Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 69

He is probably not needed when we have Winston Churchill. I think having Elizabeth II, Churchill and Margaret Thatcher is sufficient for postwar Britain. Interstellarity (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Led British nationalisation, which dominated the economy pre-Thatcher.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Responsible for a good deal of decolonisation, like in South Asia. JavaHurricane 04:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
3. The only Labour PM we have on the list. With the number of PMs, we need at least one Labour PM. Also important for the postwar safety net. Frequently rated among the most influential/important/greatest British PMs. And Churchill is vital for what he did during World War II, not after. (FWIW, I was probably the guy who suggested him in the first place). pbp 04:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Responsible for alot of social stuff in the UK, if it wasn't for war leadership praise for Churchill would almost certainly be seen as probably the most important British PM of that century... which is enough for this list. We list Jerry Rice and Alec Guinness; we can list him. GuzzyG (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose He was more influential than Churchill. Dimadick (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I am nominating Truman and LBJ as JMW suggested. After a little thought, I decided to go ahead and nominate these two articles since they are probably worth discussion. We list the first four presidents con consecutively who were all founding fathers. The only founding father not listed is James Monroe. I think that John Adams and James Madison are the weakest of the four since Jefferson and Washington played pivotal roles in the foundation of America. I don't think we should list people just because they were a founding father. I think for Truman and LBJ, there are probably good reasons for removing them both, but they are also good reasons to keep them. I'll leave it up the community to decide whether these are appropriate removals. We also list three consecutive presidents from Bush to Trump. I don't know if we should remove one of them. I was wondering if we list too many presidents. Interstellarity (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Although he did have some impact on the Korean War, he's still just a shadow of FDR.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support PaulRyanIsWatchingYou (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose According to historians he was among ten best American presidents. Marshall Plan and Truman Doctrine are important topics in political history. --Thi (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Guy dropped the nuke, this will always be a history defining event and as long as nukes still exist, always a relevant topic to cover. As a leader his actions will always be studied and looked over. We'd need to cut athletes and entertainers down to 50 each before Truman is considered; American bloat isn't in Truman. It's with Tom Hanks and Magic Johnson. GuzzyG (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Frequently mentioned as one of the 10 most influential/important greatest American Presidents due to the bomb, Cold War, Korean War, Truman Doctrine and Fair Deal. Definitely more influential than Bill Clinton. pbp 04:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Harry S. Truman is no doubt vital at this level since he ordered the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, implemented the Marshall Plan, established both the Truman Doctrine and NATO to contain the expansion of communism, (disputed) initiated the Cold War, desegregated the U.S. military and made America intervene in the Korean War.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose I consider Truman far more influential to world history than any "Founding Father" (I find this term ridiculous to begin with). Dimadick (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose It's quite ahistorical to refer to Truman, the man whose policies set the stage and the tone for the Cold War, as a mere shadow of FDR. Whether its dropping the bomb, the Korean War, Containment, the Marshall Plan, the Berlin Airlift, or desegregating the military, Truman is arguably an equal of FDR in terms of influence on the 20th century, even though he is not equal in fame. Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Interstellarity (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

@Thi: I don't think what historians think of presidents should matter when deciding who to put on the list. Influence matters more than being the best at something. For example, on CSPAN's 2021 list, the lowest ranked presidents that we have on level 4 are Trump, Nixon, Bush II, Jackson, and Grant. Nixon, for example, was influential in foreign policy as well as the Watergate scandal. We could do a swap by removing Truman and adding Marshall Plan as well as the Truman Doctrine. What do you think? Interstellarity (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

It is better option to list Truman instead of Truman Doctrine. I think Truman is one of major characters in modern political history. John Adams and James Madison are probably better alternatives for removals, 20th century American presidents have been more influential in world politics. --Thi (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Thi: I have nominated Adams and Madison before, but they were not removed. Discussions: Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_66#Remove_James_Madison and Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_66#Remove_John_Adams. I can understand the arguments for keeping them, but I think both of them are weaker articles. I think a good lineup for Founding Fathers if that is important would be George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton. Interstellarity (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Thi about Harry vs Doctrine. pbp 04:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

See my reason above. Interstellarity (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Weak support since he's surrounded by JFK and Nixon, but I could be convinced otherwise with his work on the Civil Rights Act.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Frequently cited, yes, but most of his flagship efforts were pushed on him by JFK. He had more ability to get things done in politics(more diplomatic, not catholic, etc) but the assassination of JFK gave him that push he was looking for.PaulRyanIsWatchingYou (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose According to historians he was among ten best American presidents. --Thi (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Frequently mentioned as one of the 10 most influential/important greatest American Presidents due to the Great Society, Vietnam and the Space Race. Definitely more influential than Bill Clinton. More influential than JFK, too: JFK had loftly ideas and mesmerizing style but it was LBJ who got things done. pbp 04:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose one of the definitive leaders of one of the main superpowers of the 20th century... atleast for a bit he will be documented in most English language encyclopedias. GuzzyG (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Because he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, made America intervene in the Vietnam War quite significantly and was ranked the third best of the 14 modern U.S. presidents by Northwestern Presidential Leadership on Diversity and Inclusion Survey on his overall leadership, he should not be removed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose He was responsible for Medicare and Medicaid, far greater achievements than the likes of George Washington and other slave owners. Dimadick (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Interstellarity (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Consensus was reached on splitting the "Khwarazmian dynasty" page into two at the article's talk page, with a parent page focusing solely on the royal family that ruled the state, and a new, created page on the empire (state apparatus, culture, language, military and etc). Previously, the parent page was also more about the empire than the dynasty itself, see the history of the page. The empire plays a much bigger role in the history of the area than the dynasty, owing to the fact its invasion by the Mongol hordes under the command of Genghiz Khan proved a turning point in history as the subjugation of the Khwarazmian Empire provided a springboard for the Mongols' later assaults on the Caucasus, Anatolia, Middle East and Europe.

Support

1. Support
2. Support --Thi (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Dimadick (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
5. SupportPaulRyanIsWatchingYou (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Support

1. As nom. Because diaries have been very valuable primary sources for historians, this article is no doubt vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Valuable historical documents. Dimadick (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Per nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
4. SupportPaulRyanIsWatchingYou (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support --Thi (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

In 2021 a team of 17 of the world's most famous ecologists described three major crises facing life on Earth: climate disruption, biodiversity decline and human overconsumption and overpopulation. [1] Overconsumption is similar issue to overpopulation. "The US population is 60% larger than it was in 1970, but consumer spending is up 400% (adjusted for inflation) – and other rich nations, including the UK, aren’t much better." [2] [3]

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 08:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We already list Thomas Robert Malthus, we don't list overpopulation, and one uber-recent article of expert opinion does not a case for Level 4 make.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

What makes this particular dollar more vital than dollar? Interstellarity (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

Interstellarity (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. It's the world's reserve currency, and "dollar" is just a generic term.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose See International use of the U.S. dollar. --Thi (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I am wondering if we should change the quota for each of the categories of these articles. Here is what I'm thinking:

People - Keep quota the same.

History - 675 > 700

Geography - Keep quota the same.

Arts - 670 > 700

Philosophy and religion - 430 > 400

Everyday life - 480 > 500

Society and social sciences - 930 > 900

Biological and health sciences - 1,475 > 1,500

Health, medicine and disease - 275 > 300

Physical sciences - Keep quota the same.

Basics and measurement - 80 > 100

Astronomy - 195 > 200

Chemistry - 270 > 300

Earth science - 260 > 300

Physics - 295 > 300

Technology - 740 > 700

Mathematics - Keep quota the same.

The reason why I think changing the quota would be beneficial is because we are working with round numbers. For example, a number like 300 is easier to work with than 295. I understand there might be aggravation on what articles to add and remove to match the new quota, but if we take it slowly, we can surely do it. Interstellarity (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Strong oppose Dawid2009 (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Dawid2009 I would appreciate a reason behind your oppose. Interstellarity (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm somewhat surprised this wasn't already on here. This is generally considered the first English novel, has never been out of print since its publication in 1678 (including in North America as early as 1681), and has been translated into more than 200 languages, including over 80 African languages for missionary work. Culturally it gave us "Vanity Fair", both the magazine and novel, and is one of the most significant theological novels.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
2. Support we could use more works of literature on this list Zelkia1101 (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Support

1. As nom. I'm very surprised that it is not in the list!.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Valuable tools for propaganda and misinformation. They misrepresent their subject matter more often than being informative. Dimadick (talk) 08:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
3. I won't go so far as Dimadick's analysis, but I'll support this as well.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Important concept in art and photography. Similar to perspective (graphical) and symmetry, both of which are listed at this level, but not adequately covered by them. Sdkb (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Sdkb (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. --Spaced about (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Gizza (talk • voy) 23:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

NOTE: This entry is opened for more than two years. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. From the lede of the article "This is useful in the study of developmental biology and in understanding and treating genetic diseases." and two hot topics mentioned in it - gene therapy and Human Genome Project, it is no doubt vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Important topic in genetics. --Thi (talk) 08:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
3. Support The kind of recent topic that is here to stay. --Spaced about (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

NOTE This discussion is opened for more than two years and have just three !votes Dawid2009 (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Since evolution is considered vital at level 2, it is better to include more subtopics of it. Because of molecular biology's high vitality, molecular evolution should be included.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Important topic in genetics. --Thi (talk) 08:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
3. Support --Spaced about (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

NOTE This discussion is opened for more than two years. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Currently only William Hogarth is listed from Rococo era. "Watteau was one of the most influential French painters of the early 18th century. He painted numerous scenes with Commedia dell'Arte characters and also invented a type of painting known as the Fête Galante - small cabinet pictures which explored the psychology of love, usually in a landscape setting." [4] "Watteau’s artistic legacy pervades French art up to the emergence of Neoclassicism. ...virtually every artist working in eighteenth-century France, from François Le Moyne to François Boucher, to Jean Honoré Fragonard, owes a major debt to Watteau’s enigmatic fêtes galantes and elegant trois crayons drawings." [5]

"While Rococo art is known for its frivolity, hedonism, and light-heartedness, Watteau's compositions were indebted to close observation of nature and life, which he initially rendered in countless drawings that later informed his paintings." [6] "Watteau's mastery of color and texture, and his distinct visual language (effectively an iconography of the human heart) created images that captured both the finest and the most fallible aspects of humanity. His work truly connects the drama and excess of the late Baroque with the discrete humanism of the Enlightenment." [7]

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
2. Support Watteau, Gustav Klimt, Egon Schiele, Mark Rothko, Jean-Michel Basquiat, Amedeo Modigliani are the super big ones i'd consider a miss; especially with weak ones listed like Max Ernst, Franz Marc and Gerhard Richter; although a bit more would not hurt as painting was a prime artform for ages and yet we list more athletes than painters; we need to build a strong back-end of painting too as we list so much modern painters. Watteau would be a good start; Anthony van Dyck (more important than Sargent), Andrei Rublev, Apelles, Fra Angelico, Giorgione, Tintoretto, Bartolomé Esteban Murillo, Claude Lorrain, Jean Fouquet, Jean-Honoré Fragonard and Andrea Mantegna would be mighty fine additions to re-balance our painting section to pre-modern figures. Our visual arts section is relatively bad and unfocused. John Everett Millais and William-Adolphe Bouguereau for two representatives of what used to be super popular art movements and Ben Enwonwu, Raja Ravi Varma, Albert Namatjira, Guan Daosheng, Reza Abbasi, Hon'ami Kōetsu, Shibata Zeshin, Utagawa Toyokuni and Gim Hongdo for international non-western picks. This is why i go on about 20th century actors/musicians/athletes need cutting so bad. There should be 50 actors/athletes each and i'm serious about that because of stuff like this; visual arts has been one of the most dominant forms of arts and yet we don't cover pre-modern stuff good, neither contemporary stuff either, but we cover alot of athletes/actors/pop musicians - which is bizarre cause they haven't lasted throughout history as some of these names. This is why i support Watteau and hope he can fix some of this balance. GuzzyG (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Influential artist. Dimadick (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
5. Per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Let's not even mention the sculptors we miss like Antonio Canova, Camille Claudel, Benvenuto Cellini, Jeff Koons, Alexander Calder, Bertel Thorvaldsen, Lorenzo Ghiberti, Barbara Hepworth, Lysippos, Praxiteles, and Donald Judd. Architects like Inigo Jones, André Le Nôtre, Henry Hobson Richardson, Balthasar Neumann, Eugène Viollet-le-Duc, Jørn Utzon, Suger, Apollodorus of Damascus, Claude Nicolas Ledoux, Vincenzo Scamozzi, Daniel Burnham, Francesco Borromini, Victor Horta, Michelozzo and Hippodamus of Miletus. Photographers like Nadar, Alfred Stieglitz, Robert Capa, Mathew Brady and Diane Arbus. Designers of various media and crafts figures like Bartolomeo Cristofori, Christian Dior, Cristóbal Balenciaga, Charles Frederick Worth, Saul Bass, Gary Gygax, Elsie de Wolfe, Charles and Ray Eames, Ralph H. Baer, Peter Carl Fabergé, Maria Martinez, William Morris. If we're covering contemporary active athletes; may aswell cover contemporary conceptual art (in which we have no reps, despite it being the dominant visual art form for decades) with artists like Yves Klein, Damien Hirst, Yayoi Kusama and Banksy are all important. Heck we're even mssing actually important comics/animation figures; Chuck Jones, Alan Moore, Thomas Nast, Richard F. Outcault, Honoré Daumier, Lotte Reiniger and Rodolphe Töpffer. GuzzyG (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• NOTE This discussion is opened for more than year. I exept to close this first before whoever will close other closures. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Parsons structural functionalism was popular in 1950s, but today his approach is generally treated as outmoded.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

If we're discussing removing Truman and LBJ (and citing having JFK as a reason for removing LBJ), we need to look at Kennedy as well. Most historical rankings of presidents or all Americans rank JFK significantly lower than LBJ and Truman. What's he known for, anyway? The failed Bay of Pigs invasion? Almost blowing up the world? Getting shot? Having good hair?

Support

1. pbp 01:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. All of that, and getting us to go to the Moon; also, his assassination was one of those events that was "the 9/11 before 9/11" and left an indelible impression on American consciousness.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose One of the most influential presidents we've had, if only in his public image PaulRyanIsWatchingYou (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Essential material in encyclopedias and history books. --Thi (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Per my comments in other US presidents noms. I've supported his removal before; but in many cases he is *the* iconic 20th century US president. (only behind 18th century Washington and 19th century Lincoln). His achievements are not lengthy; but he will continue to be written about and pushed as long as the US is a dominant power; so he should stay until this changes. Buddy Holly, Mark Spitz and James Cagney are not even worth close to Kennedy's historicalness or written about as much. He would have to be top 15-20 most written about 20th century political leader and that means something when we list so much 20th century entertainment or sport figures who are not written about as much. JFK doubles Teddy Roosevelt in pageviews, beats Reagan and Franklin R. by over 10 and 20 million and beats Lincoln, Washington and Jefferson in pageviews. Mostly because of a stronger presence in international pageviews. I just can't support his removal. Maybe if this list was more stricter and based in history than alot of contemporary listings but i don't see that happening either - so he can stay. GuzzyG (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose Not a particularly successful president, but has inspired more books and films than most of the others combined. Dimadick (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose per above. Interstellarity (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
7. Oppose Sh was !voted in Gallup's List of Most Widely Admired People of the 20th Century as third behind 2Martin Luther King 1Mother Theresa, and ahead of Einstein, also ahead of many contemporary Americans. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

The shining exemplar of the action comedy genre. Actor, stunt performer, writer, director, producer, choreographer, even a singer. Recognized as a "global megastar", whose "star image has been remarkably stable for three decades" in academic journals. Cross-cultural appeal, crossed over from Eastern films to Hollywood even after the prime of his career, and into lead roles too. Long career with over 160 films made, became one of the most highly paid actors in the world. Recognized by the Oscars for "extraordinary achievements" in film. Influenced parkour. In addition, Chinese-language cinema (including Cinema of Hong Kong) is wholly absent from Level 4, in a list of 59 actors.

Support

1. Support per nom. starship.paint (exalt) 09:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Support I would place him above most living actors. 08:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)
3. Support I thought we had Bruce Lee but in any case Jackie Chan fits at this level too. Gizza (talk • voy) 03:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Action comedy is a subgenre indeed, but Jackie Chan don't merely have recognition in that subgenre, Jackie Chan has wide and broad recognition and acclamation in the film industry and popularity worldwide crossing culture boundaries, he should not be excluded just because he is too prominent in action comedy, in which without doubt he is the leading actor and director. Lolitart (talk) 10:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
5. Not as vital as Bruce Lee, but vital enough. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
6. Support for a laugh. GuzzyG (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

If we're gonna commit to a contemporary listing like Jackie Chan (over people like Sun Quan); there's no more need to follow contemporary rules and not list figures like Jeff Bezos/Elon Musk/Mark Zuckerberg/Sergey Brin/Larry Page or contemporary entertainment figures like Whitney Houston, Quincy Jones, John Williams, Eminem, Britney Spears, or N.W.A. Remember; Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five was once not voted in because of recentism [8] and they predate Police Story (1985 film) and there's no justification to not have Shah Rukh Khan, Tom Cruise, Angelina Jolie or Leonardo DiCaprio. Either we commit to contemporary listings or not; but we should not pick and choose; i don't think Jackie Chan or Tom Hanks are sufficient importance to be listed over every other contemporary figure and figures kept off for pure fame like James Dean or Diana, Princess of Wales must require re-examination aswell; as contemporary fame is now sufficient importance and these two are BIG. Bashar al-Assad/Hafez al-Assad and Ali Abdullah Saleh are also two political leaders at the center of major global affairs today and are not listed. Where do we seperate contemporary and not? Does Rush Hour (1998 film) provide sufficient importance to list Chan over every other contemporary figure? Nirvana (band), Metallica and Elton John were all voted off for being too recent too; why do contemporary actors get a pass over every other kind of contemporary figure? GuzzyG (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Musk, Bezos, and Zuckerberg should already be on here; it's Level 3 that "bans" living persons. As for the others, I'm fine with analyzing them case by case. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not about a ban; but the long standing trend has been to remove contemporary entertainment and sports figures; this signifies a reverse and is important because actors should not get a precedence over every other figure; so more contemporary figures must be added - in reversal of our previous removals. GuzzyG (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

#Oppose I hate to do this as he does have a legit shot but action comedy is a subgenre. We list Bruce Lee (under martial arts in sports) and we don't need a second martial arts actor. I don't think currently alive actors should be added. In Chan's case; i'd much prefer Leslie Cheung to recognise another side of Hong Kong culture (that isn't martial arts). Even with Hong Kong action films; i'd prefer John Woo. If we go with another martial artist; i'd prefer a non-actor; in China's case Wong Fei-hung would be the best bet or Kanō Jigorō, Morihei Ueshiba and Masahiko Kimura if we're doing international martial arts. This is also consciously ignoring popular contemporary martial artists from a range of disciplines like Royce Gracie, Andy Hug, Hadi Saei and Samart Payakaroon or more regional figures like Manuel dos Reis Machado or Taihō Kōki, either way martial arts is too spread out to be defined by just two actors. On the acting front; i'm already opposed to figures like Tom Hanks and Clint Eastwood on the list; as they double the archtype of two others we list (James Stewart and John Wayne (and we removed Al Pacino because we list De Niro [9] and we should be consistent with this). If we needed to cover more missing areas of acting; i'd go with Indian cinema with Dilip Kumar (or playback film music with Mohammed Rafi); Latin American cinema with Dolores del Río; pre film stage acting with Henry Irving, Richard Burbage, Edwin Booth or Ira Aldridge; or silent film actors; of which we don't cover alot of and Douglas Fairbanks is the one missing actor we need from. They're our four biggest misses in my opinion. Bruce Lee covers acting and Wong Kar-wai is listed too. Action comedy wouldn't be the first genre we need to cover; might be controversial but much more popular genres like horror with Bela Lugosi, musical theatre with George M. Cohan, voice acting with Mel Blanc and porn with Linda Lovelace would cover the range of acting better. Also; if we're doing comedy than Cantinflas or Chespirito are much more fundamental to cover.

TLDR; action comedy is not the next genre that needs covering, i don't think we need any more currently alive actors than what we list, we cover Bruce Lee and martial arts shouldn't just be defined by two actors. GuzzyG (talk) 07:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

His lede mentions "In Islamic philosophical tradition he was often called "the Second Teacher", following Aristotle who was known as "the First Teacher". He is credited with preserving the original Greek texts during the Middle Ages because of his commentaries and treatises, and influencing many prominent philosophers, such as Avicenna and Maimonides. Through his works, he became well-known in the West as well as the East. " While Britannica [10], has "one of the preeminent thinkers of medieval Islam. He was regarded in the medieval Islamic world as the greatest philosophical authority after Aristotle". Considering how little figures we have from the first millennium (and from Islam itself), i think Al-Farabi would be a good addition to balance this list.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support He was a pioneer in the fields of social psychology and music therapy. Theologically, he was an adherent of Neoplatonism. He is credited as one of of the scholars who "adapted neoplatonism to conform to the monotheistic constraints of Islam". Dimadick (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Good deal of historical resonance and important technical achievements which may yet be useful for readers today. Zelkia1101 (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Hertz was important scientific pioneer and is usually included in encyclopedias. "German physicist who first conclusively proved the existence of the electromagnetic waves predicted by James Clerk Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. The unit of frequency, cycle per second, was named the "hertz" in his honor." "Hertz's proof of the existence of airborne electromagnetic waves led to an explosion of experimentation with this new form of electromagnetic radiation, which was called "Hertzian waves" until around 1910 when the term "radio waves" became current. Within 10 years researchers such as Oliver Lodge, Ferdinand Braun, and Guglielmo Marconi employed radio waves in the first wireless telegraphy radio communication systems, leading to radio broadcasting, and later television. In 1909, Braun and Marconi received the Nobel Prize in physics for their "contributions to the development of wireless telegraphy". Today radio is an essential technology in global telecommunication networks, and the transmission medium underlying modern wireless devices." "In addition to confirming Maxwell's electromagnetic theory. Hertz's experimental and theoretical work ...helped lay the foundation for quantum theory and relativity." [11] [12]

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Dimadick (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support very important scientist, we could do with more historical based important people like this. GuzzyG (talk) 07:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Lolitart (talk) 05:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Olympe de Gouges, include Alexandra Kollontai (Level 3)

Olympe is not revolutionary, she is not influencer about demonstration against the Jacobins. Kollontai is an inverse. 187.20.15.34 (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Giorgio de Chirico is listed in editor Zelkia1101's list of 500 most vital biographies. "With Pablo Picasso, Fernand Leger, Paul Klee and Piet Mondrian, Giorgio de Chirico was among the great innovators of 20th‐century art and one of the most influential of modernist painters." (The New York Times) His paintings were of major importance for the development of surrealism.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support I'm glad you noticed this, Thi. De Chirico is not as well known as other famous painters, but his art undoutedbly marked a shift in the history of Western art. Zelkia1101 (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Per Zelkia. Rather "obscure" and not as famous compared to other 20th century painters like Jean-Michel Basquiat, Gustav Klimt, Mark Rothko, Amedeo Modigliani, Egon Schiele, Francis Bacon (artist), David Hockney, Roy Lichtenstein all of whom best him in pageviews (for example, and Basquiat and Klimt the only painters over 10 million views we don't list). Also; Fra Angelico, Cimabue, Andrei Rublev and Tintoretto are all more important pre 20th century painters. (there are many other painters who influenced painting or other visual arts styles, if de Chirico does not stand above many other more prominent 20th century painters, i don't see how he makes this list). GuzzyG (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Pennsylvania is the next biggest state by population we don't list. It has a bigger population than Illinois, which is already listed. Interstellarity (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. [nom]
2. Weak support Pennsylvania is important in American history and I was initially surprised it wasn't already listed; even without its role in the American Revolution, in 1930 it and Illinois were the only states with more people than New York City (not including New York State itself, the absolute majority of whose population lived in the four main boroughs anyway), and unlike Illinois, which lost that status with Chicago removed, Pennsylvania still had more people than NYC even excluding Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Its coal mining and early petroleum industry were catalysts in America's Industrial Revolution, and it combined with New York state and New England round out the American Northeast quite nicely.
   The weak is because we already list both Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. It's true that we list NYC and NYS, Chicago and Illinois, and California and LA, SF, San Diego, and San Jose, but New York City is at level 3 and Chicago and California are at level 3.5, so they can have some room for extra associated geography on this list; neither Philadelphia nor Pennsylvania rise up to that level IMO, and while I won't actively oppose Pennsylvania for this redundancy I'm sure others will. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Ok addition. --Thi (talk) 10:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per above. There is a nontrivial amount of overlap with Philadelphia, a rare occurance where a city is more important than the state/province /country that contains it, but Pennsylvania is historically resonant and politically important enough to be included today. Zelkia1101 (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

   That is rather rare, when you think about it. The only other examples I can think of in the world are New York, Chicago, Sydney, and maybe Melbourne and Toronto, mostly because important cities outside of North America and Australia are generally independent of surrounding states/provinces/etc. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

5. Support one of the most important states in US history, huge influence. GuzzyG (talk) 11:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Too many articles in Philosophy and religion. Seems like a better fit for Level 5 for Aesthetics.

Support

1. per nom. starship.paint (exalt) 14:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  09:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Low-importance topic. Not necessary at this level.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom czar 23:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. starship.paint (exalt) 12:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  14:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
6. Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Support

1. As nom. Because although submachine guns are largely replaced by assault rifles nowadays, for military special forces and SWAT teams they are still very useful in CQBs because of its full-automatic fire ability and pistol calibre, greatly reducing the possibility of over-penetration^[1], SMG ought to be included in the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose technology is significantly over quota and there is already a good representation of guns at this level. Machine gun is sufficient. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose. As I said in the previous nomination, submachine guns are basically just machine guns that fire handgun rounds instead of rifle rounds. So I don't think we need to list both at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Not absolutely necessary. --Thi (talk) 09:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

1. I had proposed to add it several times, yet every time I did so the proposal eventually failed (cf. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_34#Add_carbine,_submachine_gun_and_sniper_rifle, Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_47#Add_submachine_gun and Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_61#Add_submachine_gun).--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

We do not list any national flag at this level (Though IMHO we could very easy list +50, at least for every coutntry listed on the level 3), what do you think about massive additions of national flags to this level as swap with atronomical objects? I am pretty sure every 5 years old child knows national flag of their country (aka American child, flag of USA, Canadian child flag of Canada etc.), average 10 years old child can know flags of most countries around the world. Asronomy is important but at this level, how vital are astronomial objects other sun, major planets from solar system, moon and milky way in comprasion to heritage and patriotism? A lot of stuff which we list in astronomy at this level is rather very obsure. For example, I never earlier heard about Centaurus A (level 4) but I heard about Galilean moons (level 5) which are on the level 5. Would you be OK to remove all these astronomical objects for cost of national flags? If this is one can be not good idea then what other you would suggest? Dawid2009 (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• I could maybe support a handful of flags at most. The only ones I'm thinking could do the trick are the American flag, the Union Jack, the Flag of France, and the Flag of Denmark (simply because it's the oldest). A flag that is not of any vexillological interest is redundant to the country itself, since the symbols of a country do not generally concern other countries. Astronomy is more universal and less subject to bias, IMO, although I might be open to removing some of them. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Luizpuodzius:, Islam alone in Belgium is more relevant than the antifas in Spain, for example. 187.20.15.34 (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Because he founded Amazon, and is the richest man on earth, he is definitely vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Per nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per my comments below. GuzzyG (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose A more worthy addition to this list than Musk, but still a no from me. Amazon has absolutely revolutionized how we shop for goods, and it's well worth a place on this list, but Bezos does not really have much relevance beyond his company. He's a popular punching bag for his wealth, and his space company takes second place in the public conciousness to Musk's, but he doesn't have the cultural staying power of Bill Gates, whose exploits beyond Microsoft like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation mean he is more important than Bezos. Again, I would like to wait a few years and see what Bezos gets up to, whether Blue Origin ends up ever being successful, and how his image evolves with the public. Zelkia1101 (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Not absolutely necessary since Amazon listed. --Thi (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose I don't feel businesspeople are particularly significant. At best trivial figures. Dimadick (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

   They've been far more powerful than religious figures and explorers for almost a century and a half; we list Henry Ford at level 3 and Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are both solid additions to the level 4 list. Regardless of whether Bezos in particular makes the cut, saying that "businesspeople ... [are] at best trivial figures" just smacks of "commie crapola". – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

4. Oppose businesspeople are indeed vital but in this case think that Bezos is redundant to Amazon. I would be more open to adding Pierre Omidyar as eBay is not currently on the list. Gizza (talk • voy) 04:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

   EBay had relatively short Impact on history of Internet. Out of these websites which we do not list, just AOL andYahoo! were dominant for very Long stage but I would support just the latter as the first is country specific and was big Mark during time when Internet was not global phenomen yet. I do not think we need EBay and its founder at this level but I think every company which had bigger renuve than Google (say Amazon) or comparable (say Meta Platforms) deserve overrepresentation at this level. I would also probably list linkedIn and cryptocurrency ahead of eBay for things related with Internet. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

   @DaGizza: Jack Dorsey is more famous than founder of eBay and you opposed Addiction of Twitter something about 8 Years ago. Out of Curiosity which social media stuff and which websites you could support at this level? Dawid2009 (talk)

   I personally don't consider Twitter to be more vital than eBay. Ecommerce is more transformative than microblogging social media. I still won't necessarily support Omidyar but the fact that he's away from the public eye unlike the other big tech CEOs doesn't make him less vital. Otherwise we would be listing Kim Kardashian and Kylie Jenner here. Gizza (talk • voy) 22:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

   As the leading figure of the unique 21st century symbiosis of reality tv and influencer culture and marketing (which will come to dominate this centuries entertainment landscape); Kim Kardashian should 100% be on this list in the future; as most unique/controversial forms of culture are defined by one or a few figures. Founders of main websites that hundreds of millions of people use are in the same boat. There is no way any 21st century work of worth completely skips over this kind of thing. Bezos was Time's person of the year in 1999 - which means he's held this relevance for a quarter of this century and it's unlikely to go down for much longer. Zuck (2005-7ish) and say Kim (2007-2009ish) too both define this quarter century too. Considering all three have household name recognition, are highly controversial figures to everyone - the chance that history forgets them is unlikely. Omidyar and eBay have never held this kind of prominence - he might have a spot later on but not before Zuck/Bezos/Page and Brin. To say they will be forgotten or be unimportant is to say social media/reality tv culture and the internet will lose relevance or not define early 21st century pop culture. At the very least, a bold claim. GuzzyG (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

5. Oppose Won't be remembered, apart from being the richest man in the world. Not done any public works that considered outstanding contributions. scope_creep^Talk 12:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

   If we're going to take the "Not done any public works that considered outstanding contributions" as a hard rule, than we should re-evaluate Al Capone and Pablo Escobar being listed in business , no?. (this list has bad people, history isn't all good!). "Won't be remembered"; do you think the role of businesspeople who dominated the internet will be forgotten? Pretty radical to say the internet and it's role in big business today (with all the top sites like Amazon,Facebook and Google etc) and it's history will continue to be unimportant and forgotten, is this your belief - to be clear?. (or have less lasting contributions to retail today than brick and mortar pioneers of retail like Sam Walton, who is listed!). If this is based in analysis of current sources rather than random guesswork and personal opinion, i would love to see some academic work on how the internet will be forgotten or some sources on how the internet leaders have not had a role in shaping society or business today. (or just the most popular websites of it's early prominence anyway). I would think it's a weak encyclopedia that covers business people but completely leaves out the internet era, especially considering it's dominated this century business wise. Even if you're coming at it from a political view, from the right he's a capitalist hero, richest man ever and from the left a evil oppressor of workers, a person to despise; considering the level of emotions people feel either way - hardly leads to being forgotten. But ya know.... the internet may lose relevancy one day afterall, who knows..... GuzzyG (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Support

1. As nom. Since he is currently the second richest man on earth, and is endeavouring to revolutionized transportation both on earth and in space^[1], he is absolutely vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Per nom; even if he doesn't ultimately get to Mars, he'll have inspired the new space race and been the most influential child of Zubrin. If he does get to Mars, he'll be very likely the only living person on level 3. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support was previously against this under a more thorough examination of past precedence; but if Jackie Chan is the new standard; than that's not needed anymore. Business leaders today have more relevance today; so the most famous should be on here purely for fame and wealth. GuzzyG (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Support He's certainly more vital than other people who are currently listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawid2009 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose His impressive wealth aside, Musk is (at least as of yet) lacking in any spectacular achievement. Tesla is an important company, and I wouldn't mind listing it, but Musk is more of a pop culture icon than a businessman befitting inclusion on this list. His aspiration to plant a man on Mars and the impressive progress SpaceX has made so far are worth noting, but I would like to wait a few years and see what he gets up to before including him on this list. Zelkia1101 (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose I don't feel businesspeople are particularly significant. At best trivial figures. Dimadick (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose I feel it's WP:CRYSTALBALL at this stage. Will support him if SpaceX is successful but for now much of his extreme popularity comes from his social media presence. Gizza (talk • voy) 04:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose At the moment certainly, no real achievement you can point to. No last public works, or outstanding contributions to mankind. If he gets Spacex going and get the electrical car network functioning at scale, he will be remembered for that. But not at the moment. scope_creep^Talk 12:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Important businessman. Interstellarity (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Businesspeople are underrepresented as whole. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

#Oppose I would change my vote on support if nominator would support William G Morgan because of I am on the point he is less vital businessman than promotor of volleyball. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

1. Oppose Mail order is more important topic. I think that Ferdinand de Lesseps is the most vital missing businessman. --Thi (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose agree that Lesseps is more vital per Thi. Gizza (talk • voy) 04:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose I don't feel businesspeople are particularly significant. At best trivial figures. Dimadick (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

@Dawid2009: As the nominator, I would support Morgan as well as Sears. Interstellarity (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Founded McDonald's which is an influential company today. Interstellarity (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Due to Fast food global influence. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Never heard of him, so is worthy of this. scope_creep^Talk 12:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose I don't feel businesspeople are particularly significant. At best trivial figures. Dimadick (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Both Fast food and McDonald's are listed. --Thi (talk) 10:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

He's the father of suburbia. Interstellarity (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Never heard of him, and very American centric. Who is he? scope_creep^Talk 13:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose I don't feel businesspeople are particularly significant. At best trivial figures. Dimadick (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Somewhat American centred and the list already contains American urban planners. --Thi (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Key figure in Algerian history. Recently died. Interstellarity (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support one Algerian leader is needed for this level and he seems to be it. GuzzyG (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose This person is not at all historically or technically notable. If you wanted an Algerian leader, Ahmed Ben Bella or Houari Boumédiène would make much more sense. Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Not necessary at this level. --Thi (talk) 08:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I am nominating this since I believe this is worth discussing. It's been 20 years since Clinton left office and was hoping to reevaluate whether he can be moved up or stay in the same place. I think for every president before him, the levels of importance can easily be determined, but for presidents after him (especially with DS for post-1992 US politics), it can be a grey area. I will remain neutral on this nomination since I'm only nominating this because it's worth discussing. Interstellarity (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Normally i'm against living people; but he beats Trump and Tom Hanks and many of the American athletes like Magic Johnson. I think 20th century American leadership can be relatively broadly covered when we cover so much 20th century American sports and entertainment. We should cover more Pharaohs like Khufu, Roman emperors like Vespasian; English kings like Richard III of England; Chinese emperors like Emperor Xuanzong of Tang. All leaders of definitive countries; in which it does not hurt for a encyclopedia to have a broader coverage of. The American leaders i would support are Clinton, John Quincy Adams, George H. W. Bush and William McKinley - as long as the US is a relevant superpower; i don't see how an English language encyclopedia wouldn't cover most of it's main leaders and whether (we) think it's worthy; his scandal will keep his name as a hot topic to promote to bring in people to the story. (like a Nero kind of thing). GuzzyG (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per GuzzyG's excellent reasoning especially the scandal. The scandal will likely be talked about for generations to come. Interstellarity (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support He was a key figure in the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, and an influential figure in European history. "Clinton compared the events of Kosovo to the Holocaust. CNN reported, "Accusing Serbia of 'ethnic cleansing' in Kosovo similar to the genocide of Jews in World War II, an impassioned Clinton sought Tuesday to rally public support for his decision to send US forces into combat against Yugoslavia, a prospect that seemed increasingly likely with the breakdown of a diplomatic peace effort." Dimadick (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Weak support Eh? Clinton is widely-known as a person, but he's somewhat lacking in terms of technical achievement. He was not that consequential a president either in the US or abroad, as Reagan was, and he isn't particularly relevant or groundbreaking, like Obama. However, given America's place as the world's sole superpower, and the absolute fame of America's leaders as a result, it makes sense to have Clinton or perhaps even Carter on this list, particularly since this is an English-language encyclopedia. Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose if only because we already list Bush II, Obama, and Trump consecutively.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Shouldn't be talking about adding him in the same breath as we talk of removing LBJ, Truman, and some of the Founding Fathers. pbp 04:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Imo we shouldn't have any living presidents on the list, with maybe the exception of Obama, because their historical impact hasn't been fully fleshed out yetPaulRyanIsWatchingYou (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose unless there is a broader consensus to beef up the political leader quota more generally. As it stands, Clinton is less influential than all other recent American presidents and therefore not vital. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose a rather boring although adequate politician, we really should be removing some of those presidents. Lolitart (talk) 12:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

   No president should be removed if we're supposed to add Jackie Chan... Clinton is more important historically yet alone other presidents we list. GuzzyG (talk) 12:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

   Well, I'd say I would prefer to read a Jackie Chan biography instead of the that of all presidents we ever have. I'd want to read articles about Washington, Lincoln, Obama, but do we really want to have all of them? The presidency is just four years with a max of two terms. I don't think being a president alone qualifies someone to be included, their biography or life experience better be worth reading as well, and by that standard, we would have to include each and every Emperor in Chinese history, each of them rule decades, which I also don't think that alone is a qualifying metric, they have to do something or be unique enough, although being the chief certain increase the possibility, but not necessarily. Lolitart (talk) 08:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

6. Oppose Not a particularly inspiring politician. scope_creep^Talk 12:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

@John M Wolfson: We also list all presidents from FDR through Nixon at this level. Interstellarity (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

And that's a bunch of bloat, IMO. We could probably remove Truman and maybe LBJ (although the Civil Rights Act might help retain the latter).  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

We also list the first 4 presidents consecutively. I've tried making cuts to the presidents in the past, but with no luck. I'm not comfortable nominating any removals of the presidents right now, but if you're interested in nominating those two, feel free to. I think some things that would improve Clinton's case for adding would be the NAFTA, longest period of peace and economic growth, and impeachment. I'm not sure what would hurt Clinton's case, but anyone has something, please feel free to bring it up. Interstellarity (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: What do you think of the current list of level 4 presidents? Do you think there are presidents that should be removed? We list all presidents from Washington to Madison, FDR to Nixon, and Bush II to Trump consecutively. Do you think that is a problem or should we get rid of any of them? Interstellarity (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I do not think it is a problem (only a problem if it was Andrew Jackson to Abraham Lincoln lol). I used to want to remove some before; but not anymore. If we had to cut anyone first it would be Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun who were never president and don't represent a unique field like J. Edgar Hoover or John Marshall. Realistically even the least important presidents listed (Donald Trump, James K. Polk and Barack Obama) will continue to be written about for the next century at the very least. Thus they're adequate to cover here in my opinion. To cut bloat; it has to be American sports and entertainment. John Wayne is written about more than the average president; but Gary Cooper?? Jerry Rice or Mark Spitz; have they been written about more than Bill Clinton, LBJ or Truman? Will they in the future? Michael Phelps and Pelé will probably outlast a Clinton or Truman; as top of their field. But Spitz is second tier now and Rice doesn't have the international appeal to outlast a president (or contemporary American football history isn't written about more often globally than WWII and Truman). It's good to have one or two to represent these fields; but we have major excess in sports and entertainers and this is where the main cuts should be. (88 and 97 people in each here, despite no level 3 representation; unlike popular music - in which we have 3 at level 3 but only 71 here; counting Jazz/pop together and music generally being more universal than sports etc). I don't think American politics requires any cuts for this reason (we'd be cutting important names while we still have less important ones). We go by the "English encyclopedia" rule; so covering the main English language superpower todays leadership extensively isn't such a concern. As i said above; we should cover superpowers throughout histories leadership more, we're missing some big names for contemporary second tier entertainers and athletes. GuzzyG (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Although the list already contains a figure skater, the person is actually female and because of this sport's popularity it should contain a male counterpart as well, and he is the only skater (all disciplines included) to have achieved a Golden Slam, he should be added to the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose There are many sports we list with no women; we don't need to cover men in sports we list none of them in. (we would need a woman in swimming before we need a man in figure skating). But we don't need any more people in sports we list. Only sports like Horse racing, Volleyball, Rugby league, Badminton or Fencing are missing and in my opinion, should be the only times we add another athlete. GuzzyG (talk) 07:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Not well known name outside his field. --Thi (talk) 07:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Thi Zelkia1101 (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

It's rather silly to have six cities in South Korea which is a rather tiny country, especially when most of those listed has no international recognition at all, originally was going to suggest removing Incheon as well, but since I've heard of Incheon, I will let it go.

Support

1. As nom. Lolitart (talk) 09:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose 5-8 cities is what we typically we have for medium-sized countries in terms of population, economy and influence like Spain, Turkey Poland, Ukraine, Egypt, Colombia Iran, Canada and Australia. And I disagree with South Korea being a "tiny" country. Gizza (talk • voy) 10:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Because "Austin" redirects there, it is the second-most-populous state capital city, and since the 1990s it has become a center for technology and business, it is no doubt vital at this level. What's more, currently the list includes 4 California cities yet only 3 Texas ones, which is absurd because more and more people moved from California, and Texas has more and more immigrants from some blue states^[2].

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Austin has experienced a population boom in recent decades, and it is a major center for the high-tech industry. Our List of United States cities by population notes that it is the 11th most populous city in the United States, and the most populous city among the ones with a population of less than 1 million. Dimadick (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
4. Per all.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Level 5 is sufficient for a city of this size and cultural impact. czar 22:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Belief, Fact, Experience, Knowledge and Argument are listed.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 07:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose a pretty fundamental part of political, social, cultural life as a concept, and obviously relevant to discourse Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2021 (

Discuss

Existence and Vacuum are more important concepts for reader at this level than Nothing. Atomism was very important philosophical approach in Eastern and Western philosophy and typical entry in encyclopedia. Influential in history of philosophy and history of science.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 07:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal. Nothing is something not only philosophically but scientifically and mathematically. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Perhaps too advanced concept for this level.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Fundamental in the course of human understanding, there is no science without abstraction. Lolitart (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per above. Fact that Meta Platforms does not have primary topic for Meta is evidence we ould even add some subtopics of Abstraction to that level. I woud probably now support swapping Abstract algebra with Abstraction on the level 3 because of we already have Linear Algebra. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

"As an archetype of the inspired singer, Orpheus is one of the most significant figures in the reception of classical mythology in Western culture, portrayed or alluded to in countless forms of art and popular culture including poetry, film, opera, music, and painting." For example the earliest opera classic, L'Orfeo by Monteverdi.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Dawid2009 (talk) 12:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose all of these articles proposed are less vital than Garuda whose significance is cross-cultural and was removed recently, especially considering the bloated coverage of Greek mythology already. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Dionysus, Bacchus and Bacchanalia are often referencend in arts and study of classical mythology.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per above comments. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Eros and Cupid are well-known symbols in art. [13]

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Dawid2009 (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per above comments. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

"Face that launched a thousand ships" is a famous line which should be explained in English encyclopedia.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Dawid2009 (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per above comments. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

One of the basic myths in Western thought and art.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Dawid2009 (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per above comments. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose I wold prefer the more general Titans.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Basic topic in Greek mythology. "He was a titan" is often used phrase.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Titan (moon) which is level 4 article is named after the Titans. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
5. Support--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per above comments. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Symbol of death and rebirth across cultures.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
5. Support--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Dawid2009 (talk) 13:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per above comments. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The story of Minotaur, the labyrinth, Theseus and Ariadne is one of the most famous legends in Greek mythology.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Too much massive proposals on Greek Mythology fir now. Neitner of them are culturally more influrntial than say Biblical Magi... And I generalny oppose addition of any mythical/Religious figures for now, even thought I support Greek Mythology on the level 3. How about Lord's Prayer which has something about 200 Language versions and is in usage for every day for bilions of people around the World? Where are all those topics from East Cultures? Or why so many specific Greek Deities ahead of every Filar of Islam? Dawid2009 (talk) 12:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per above comments. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I propose to reorganise the dog varieties listed at Carnivora (35 articles) and Dogs (8 articles). The majority of the reorganisation is to capture the broadest and most globally significant collection of dog types that the greatest number of dog breeds and varieties fall within.

• I propose to reduce Dogs (8 articles) to 7 articles, and to change those articles listed to:

1. Gun dog
2. Herding dog
3. Hound
4. Livestock guardian dog
5. Mastiff
6. Spitz
7. Terrier (already listed)

These broad types capture the vast majority of dog breeds and varieties found throughout the world.

• Then I propose to add Dingo to the canids listed at Carnivora (35 articles), increasing that list to 36 articles.

This was discussed several months ago at WT:DOGS, see discussion here. @Atsme, Canarian, SMcCandlish, and William Harris: pinging participants in that discussion.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cavalryman (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC).
2. Support This is better solution than listing specific breeds. --Thi (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Support I am pleased to see that this is now being progressed. William Harris (talk) 11:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Makes good sense to me. And Cavalryman, thank you for your tireless contributions, and dedication to the project. Atsme 💬 📧 13:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Yes, please. Thought this had already been done, honestly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
7. Support per above. Gizza (talk • voy) 03:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• Comment Unfortunately, there doesn't seems to be full time members of WikiProject Vital Articles, so it might be some time. scope_creep^Talk 12:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment That may be so, but it is no reason to hold the proposal up as it meets the criteria. I suggest it be implemented. William Harris (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• @Scope creep and William Harris: you can also post a message about this proposal on Wikipedia_talk:Vital articles which has more watchers and followers than this page. Gizza (talk • voy) 03:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

McKinley was an influential president especially since he was president during the Spanish-American War. As for Adams and Madison, I think listing Washington and Jefferson would be enough for this level. The only founding father we don't list that was president is James Monroe which was previously rejected when we list the Monroe Doctrine. Interstellarity (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support McKinley championed American imperialism, and protectionism. He annexed Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines, and Hawaii, creating an American colonial empire and butchering 20,000 Filipino freedom fighters in the Philippine–American War. I would place him ahead of either Washington, Adams, and Madison in accomplishments. Dimadick (talk) 10:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose John Adams and James Madison are as crucial as Jefferson and slightly less crucial than Washington in the history of the American Revolution. James Madison authored the greatest portion of the American Constitution and is the principal architect of the Bill of Rights, not to mention his role in presiding over the War of 1812. John Adams was an incredibly important emissary of the United States abroad, his role in shaping early American foreign policy, building up the American armed forces, and effecting, to the surprise of much of the world, a peaceful transition of power between himself and Jefferson, a then rival. All of this to say little of Adams's political scandals during his tenure, to wit the passing of the Alien and Sedition Acts and the XYZ Affair. McKinley is overshadowed by Roosevelt and is nowhere near as important as Madison and Adams. Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose I'd support a add for McKinley; but this nomination would put early American politicians one representative above American football and clearly that is very, very wrong. William Penn, John Jay, John Winthrop and Patrick Henry should all be added to; they're more vital to the history of the United States than Tom Hanks or Magic Johnson and this is a very undercovered area - we should cover more extensively countries histories like Ancient Egypt, China, India, Rome, Ancient Greece and the US and with 6 representatives we're a bit light on early US history. (we have 8 tennis players for example, and they're not nearly written about as much). GuzzyG (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Key figure in the history of Mongolia. Interstellarity (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Key figure in the history of Cameroon. Interstellarity (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Key figure in the history of Gabon. Interstellarity (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Key figure in the history of Western Sahara. Interstellarity (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Founder of the Shang dynasty.

Support

1. Lolitart (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

"Prime minister" to the King Wen and Wu of Zhou, founders of Zhou dynasty, in addition to being the one of earliest figures canonized and worshipped by later Taoism believers.

Support

1. Lolitart (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Perhaps the first women in Chinese imperial history to serve as a regent.

Support

1. Lolitart (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Wayne Gretzky is the one hockey player really needed and Gordie Howe comes second.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Although it would be weird to have ice hockey have the same amount as field hockey; Tretiak isn't vital and really Gretzky is the only "vital" ice hockey player. We don't list figures like Walter Raleigh, Henry Hudson, John Ruskin or Herod the Great who are traditional subjects for encyclopedias. Russian contribution IS important; but we don't really need multiple articles for ice hockey. Vladimir Dal is more important to Russia and Walter Benjamin to 20th century culture. I'm pretty sure Valeri Kharlamov is the most important Russian hockey player too. All up i don't think there's a justifiable place for Tretiak. GuzzyG (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support let's get rid of this glut of sports biographies Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Gretzky is a clear #1 and Howe is a clear #2, so we don't need a third. Also agree that Kharlamov would be probably be a better representative of the USSR. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
6. Support per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Obscure rugby footballer. New Zealand rugby players don't need two reps, Rugby union itself covers that as a level 4 article and we don't need two players to show how important rugby union is, the players themselves need to show importance and Meads is not global like Lomu. William G. Morgan seems to be consensus obscure. (per comments who have cited this); yet Morgan gets more views in Spanish alone than Meads in total. Compare Morgan and Meads worldwide. [14] Morgan wins. Lomu is enough for rugby. Why do we specifically need multiple New Zealand representatives in rugby; these are not global, highly specific and meant to represent something; but as consensus is; we don't need bios to represent ideas and Meads is just not up to par as a figure himself.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 10:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support let's get rid of this glut of sports biographies Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
5. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 10:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

This may lean into a "general overview" type of article presently; but this is still a fundamental topic to world history; vital to explain how world history has developed. Similar to Mongol invasions and conquests, which we list. It would be better than listing every individual event inside this article aswell and any kind of topic like this which has significantly changed a major region of the world should be listed. In the grand scheme of history as a whole - it's more vital than something like Iraq War; which we list.

Support~

1. Support as nom GuzzyG (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Dimadick (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
4. Per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
5. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Very important in military hisory, vital to cold war just as space race. I also believe we should have more room for articles like Second Cold War, Artificial intelligence arms race etc.. Eventually we can also discuss articles like Russian-USA relationship or China-USA relationship etc. (FWIW we for log time had Israeli–Palestinian conflict on the level 3 for example).

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Important concept in military history.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Important topic in history. --Thi (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Dimadick (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support an important component of the 20th and 21st century. Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Support Hyperbolick (talk) 09:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

More broader topic. Interstellarity (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support The Northeastern United States are a larger region with higher historical impact. Dimadick (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Support addition The Northeastern United States is the only major region that isn't currently on here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal New England is a much more unified and long-standing concept than the broader Northeast, and listing New England and New York state is adequate to cover the Northeast IMO. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per John. Gizza (talk • voy) 10:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Often used name. --Thi (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose. I think New England is culturally and historically more significant as an entity. And with the recent addition of Pennsylvania, I don't think we need to add Northeastern United States just to cover New Jersey. No offense to the Garden State. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Important period in art history. Many famous Renaissance artists are not included at this level: Piero della Francesca, Paolo Uccello, Andrea Mantegna, Domenico Ghirlandaio, Rogier van der Weyden, Lucas Cranach the Elder and others.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Zelkia1101 (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
5. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Support

1. As nom. Now that the list currently includes wild boar and domestic pig, let's include this article as well!--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Support. No objection. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
5. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

1. Domestic pig is now moved to pig, thus I've altered the title from pig to Sus (genus), which was the one I intended to nominate.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Now that the COP26 is ongoing, and climate change is included in the level 3 list, let's include these two related terms in the list as well!--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC) altered a spelling error 13:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Support greenhouse effect. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
5. Support greenhouse effect--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose greenhouse gas. I don't think we need to list both at this level, and we also already list all the major greenhouse gasses individually at this level (except for Nitrous oxide). If anything I'd rather we add nitrous oxide at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Too much overlap with Sustainable agriculture. Interstellarity (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per nom czar 23:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. starship.paint (exalt) 11:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Malware is a broader topic than Computer virus. Interstellarity (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Support. --Thi (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
3. Support not just because it's broader but because that breadth is more immediately relevant to readers czar 23:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Support 01:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
6. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

These space telescopes were retired on 2013 and 2020. Groundbreaking Hubble Space Telescope remains in operation and is in my view the only space telescope needed at this level.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Hubble is the one we really need. Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per above. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
5. Support--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

She was the first female head of state of a democratic country in the world. Interstellarity (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Not democratically elected as president. --Thi (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Per Thi; only succeeded her late husband and redundant to him. I don't know off the top of my head who was the first truly democratically-elected female leader, but if she wasn't Thatcher I'm sure she's a likely possibility for this list. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Vigdís Finnbogadóttir was the first woman who was democratically elected as head of state, but the position was only ceremonial and Gro Harlem Brundtland already represents democratic leaders of Nordic countries. --Thi (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Thi: Thatcher assumed office in 1979, predating Finnbogadóttir by a year and thus counting as first democratically-elected female leader (in this case head of government) AFAIK. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I recognize this will be a controversial nomination. If it were for his presidency alone, then I would have opposed this addition, but I think his post-presidential work has been more influential than his presidency. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 and established the Carter Center. I think it's his post-presidential work that he deserves a spot for this list.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Support I would pick him over Ronald Reagan as having an actually sane financial policy. Dimadick (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose for now May support addition after he dies, but he's a rather irrelevant figure in American history. Henry Kissinger would be a better addition Zelkia1101 (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose. One-term president with not much to note about his presidency. I don't think he's vital at this level, especially when there are other presidents like Bill Clinton that would have to go on the list before Carter. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

   @Rreagan007: I get your point about his presidency being irrelevant and I agree with that, but the reason why I nominated Carter was for his post-presidential work where he was vital. We list Ulysses S. Grant because of his pivotal role in the Civil War. His presidency was irrelevant. I would like you to consider whether his post-presidential work makes him vital at this level instead of his presidency. Interstellarity (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

   I've glanced over his post-presidency article. And I get what you're saying, he's clearly been a great humanitarian and diplomat in the 40+ years since he left office. I'm just not sure it's enough to be listed at this level, but I'll give it some more thought and read his post-presidency article more closely later when I have time. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

This might be controversial given that we already have New York City at Level 3 and don't list Manhattan at this level, but I think it's worth at least some consideration. Brooklyn was its own city until 1898, and crucially for this nom retains a level of cultural (not to mention political, as the boroughs of New York City have far more power and significance than mere neighborhoods) independence from NYC as a whole. Were it still its own city, it would be in America's top five by population (maybe even top three, though 2020 threw a wrench into the works), and it is still common practice to mail letters to "Brooklyn, NY", which is also how Google Maps displays the relevant addresses. TV shows such as Brooklyn Nine-Nine deal with the borough specifically rather than the city as a whole, and it has its own sports team in the Brooklyn Nets (and historically the Brooklyn Dodgers). I have no doubt that if it were still its own city it would be listed, especially if we have both San Francisco and San Jose, and I think "no neighborhoods" is an unnecessary hang-up, especially given the importance of NYC and its boroughs. Indeed, we would list is like so:

• New York City (Level 3)
  • Brooklyn

For the record, were it not for space concerns (we are slightly over quota) I would support listing all boroughs of NYC except for Staten Island, but I think with marginal considerations Brooklyn is the most important to list even if Manhattan is probably the most "objectively" important. I might very well be biased in this regards given my content work and interests, but I still think at least Brooklyn is Level-4 worthy

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
2. Support It has a population of nearly 3 million people, and its article notes that it has become part of the expanding Silicon Alley. Dimadick (talk) 10:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
3. Support. Far greater cultural impact than many of the other places at Level 4; long-standing center of American immigration. czar 22:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
4. SupportPaulRyanIsWatchingYou (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I don't personally think any borough is vital at this level though Manhattan is the most well known outside the United States and would have the strongest case. Redundant to New York City. Gizza (talk • voy) 05:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 06:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose I don't think Brooklyn to New York is that similar to San Francisco to San Jose, Brooklyn is a part of the greater New York, while San Francisco and San Jose are quite far apart. Coverage of Brooklyn in New York should be sufficient. Lolitart (talk) 06:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose. If any NY borough were added, it would have to be Manhattan. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Essential topic in encyclopedia. Many important aphorist are not listed, such as François de La Rochefoucauld.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Important branch of ethics in contemporary society. Includes Medical ethics, Business ethics etc.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Important area in contemporary society: Bioethics#Issues.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Concerns human beings' ethical relationship with the natural environment. A necessary thing.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Article about Principle is actually an extended disambiguation page. Explanation is central concept in philosophy of science.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

An important form of science communication on the age of conspiracy theories, medical quackery and other pseudosciences.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Concept in Hegelian philosophy, covered by Idealism and other articles.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The four tournaments considered the pinnacle of the sport of tennis, as well as the most-revered achievement (winning all four of them in the same year). Sod25 (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Sod25 (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose If something like NASCAR is seen as too specific for this level, then this should too. Rugby World Cup is bad enough. Championships and most leagues are too specific when we don't list many sports or top competitions first. I would prefer something like Grand Prix motorcycle racing, Rallying, Brazilian jiu-jitsu, Hurling, Triathlon, Esports or important historic sports like Chariot racing or Jousting; which should always come first before specific championships. I would infact support more of a cutdown of specific championships and leagues. Only FIFA World Cup, Super Bowl and La Liga, Premier League, UEFA Champions League, Major League Baseball and National Basketball Association are worthwhile enough. Tournaments like The Open Championship and Masters Tournament are just as vital as any tennis tournament too. Then there's other sports events with historic value like Kentucky Derby etc. There's just not enough importance to make these that much important than every other sport topic we don't list. GuzzyG (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Not a bad proposal, but since level 5 exists, I don't think this topic is absolutely necessary at this level. --Thi (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

It is among the largest libraries in the world. Interstellarity (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

It is among the largest libraries in the world. Interstellarity (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

It is among the largest libraries in the world. Interstellarity (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Thackeray is one of the canonical authors of English literature. His main work Vanity Fair has been adapted many times for the film and television. "The narrative skill, subtle characterization, and descriptive power make it one of the outstanding novels of its period." (Britannica) [15] [16] Becky Sharp has been considered one of the most vivid characters in English literature.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose PaulRyanIsWatchingYou (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

More broad than England and Scotland. Interstellarity (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Seems obvious choice, there are many important historical articles why we have to take space for them by such overlaps? Dawid2009 (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Too broad topic. It is reasonable to tell the histories of England, Scotland and Ireland separately. --Thi (talk) 10:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I think it's better to have them listed separately. They are English-speaking countries and this is the English Wikipedia list. Also, I notice you didn't propose moving History of Ireland, even though Ireland is also a British Isle. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

One of the longest standing Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. It was many centuries one of the tallest man-made structures in the world. "It was a technological triumph and is the archetype of all lighthouses since." (Britannica)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. My problems with listing this is that it was completely destroyed hundreds of years ago and there aren't even any ruins left. We don't even really know what it looked like or how tall it really was. We already list the main article on the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World at this level along with the only surviving wonder Great Pyramid of Giza. I think that's enough at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
2. Oppose redundant to the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World at this level. Gizza (talk • voy) 05:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

I realize that this will be a big change in quota. The reason why I'm proposing this is because on our level 3 list, we are close to 100 people on the list. I think using powers of ten, we could reduce the people quota from 2000 to 1000. I understand that it will take a lot of discussion to figure out which people should go and that's OK. We aren't in a rush to complete it. Another possibility for the level 5 list would be to reduce the quota from 15,000 to 10,000 using powers of ten. Since that list is incomplete, I won't bother talking about level 5. I hope we can come into an agreement on what to do with the quota. Interstellarity (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

There has been general consensus here, if you read the archives, that as the list grows and the levels increase, the percentage of biographies making up the total number of vital articles should also increase. I personally agree with this broad principle. If the percentage is static throughout the levels at e.g. 10%, then would have 10 biographies in the top 100 which doesn't make sense to me. It make even less sense if the percentage declines from the top 1,000 to top 10,000, which is what you're suggesting. In practice, the number of biographies on Level 3 is unlikely to go down to 100 because nobody could agree on who to remove, even though there was theoretical support by some people.

Also the other part of this proposal is missing. Where will the 1,000 freed up spots be allocated to? Will every other section have its quota increase equally by one-eighth (so e.g. technology from 700 to 785.5 and geography from 1200 to 1350) or do you want some sections to increase by more than one eighth and others by less? As it stands, I will have to oppose this proposal without a further explanation on how it will be done and justification on why it needs to be done. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

OK @DaGizza,

I am not requesting any changes to the level 3 list of bios since we were able to get close to 100 articles, but not quite there since there was no consensus on what bios to remove considering the recent discussion we had, so I'll leave it at that. I think for level 4, having 10% of the list being bios instead of 20% seems reasonable. For level 5, we could also reduce it to 10% which will be 5,000 bios (or 10,000 bios if the level 5 quota is raised to 100,000. I am also not proposing to add bios to level 1 or 2 considering my failed vital people project. I thought about how to increase quota for the other sections and I was thinking +50 for P&R and Everyday life, +100 for Society, +300 for History and Arts, and +200 for Technology. I hope this clears everything up. These are not concrete proposals and subject to change. Interstellarity (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I likewise oppose per Gizza. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose because there is currently no interest to reduce the quota. More compact list of 1,500 biographies could work in smaller wiki, but English version has for example large Politicians and leaders section with global viewpoint. --Thi (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Level 5 bio section was originally 10,000 but was later raised to 15,000. Increasing the percentage of biographies as the levels go up just seems to work, and I see no compelling argument for changing that. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

History of sport has overlap with History of games. 1896 Summer Olympics is typical topic in primary school (not as P.E subject but on history lessons). We list Ancient Olympic Games but not it. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support [nom]

Oppose

1. Oppose Histories of sport and games are different things. Pierre de Coubertin is listed. --Thi (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

1. Courtbein and 1896 Summer Olynpics, both should be listed at this level. Courtbein is also notable for work listed at List of most expensive books and manuscripts. One of the most expensive books in 19th Century. Dawid2009 (talk) 08:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Prophet which currently is not on the level 5 was suggested as possible good addition to level 3 by some users (User:Lolitart and User:DaGizza) but based on fact we should have consensus to avoid from listing articles like filmmaker, physician or writer; I think revelation is much more suitable for purpose of that list. This is wide topic which pretty much explain role of prophet in Revelation religion. Morover, this also parent article for stuffs mentioned in Category:Apparitions, or Salvation which also is already listed. At this level we list few more specific articles related with Nature worship to Natural religion. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Disclaimer: We list Prophecy at this level but revelation still is premient at this level and introducable. This article include important info: Revealed religions have religious texts which they view as divinely or supernaturally revealed or inspired. which explain difference of revelated religions with others. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I could support a swap with geodesy as per my comments in the archives but not an outright addition. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

1. I had proposed to add it before, yet later the proposal failed (cf. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_51#Add_Figure_of_the_Earth).--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I suggest add one person which represents somehow Volleyball on this list. According to Sport#popularity volleyball is 5-th the most popular sport in the world and the most popular not represented on this list. Current list constain (far too much IMHO) about 100 sportpeople but I have noted there was one representative of Volleyball on GuzzyG's list of 50 sport people: [17]. GuzzyG's choosed Karch Kiraly but I think William G (creator of Volleyball) is more vital. Wikiproject's rating agrees with me. In some accidents founders of sport can be more important than celebrite athletes, I think it is certainly in Volleyball's case, because of this sport is especially important in light of recreation. The list constain James Naismith who de facto only invented game similar to basketball (he did not invented dribbling for example), but was ranked on list 1000 years, 1000 people ahead of Michael Jordan. I think William G. Mrgan has strong "top of representative field" and represents "enough important sport", can be swapped for one or more people when we are under quota and there are so plenty living sportspeople on the list (yes, I know, sport is modernly important human's activity and athletes gers achivements at young age, but I still think there are too many sport living people). So let discuss this...

Support

1. As nominator Dawid2009 (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
2. The inventor of something vital at this level is no doubt vital as well.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support I have a strong opposition to more athletes in general; buy we absolutely need a volleyball representative. Volleyball, basketball and association football are the only three articles on sports to have 70 million views; thus volleyball is important enough worldwide to have a representative. (especially if we have three for teeny tiny Rugby union). Karch Kiraly would be the only player who would fit; but he is not famous enough to get in probs. So Morgan is the only option; i am incredibly against the notion that sports like Rugby union (which is barely in the Olympics) or American football get three each, while we have many missing sports that are in the olympics. We should be based more in favour of olympics sports and this will help. GuzzyG (talk) 07:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support - Interstellarity (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 10:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I don't think that James Naismith is necessary at this level so I have to oppose. --Thi (talk) 06:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose volleyball is an important sport, but its rather obscure inventor is not. Zelkia1101 (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose per discussion below. Neutral on James Naismith. Gizza (talk • voy) 10:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose It doesn't seem like he did much besides invent the sport. A lot of the content would just overlap with the actual volleyball article, which is already at this level. For comparison, besides inventing basketball, Naismith was also a prominent college coach and laid the foundations for college basketball, which is basically as popular as professional basketball in the US today. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Not vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose swap

Discuss

If this guy is so obscure (compared to other sports figures we list); why does he get 1.3 million pageviews [18]; from as diverse languages as Spanish, Portuguese (Brazil), Indonesian, Thai and Japanese. (where volleyball is mega popular); he gets more pageviews than most of the Rugby players (only prominent in English too) here [19] and here [20]. Dare mention the two speed skaters; who are also thoroughly beat [21] and [22]. Volleyball is a major team sport, popular across the globe and in the olympics, more important than alot of the sports here. It deserves a rep. It's bad on us that American football, a extremely isolated non-olympic sport has more coverage than a major one like this. I could list many other of the sports people we list too - .... how is he unknown compared to the standards with others on this list? If him getting beat out in English disproves his vitality to English than Ingemar Stenmark faces the same issue [23]. This will be common with olympic sports; they are not always big in Anglo English speaking countries; but they are important to the history of sports; how many people have single handedly created a Olympic sport? Kanō Jigorō is another one (and it doesnt matter if a random American does not know him; as a founder of an Olympic sport; he will always be important in sports history... more so than a Jerry Rice on a global sense). If this guy is too obscure to list; can we cut down sports figures to like 50.. i'd be down for that - but at 97 - volleyball needs one. It's one of only 3 sports at 70 mil pageviews itself... (although not popular in the US so irrelevant here i gues like handball and water polo) GuzzyG (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

You're laying it on a bit thick. The guy gets roughly 125 daily pageviews on English Wikipedia. Obviously if you input any figure and examine their stats for all translations of their biography on Wikipedia, they are going to appear to be more relevant than they actually are. I would agree that we have far too many sportsmen articles, and we should cut them down to a more managable number. Figures like Morgan should not be added for the sake of "representing" certain sports. The point about this being a list of all subjects and domains across Wikipedia is that if a sport is vital enough it should be listed on the higher rungs. We do not need people to represent things. Zelkia1101 (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

No, you just flat out do not understand the reality of this list in sports figures; this guy is middle of the pack. [24]. There's nothing out of place with this guy. The whole point of the sports list was to cover the many popular sports. Otherwise there is no justification for a Colin Meads or Ingemar Stenmark; obviously American sports media is going to push their sports; but it does not mean other sports popular around the globe in the Olympics are not as vital to list; you have a very American centric view. He fits into any sport popular in any country not in the US. You seem to hate diversity and quotas that you see as some kind of imposition on this list; but that does not mean that it's just flat out wrong to say this guy is anything different to what we cover here; you just seem to hate something new being covered (nurses, women sculptors, chefs, volleyball etc); it's only odd you consider these people as obscure; but more obscure William Jones (philologist) is on your 500. [25] and he gets less than even Morgan, globally (yeah, yeah technical achievement - like Morgan didn't invent a whole field...). It comes across as picking and choosing based on what you personally are into; rather than any actual consistent reason because you continually call people obscure yet you yourself include mega obscure people in your higher lists and that makes it hard to take seriously (especially as most of these "obscure" people perfectly fit into the standards of this list). GuzzyG (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you actually read my post. I don't think that Morgan should be on this list, but neither should Meads or Stenmark. We have to many sports people. I don't care that he is middle of the pack. The pack is too large and we need to poach from its numbers. Also, volleyball is pretty popular in the U.S., so I don't know what you are getting at. William Jones (philologist) actually happens to net more pageviews on English wikipedia than Morgan iirc, but that's besides the point. I actually describe the reasons why I chose Jones to be on the list on the talk page of my vital biographies project. I will note, however, that my project is different from this one, and I use slightly different metrics when evaluating both. For one, my project is biographies alone, which means I do not have to worry about overlap with non-biography articles. That isn't the case for this project, in which Morgan represents a near perfect overlap with volleyball, and he just isn't important or influential enough to get a place on this list. If my list also included general purpose articles like historical linguistics, then I obviously wouldn't have William Jones on my list. But that's not the case for me, so I do allow myself some more obscure figures.

Furthermore, the point about disliking "representation" is that when evaluating a figure for inclusion we should take into account the achievements and influence of the figure themselves rather than attempt to represent every sport or fill every quota. The importance of volleyball as a sport is denoted by the fact that volleyball is a level-4 article. We don't need Morgan to tell us that volleyball is important. Zelkia1101 (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• @GuzzyG: You pointed that Volleyball, Soccer and Basketball are the only sports at all which gets 70 mln views in all languages, yet Volleyball is extremally near to Soccer (practically the same number of pageviews in all languages, AFAIR something like 0,5%-7% difference, I am even not bother to check). So by all that mean I believe this would be preposterous to not have at this level single article for Volleyball other than the Volleyball. Even if we would remove all biographies related with American Football or Rugby Union we will still have competiition for those two sports in everyday section and do not reconpensate the ballance. This guy gets interchangebly the same pageviews what Volleyball World Cups: [26] so I am not buying opposers rationales "I do not care he is middle in views for sports, we need to drastic cut"... This is shortsighted because of most biographies are living people from 20th century, I think this would be fair if Moran was 20th cetury living guy, opposers probably even did not check when he was born. Also, fact that he is American is irreleveant if this is not popular sport in USA, Buddha also was born in Nepal where today is no Buddhism. We don't need Morgan to tell us that volleyball is important. - By this point every serious person would ulitimately admit that we of course do not need to know who is Maradona or Pele (and I am saying as someone who consider Maradona as iredible hero and like Pele, and very much like Brazil) because of Football is team sport and every serious person who studied football would say this is team sport and all individual awards are circus and off. Meanwhile founders of olimpics sport at least always will be milestone even in 2500 year, their impact is not subjective in contrast to celebrites which we are selecting by almost purely ssubjectivecriteria(which athlete is the best and why??). Morgan as death person at least beats article on Volleyball World Cup, Pele as living person does not beat article on FIFA World Cup and is less famous than current players: [27]. By all that mean Morgan probably is best example of biography which meets criteria of uniques and criteria of variety. Volleyball as organised competition for TV is less promient than Cricket but as everyday recreation itis more global than Cricket and most stats (Google trends etc.) favour Volleyball over Cricket. I am disapointed people repatedy oppose it even when we are under quota,.. So I am going to stay neutral in yuou nominations for removal those obscura Cricketers ann Rugby players but if there will appear more chances to add Morgan, then I will oppose for now Cricketers and Rugby players too; just for increase chances for inclusion if Morgan. I have very strong contigent to get this guy, and I would probably support him on list of about 40 sportpeople.. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree; founders of main Olympic sports are very vital - which is why i supported James Naismith and still do and would support Kanō Jigorō and Morgan.. all on a list of 50 too. Athletes are by and large a passing notability; they are based off on statistics and records which are nearly always passed eventually. (which is why all our athletes are almost contemporary). Founders are permanent to sports history in a way most athletes just won't be; Naismith will be important to the history of basketball forever; you can't say that about Magic Johnson. Sports is our weakeast area. We should cover 50 at most. We cover more athletes than pop musicians; despite the fact we list 3 popular musicians on the level 3 list and no athletes among many other discrepancies. It's also hard to argue that Jerry Rice is more important to American football history as a whole than Pete Rozelle or that Ty Cobb had more of a affect on baseball than Kenesaw Mountain Landis but our list is primary athletes biased instead of builders of games or coachs etc. Most editors here are from Anglo countries and thus it's easier to see why a sport like Rugby union; in which it's contemporary greatest player only has 3 million pageviews [28] and is incredibly weak in global standing is covered by three and yet a more popular, more established globally (in the olympics not as a derivative and covered twice in beach volleyball, so most countries are participants!) is covered by none; one would also think a inventor is more vital than a player like Gareth Edwards (who is almost entirely overtaken by Gareth Edwards (director) in most metrics; so doesn't really have primary importance even in his own name). I'm more surprised about; is that we HAD to cover a NZ rugby player [29] to represent NZ Rugby and we HAD to cover a very specific 19th century born fast bowler [30] but when it's time to cover one of the most popular sports outside of Anglo countries; than the arguments are agreed that we don't need people to represent ideas or that obscurity as a 19th century sports figure is out of touch with the list; it's inconsistency and we need to address it on this list; irregardless of Morgan - Barnes and Meads are way too minor; way too obscure for this list and fit better into the 15k list one. Can you really say that Barnes is more important than George Fox? Can we say being specific to NZ history that Meads is more important than Kate Sheppard or Michael Joseph Savage? Te Rauparaha composed Ka Mate which is commonly used in NZ rugby; who would be the better pick? Seru Epenisa Cakobau and George Tupou I would be better picks to cover Oceanic history too. There's no reason to be ultra specific when it comes to Meads or Barnes if we're taking obscurity into factor honestly. The athletes list should of always been primarily based in more global olympic sports rather than ultra specific Anglo team sports; despite the familiarity conveyed to a Anglo audience by a Anglo dominant sports media; if we can't cover a very popular sport like volleyball, we must cut down on more niche ones like Rugby or ones like cricket and American football which are more isolated to a specific locale. NZ is such a small country too; there's no need to cover two people from a sport there. Australia is the bigger country in that area anyway and we cover no Rugby league figures like Dally Messenger or Wally Lewis or Australian rules football figures like Leigh Matthews; despite the Australian football league having high attendance figures too [31]; but rightly we recognize these sports are too specific and regional to list here. Let's not even mention that NASCAR was voted off [32] and it's top driver [33]; yet the same type of people will argue for multiple NZ rugby players or disliking obscurity but favouring A. J. Foyt over Richard Petty for American motorsports. We cover sports in a inconsistent way; i'm in favour of having 50 sports biographies. Meads and Barnes have no place on this list; either way - we miss too many other important figures to list these ultra specific examples. GuzzyG (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: I also agree with you that opposers are inconsisent, in both: opposing that addition and in keeping Naismith on mind as possible option to drop. I probably should mention in my rationale that Naismith in that list was ranked as #293, ahead of #840 Pele (supported by daGizza on list of 130+ biographies), closely to #218 Basho (suggested by Thi on list of 120 people at discussion about Milton), and ahead of Bruce Lee (he even is not on list 1000 years, 1000 people but Zelkia1101 nominated him to level 3). Zelkia1101 choosed Wilt Chamberlain as better death person who represent basketball than Naismith to the list of 500 people what is inconsisent in his decision to choose Paul ahead of Mary on their list of 50 people because of Naismith as founder/direct-constributor-to-history gets quite comparable Google Trends to Chamberlain, meanwhile Paul is overhemigly shadowed by Mary in Google Trends: [34], they are also inconsisten by choosing Elizabeth ahead of Henry if Mary is ahead of Paul in Google Ngrams (in most languages but in English at least during time when breathingly important for bilions people vrsion of pray Hail Mary is introduced, in 16th century), meanwhile Elizabeth always loss with Henry. Regardless of that "BTW off topics" I agree with everything you said above. Volleyball is not very popular in anglophone but due to less isolated impact, olympic sport, and sport popular for twp genders, should have two subtopics "Beach volleyball" and "William G. Morgan", would be prfect choices. American Football also should have two topics "Super Bowl" and "one American player". Below you said about Chinese (Wikipedia is banned in China) Leap (film), which even on English Wikipedia recently gets interchangebly similar pageviews what [35] what Super Bowl LIV halftime show which was for a while on List of most-viewed online videos in the first 24 hours. Volleyball is global olympic sport, popular among two genders so should have at least two subtopics: "Beach volleyball" and article on William G. Morgan. I agree with you 50 biographies is good for sport. It is too bad we have more American players than all founders of olympcs sport (We could create separate category where are founder of Judo, Volleyball, Basketball, there is also founder of modern Olympics listed elsewhere) and the same number of American Footballers what number of all swimmer. Removing alpine ski racer would be terrible, for multiple people on the globe Ski Alpine and Soccer can be two the only regular recreation during season. Ski resort and Mountain hut also should be in everyday section, are better choices than Basque pelota and better than Super Bowl. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Honestly; i just don't think it's worth any time to put much thought into what should be listed or any kind of consistency and method. It's clear by now alot of this seems to be more based on personal opinion and what's current. If something like volleyball, fashion design or ballet don't have strong editor interest; it's not going to be covered well. Having more rugby players than fashion designers speaks to this kind of imbalance; just like we're about to have four people involved in Hong Kong martial arts culture Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Jin Yong and Ang Lee with Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon but no Japanese martial arts or any other martial artists; because things like Rush Hour (1998 film) are mass promoted in the west and that's enough for some. The imbalance speaks to this as action movie stars like Sean Connery and athletes like Colin Meads speaks to wikipedias base more than popular music and people like Whitney Houston so they're covered more; despite all three being the same at their core; very popular with no apparent historic longevity so far. People like Herod the Great, Samuel de Champlain and Henry Hudson are not mass famous; so their votes would not get attention. Or like Kurt Vonnegut being listed before Washington Irving and James Fenimore Cooper; despite the vast difference in historical contribution for American lit. We list every major US Sci-Fi author; but not playwrights like Eugene O'Neill; because O'Neil is not based in contemporary culture. There's many, many inconsistencies like this and if these fail a sport covered globally in non-anglo countries is not gonna make it either. I don't know a fix; but i know volleyball is a long shot and it's probably not worth it to spend extended thought on these lists or seek any kind of consistency if i am being honest either. GuzzyG (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: just like we're about to have four people involved in Hong Kong martial arts culture Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Jin Yong and Ang Lee with Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon but no Japanese martial arts or any other martial artists I would support swap at least one of them with founder of Judo or Ultimate Fighting Champions. It is off topic but BTW UFC gets more subscribers on YouTube than for example FIFATV. I checked your list of 50 spotpeople and I would only made few corrections/disagreements: 1 I would keep Zidane because of he won everything as coach with Real Madrit and CR7 achivemented nothing until Zidane joined to the team as coach. 2I would prefer keep man Field Hockey player and swap woman Field Hockey player for Marta (footballer) or Handball woman player (She is living and last viewed biography on the level 4. I do not think we have room for her, is she really more culturally influential than say Witney Houstoy or "famous" died figures like Pocahntas?) 3I think we could have one golf player and elsewhere I would try also pick father of Bodybuilding who is slightly more famous than Morgan but has worse technical achivement IMHO (Morgan is in the Volleyball hall of fame, father of bodybuilding is not that important, bodybuilding were existing before him and there are also other sportpeople like "father of zumba" etc.) 4We would add Carlsen instead Fisher and Kasparov 5I think we could reconsider 60-70 quota for sportpeople, I noted you did not included R9 Ronaldo on your list. He was ranked in 2008 as second greatest football player of all time by Association of Football statisticians ([36] - I assume they hardly found algorithm whih gave him points for scoring 15 goals in history of World up, it was recntly broken by Klose) ahead of #6 Maradona and #55 Ronaldinho, he is very often considered as the most talented football player of all time as he was the tyoungest Ballon d Ir winner in histroy, despite living in modern era of soccer and he is known for style of playing enjoable for eyes. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

ISIS does not have legal/formal autonomy in Syria, Iraq and Nigeria for example, and yet it maintains a greater relevance than catalonia under the same conditions of European and state funding. Phuphusi (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Catalonia is vital as a unique cultural and linguistic region. The level of political autonomy it has is not as relevant. Islamic State may be vital but I believe articles in similar territory like Taliban and Al-Qaeda are higher up in importance (been around for a much longer time for one). I also think we should have separate articles on the Soviet and US invasions of Afghanistan. Right now we have one covering both despite them being distinct historical events. Gizza (talk • voy) 02:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose removal. I agree with the above comment by DaGizza. Also, this nomination is in the wrong section. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Most famous work of Chinese author Sima Qin. First of its kind of historical record in Chinese History. C933103 (talk) 07:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 07:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss