympic medals include one individual gold, five team golds, five silver, and two bronze medals from 1936 to 1960.", clearly the most dominant fencer and enough to make this list. We need to spread these more out, the olympics is the biggest sports event other than the Football world cup and we list hardly any of the olympic sports compared to the more local American team sports. Mangiarotti is one of the most dominant we're missing, with no competitor for the title of greatest. Also Helen Wills is a strong competitor for most important early 20th century tennis player, it isn't clear Lenglen should be the choice.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
2. Support removal per nom. --Thi (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Lenglen was a better player than Wills, and had a huge impact on the popularity of women's tennis, much greater than Wills or anyone else. The biography of both players written by Engelmann makes that clear. Tennis is the only sport today where women's athletes are anywhere near close to having the same amount of popularity and prize money as men's athletes, and Lenglen is the original reason for that. Also, the quote at the start is about (North) American athletes and has nothing to do with Lenglen. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose While I disagree that Lenglen is greater Wills (since I feel Wills is the most dominant tennis player in the history of the sport), what Lenglen brought to the game in the first quarter of the twentieth century is amazing. She truly represented a change in the way women were viewed in sports. If you are looking for tennis players to dump it would be Nadal, Court, and Williams. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

Add 1887 Yellow River flood

The second-deadliest natural disaster in history, which killed 1-2 million people. We already list 1556 Shaanxi earthquake, which had a lesser death toll. - Sdkb (talk) 04:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support As nom. Sdkb (talk) 04:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 06:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
3. The argument made by the nominater is very convincing to me.--RekishiEJ (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose It was mentioned in discussion years ago that "Even the Chinese Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the 1887 flood, while its article on floods in China only devotes a single sentence to it." and "I don't think the 1887 flood is vital by any means (the Dungan Revolt, the Panthay Rebellion, the Punti-Hakka Clan Wars, and the Northern Chinese Famine of 1876–79 have higher death tolls between 1850 and 1900 in China)" 1931 China floods, 1556 Shaanxi earthquake and 1970 Bhola cyclone are listed. 1976 Tangshan earthquake was at this level before but it was replaced with 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami. --Thi (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per Thi and we're over quota by ten here. The only other two natural disasters i can see myself supporting are Eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD which is prominent in culture and Cyclone Tracy to atleast have one historical event from Oceania listed; other than that we're over covered. I'd rather much more pivotal historical events listed like Mongol invasions and conquests, Cambodian genocide, Suez Crisis - which led to the end of the UK being a superpower, Normandy landings, Stonewall riots, Irish War of Independence, Russian conquest of Central Asia, Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, First Fleet, Domestication of the horse, Pre-Islamic Arabia, Philistines, Knights Hospitaller, Italian Renaissance, Salem witch trials, Unification of Saudi Arabia, Tudor period, European exploration of Africa, and Reconstruction era all of which would be better additions. GuzzyG (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

Promote Stranger in a Strange Land or Fahrenheit 451, or 2001: A Space Odyssey to Level 4 and lower War of the Worlds to Level 5

This might be controversial, but I thought I would add it for discussion.   // Timothy :: talk  06:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.   // Timothy :: talk  06:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• I would also submit for discussion if this great author has an entry on level 4, is this the best example of H. G. Wells literature that could be at level 4? It very well might be, but I would suggest other candidates might be considered (eg: Time Machine, The Island of Doctor Moreau, The Invisible Man).   // Timothy :: talk  06:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Remove Arnolfini Portrait

per my "A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte" nomination. plus listing The Garden of Earthly Delights would be enough for this era. Ghent Altarpiece is the most important van Eyck work anyway and would be a better listing than this one.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Some Like It Hot

I think only one comedy is not right and a silent and sound comedy would be good, i know this has been on before and removed but it's the most acclaimed comedy, on it's lede:

"Some Like It Hot opened to critical and commercial success and is considered to be one of the greatest films of all time.[2] The film received six Academy Award nominations, including Best Actor, Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay. It was voted as the top comedy film by the American Film Institute on their list on AFI's 100 Years...100 Laughs poll in 2000, and was selected as the best comedy of all time in a poll of 253 film critics from 52 countries conducted by the BBC in 2017"

It's themes were a little bit responsible for the fall of the Hays code, ""The overwhelming success of Some Like It Hot is considered one of the final nails in the coffin for the Hays Code.".

For what it's worth as a bonus, this list that is a aggregate for thousands of "best of" films lists that exist [78], that WikiProject film uses to calculate it's "core films", lists Some Like It Hot as it's highest ranked comedy, at 26 (City Lights is 28). [79]

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I would rather add Jacques Tati than more comedies. --Thi (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose Some Like it Hot is revered but is this a good enough reason to add it? Above there is a nomination to remove Children of the Paradise despite the fact it is often proclaimed the greatest film ever made. The criteria for being included on this list has to extend beyond a film's popularity. For example, Chaplin's best films are not only regarded as some of the finest films ever made but they are also genre-defining too. Many comedies made today are indebted to Chaplin, but I am not sure you can say the same about Some Like it Hot. Betty Logan (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Peter Pan

Fictional characters should be capped at 20, they're just not super important to human culture - other than the folklore ones. Literary chracters are just not that important, only the franchises would be, but i don't see Peter Pan being apart of the 21 most important fictional characters in history. Elizabeth Bennet, Count Dracula, Uncle Sam, Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves, Don Juan, Easter Bunny, Hansel and Gretel, Little Red Riding Hood, Jack and the Beanstalk, Sinbad the Sailor have all had more of a impact on history and literature than him and Bugs Bunny, Bart Simpson, Hello Kitty, Harry Potter (character), Pikachu, and Indiana Jones have all had more of a pop culture impact than him. Sleeping Beauty, Beauty and the Beast and Snow White are more prominent stories that share a Disney connection too. I just don't see Peter Pan beating any of these into a 20 most influential fictional characters list.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose J. M. Barrie is popular children's author, either he or his creation are quite natural choices for English-language encyclopedia. --Thi (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose I see fictional characters as having more importance to human culture, and more endurance, than historical figures. Dimadick (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Search for extraterrestrial intelligence

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Haber process

An industrial procedure for the production of ammonia doesn't seem particularly vital at this level to me. We're also over quota in this section.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose very vital. Any Chemistry 101 student should be familiar with the Haber Process. And Chemistry should have a much higher quota than it currently has. Academic areas are already underrepresented here. The reduction in the chemistry quota wasn't even discussed on this page. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose per original proposal. --Thi (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
3. Oppose without the Haber process, Earth would have reached its carrying capacity for human life in the early 20th century because of the lack of natural sources of nitrogen-rich fertilizer. HopsonRoad (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Laptop

A common type of computer. We list Computer at level 2, Computer hardware at this level, and many other topics that seem less vital than laptop. - Sdkb (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support As nom. Sdkb (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Neither nor Personal computer or Laptop are any more vital than Mobile Internet and none of these three is listed on this list. In general technology list is very odd when we=can list inconsequential blog ahead of manuscript anyway. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Personal computer is more important than Laptop, which is just one form factor of PC. feminist (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap Shintaro Katsu for Dilip Kumar

The more vital foreign film actor. Japan's cinema is not as prominent as Indian cinema and Japan already has Toshiro Mifune and Setsuko Hara representing Japananese cinema, which is more than enough. Kumar also has a decades spanning career and isn't known for one film franchise like Katsu.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal per my previous nomination. --Thi (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Support removal one Japanese actor is enough at this level --Spaced about (talk) 10:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
4. Support per my previous !vote. Only a weak support on the addition because we do already have three entertainers from Bollywood, which is after all a newer film industry. No opinion on Chan but I think we definitely need more Indian actors than Japanese. Happy Festivities! // J947 ^(c) 22:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition the obvious next important actor from the current level 5 list of Asian actors is Jackie Chan, not Dilip Kumar. --Spaced about (talk) 10:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose addition per above. --Thi (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

Previous discussions: 1 2 3. J947 ^(c), at 04:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Swap Sean Connery for Rudolph Valentino

Silent film had a nearly 30 year history and is just as vital as franchise box office film, which Connery represents. We don't list any main male actors from the silent period, Chaplin and Keaton are both vital mainly for being a filmmaker, Keaton is wrongly listed as a actor (Just like Astaire/Rogers/Kelly should be in dancers, but it'd mess up our counts to fix). Connery is listed for being James Bond and winning the supporting academy award for The Untouchables (film) both of which do not override the fact that Valentino is the PIONEER of mass culture film actor fame. Connery is a successor not like Valentino being a originator. Artificial pop culture poll and survey results like "The Greatest Living Scot"/"Scotland's Greatest Living National Treasure" for a pop culture actor and titles like "Sexiest Man of the Century" (we could probably find the latter for Valentino in his time...) do not override or change the fact that if you were writing a book on film actors and their influence Valentino has more of a chance than Connery or even that you could have a "pre and post" Valentino era but Connery wouldn't have a similar chance. Britain never really made a strong impact on film and we shouldn't hold that much weight on it when we're missing silent film actors like Valentino, Douglas Fairbanks and Lon Chaney which is a vital area of early acting history which we shouldn't skip to cover a less vital cinema. Britain dominated stage acting, which is where we need British actors, actors like Henry Irving, Edmund Kean, David Garrick, Richard Burbage, Ira Aldridge and Ralph Richardson have all had more of a influence on British acting than Connery or even Alec Guinness. Bond's a beloved figure, especially for Wikis demographic but we have to be realistic here, Bond's not more important than British stage or silent film and this list should reflect that. Also we should try and limit current, especially alive figures.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose

Discuss

Swap Isabelle Adjani for Brigitte Bardot

The only thing that makes Adjani at the end of the day is that she won 5 Cesar awards; but we've established that awards are not everything when Daniel Day-Lewis was nominated and failed despite being the most awarded man in oscar acting history; plus Georg Solti has won the most Grammys and isn't listed nor are Julia Louis-Dreyfus or Cloris Leachman for Emmys. Meanwhile Bardot is a legend of French cinema appearing in important films such as Contempt (film) in the lead role. Plus she also is the first widely important international fashion figure. Described by Simone de Beauvoir as a "locomotive of women's history" and declared her " first and most liberated woman of post-war France". Bardot is a supreme figure of 1960s culture; while Adjani has never been a supreme figure of any culture and is still relatively recent.

Support

1. Support as nom. (GuzzyG)
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Jusdafax (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  17:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Swap Kanō Masanobu for Reza Abbasi

We list two other Japanese artists and styles unique to Japan; so we can lose this one and represent Persian miniature instead which we do not cover

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal In my opinion general article Japanese art is more important and deserves to be listed along Persian art. --Thi (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
3. Support removal per Thi. --Spaced about (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition Persian miniature is not on this level, so why would we include a single representative painter? --Spaced about (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

We don't list Kanō school, Ink wash painting, or Chinese calligraphy themselves but we list representatives. This list has a extreme western bias, to cover a centuries old tradition from a major civilization is more important, under your method we would just list painters from small, non impactful western movements like Symbolism (arts). This list is extremely western based and 20th century based. Abbasi represents something different, if Abbasi can't be listed than it should be Raja Ravi Varma. We need more diversity than the many 20th century Surrealist painters we list. Non western artists get denied because their countries arts are not listed; but none of Visual art of the United States, French art, Dutch art, Italian art, German art or Art of the United Kingdom are listed. Noone will say Edward Hopper should be removed because we don't list Visual art of the United States even though we list his painting Nighthawks (painting) too. Why are non western artists held to standards western artists aren't? Why is a major artist to a more historic civilization like Abbasi less vital than Hopper? We don't list his genre American Realism, so what's so different other than not being American? GuzzyG (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the list is biased. We are writing for an English-speaking readership so this may cause some bias and we shouldn't ever forget that India, Nigeria, and other countries also speak mostly English. Iran doesn't. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have articles on Iran on the list, of course. And of course Persian miniature is an interesting aspect that we could consider covering. But we don't even have Miniature (illuminated manuscript), which I think is a huge omission. I know we have Gothic art which partially covers Medieval art. We have to draw a line somewhere, but one or two additional medieval art articles are needed. And for me picking a single artist isn't the best solution. Neither is a detailed article like Persian miniature, but I might reconsider that. Miniature (illuminated manuscript) covers Persian miniature. So let's add that. As for the nationalistic articles you mentioned, like Art of the United Kingdom, German art, or French Art and the like - in my view they have no place on the list. In general, I prefer to cover art movements instead of individual artists, but painters like Hopper are so well known and achieve such high prices that we can't ignore them. --Spaced about (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Swap Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky for Robert Capa

Prokudin-Gorsky is one of many people involved in photography invention but Capa is the more significent PHOTOGRAPHER; a master of his own style and influential to every war/combat photographer after him and actually has individual iconic photographs too.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal per nom. --Thi (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose

Discuss

Swap Aubrey Beardsley for Peter Carl Fabergé

The James Dean (who we dont list) of artists vs a very influential craftsman.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal Gustav Klimt is more famous Art nouveau artist. --Thi (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
3. Support removal per Thi. I too would prefer Klimt. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Very influental artist, his style literally became the Art Nouveau poster style. As an add I think Fabergé Egg makes more sense. --Spaced about (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose addition per above. If exampled of luxury objects are really needed at this level, Fabergé Egg is better choice. --Thi (talk) 09:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

"Very influential" artists, the whole of Art Nouveau (not just posters) main influence in Britain as per the Art Nouveaus article itself was William Morris of which you opposed his vote as "marked a era", so why deny a British artist who now influenced the WHOLE MOVEMENT of the artist you're supporting? We don't have a craftsperson, which is a massive area missing, since you accept any popstar contemporary who would you choose since you have opposed both craftspeople? The egg is less important than House of Fabergé as a whole, although i know in current western pop culture the egg is the most famous, it wouldn't make sense listing them separate. Since "influencing" posters are important, wouldn't Alphonse Mucha be more important, as he had the most sustained career? We don't list any of the people mentioned in Art Nouveaus lede (Beardsley is not). Let's go through them the two people the style was founded to respond too, Eugène Viollet-le-Duc and John Ruskin, both not listed. How about architects, since that's the most famous style known today of this art movement, Victor Horta, Hector Guimard, and Henry van de Velde, all not listed. How the next most famous, the decorators, Louis Comfort Tiffany, René Lalique and Émile Gallé again not listed. The earliest poster on the page is made by Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec who is listed, so two makers for a 20 year art movement in a niche form of posters might be pushing it. IF the most famous artist in general of this movement Gustav Klimt vote has failed before [80] than i don't see how a postermaker fits, and let's ignore all those artists i have listed in that vote, who are infinitely more impactful than Beardsley. I just don't see why we should have ANY Art Nouveau artist, it's a century old artform that lasted 20 years.

Let's quote you from the William Morris nomination; "Beardley's works mark an era. We've got the Art Nouveau on L4, that should be enough". I've changed the names to fit Beardleys, but that's the perfect description of him. We can't list every person who "fits"

This type of biography is the major problem of this list. we're 7 over quota as it is. the clearest example is we list 10 people connected with comics/cartoons and yet just 10!!! in the whole history of medicine. I'd cut any of Aubrey Beardsley, Jean Giraud, Norman Rockwell, and Will Eisner in a HEARTBEAT. Just leaving Seuss, Tezuka, Lee, Kirby, McCay, Hergé and Escher, 7 people representing comics/cartoons. (that's not including Disney/Miyazaki either, who should be listed there). Or people like Judi Dench, Alec Guinness, Wim Wenders, and Henry Moore. Who yes, would "fit" because they're box office famous, but adding more people from medicine we're missing like;

Pierre Fauchard, William Stewart Halsted, Paul Ehrlich, James Lind, Claude Bernard, Ambroise Paré, J. Marion Sims, Denis Mukwege, Christiaan Barnard, Fred Hollows, Harold Gillies John Hunter (surgeon), Thomas Sydenham, Hanaoka Seishū, Percy Lavon Julian, Luigi Galvani, Jean-Martin Charcot, Victor Chang, Alexis Carrel, John Snow, Alexandre Yersin, Hans Asperger, Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Emil von Behring would be infinitely more vital. how is Beardsley or the bottom 5 comic people more important than all of these? Even the quack medicine people like Daniel David Palmer, James Tyler Kent, James Braid (surgeon), Walter Jackson Freeman II or even Robert Ettinger have had more real world impact than Beardsley the postermaker. Even scientists like Thomas Midgley Jr. have had infinitely more impact than this guy. Let's add William Lilly too.

Even these other scientists/social scientists like Richard Owen, Melvil Dewey, Robert FitzRoy, Alberico Gentili, Ellen Swallow Richards, Victor Goldschmidt, Martinus Beijerinck, William Bateson, William Kirby (entomologist), Jan Swammerdam, Johan Christian Fabricius, Francisco de Vitoria, Roman Jakobson, John Herschel, Johann Heinrich Lambert, James Gregory (mathematician), Ivy Lee, Isocrates, Dian Fossey, Jean-François Champollion, Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse, Hans Morgenthau, Grigori Perelman, Elias Howe, John Browning, Trofim Lysenko, Othniel Charles Marsh, Hipparchus, Havelock Ellis, John Money, Alexander Shulgin and Louis Le Prince, have infinitely more vitality than any of these mid tier comic artists, western painters, entertainers and athletes. I know you regard scientists as "biography fluff", (Beardsley..), but that doesn't make this list worse for having them over people like Wenders, Dench or Beardsley. If we have to list pop culture figures, it should be people like John Forbes Nash Jr., Timothy Leary, or Richard Dawkins - they're still more important than any of the mid tier actors or comic artists. Everyone fits but everyone does not belongs. Now that we have a level 5, there's no reason to list these types of figures. They were never discussed additions. GuzzyG (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Add Halldór Laxness

The most famous Icelandic author. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1955. His novels Salka Valka, Independent People, and World Light have been listed among the best books of the 20th century.[81][82][83]

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Support —J947^{'s public account} 00:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Dimadick (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We're over quota and i say we dont need anymore writers. GuzzyG (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Previous nomination here. J947^{'s public account} 00:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Swap Kurt Vonnegut for Eugene O'Neill

The more influential 20th century American writer. Vonnegut seems on path to be regarded as a two book wonder.; while O'Neill is regarded as one of America's three greatest playwrights; with Williams/Miller who are listed.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support One of the most important realist playwrights. Neljack (talk) 07:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Support addition Common name in lists like this. --Thi (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal I don't think that Vonnegut's time to go has come yet. --Thi (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2019
2. Oppose removal   // Timothy :: talk  18:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal per Thi. Sdkb (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
4. Oppose removal Rreagan007 (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

(UTC)

Swap James Gordon Bennett Sr. for Henry Luce

Mid tier newspaper publisher when we list so many for the most influential magazine publisher when we list none. He changed how magazines were promoted and consumed.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal --Thi (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Luce had a larger personal influence than Bennett. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition Time magazine is listed at this level. --Thi (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap Sam Cooke for Muddy Waters

We already list Gaye for soul music and soul music didn't have the influence or impact as Blues which we lack reps of. Waters is described as ""father of modern Chicago blues", and an important figure on the post-war blues scene." and the Chicago blues scene was very influential and important to the blues scenes.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal per above. --Thi (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Jusdafax (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose

Discuss

Add György Ligeti

In 2019, BBC Music Magazine asked 174 composers to vote the greatest composer ever. György Ligeti came sixth, after Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Debussy and Stravinsky. [84]

"Probably the greatest composer of the post-war era, according to Tom Service of The Guardian, Gyorgy Ligeti's body of work covers an incredible amount of ground and touches upon almost every genre and trend in 20th century classical music." [85] For me, Ligeti's article is currently the most vital missing biography. John Cage was known as a music philosopher, Pierre Boulez as a conductor and Stockhausen as electronic music pioneer. Serialism of Stockhausen and Boulez and minimalism of Philip Glass were fashionable in their times, but "Of all the great modernist composers of the post-1945 generation, György Ligeti is perhaps the one whose works have been assimilated most convincingly into the concert mainstream." [86] "Ligeti's principled resistance of system-for-system's sake – whether Boulez's version of serialism, Cage's chance, or Xenakis's stochasticism – meant that he had to find new forms, new kinds of expression, in virtually every new piece he wrote. His searches and his influences spread far beyond the conventional confines of western culture: the music of the Aka pygmies was one of the catalysts..." Previous nominations: [87], [88].

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
3. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 05:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
5. Support legitimately one of the most important modern composers - a legitimate miss. GuzzyG (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Alfred Adler

There are too many psychologists at this level. Adler is not as vital figure in depth psychology as Freud or Jung.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Support psychologists should be at 20. GuzzyG (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Support psychologists are indeed overrepresented. 20 is a reasonable cap. Gizza ^(t)(c) 21:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Hyperbolick (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Swap Dietrich Bonhoeffer for Muhammad Abduh

One of the least notable people related to Christianity for someone who "regarded as one of the key founding figures of Islamic Modernism" and of the most influential modern Islamic jurists.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Support add pbp 16:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
4. Support addition We need more representatives of modern Islam. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal The modern era would be very poorly represented if we remove Bonhoeffer. He's also the closest thing to a martyr protestanism has produced. I'm also disappointed that protestantism is repeatedly targeted for removals. pbp 16:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Bonhoeffer is famous for his resistance of Nazi regime. --Thi (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal I would remove Billy Graham before Bonhoeffer. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose per above   // Timothy :: talk  10:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Shoshenq I

He is the least important Egyptian figure on this list.

Support

1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 03:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Orser67 (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 10:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
6. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose He is identified with the Biblical Shishak, and is known for his military campaigns. "As an addendum to his foreign policy, Shoshenq I carved a report of campaigns in Nubia and Israel, with a detailed list of conquests in Israel. This is the first military action outside Egypt formally commemorated for several centuries.^[2] This report of conquests is the only surviving late Iron Age text concerning Canaan.^[3]" Dimadick (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

He may well be the least important but is there any reason why there should be one less Egyptian? Just asking. J947 ^(c), at 00:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

We could replace him with Ramesses III, who was far more important. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 00:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair. I'd support that swap, but I get the feeling Shoshenq is here for representation of later Egyptians (I haven't looked at the list well, just a guess). J947 ^(c), at 06:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Well my guess was sort of right. Shoshenq's the only representative for a ~thousand-year period. Due to that I'm gonna mark down as neutral. However, the article doesn't speak like he's important in any way, so a swap with another figure from near the middle of that period who is more vital? No idea if that's a good idea. J947 ^(c), at 18:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: I'd prefer if this was reopened. We added Ramesses III basically as a swap with Shoshenq, and despite my neutral I'd like another opinion on this as I'm no expert here. J947 ^(c), at 21:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@J947 and J947 Public: Ok, I reopened it.