Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Add Ahmad Shah Massoud

Seriously, this guy is not a vital article? Not only did Massoud led a guerrilla war against the Soviet Union and the Taliban, the dude is considered a national hero. Saturdayopen (talk) 06:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Saturdayopen (talk) 06:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
2. Probably the most well known Afghan personnality of the XXth century and still relevant to this day. Larrayal (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Vazgen Sargsyan

Alright, this is getting annoying. How did the Armenian military leader for the Nagorno-Karabakh War who later became Prime Minister managed to avoid being on here? Saturdayopen (talk) 07:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Saturdayopen (talk) 07:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Swap Jimmy Sham for Martin Lee or Anson Chan

If I had to devise a list of noteworthy Hong Kong activists, Jimmy Sham would be nowhere near the top of the list. Martin Lee is widely recognised as the father of democracy in Hong Kong. Alternatively, Anson Chan is the first ethnic Chinese to serve in the number two position within the Hong Kong government. Either is a much more significant politician and activist than Sham is. I say this as the editor who created the article for Sham. feminist #WearAMask😷 17:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. Swap for Martin Lee. feminist #WearAMask😷 17:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
2. Swap for Martin Lee is fine. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Quota too low?

I understand GuzzyG hasn't finished revising this part of the list. Nevertheless, I'm surprised that the quota for this section is so low. For example, 76 people are listed under chemistry and 113 people are listed under medicine. However, Category:Nobel laureates in Chemistry contains 185 people and Category:Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine contains 220 people. Given how obscure some of the people on other parts of the list are, I would've thought every Nobel laureate should automatically make the list. Moreover, since Nobel Prizes have only been awarded since 1901, and there are many scientists who as vital as any Nobel laureate but never received the prize, these categories ought to be even bigger. I'd suggest the final list should contain at least 300 people in both categories. If we keep the same proportions as the level 4 list, where chemists make up 10% of the scientists, this implies a quota of 3000 scientists, inventors and mathematicians on this level is reasonable. The current target number of 1100 seems much too low.

I realize on level 4, scientists only make up 12.5% of the people, while I'm suggesting they ought to make up 20% of the 15,000 people on level 5. I think it's fair to scale up the section this way. Few scientific discoveries are made by a single person: almost every Nobel Prize these days is shared, for example, and in almost every year there is a kerfuffle about someone else who ought to also have shared the prize but didn't get to. This makes it really challenging to suggest scientists for level 4 – a lot of people who co-discovered massively important things get left out completely because it's impossible to say one is more vital than the other, and the list is too short to have both. On level 5, that should be much less of a problem.

Maybe I'm just biased in favour of scientists. But I don't think so. For example, for musicians, we apparently have enough room among musicians to have Peter Sculthorpe represent Australian classical music composers. Meanwhile, Australia's only Chemistry Nobel laureate (John Cornforth) and seven of its eight Medicine laureates are unlisted: three of whom, Macfarlane Burnet, John Eccles (neurophysiologist), and Peter C. Doherty, have been named Australian of the Year, along with Cornforth. I actually rather like the choice of Sculthorpe (although he probably shouldn't have been listed ahead of Percy Grainger), because I performed his music recently in two online concerts for North American audiences (where he is unknown), but do any Australians here think he was ever Australian of the Year material? Meanwhile, based on my academic training, I think I can safely say that a majority of North American organic chemists will at least have heard of Cornforth's name. These scientists matter, and not just in Australia. (I'm focusing on Australians because I know GuzzyG's from Australia and is usually careful to include notable Australians in every field, while I'm not and have no skin in the game.) And you don't have to just take my word for all this: page views-wise, Sculthorpe is also less popular than most of the Nobel laureates.

This also calls into question whether the other quotas are scaled appropriately. I have specifically politicians in mind: on level 4, they make up 25% of the people. We made some extremely tough cuts to politicians on level 4, so this is another section I would've expected to scale more than proportionately at level 5. But 25% of the level 5 quota of 15,000 people equals 3750 people, which is already more than the current target number of 2300. The level 4 list also had two politicians for every scientist. Combining that ratio with my suggested quota of 3000 scientists would result in a quota of 6000 politicians.

I imagine there was some previous discussion that led to the current quotas. If someone could point me to them, that would be great. It's not my intention to get involved with building this list – I simply don't have the time for it – but these quotas just seem off to me, and I thought I'd say my two cents. Cobblet (talk) 05:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I pretty much agreed with everything you said. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't see this before i quit from the level 4 list, i don't check the level 5 list page at all - cause the lists a disaster imo. (my fault). But the level 4 talk page history is my homepage, so i am only up to date on that talk. Sorry for the super late reply. I agree with everything you said, no doubt. I know coming from Aus it's suss to add Aussies but it's purely out of my "one person from every field/continent" philosophy - if i could find some people from the pacific countries i'd include them, but when i did in politics they were removed. I actually removed Grainger for Sculthorpe, reasoning being Grainger made music for the English - i thought they were both border cases so better to go with the one who represents Aus music better and there was no competition like Grainger has with other UK composers. I think 3000 scientists is a bit too much though, that means writers would have to be 3000 as well to match the level 4 list.

My ideal would be;

1. 1900 writers/journalists
2. 2000 Artists/musicians
3. 1800 Entertainers/filmmakers
4. 1200 social scientists
5. 700 religious figures
6. 2800 politicians
7. 800 military figures/activists
8. 2000 scientists
9. 900 Sports
10. 900 Misc

This should gut alot of the junk/rot and make the list alot less embarrassing. I'm willing to do it all - but would like some suggestions (like what awards to add people from) for scientists because obviously i'm no where near knowledgeable in science - i added everyone that won the Nobel physics award and gave up because i knew the quota wasn't going to fit the other awards - plus i put up alot of junk in medicine/invention when i was more reckless, so they will be cleaned up too. There's only 5 things i ask for -

1. every country listed at List of sovereign states from Afghanistan to Transnistria + Greenland and Faroe Islands gets one rep in politics (certainly this is reasonable - everyone should be represented by this list)
2. every pope from the year 1500+ atleast
3. law figures to be moved to social science where they belong
4. that there's still a sizable space for non-english artists/entertainers - that the cuts won't hit them. I'll do the cuts but i mean i hope noone complains if someone like Olivia Newton-John is cut but someone like Pumpuang Duangjan stays.
5. That if we're adding every Nobel winner - we should try and fit most of the modern leaders from countries who meet in the G20. I know it looks sus i'm from Aus but if you want a "non-Aus" rule can apply. But we have every modern US/UK/France leader and it wouldn't be bad to expand that to India/China/Brazil/Nigeria/Russia/Japan/Mexico/Germany etc

Either way - i left this list very bad off and i think it can turn respectable, i truly care about documenting everything in every area of human activity but i rushed history a bit and added alot of newer stuff/niche stuff. Either way i wanna take responsibility for this mess, clean it up and make it look good. I know discussion has went bad previously, but i'm in full agreement with everything and won't be combative anymore, it's such a mess it's embarrassing so i want to fix it ASAP. @Cobblet: and @DaGizza:, i pinged you both because it was a old discussion, sorry if it's annoying and you don't have to reply. I just want to know if i change around the quotas ASAP and start cutting/fixing all of this, if not that's ok. GuzzyG (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Why "every pope from the year 1500+ atleast"? C933103 (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Redistribution proposal

My idea on quota redistribution: There are now 3 main types of people on the list: art and entertainment, society and philosophy, and science and exploration.

Art and entertainment includes 1.1 to 1.3, 1.9, 1.10.5-6, and 1.10.9-12, which have a current combined quota of 7730, society and philosophy includes 1.4 to 1.7, and also 1.10.1/3/4/13/15, which have a current combined quota of 6254, while science and exploration includes 1.8 and 1.10.2/7/14/16, which have a current quota of 1446. In addition to 20 quota in "other" part of 1.10. I suggest mass redistributing the quota to be 5000-5000-5000 each (or 3333-3333-3333 in case of 20% quota), with the articles currently in "other" individually redistributed within each of the subcategories.C933103 (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Baseball Players Changes

I feel like the current list of baseball players is incomplete and not fully representative of the biggest players of the sport, specifically with a bias against Negro League players and modern players. There's currently 2 active players (Mike Trout and Shohei Ohtani), despite people like Albert Pujols and Justin Verlander being as, if not more, influential than them. There's also only two players who played a majority of their career in the Negro Leagues (Josh Gibson and Satchel Paige), although counting anyone who played a full season Willie Mays and Jackie Robinson are also included. There's also some players from the 20th century who just aren't included despite being fully deserving. I have a couple additions/removals which may better represent the sport. Elipticon (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Remove Jean Faut, Dorothy Kamenshek, Sophie Kurys, and Jackie Mitchell

I'm grouping all 4 of them together because they're all very similar and are being removed for similar reasons. While the contributions of women to baseball is important to recognize, it was the AAGPBL itself, not any star players, which made an impact on baseball. There are plenty of other players who are less obscure than the 4 I'm nominating here. Elipticon (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. As Nominator Elipticon (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Ed Walsh

He was a great pitcher, but as a deadball pitcher who was also a workhorse, his stats were somewhat inflated. Going by Wins Above Replacement he's at roughly the same tier as players like Roy Halladay. Great, but not the best of the best that should be here. Elipticon (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. As Nominator Elipticon (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Eddie Collins

1914 MVP, career leader in sacrifice hits, 3000 hits, most WAR of any player not on the list already. Elipticon (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. As Nominator Elipticon (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Albert Pujols

2001 Rookie of the Year, 3-time MVP, 3000 hits, 680 home runs, about 100 WAR. He'll probably be inducted into the Hall of Fame as soon as he becomes eligible. Elipticon (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. As Nominator Elipticon (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Justin Verlander

2-time Cy Young winner, 2011 MVP, 3000 strikeouts, 300 wins, arguably the best pitcher of the last 20 years. Elipticon (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. As Nominator Elipticon (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Clayton Kershaw

Was top 5 in Cy Young voting every year from 2011-2017, including 3 wins and the 2014 MVP. He's nearing 3000 strikeouts and will get there in 2-3 season barring injuries or heavy regression. One of the best players of the 2010s. Elipticon (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. As Nominator Elipticon (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

1. @Elipticon:Kershaw is currently listed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

   My bad, I'll retract the nomination. Elipticon (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Add Cool Papa Bell

Incredibly influential Negro League player who's in the top 30 of stolen bases despite playing half as many games as anyone else due to shorter schedules and spending a few years out of the country. Probably the most well known Negro League player who never joined the MLB, besides Gibson. Elipticon (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. As Nominator Elipticon (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Weightlifting Section Changes

The Weightlifting section is missing some key weightlifting additions, and has sports figures that have never competed in weightlifting. Hamma085 (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Add Halil Mutlu

One of four weightlifters with 3 Olympic gold medals, 5 time World Champion, 10 time European Champion, set over a dozen world records. He is one of the most decorated weightlifters of all time. Hamma085 (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Discuss

Add Kakhi Kakhiashvili

One of four weightlifters with 3 Olympic gold medals, 3 time World Champion, 4 time European Champion. Hamma085 (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Discuss

Add new section for Strongman/Powerlifting

This is due to the fact that 3 of the most influential figures in Strongman and Powerlifting are in the weightlifting section (Ed Coan, Bill Kazmaier, and Louis Cyr) when they have never competed in an international weightlifting tournament. Hamma085 (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support, a reasonable precision. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

General discussion

@Hamma085: At the stage we are at on this level you can just add articles yourself, but before adding those you have to consider that we already have reached the prescribed quota of seven in weightlifting. You could propose a change in quota but what would be better is if you considered if these weightlifters are more vital that the ones on the list already. I have no opinion on the section split but if it happens the quota for weightlifting should probably reduce to four. J947^{'s public account} 01:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

What J said. Identify two other sportspeople you believe should be removed and propose a swap pbp 02:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Sport quotas and diversity

IMO there are several important points:

1. Earlier @Hamma085: suggested to make new section for strongmen. I also found one cross fit person in athlets section.
2. Ballance beetwen handball goelkeepers (more notable goalkeepers than in other team sports in comprasion to field players) and Bowling players
3. One ski jumper but 30 figure skaters, C'mon, @Piotrus:, @Makkool:, @Thi: @LaukkuTheGreit: You four are from countries where this sport is popular (based on your userpages in native wikis), what do you think about that? While figure skating is notable sport (also dominated by womenwhat is important for this list) ski jumping in some countries is top winter sport I would said that for example one of the most common in Slovenia and Poland.
4. When we list for example two Australian football coaches I think someone like Martin Strel could be included to this list.
5. While number of sport people is high in comprasion to sport industry, sport clubs, events games etc at life section I would prefer not cut sport for now. I think we should first start complete this section. Beyond that if I anything cut, tenativelly I would prefer to cut every team sport -5 % (for esample soccer: 110-->105, Cricket: 60-55) where we list many mid-importance articles by wikiproject instead niche sports. There are sports which have superficial coerage (for example skiing) but some sports such like competitive eating at least do not deserve for separate categories ( Even though I am aware how Takeru Kobayashi is famous, he fits to DYK, not for featured article) I would consider just making categories more wide just as in User:SethAllen623/Vital articles/Expanded/Sports figures and I would support increase quota of religion people or businesspeople but only if other users would agree that team sports are better covered than many niches sports. Dawid2009 (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

My "Strength athletics" section shouldve never been renamed weightlifting. Crossfit is athletics. Handball goalkeepers are not vital. Ski jumping is a niche sport compared to figure skating. Martin Strel is just not one of the 20 most important swimmers. I disagree on the rest; as you can see on the music/arts section, i'm working on the fluff but it takes time. Sports and every other section will be done. GuzzyG (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Increase in gymnastics quotas

As a gymnastics fan, I find it interesting how some gymnasts have been left out of the 25/25 quota in favor of others. Some gymnasts are essential to understanding the history/evolution of the sport and should be considered as vital as current gymnasts on this list (Simone Biles, Vera Caslavska, Nadia Comaneci, Larisa Latynina, etc). I strongly believe that Svetlana Boginskaya, Oksana Chusovitina, and Svetlana Khorkina should be considered vital articles. I also believe that as long as Elena Zamolodchikova is a vital article, Catalina Ponor and Rebeca Andrade should be as well. I am seeking one's approval to increase the quota limit, as the current quota is full. TheWAGymFan (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Tennis

Replace Guillermo Vilas with Maria Bueno

Guillermo Vilas is a former world No. 2 with 4 Grand Slam wins (some argue that he actually was No. 1 but it is not reflected yet in the official rankings). On the other hand, Maria Bueno is a former No. 1 (in 1959), with 7 singles Grand Slam wins (3 Wimbledons, 4 US Opens) and a calendar Grand Slam in doubles (in 1960, with 11 doubles Grand Slam wins in total). So her resume is a lot more impressive than Vilas's, and if there is a need for a South American player in this list she is a much more deserving candidate to fill this slot. --Deinocheirus (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with adding Bueno, but I'd rather keep Vilas and get rid of Etchebaster, who is not even a tennis player. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. --MarioGom (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Consider replacing Li Na with Naomi Osaka

Despite both winning a couple of Grand Slams in their careers, Li Na has never been a No. 1 while Naomi Osaka already reached the top position in the world rankings while most of her career is still ahead of her. There is no doubt that her record is more impressive. Yes, Li Na has been voted to the Hall of Fame by her fans, but is having fans a good enough reason to be included in the list of 50 most important players of all times? I don't think so, otherwise Kournikova should be included as well. --Deinocheirus (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'd rather keep Li Na because she has had more of an impact on women's tennis and tennis in China (and Asia) in general. The Wuhan Open -- the only annual women-only Premier 5 (or above) tournament -- was started there because that is Li Na's hometown. Since her retirement, China also secured the right to host the WTA Finals, where they award a higher payout to the winner than any other men's or women's event. In general, Li Na is regarded as popularizing tennis in China. Osaka might have that kind of impact in Japan down the road, or maybe she'll just win a few more Grand Slams, but not yet. (And also, the HOF fan vote has little effect on whether someone gets inducted.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Consider replacing Kim Clijsters with Bobby Riggs

Both Kim Clijsters and Bobby Riggs are former world No. 1s, both for pretty short periods of time (Clijsters for total of 20 weeks, Rigggs for incomplete 1 year in 1939). They have similar record in terms of Grand Slam wins (4 for Clijsters, 3 for Riggs), both are Hall of Fame inductees, both have additional achievements (Clijsters has been world No. 1 in doubles, while Riggs won the triple crown at 1939 Wimbledon - thus being a member of pretty exclusive club with just Budge and Sedgman, - and also has been world Pro No. 1 in 1946—1947). So no big difference in terms of achievements, but a huge difference in terms of high profile, although for all wrong reasons. Remember that Riggs was the moving force behind the historical Battle of the Sexes; yes, he was playing the role of a villain, but without him, where would be women's tennis now? Nobody knows but it would pretty sure be lagging behind its current status. There is an additional reason to prefer Riggs over Clijsters: her era (first decade of 2000s) is pretty well covered in the list (both Williams sisters, Hingis, Henin, Capriati, Sharapova are included) while his (1930s) not so much. We have Budge and Perry, and that's it - no Henri Cochet, no Gottfried von Cramm, no Grand Slam-almost-winner Jack Crawford. So a third name definitely wouldn't hurt. If not Riggs, then perhaps Crawford? --Deinocheirus (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The Tennis quotas will be updated soon with Riggs and Bueno to be added, i'm just working on another section right now. Li Na is the only representative from China so she's staying. Cochet and von Cramm will be added too along with the likes of Anthony Wilding, Lottie Dod, and William Larned all of whom are more important than Riggs etc. GuzzyG (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to compare these two players, as they are very different and made totally different contributions to tennis. In general, as of now, Open Era players are better represented than pre-Open Era players. Though, men's tennis players seem to be better represented than women's tennis players of that era. There are eight men (Renshaw, Sears, Tilden, Lacoste, Budge, Perry, Gonzales, and Emerson) and only three women (Lenglen, Wills, and Connolly; and Bueno would make four). If we were to add Riggs, Crawford, or Cochet, I'd rather remove a men's player from that era (probably Sears). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Coaches

Since just one slot is allocated to tennis, I would like to suggest a discussion. Currently this slot is occupied by Nick Bollettieri. He is no doubt successful coach but the fact that he has been nominated to the Hall of Fame several times before finally being inducted suggests that he is also a rather controversial figure. Wouldn't it be better to replace him with Harry Hopman who was by any standard no less successful (having worked with an entire generation of great Australian players in 1950s and 1960s), and not just inducted to the HoF but also had a rather popular competition (Hopman Cup) named after him? Definitely a higher-profile professional. --Deinocheirus (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Which subsections for sports?

The People/Sports page lacks structure. How should the entries be grouped?

1. Air sports
2. Athletics
3. Ball sports: sub-subsections: team, individual
4. Extreme sports
5. Martial arts and Fighting
6. Racing sports
7. Riding
8. Running
9. Shooting and Hunting
10. Strength based sports
11. Water sports
12. Winter sports
13. Mountaineering and Climbing
14. Niche
15. eSports
16. Others

Is anything misssing? Do we need to group Olympic disciplines separately? --Spaced about (talk) 09:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Association football

Add Sergio Ramos

Hello,

Currently, there are only four defenders among the 60 european footballers (Baresi, Beckenbauer, Moore and Maldini) : barely enough to make a team ! Moreover, there is only Casillas from the generation that won 2 euros and the world cup. Sergio Ramos has most appeareance in the Spanish team, has won 4 Champion's League in the main team, has been 11 times in the FIFPro World11 and 8 times in the UEFA Team of the Year. He also has revolutionized the position, having scored more than 100 times over his career and more than 10 times in one season of Liga last year. He also is often viewed as one the best defenders of all times. I'm not sure with whom to swap him with, though. Maybe Ricardo Zamora, for a Spaniard vs a Spaniard ?

Regards, --Charlestpt (talk) 12:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Add Hannah Glasse

Her cookbooks had a huge impact on English and American cooking. Her most famous cookbook The Art of Cookery Made Plain and Easy was the bestselling cookbook of the 18th century, and was still very popular throughout much of the 19th century.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support. For the 50,000 most notable topics, we can include some few in the culinary field. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Spindletop and Texas oil boom

Spindletop and the Texas oil boom are 2 important parts of Texas history. Texas oil boom is a good article on Wikipedia. They can go under the History of United States or the History of Texas section in the Vital articles. Also, the level 5 vital articles history section isn't close to being finished.

Support for Spindletop

1. Support per nom VItalArticleHelper (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Spindletop

Support for Texas oil boom

1. Support per nom VItalArticleHelper (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC) 2. Support this but not the other as event is preferable to site J2m5 (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

1. Support Dimadick (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Texas oil boom

Discussion

• Thinking maybe one or the other, but not both. Probably the boom, of the two. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Americas

Cueva de las Manos

Cueva de las Manos is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and an important archaeological site in South America. It is the most famous prehistoric site in Argentina. The site is very important archeologically speaking because of its age and its portrayal of Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene South American life and art through paintings and remains of habitation at the site, which give invaluable archaeological insights into the lives of ancient South Americans. The age of the paintings dates back as far as 13,000–9,000 BP, and the authenticity of the site is undisputed. Therefore, it has been added to the list. Tyrone Madera (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Remove Emu War

Support

1. Support as nom, though it may break my heart.Hppavilion1 (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Of the 14 major events currently listed under 20th century Oceania, this one has the most recognition value due to its internet popularity, lending weight to its significance due to cultural value. Also, per Hppavilion1. Tyrone Madera (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Iconic event in Oceania's history. Dimadick (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I mean.

Come on. Hppavilion1 (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Add Kingdom of Portugal

Support

• As nominator – this seems like a shoe in, surely? It's high-importance on WP Middle Ages and Portugal. I'm not sure whether VA policy needs it to go here or post-classical history. J2m5 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

1. Oppose It started the Age of Discovery and created one of the earliest colonial empires. Dimadick (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

... @Dimadick: Aren't those reasons for its inclusion? The Kingdom of Portugal was one of the most powerful states in early modern history, I'm not sure why it's not included here. I'm arguing that it be added, not removed, if that's where we have gotten confused? J2m5 (talk) 06:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

1. Support Suprised its not on the list already Tai123.123 (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add 1890 British Ultimatum

Support

• As per nom J2m5 (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• This is an important aspect of European colonial history and British–Portuguese relations.

Add Pink Map

Support

• As nominator – see nomination of 1980 British Ultimatum J2m5 (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Poor coverage of C20th Portuguese history

Some articles that could perhaps be added:

• 5 October 1910 revolution
• Lisbon Regicide
• First Portuguese Republic
• Ditadura Nacional
• Estado Novo (Portugal)
• Carnation Revolution
• Portuguese transition to democracy

J2m5 (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Add White Australia policy

Support

• As nom. Key aspect of Australian social history. J2m5 (talk) 02:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Stolen Generations

Support

• As nominator, shoe-in for Australian C20th history. J2m5 (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Breakup of Yugoslavia

Add Counterculture of the 1960s

Hugely important period within culture during the 20th century.

Support

1. Support as nom. Roniius^{talk to me} 09:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Often described era in films and other instances. --Thi (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
4. support C933103 (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Xinjiang re-education camps

Remove 2019 Samoa measles outbreak

While I'm flattered that an article I created is a vital article, I simply just don't see how it could be considered vital.

Support

1. Support, as nominator Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Add Mayon Volcano in Geography/Physical > Terrestrial features > Land relief > Mountain peaks > Asia

Geography by locations articles

Remove Pitt Island

As a New Zealander, it's pretty tough to believe that Pitt (which most NZers would never have heard of likely) is more important than a city like Tauranga or Nelson. J947^{'s public account} 23:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. J947^{'s public account} 23:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza (talk • voy) 03:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support agree,  Carlwev  15:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Swap: remove Westmorland, add Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt

Based on Friedrich Günther, Prince of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt is going to be removed I suggest to swap Westmorland for Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt and also review this list. It is very odd that we do not list subdivision like Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes but subdivisions from Switzerland.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Makkool (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition: Historically small state pbp 22:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Research Triangle

One of the largest STEM concentrations in the eastern US. As a region anchored by multiple cities, this is more suitable to be added as a region than a city.

Support

1. As nominator. feminist (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove East North Central states, East South Central states, Mountain states, Pacific states, South Atlantic states, West North Central states, West South Central states

Census Bureau Divisions that have little practical significance. Pacific states, for example, is much less common than and redundant to West Coast of the United States. This is to be contrasted with New England and Mid-Atlantic (United States), the two Divisions that have entered common parlance.

Support

1. As nominator. feminist (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Remove some, keep some

• Remove East North Central states, East South Central states, West North Central states, West South Central states, but keep Mountain states, Pacific states, South Atlantic states. I believe some of these are in more common parlance than others. pbp 17:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  They may be more common, but I still don't think they reach Level 5 significance. feminist (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with pbp that at least those 3 should remain listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

1. Oppose I feel that regions are more important than individual states. Dimadick (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Great Lakes region

There are two major subregions of the Midwestern United States: the Great Plains (Lv 4 physical) and the Great Lakes. pbp 17:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 17:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
3. Support Dimadick (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

• Comment Great Lakes is Level 3, but those are the lakes themselves. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Remove Keelung

suburb of Taipei. We already have two cities in the Taipei metropolitan area. Viztor (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

1. Oppose Physically distinct and serves as northern Taiwan's largest seaport. I'd rather remove New Taipei City if we have too many cities in the Taipei metropolitan area, as it is basically suburban Taipei legally administered as a separate city. feminist (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Keelung is Northern Taiwan's port city C933103 (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Cities

Scotland Cities - add Dundee

There are 7 cities in Scotland. By population size they are Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Dundee, Perth, Inverness and Stirling.

At present Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen are included in Vital_articles/Level/5/Geography/Cities#Scotland but Dundee is not.

I would suggest that Dundee should be included as it has more in common with the 3 other "Large cities" in Scotland than with the smaller cities of Perth, Inverness and Stirling.

Evidence: Dundee has ancient Royal Burgh status and has had City Status since 1889 whereas the other smaller Scottish cities are late 20th and early 21st century creations. Dundee is one of the four Scottish cities with a ceremonial Lord Provost (equivalent to English Lord Mayor). 23 of the 25 English cities with Lord Mayors are included in the Level 5 city list. List_of_lord_mayoralties_and_lord_provostships_in_the_United_Kingdom The Scottish Government's Urban Rural Classification distinguishes between Large Urban Areas and other Urban Areas with Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee being the four areas classed as Large Urban Areas. https://www2.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/About/Methodology/UrbanRuralClassificationAndrewdpcotton (talk) 13:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Right now you can add it by yourself most of the time at this level with out the need to ask. This however, is not most of the time as we have reached the quota in cities. If you want to add Dundee it is best to see what should be removed to accommodate it. Happy Festivities! // J947 ^(c) 19:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• We should probably set quotas for them. pbp 22:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Quotas for the subsections were already set. There is room for Dundee in the Scotland subsection, so I support the addition. --Spaced about (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support

I agree, regardless of formal decisions by the authorities, in practice most Scottish people tend to think of there being four cities in Scotland: Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee. Also Dundee briefly overtook Aberdeen at the third city in Scotland by population at the 1971 census, although it lost it at the next census. PatGallacher (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Replace Mesa, Arizona with Flagstaff, Arizona

Mesa is just One of several suburbs of Phoenix. Flagstaff is a significant city that represents a very different part of Arizona (environmentally and culturally) compared to Tucson or Phoenix.   // Timothy :: talk  01:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. (strongly support)   // Timothy :: talk  01:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose; don't think Flagstaff is quite important enough. Mesa is marginal; if we need to add a city Asia/Africa is the best place right now. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 01:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

• Hi J947 //agree on Africa, but was curious what area of Asia do you feel is lacking? (honest question from someone that doesn't know that much about Asia). Hope all is well.   // Timothy :: talk  04:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Remove either Norfolk, Virginia or Virginia Beach, Virginia

Norfolk and Virginia Beach are suburbs of each other.   // Timothy :: talk  01:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. (moderate support, think it merits consideration)   // Timothy :: talk  01:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. They are the largest and second largest cities in Virginia respectively. I think they're important enough to keep listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

1. Oppose. They may have grown together, but are distinct entities, with separate governments and transit systems.

dswadon (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2021 (MDT)

Discuss

Add Pasadena, California

Pasadena has a significant history and cultural life.

Support

1. As nom. (moderate support, think it merits consideration)   // Timothy :: talk  01:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose; don't really think it's big enough and different enough from LA. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 01:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

• fyi nom is from Los Angeles (not Pasadena), but I have a bias.   // Timothy :: talk  01:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Remove Fort Lauderdale, Florida

I don't see how this is a vital article that stands out significantly from Miami or its surrounding suburbs.

Support

1. As nom. (moderate support, think it merits consideration)   // Timothy :: talk  01:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
2. pbp 03:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Fort Lauderdale is a major international tourist destination in its own right. We probably have enough cities in the LA metropolitan area already, though I won't be opposed to swap one currently on the list with another one. feminist (talk) free Hong Kong 15:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Wheeling, West Virginia

West Virginia seems very underrepresented, only Charleston, West Virginia listed, Wheeling has a rich history and represents a part of WV very different from Charleston.   // Timothy :: talk  01:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom (strongly support).   // Timothy :: talk  01:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Simply not an important enough city to list. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Rreagan, pbp. feminist (talk) free Hong Kong 15:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

The reason West Virginia is underrepresented is because it doesn't have large cities. pbp 16:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Add Leiden and Haarlem

I was very surprised to find that the list of Dutch cities does not include Leiden and Haarlem. Both cities are as relevant as the other cities on the list, and arguably (considerably) more relevant than the currently listed city of Tilburg. Both cities have immense historical and cultural relevance. Both were and are important economical hubs in the Netherlands, especially during the Dutch Golden Age. Their historical inner cities are among the largest and best-preserved in the country, including nationally known museums and massive historic churches. Both cities were besieged in the Eighty Years' War, and in general played a vital role throughout Dutch history. Leiden contains the oldest and most prestigious university of the Netherlands, played an important role in the history of science, and was home to painters such as Rembrandt and Jan Steen, and academics such as Herman Boerhaave, Hugo Grotius, Jacobus Arminius and even Albert Einstein. Haarlem is a provincial capital, was home to Frans Hals and the associated Haarlem school of Golden Age painting. It used to be one of the largest cities of the Netherlands in early modern times. It contains the largest cathedral of the Netherlands and remains an important city in the Roman Catholic Church as seat of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Haarlem-Amsterdam. Finally, both cities are among the 20 largest of the Netherlands (which seems to be one of the criteria for the other Dutch cities included on the current list). Ealuscerwen (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Ealuscerwen (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Annecy

Hello. First of all, there is room in Western Europe in terms of cities (164/175). Annecy is one of the biggest winter sports cities in Europe and the 29th biggest city in France. It also has an important role in history, being the home of dukes of Geneva and then Savoy for centuries. Regards, --Charlestpt (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --Charlestpt (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Encyclopédie

Add Inca architecture

Support

1. As nom. Now that Maya architecture and Aztec architecture are listed, it is illogical not to include it.--RekishiEJ (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 09:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Arch of Titus

Support

1. As nom. Since it has provided the general model for many triumphal arches built since the 16th century (according to the lede), it is no doubt vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Webcomics

The digital art section is over-quota, and it currently has 9 examples of web-comics listed. I am asking for your opinions on should we keep them on this list or not. We could remove them, or perhaps move them to another section with free alloted slots, like in the internet subsection of Society.

Remove webcomics

Support

1. --Makkool (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
2. per nom.   // Timothy :: talk  00:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

I suggest we remove all examples of individual webcomics and move the webcomics article to visual arts. None of the examples listed have had a wide and lasting cultural impact, expect maybe Pepe the Frog, which is an internet meme rather than a webcomic. Webcomics fits better at visual arts, because all webcomics are not digital art, but drawn with traditional tools and scanned for distribution. --Makkool (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• There were no passionate objections, so I have decided to remove the webcomics from the list, as both the Mass media and Digital art sections are full. I saved Pepe the Frog as it is an example of a meme rather than a webcomic. --Makkool (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• I support removal of examples of webcomics, but I think we should keep webcomics article itself. This is a new media that most people are unaware of (and much less prominent than video games). Interesting but not vital as far as examples go. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Move webcomics

Support

Oppose

Discuss

Add Nursery rhyme

Not sure where, but I think it is missing? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I'd suggest Arts-->Literature-->Literary genres-->Forms of literature-->Poetry? pbp 01:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, added. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Add Green Eggs and Ham

Well-known story with numerous adaptations. Still relevant today, and is notable for the low amount of words, as well as coming from a famous author. Scrooge200 (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Discuss

Add Hunter x Hunter

High selling and long-running shounen manga with one of the most critically acclaimed animated adaptations. Written by a relatively famous mangaka who already has one of his lesser-known series listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.38.154 (talk) 02:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Discuss

lesser known? that seems to be recentism. C933103 (talk) 12:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Swap Synthwave for Eurodance

Synthwave is popular, but its wider success is too recent to be considered vital. Eurodance is a similarly popular genre of electronic music, but it has a more far-reaching history. Eurodance would also provide geographic diversity to the list. --Makkool (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. per nom. --Makkool (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
3. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 05:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Swap Tricky (musician) for The KLF (or Orbital, Underworld, or The Orb)

Quite frankly I'm flabbergasted at this entry, as Tricky was a member of Massive Attack who are also listed. Tricky has never had a number 1 hit single or album in any country according to his article but wasn't an underground artist either; his article reports no awards won [I gather he won an NME Best Album award, however]; the genre he is co-credited with helping to pioneer is a continuation of his work in Massive Attack; and the article makes no claim that he has been an influence on any other artist.

The KLF made influential underground records and international number one hits; were BRIT awards winners as best British group; are co-credited with pioneering ambient house alongside the Orb (like the KLF, a duo of Jimmy Cauty+1) and (in some sources) trance music; earnt notoriety for burning a million pounds; have been directly influential on, for example, Scooter; have had at least 2 books written about them [1][2]; and are still getting write ups like this from The Guardian a quarter of a century since they deleted their back catalogue: "in the 25 years since their disappearance, nobody else has come up with anything that matches the duo’s extraordinary career". The AllMusic review called The White Room "the commercial and artistic peak of late-'80s acid-house". --kingboyk (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Discuss

If the KLF are not acceptable, I would suggest Orbital (band), Underworld (band) or The Orb, all of whom are far more influential than Tricky as a solo artist and indeed more influential than some of the other artists listed imho.

Another idea would be to put KLF into pop music and replace Tricky with one of the other suggestions. --kingboyk (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Fictional characters

Right now, this section has few problems. One, is that it is overpopulated (177/150 articles), so should we increase its cap or start killing things? Second, sorry, Western folklore (44/40 articles) vs Eastern folklore (9/10 articles) is a clear systemic BIAS. Those should be equal in size. Seriously, right now this section seems to have one entry for Japan, China and India each. C'mon, people, Santa Claus's reindeer is hardly in the same league as Momotarō or the concept of Yōkai; each of those three countries probably should get 10 characters here. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

We also need to trim Characters from film and TV, which is way over quota. I'm almost to the point of making BOLD removals. pbp 04:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

If You want to drop western folklore, drop all christmas characters, except Santa Claus (I added many of them when I just continued and completed thd section), Krampus and Sinterkaals, including Father Christmas (currently we have nine characters from christmas if You count Befana and The Ginger Bread Mam but just Easter Bunny from Easter) or rather covered sub-articles just like Magic Mirror, Tom Thumb, Golden Goose (littly too many fairy tales, they are described in other articles and theit vitalness is comparable to Rumpelstilskin who is missed). If You want drop characters from TV series I would suggest drop: #Versions of Micky Mouse (While Micky is lovely character for many people, few non-English-language people realise that he is not female,mouse often is not masculine and Pluto IMO was even better despite not being anthropomorfic) #Remove Porky pig as he is not the most vital pig animated character #Swap Meena for another non-Japanese and non-Westerm character as it is article on TV, not character. BTW I also think we could have place for fictional places as we have section for biblical places on the level 4. We could have one sub artocle for Tolkien's World and I am not sure recent removal of Discworld from science fiction was ok. I do not have comment about quotas (while list is under construction, personally IMO 150 number probably is ok) but this list look strongly in comprasion to some overrepresented people/biographies meanwhile it looks quite weak in comprasion to mythological characters. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Yokai is already listed in philosophy and religion section but (mistakly) is not listed among mythological creatures (where we list only 62!). I have been watching (I gonna to archives on the level 4) how selections of "'fictional' creatures" were evolving and I found that @Carlwev: as first suggested to split religion/mythological creatures with art and later @Thi: suggested to split also folklore in art section. Folklore is more similar to mythology than literature/film, nodoubtly. IMO it is easy to decide when creature generally more represent art than spirituality/mythology/religion but not always (what do you (all pinged) think about Category:Fictional Christian saints or about UFO?). The bigger problem is in comparing media franchise to fictional character (while media franchise is more wide readers often more care about fictional character if Wikipedia wrote wrongly articles about related matters). @SethAllen623: putted all creatures in the same section at User:SethAllen623/Vital articles/Expanded/Fictional creations but I think that number of 50 000 is too small to create separate section for creatures and we could. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Swap Deadpool with Black Panther (Marvel Comics)

Full disclosure, this decision is heavily being influenced by the recent death of Chadwick Boseman. Still, I think that the fact that Black Panther is usually considered the first Black superhero, as well as the significant culture impact (and the more than a billion dollars box office returns) of his movie, gives T'Challa a bit more precedence than Wade Wilson. Saturdayopen (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Saturdayopen (talk) 06:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Note that Black Panther (Marvel Comics) has been added unilaterally into the list without removing Deadpool in this diff. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Remove Ethical egoism

Ethical egoism is one of many forms of Consequentialism under VIT5's ethics approaches. That we already cover Utilitarianism should be sufficient. Ethical egoism, like the other forms of consequentialism, is no more vital than the others. Perhaps meant to add Egoism? czar 04:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. czar 04:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Pandeism and Christian Deism under Deism

Proposed to add Pandeism and Christian deism to level 5. I understand discussion is not required at this level but religion seems always controversial so I wished to be sure. Pandeism is the only theological model existing as a subset both of Deism and Pantheism (both level 4). It is 150+ years-old and on the scale of importance in the field falling somewhat behind Panentheism (another level 4), but occupies a distinct space on the spectrum of theological models, reflected to a degree in it having articles in about 25 different Wikipedia languages. Espoused belief of Alfred, Lord Tennyson (level 5, but should be 4, and currently nominated for that), and claimed for Walt Whitman (level 4). Christian deism, I think speaks for itself, one of the oldest and most claimed alternatives to classical Deism. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Been two weeks, implementing. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Remove Creation science, Intelligent design, Theistic evolution, Young Earth creationism

Re-balance this?

We are way over the limit for Sexuality and gender (137/100). We are also way under the limit for Family and kinship (84/150). Can we balance this out? 130/120? 140/110? starship.paint (exalt) 15:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Add more "Sport in country" articles?

What do you think about more "Sport in country" articles. We SUBJECIVELY list plenty of sport teams which are less vital than broader articles like Brazilian Football Confederation. Brazilian Football Confederation is nt more vital than broader article like Football in Brazil but the most vital IMO would be Sport in Brazil. Even if articles "Sport in" gets less hits we need to remember that these ones have more links and sontents, and according to guideline to featureed articles linked articles always have to be improved (everyone who have ever wrote featured article understand what I am talking about... and why if we correct article like "sport in", automatically we have more written thing than after improving article about team). Beyond that "sport in" should be compared to articles like Cinema of France, Italian cuisine, Music of the United States etc.. I do not think that sport and games should have separated category for now, because it can distract people from the list itself what could later resulting in extremally overrepresntation of games/entertaiment/sport. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: I'd support replacing the organization articles with Sport in Foo countries, like replacing the listed Brazil organizations with the overview article for Sport in Brazil. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose, as some of those alliance or sport types of a specific countries have influence outside the specific country, while the same cannot be said to a general article on the country's sport C933103 (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Board and card games

Quick link: Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Everyday_life/Sports,_games_and_recreation#Board_games_(46/50_articles). I am actually a big board and card game fan (and I've even published an academic article on this), so with this said, I am surprised that those sections get so many entries. I like this stuff a lot, but I think they could be trimmed to free up few spots for other stuff discussed above (whether science or folklore). The main issue I see, otherwise, is that there is a lot of super niche, historical stuff discussed that IMHO never was or is vital, things like Agon (game) or Alquerque - games that are historical trivia footnotes, never had much impact on their contemporary society and are forgotten now. And while modern board and card gaming is still a smaller industry/activity than video games, "Specific video games and series (99 articles)" raises an eybrow where modern board/card games get maybe ~10 entries. For what should be added, it's stuff from cross-comparing Spiel des Jahres and BoardGameGeek top game list ([3]), which speaking as someone very familiar with this field will give one an idea of what board and card games have been actually significant in the last decade or two. Titles like Gloomhaven, Terraforming Mars, Twilight Imperium, Dominion (game), Pandemic (board game), or more classic Puerto Rico should certainly be on that list, replacing the obscure historical footnotes that never had a significant impact on the society that I mentioned above (this can be easily noted as most of those obscure old games don't have much in way of sections that discuss their significance or reception; they are ludology trivia and nothing but). I'll be bold and do a bunch of adjustments in the near future. I recognize there is always a bit of subjective bias as to titles to add (but then so is the selection of the 99 video games - probably too many anyway - done using subjective criteria, as far as I can tell). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good on the WP:BOLD board games plan. Individual video games could and should probably be cut to 50. GuzzyG (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good, but I'm not certain about using BoardGameGeek as a source, because it is slanted towards the hobbyist market. Hobbyist board games are a niche business (there are only handful of board game designers who can support themselves on design work alone, for example) and I think we should be aware of this. When choosing what articles to list we should remember to be as broad as possible, and include mainstream games as well, as they have more impact to society. --Makkool (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I would probably replace Senet with Chariot racing on the level 4 as Senet is only one of many obscure-very old and nowday trivia board games (and BTW I would also reduce sportpeople on the level 4 as some listed there modern sport people are less vital than Leonidas of Rhodes) butI disagree that most of these games do not makes level 5 and I disagree we should swap them mostly for modern board games. Games like Nine men's morris/Senet had religional significance for milleniums (and based on some sources even for whole bronze age) and games just like Latrunculi had just it significance for centuries; what should not be ignored on this lesel. I added several go players (for example Oskar Korschelt) and most of thosee board games based on this academic source (it is competitive category beause of it also stand based on incredible researchers of board games just as H. J. R. Murray and important social scientists just as Marshall McLuhan). Dungerous & Dragons are important but generally from historical perspective less important for researchers than traditional games like Game of the Goose/Monopoly or Whist/Bridge. You can drop some old tabletop games for space for modern by wp:bold (we have too many video games in comprasion to modern tabletop anyway) but please do it tenatively quite careful if it is possible, some can be removed but not many of them as certain number of old board and card games also should be covered to point that these games exist longer time than video games. BTW this section is also wrongly selcted. Title "traditional games" is vague and wrong (as many games included in other sections also can be "traditional games"). These section are also so much puffed up ith neccesary detalics (as Makkool pinted) that include WP:OR, for example we do not need to list so many non-game/title video game topics and vague concepts like Race game, Wargaming, (I could also add Tile-based game or wrongly described Fox games article to this list if I would consider that adding theory game/classification topic is sensible) are uneless as this section should cover articles which can be possible for featured article without promotion of one type of classification (game theorists who publish books about games often classify games in differ/contradict way each other). Dawid2009 (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I ambivalent when it comes to keep or remove Race game, but wargame is a major thing and should be kept. I'll make other recommendations below. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89, Piotrus, Makkool, and LaukkuTheGreit: My thoughts about changes in selection of games:

1. Put "board" and "card" games under new sub-category titled "Tabletop games" (handful games like Mahjong, Air Hockey which currently are listed under section "traditional games" will be in tabletop games section but outside two subsections called: "board"/"card", excatly like here non-poker players are included ahead of Poker players without sub-sub section, we will not muck category for non-board and non-card tabletop games as it would be hard and unnecesary)

1. Split two sub-sub categories for card tabletop games and for board tabletop games: for thhe board games we will have two: 1 traditional board games (aka Chess, Go, Royal Game of Ur etc.) and 2Role-playing and commercial board games (where de facto will be a lot of modern board games with one on the level 4 - monopoly), for card games: #1Traditional card games (with using traditional playing cards) and #2 collective card games. The only goal why we do selection is to make us easier to analyse the list (such like we list Abraham next to his son on the level 4). Here we need make reselection in a way we will can compare our historical coverage of human acitivities.
2. Articles which revolve around list of types of games just like Game of skill, Game of chance, Street game "ALL" should be move to general next to game mechanic to not muck abuse when for example game game like jenga or solitaire can be added under many subsections.
3. After moving all article which revolve around "list of types of games" to general section we can rename section traditional games on "other games and activities". Streetball surpringly is not listed on the level 5 yet but will not be under street game at general/terminology or next to games like mahjong but next to games like hacky hack, tag, musical chairs, cuuju etc. what also will be confortable for analyse list just as we are looking for Abraham and his sons' on the level 4.

1. Quota (65) for toys is littly to big but I think we should create on Engish Wikipedia new article called Skill toy (currently redirect to list) to cover things like clackers, paddle ball, fidget spinner etc.. If we would add this article to VA5 it would not be next to articles like "game of chance" but listed under toys. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed changes to game-related entries

@Makkool and Dawid2009: I will list proposed changes below:

Traditional games

remove 1) Calcio Fiorentino (we already have Cuju, whose lead states that FIFA recognizes it as a predecessor of football, and Mesoamerican ballgame is reasonably well developed and I think also culturally more famous). Also Episkyros, Harpastum, Kemari, Tetherball (how many historical ball games do we need?). Related to this is the concept of Hacky sack (remove). 2) Remove Beer pong, we already list drinking game and it is dubious if beer pong is the universally most common example of it anyway. 3) Remove Thumb war, Red Rover, Cornhole, Horseshoes, Knucklebones no evidence those topics have wider significance (note we already have Lawn game and I am fine with keeping that overview topic to a bunch of games here). 4) remove variants of tag (tag itself of course stays): Blind man's buff, Marco Polo (game)

Support, but for Knucklebones I am on the fence. It's an example of a game of ancient origin, that's played even today. I we decide to drop it, maybe we could include Shagai instead, which is a similar game known across many nomadic cultures. The Finnish game museum has an example of a shagai-like game played by the Sámi people for example. --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I have too many ambivalent thoughts about whole list (which should have 50 000 topics and have many overrepresented and underrepresented areas) to stand on vote enrtry by entry per se but I would oppose removing of Blind man's buff more than for Knucklebones. When we can list Paintball despite fact we have either of shooting sport and tag, I think blind man's buff is vital here. I think tag is far more close to the level 3 than 5 and we list on the level 4 for example Winnie-the-Pooh which is mentioned in the other listed article on the level 4: Teddy bear - even as subtopic of Stuffed toy. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I am on the edge when it comes to Musical chairs, I think the topic is known but the article is abysmal (no good refs/analysis, etc.). Ditto for The floor is lava which has a bit better refs but I am not sure if it is really that popular.

Both are maybe too commonplace games to have anything interesting to stay. --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

There is also a problem with guessing game with has been merged to guessing by User:BD2412, who was a sole participant of that merge discussion (in 2015). A redirect can't be a vital topic, so either we restore it or it should be removed (I am in favor of restoring it, as it is a parent concept to a number of popular games that are relatively famous and in either case may merit being added here: Hangman, I spy, Twenty Questions

Add: ball game (yes, the article is in a terrible shape, but it has tremendous potential for growth). Chariot racing (I agree it is one of the more famous ancient games, perhaps more of a sport?).

Agree that chariot racing is more a sport (and maybe ball game as well as ball sport redirects to it) --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

1. I would support removing Calcio Fiorentino; I oppose removing tetherball and hacky sack.  (Also, tetherball is not a "historical ball game", it was played on my generation's playgrounds and probably still is).  Episkyros, Harpastum, Kemari, I'm ok with removing.  
2. Beer pong you can take or leave.  I'm unsure how common it is outside of American frat parties
3.  Horseshoes should stay but Thumb war, Red Rover, Cornhole, and, Knucklebones I'm ambivalent to.  
4.  OK with removing tag variants.  
5. I would keep musical chairs but drop The floor is lava I'm OK with adding Hangman and 20 Questions
6. I thought ball game was on already but add it if it's not. Chariot racing is already on there
7. Finally I echo Dawid's comment about renaming "traditional games". My suggestion would be "traditional and children's games" pbp 00:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Prior to the merge, "guessing game" was a stub tagged as needing additional references. A separate article could exist, but not in the state it was in. BD2412 T 20:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Board games

Board games (disclaimer: I tried to use SdJ and BGG to back my personal views, but a sanity check and more opinions are always welcome, particularly due to a hobby COI, ie. subconscious tendency to list games I like and not ones I don't care for; for what is worth a while back I also read the book on modern board games Eurogames: The Design, Culture and Play of Modern European Board Games which you can probably download from Library Genesis):

Remove: Agon (game), Alquerque, Halma, Hex (board game) (that one also has a better replace wit hex map) as very minor history footnotes for ludology with no evidence of wider significance (either cultural impact or scholarly analysis). Also History of chess (the summary in chess article should be sufficient)

Support Agon and Alquerque, Oppose Halma and Hex - Halma is a canonical board game along with Chinese checkers, Checkers and Nine men's morris. Hex has received a lot of research in AI, mathematics and game theory. --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Weak oppose Alquerque and Halma neutral on the rest. Alquerque as direct procedesor of Checkers is less obscure than The Royal Game of Ur, Senet, Latrunculi etc. It is very similar game to checkers; comprasion Checkers to Alquerque is like comprasion Halma to Chinese checkers. When we can list five regional variants of chess such like Korean chess/Janggi + history of chess, I think we could kept as well two board games proved by Arabian to Europe (This one and Shatranj/Arabian chess). Dawid2009 (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Ambivalent but would like to hear other thoughts regarding removal: Game of the Goose, Jungle (board game), Ludus latrunculorum, Peg solitaire

Oppose Game of the Goose - it is a predecessor to the roll-and-move type of board games, Ambivalent on the rest - Jungle is an example of board game played mostly in Asia (Should we list one?); Peg solitaire is more a puzzle than a game and it could be moved with other puzzles; Ludus latrunculorum is a Roman historical board game, but I'm not sure is it obscure or more well known. --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Game of the Goose as 16th century "THE first commercial board game" and "THE first role-playing game" is surely vital enough at this level. I added the Jungle because of this game originally was creted based on acient board games from Asia and it influenced Stratego (already listed too). Latrunculi and Solitarie are perfect good ocassion to compare them with other historical European and non-European ball games nominated to removal. I am ambivalent about removing or keeping them them on the level 5. You currently sugest to remove some/many of them but I would like echo that @DaGizza: very strongly were defending coverage of historical human activities on the level 4, even consider inclusion Calcio to level 4 years ago and recently said there that also Hasbro is more vital among 100 000 articles so while I can remove one obscure board game from the level 4 (especially when we already have history of games there, we list Go/Mancala ahead of Mesoamerican ball game on L4 and we even removed Coloseum as parent topic for Chairot racing from the level 3 to the level 4), I can not support swap so many historical games for more than handful modern ones (even when we have so big stuff of modern video game designers for example on this level). Dawid2009 (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Ambivalent but would like to hear other thoughts regarding addition: Go-Stop, Hanafuda (classics). Transitional: Diplomacy (game). Modern: Agricola (board game) (winner of SdJ, Top 30 on BGG list, one of those titles that you can on occasion see in your local supermarket, so transitioning from niche to popular), 7 Wonders (board game) (Top 50 in BGG, bunch of awards, number 3 on BGG family list), Arkham Horror, Scythe (board game), Rising Sun (board game), Brass (board game) (all popular high rankers that I'd suggest should replace some video games), concepts of Murder mystery game, legacy game

Support Go-Stop, Hanafuda, Diplomacy, Agricola, 7 Wonders, legacy game Oppose the rest, see my last comment --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Add: 1) more famous/impactful traditional games: Mensch ärgere Dich nicht, Karuta, and transitional Talisman (board game), HeroQuest and Acquire - all are at least as vital IMHO as stuff that I suggest removing and seem a likely step above the above ambivalent consideration 2) Hex map as a concept to replace the too niche Hex (board game) 3) modern games that gained popularity with in the last ~20 years, some even <5 but just like in video games and such, recent doesn't mean not vital, based on sources I mentioned above: Gloomhaven (number 1 on BGG general list since its release in 2017 as well as on the thematic list and strategy list) Dixit (card game) (popular simple family game, very often found in supermarkets, a ton of gaming awards), Terraforming Mars (Top 3 on BGG list since its release in 2016, some awards), Pandemic (board game) (probably the most famous/enduring board game coop-type game, its recent version has been in Top of BGG list - 2nd on Overall, Thematic and Strategy lists, bunch of awards), Twilight Imperium (enduring classic, Top 6-7 on BGG overall/strategy list), Dominion (game) (the game that created/popularized the concept of a deck-building game, bunch of awards, Top 100 on BGG, that listing is not best for games of its type as it is composed of a bunch of stand alone items ranked separately), Codenames (board game) (bunch of awards, #1 in BGG list of party games: [4], Azul (board game) (another high ranker with a bunch of awards, Top 10 in overall/family), Twilight Struggle (high ranker in strategy with a bunch of awards, representative of historical simulations) 4) game concepts: Amerigame (crucial counterpart to already listed eurogame), deck-building game, Cooperative board game

Support Mensch ärgere Dich nicht, Karuta, Talisman, HeroQuest, Acquire, Dixit, Pandemic, Dominion, Codenames, Azul, amerigame, deck-building game, cooperative board game, Oppose the rest, see last comment --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I suggest Cosmic Encounter instead of Twilight Imperium, because CE is an earlier example of a variable player powers type board game that is still available today. --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent to most of these adds or removals expect murder-mystery game, which I think is a good add.  Also, if we're wanting to add more brand-name board games, Candy Land would be my first choice. pbp 00:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Mensch ärgere Dich nicht is already listed along with Ludo as subtopic of Pachisi. Probably we should remove one of them to keep more space in game section. I think Mensch argere Dich nicht is better choice (this article should be translated from German Wikipedia where is incredibly long and include informations about recent competition in that game. When we list French revolution ahead of America revolution on the level 3 I also see here exception where non-English article is more vital). According to the articles, Ludo is older 14 years but Mensch ärgere Dich nicht has been recognised as the most promient "modern version of Pachisi" and FWIHW article about Mensch argere Dich nich is worse on ENwiki than minor like Sorry! (game) (I am ambivalent about keeping race game when we have Pachisi Game of the goose etc.).. @Piotrus: Among many commercial modern board games which you nominated to addition, which ones are closest to best products like: Yathzee, Battleship (game), Jenga and which ones you would add ahead of Scattergories? (BTW d:Q897014 finally should have new article on English Wikipedia - you can try to DYK ;)) Dawid2009 (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I have never heard of Scattergories and I don't see anything in that article to suggest it should be vital, so I'd say "all of them" I'd add ahead of that particular title. pl:Państwa-miasta is amusing but I haven't heard of it before, not sure if there are any good sources, a quick search in Polish failed to find any. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Shape of the pl:Państwa-miasta indeed is totally undourced but de:Stadt, Land, Fluss and es:Tutti frutti (juego) are going to be on similar level what The floor is lava on EN wiki and the categories just is traditional (and still popular just as battlespip and gomoku on the paper) precursor of Scattegories (Categories are more popular than Scattegories and it is not particular game. It just is [common paper and pencil word game, although it has average number of language versions, although it has quite few wikies at the moment, it overweight by hits Hangman and quite canonical board game like Reversi in many western countries: [5]/[6]/[7]), beyond that that game is described in this academic source and called there as „Inteligencja” (I quite proved another article about Paper soccer which even is not mentioned in any academic source about games, purely based on Internet sources to 15 000 bytes so Categories based on verifiable sources surely could be in better shape than for example Concentration (game)) so I belive that creating as stub that article and later maybe proving to DYK could be useful for Wikipedia. I also created years ago article on musical chairs at PLwiki in minimally longer-meritorically version than on the ENwiki but now I found musical chairs actually more difficult to describe than the Categories, especially that musical chairs apparently have obscure translations; for example I found (BTW missed in wikidata) article cs: Hra s židlemi which confuse musical chairs with many other games where chair is used (probably educational childern games similar to Fruit Basket Turnover and perhaps indoor verdion of Scavenger hunt with chairs as I can see) but on the other hand the categories (d:Q897014) just have wikisource on CSwiki… Either way if you never heard about categories, I will ask in abother way: which ones (among many commercial games which you suggested) are more vital in your opinion than Chess variants/Fischer random chess? Actually I ask only about games younger than 70’s-80’s because of I maybe could consider removal of Hex but certainly not for plenty very recent board games, younger than 80’s. I would like be interested in removal of hex because of being notable in math/AI research is not enough arument if we are going to make massive cut in video games but on the other hand I am afraid with listing so many very recent geek-board games if they have lower significance than e g Fisher's random chess as there are quite many skill toys and casual board games like Connect Four Some older (and perhaps the most canonical very recent to represent newest generation) seems be OK for me. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Card games

Remove: Right now we have 8 poker-themed articles. I think that's too much. I'd suggest removing Community card poker, Five-card draw , Five-card stud, Seven-card stud and perhaps also Draw poker and Stud poker. Instead I'd suggest adding Online poker and Strip poker as wider phenomena that more people have heard about (than poker variants which are not generally of interest to anyone but poker players)

Support --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Ambivalent (consider for removal perhaps): Concentration (card game), Crazy Eights, Schnapsen (listed under Mariage (card game), do we need both?),

Support --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Add War (card game) (traditional and famous), Android: Netrunner to CCGs (high BGG ranking, awards, example of a more mature game to complement MtG, whereas Pokemon and Yugioh are more geared towards kids and teeneagers), Hearthstone (the most popular example of the Digital collectible card game)

Support War, Hearthstone Oppose Netrunner, because we would have two games from the same designer (this and MTG) --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree that there are too many and/or the wrong variants of poker.  Strip poker can be added.  Wikipedia doesn't have an article on online versions of board and card games (sort of the "parent" to online poker, among other things), which is too bad, because that would be a good add.  Concentration I'd keep but I'd drop some of the others.  War I'd add. pbp 00:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment. It may be helpful to establish some qualifying factors e.g. that a game is one or more of the following:

• National card game
• Very popular card game
• Historically important card game
• Progenitor of a family of card games
• 'Type' of a family of card games

On that basis, Concentration would probably drop out as would the two variants of Stud Poker and maybe some of the other Poker variants. Schnapsen (national and v popular), Mariage (historical and progenitor) and Crazy Eights (type) would probably stay. BTW why do some of the games have Level 4 against them but most don't? Bermicourt (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Video games

Remove: History of Eastern role-playing video games and History of Western role-playing video games (we don't list the history of other types of games). And then History and consoles, sigh, do we need 41 articles in that subcategory? I'd remove all but History of video games for being too detailed. C'mon, what other protonema gets 3+ dozens of history articles? Through I'd keep articles on prominent video game consoles like Game Boy, PlayStation, Xbox, maybe few others, but there is an overivew at Video game console and such anyway. But we certainly don't need industry trivia like Video game crash of 1983 or historical curios like Magnavox Odyssey or TurboGrafx-16 that only die hard geeks and fans remember. Similarly do we need to list all eight articles on video console generations (when we are not even listing articles on real generations like baby boomers...? Priorities, please, my fellow geeks). Oh, and Specific video games and series (99 articles) has in fact 111 entries. I think we should prune it down to below 50. As a start, how about we remove all examples of franchises? Like, Final Fantasy series can stay, but no need to list individual entries, same for GTA or Zelda and such. One game per series or the series itself is sufficient (like we list Wolfenstein but not the likely most famous milestone Wolfenstein 3D, tough choice, but we need variety, ditto for the 'how can you not list FF7', sorry, we list the series, that should be enough). Bottom line we should keep one example of a prominent game genra, plus popular franchises. And historical 'firsts' from 20th century should go away too unless they are very famous (so keep Space Invaders but remove Zork, etc.).

Support - comment: We list all "history of..." articles in the History section and they should be moved there. --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Remove the following examples of video games: Passage (video game), Animal Crossing, Colossal Cave Adventure, Contra (video game), Defender (1981 video game), Duck Hunt, Dune II, Five Nights at Freddy's, EarthBound, Fortnite, GoldenEye 007 (1997 video game), Kirby (series), Katamari Damacy, Max Payne (video game), Ms. Pac-Man, Ōkami, Papers, Please, Passage (video game), Pitfall!, PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds, Prince of Persia, Punch-Out!! (NES), Quake (series), Rez, Red Dead Redemption, Roblox, Rock Band (video game), Rogue (video game), R-Type, Shadow of the Colossus, Spacewar!, Star Fox, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, The Walking Dead (video game), and Zork. - none of which is the dominant example of its genre and for each I think a better example is already present in the list

Support - comment: Should we list one example of video games as an artform? (so Papers Please or Passage?) And if we remove both Zork and Colossal Cave Adventure we don't have any examples of text adventure, which was a major genre of computer games. (Zork is more famous, but Colossal Cave Adventure is the first, don't know which should stay) --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Fortnite removal, recent but one of the big esport games, Fortnite World Cup winner made more than a wimbledon champ. GuzzyG (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Ambivalent removals: Gran Turismo (series) or Need for Speed (not sure which is a better racing game in the list)

Ambivalent adds: Incremental game, Tower defense as new genras that are raising in prominence, and Mortal Kombat and a major franchise that's not on the list and The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt as an example of the most prominent open world game (I think a better add than the Witcher franchise)

Oppose see my last comment --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

add concepts of Loot box (could also go to gambling), game design concept Open world and to section on Video game genre: tile-matching video game, Shoot 'em up, Eroge, Music video game and/or Rhythm game, Real-time strategy, Turn-based strategy, and 4X.

Support the rest except for eroge --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Finally, add Reiner Knizia to Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/People/Artists,_musicians,_and_composers, game designers section (arguably the most prolific designers of eurogames).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Support --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Strong oppose to proposed removals of Colossal Cave Adventure, Rogue, and Spacewar!. These are games of massive historical importance; Colossal Cave Adventure and Rogue each have an entire genre named after them (adventure game and roguelike respectively), and Spacewar "is one of the most important and influential games in the early history of video games" and "was named to a list of the ten most important video games of all time". I'd rather remove NetHack than Rogue.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@LaukkuTheGreit: I don't dispute they are important for History of video games but we need to ask, how many entries that are important for this particualr subfield of history do we list. I like video games, but frankly, I don't think any particular games notable only for being historical milestones are important. I think having entries on genre such as adventure games, roguelike and such, which should mention historical milestones, plus the overview article on history of vg should suffice. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I have opposed some of your recent game submissions, because in the project FAQ anti-recentism is listed as one selection criteria. Maybe we should have a discussion how to interpret it. Maybe set a cap at some number of years where a game is too recent to be added? --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11

December 2019 (UTC) I support the suggested title removals and also the removal of some of the minor consoles.  In addition, I'd remove the "daughter" articles like Final Fantasy V (daughter of Final Fantasy) and Call of Duty 4, with Mario Kart being the one possible exception.  We need genre articles for tower defense.   As for the recency thing, I think a video game should be 5 years old before being added to this list. pbp 00:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

As Polish instead listing either of Open World and the Witcher I would definietly prefer keep for the diversity variant of tags (Blind man's buff and Paintball) but I also would not mind to keep either of Open World and the Witcher as you agreed each other.. When we list Computer chess, Computer Go, Deep Blue and Alpha Go at technology ection, I think AI player should be added elsewhere. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Reply by Dawid2009

Thank you @Piotrus: for effort to put about 150+ new suggestion in that area. That’s important point and perfect ocassion to we discuss whole life/recrearion sections and to we later compare it to currently listed 1200 sport bios. My general thoughts:

In my opinion number of listed games looks weak in comprasion to traditions sections but not weak in comprasion to stuff bios whose we list among sportpeople. While I can say that e g missed wedding reception (wedding party redirect there) is more vital than for example musical chairs (popular on wedding parties but also as children’s game) or many other less important games, suggested to remove by Piotrus, on the other hand I am ambivalent about fast removal of so many games when we list (probably to many) dozen video games personalities: 20 Video game designers ( seven Esport players+ Sjokz among sport journalists and Narcissa Wright among entertaiments (BTW also speedrun and couple esport competition ahead of olympic/worl-cup sport articles in this section).

First of all the name: „traditional games” should be renamed (why chess can not be under traditional games, and why we can not list Gomoku next to Tic-tac-toe) or whatever?). I would suggest to split it onto „outdoor games”, and „other (as non video and non tabletop) games” or whatever, something not-complicated to we do not create our imaginate new clasification.

I am ambivalent about adding technical articles like tabletop game or ball game but in general I am weakly oppose addition of new board game types/mechanic-related articles: Hex map, sub-eurogame topics. As there are many few-viewed mentioned list of types of games whose abuse could be probleatic here. Guess game IMO is not very needed when we have already puzzle, riddle, maze, charade.

Removing Schnapsen as redundand to mariage seems be OK as long as we do not Blackball (pool) (subtopics of English billiards); but I also noted that I (maybe just mistaly) putted Mahjong as Trick-taking game ( also parent topic for mariage) at „traditional games” and if we do not list game like Madiao, probably we could remove Ruff and honourswith purly historical importance. We already habe whist and contract bridge on the level 4 (BTW I think it i salso good point to we find discuss where put trick-tking and how all names of the sections should be selected). Your suggestions about Poker-subtopics swaps and adding War sound reasonable to me. Eventually we can swap the war for another card game mentioned in children’s card game template. Karuta as representation of another Japanese game also is interesing addition when we list Jianzi and Kemari which already have something common withCuju but I am definietly unsure about removal of the Kemari.

I think Calcio florentino is less vital than Cuju and Mesoamerican ball game. Potentially calcio could be sufficently covered by historical articles about soccer which are already listed in history section (mob football or history or soccer) but on the other hand I can not stat what I reasonably think about your suggestion because I have ambivalent thoughs when I see / or I am aware that we list cuple sport journalist who aruably are not more vital than game historians like the Murray. I like your comprasion "history of video games topics" to baby boomers . You have said that we list many video game histrical topics in comprasion to games but I would said that number of video games in general is big in comprasion to any historical entertaiment or any non-entertaiment topic listed in history section. On the other I think chess are actually easy enoug vital for this level when we are so highly under quota. I think that Hacky Sack(seems be more vital than strip poker which you just have suggested toadd) could be kept or swapped for freestyle football when we already list Streetball for basketball Dawid2009 (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: Do you really think 30 people representing video games (which is the highest earning form of entertainment and most popular, [8] is too much when we list 1000 musicians and 900 actors??? If anything we are under representing them and with traditional sports causing brain injuries; i wouldn't be surprised if more youth get involved in esports. Where do you get this over represented idea from? Why is 30 too low for the most popular form of entertainment when we list 30 magicians? Who do you think will have and currently has the biggest influence on gen z and under people; Logan Paul or Timothée Chalamet? We shouln't cover new actors because they have no influence, but video games/youtube/esports IS the new thing; so if we cover this centuries entertainment than they must be covered. We can't just keep saying 30 video game people and 20 web people is too much when we list 1,900 people from last centuries forms of entertainment. [9] these people completely dominate this century; we shouldn't be behind the times. These articles are popular and this is a pop culture list first; they are vital to have featured and well written/looked after in this culture; if that changes than they can be removed and the quotas lowered; if anything the web quota should be 30 considering magic is. GuzzyG (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Our fellow editors just have started discussion about the issues/ removals around the parent topics (games, including the video games) so of course I had to point that we should also have discuss about the questionable 1200 sportpeople and quotas for so many esports included there. when topics like calcio florentiono just have been suggested to removal by three users (I just remind that @DaGizza:suggested Calcio on the level 4 in the past, and, BTW, FYI I will remind that Gizza even probably thanked 01.10.2019 @Cobblet: for this edit where he pointed that we all made list is too similar to WP:5000) that's important point. In the FAQthere is NO informatin that level 5 toward more pop culture than in contrast to other levels but there are also a lot of important topics related with recreation such like calcio or zanza which IMO do not fit to the level 4 but can make material on the level 5. Pay attention that we just list the olympics on the level 3 ahead of IOC but we do not have World Cup ahead of FIFA based on fact 2026 FIFA Wolrd Cup event (maybe biggest in history such entertaiment event) because of we do not make encyclopedia based on future. While video game industry is important topic, video game designers and Esport players still are far from video game core topics (including some suggested for removal in this section) just as architects of the Notterdame are less vital than Notterdame itself but Louis Armstrong is much more vital than his many creations (honestly and authentically there are no video game perosality on the level 5 who has more language versions than for example "niche" ski jumper like Adam Małysz so for now I actually find it with hardly arguable benefit of being a productive dispute to say that it is underrepresented especially if in the past even @Purplebackpack89: suggested to keep 60 all video game non-bios topics among 50 000 all articles).I do not dispute that fields like youtubers/esports/game designers are interesig and growing dominated part of 21th century ( + strong top of representtive field if we are going to whatever represent from21th century) but on the other hand it is difficult to say whose among them are the most vital as every biography in that field can be out gone by other fellow biograpy from the same. I appreciate your big effort of creating this list and appreciate fact that you are probably the biget constributor but your stating about 30 video game people vs 30 magicians when just you earlier controlled theose two quotas by WP:bold littly is uncalled-for in light of tentive process (We need suggestions from a much larger pool of editors with expertise in a range of subjects, and a slower process to add articles with more long-term planning on how the list should be structured and organised). Personally I am afraid that numbers of sport-people and entartaiments on this level is currently exaggeration if we do not list all languages more vital than Dolly Pentreath who is already on the list. Beyond that for example, seriously/honestly Cricket have biographies with mind-importance statement by wikiproject... meanwhile William Wadé Harris (top-importanc christianity topic which also represent Africa) is not listed among religious figures. Either way I already opened new section about FAQ . if you have something interesing to say about fact that the FAQ inaccurate describe recentism on L, kept comment there (where I just pinged you), but please no longer reply here, under this subsection, because of here is hard discussion about games but not about thousand topics among whole 50 000 list. Cheers Dawid2009 (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Huh? Some of the changes you mention weren't me. I continue to believe that the space devoted to video games (especially individual titles) is excessive and drastic pruning is needed. As for sportspeople, nearly all my work at this level is in either basketball or Am football. I was also just about to suggest some changes to Protestant religious leaders. pbp 23:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Even if we list 50 games. the personalities don't conflict, every single one of those 20 designers is vital in modern day American or Japanese culture; that's where you don't consider; video games are massive in Japan and people like Lim Yo-hwan and Faker (video game player) are vital to modern South Korean sports where esports is one of the biggest sports already; the fact that you outright lied while saying "honestly" and said no video game makers have close to the ski jumper (Shigeru Miyamoto and Markus Persson do and 8 others come extremely close) in Wikidata languages makes it hard to consider what you mean. Also you have to consider that competing in the Olympics is automatic notability and editors routinely create multiple articles for a Olympian; which shouldn't even be a factor, by your method Corbin Bleu is more important than Shakespeare, Picasso and Mozart. Are you saying creating a Level 4 franchise (pokemon), isn't enough to list Satoshi Tajiri? We list one video game designer on the level 4 list, is it really that much of a leap to have 20 here? I think there should be 5 esports people; i just havent got around to cutting the others yet; im constantly working but i cant do everything at once, there's so many culture and fields to examine; i posted about how musicians were done but i discovered i was wrong instantly and will do more cuts to popular music; it just takes time and trying to rush everything is a waste of time. There's two competitive eaters because one is the most vital in America and the other in Japan and i didn't want to be bias. Cricket is the 2nd biggest team sport and you're using it as a example of something covered too much? If we had one athelte on the 129 list based off of good stats only we'd list Don Bradman, i don't understand your methodology in that case? Entertainers will get a massive cut when i get to that section; but still web people won't; i linked a study showing web influencers are just as known but better liked than Lebron who is a level 4 article; do you have a source saying that web entertainers don't compare to actors? Articles like porn stars, youtubers and criminals are integral to this level and i stand by that. People like Linda Lovelace, Hulk Hogan, Bonnie and Clyde and PewDiePie are vital, their fields just don't have the seriousness factor to them so they're not in the level 4 list. I strongly disagree with Cobblet when it comes to this level and his method of "what an encyclopedia should prioritize"; we shouldn't play god on this level; we should mostly go by what field is popular and not what we subjectively believe we should prioritize if youtubers articles get over 10 million views we should prioratise that to be a featured article. By Cobblet's method William Wadé Harris is more important than Pablo Escobar to have featured because of the seriousness of Harrises field compared to Escobar, but Escobar is one of the few articles with over 100 million views combining all the languages; what article is more important to have featured? Clearly linking to a years old post when my methodology has clearly changed is wrong too; i'm sure Cobblet wouldn't have such a reaction if he seen what i've done to the artists & musicians page; except we don't have ancient composers, people like Kassia, national anthem composers, more non western art musicians and foreign language musicians like Clarence Wijewardena but it takes time; you're citing things that will get removed in due time, like when you started the Randall Munroe discussion early, you have to just be patient. I did try to get others opinions too, when i asked everyone in my "musicians is complete " post and i incorporated the feedback; the only section that got swapped completely was the Polish musicians which you had added. Basing vitality off of things like wikidata stats or wikiproject importance ratings is not the way to go in my opinion. Every section of artists & musicians, sports, entertainment, misc, writers and such will get a complete makeover; the writing/activism section is terrible; but i can't change everything at once and musicians/artists will be my focus for a bit as i figure out what to cut. GuzzyG (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Also the problem with considering scientist biographies that people don't realize is that nowadays they work in teams; for every vital discovery it's a team; i get we need every nobel winner just because the award has a big amount of respect to it; but let's be frank that makes us list 3 relatively minor people like Robert Coleman Richardson, David Lee (physicist) and Douglas Osheroff who are known for the exact same thing and there's many three pairings in Nobel history. We could find hundreds of bios of teams members like this; but for the general sake i still stand by that a article like Charles Manson is more vital to have a featured article for the sake of the people who read this site. If we play activism based on "who deserves" a placement this list would only be scientists, religious people and philosophers. Since this site depends on readers, we can't dismiss what people are actually interested in too. GuzzyG (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually after examining the data again; i take back the point; i'm not in favour of any esports cuts while the niche quota itself remains. Esports is the most popular sport that's ever existed in the niche category; this year the Leagues of Legends event passed the superbowl in total viewers [10] and it's being debated for the olympics in a serious way; unlike any other of the niche sports we list [11] (also from that article is:"Esports will be a medal event at the 2022 Asian Games") and there's a Olympic sanctioned tournament at the next olympics for Street fighter [12], which calls into question the removal of Daigo Umehara before. Players of a more recent tournament win more prize money than players who win Wimbledon. [13] Honestly; for a sport of this level of viewership it's undercovered and should be ten; all because Gen Z is in a position where their interests aren't reported on as much as traditional sports, that doesn't mean it's not important too; we don't have to build a "encyclopedia for the future" just accurately cover what is actually popular right now; i'd love to see ski jumping independently get 100 million viewers. The focus on ski jumping and not skiing itself is weird too. Even in Poland the president is advocating for esports. [14]. If one of the highest watched, with one of the highest prize pools sports isn't worth 7 spots than we should cut our sports quota by 400 atleast, since 400 people wouldn't make it if their sport was held to the same standard. GuzzyG (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Also last point: but actually looking into ski jumpers; the next ones we'd list would be Sara Takanashi, Simon Ammann or Kamil Stoch; the fact that you chose Adam Małysz over them is odd considering he's less successful than them, but he does have more wikidata languages than most of the video game designers unlike the others; also the fact that Takanashi is not as popular in her home country as the esports players despite being the greatest female ski jumper of all time; signifies the importance of esports players it'd seem and the fact that Małysz has more wikidata languages than them signifies how much of a unreliable system just depending on that alone is. sports is the one section that should be recent leaning; athletes don't have that much historical value unless they hold a record or they're a anomaly like Babe Ruth, as such we should be more focused on current athletes. GuzzyG (talk) 04:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Purplebackpack89#@GuzzyG:,_@Dawid2009:_and_Vital_articles - here we both already discusset and said enough related matters (on PBP's talk page). Either way I just echo my last and main point: Calcio Fiorentino is not more vital than Mesoamerican Ballame but enough vital for this level if we consider what else we cover on this level, even despite fact we list articles related to history of soccer. It is more vital game from Florence than Game of the Goose (first commeecial game) which is also from Florence so Calcio automatically is more vital than most commercial video games. This centureies game is also so traditional game that Italy it is the only country n Europe where name of soccer is not called there by Linguistic purism as foot+ball (see it:Calcio). I am not sure how to compare articles like Fortnite or Ninja (video game player) (really global but the most recent and in near future will be easier to compare) but Calcio and Game of the Goose, certainly are more important to FA than most games like Passage (video game). Dawid2009 (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

FAQ

Althoug the FAQ refer about „anti-rcentism”, currently we have often discussions about fact that some fields (just like films or video games) need this rigoristic limit less than the others (just like literaturę, oral tradition etc.). Is someone interested to correct there? Another interesing thing i salso „tiloring to readers of the English Wikipedia” as it also is going to be more confused on lower (L4 and L5) levels and contradict to WP:Bias which whay active participitians have differ definitions about vitalness in that project. In the past @Power~enwiki: tried start this discussion on Jimbo’s talk page here but it did not get tany attention. Maybe now on the level 5 (when talk on L5 is more than double times more viewed than talk on L3) we could hve any consensus here? I also echo discussion above where Calcio fiorentino and a lot of parent bvideo games are suggested to the removal meanwhile @GuzzyG: defend Esport players. I am generally ambivalent as I only will wait for consensus among larer number of ditors but I would like to ping @Headbomb: who added almost all video game topics on this level and @Carlwev: who originally pointed in the past that we often miss parent topics on the level 5 (as Carlwev also speciffically were reffering to fact that we were listing for example Esport players before video games, meanwhile we now we again are going to cut video games back). Dawid2009 (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: who added almost all video game topics on this level I did? If I did so, I added generations + biggest members of the generation, and some historically important games / franchises. No real strong feelings about particular target number of articles, but IMO the generations, the big consoles, and those historically important games should stay. (@Dawid2009: Also your above post contains a rather large number of typos which makes it hard to understand.) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

111+ individual games seems rather high though. Cutting down by ~50 ish should leave plenty behind. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the current list, I'd purge the following

That would remove 37 entries. A couple of those could be trimmed/replaced with the franchise entry. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I would also trim the following: Call of Duty 4, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Civilization I, Legend of Zelda 86, A Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, Super Mario Bros, Super Mario 64, Super Mario World, Metal Gear 98, Super Metroid, Pokémon Red and Blue, Sonic 91, Street Fighter II, Super Smash Bros Melee pbp 00:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd support PBP's suggestions except; Pokémon Red and Blue, Super Mario 64, Super Mario Bros. and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time all are super important on their own; the last two i'd rather list over their franchises aswell before they were removed. Super Mario Bros. is the The Birth of a Nation of games and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is the Citizen Kane of games. I also have no clue why Level 3's anti recentism rule is cited at level 5; where all the listed examples of who not to list are listed at level 4, except Trump. GuzzyG (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think Dota 2 should be swapped with it's bland franchise article; it's one of the highest paying esports and is regarded as one of the greatest games itself. GuzzyG (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It's strange how we list rarely any of the Game canon [15], with these proposed removals we won't have any of the top 10 of metacritics highest rated games [16], not that we have many of them now anyway. Do we really need to cut video games down? [17] it's the highest selling form of entertainment. Nearly triples films revenue; what articles will replace them in the sports and games section that's so important? More sports teams? Space Invaders has grossed in total more than nearly triple Dallas Cowboys are worth and even super recent Grand Theft Auto V has made more in gross than the Cowboy's are worth. Do we have any replacements planned or are we just cutting to cut? GuzzyG (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

There are only a few here I'd cut, like Digimon, Passage (video game), and Ultima (series). Many of these are listed in the list of video games considered the best which indicates, to me at least, that they shouldn't be cut (e.g. BioShock and Assassin's Creed, two of the best selling game franchises. In fact, I'd make some additions and modifications to the list:

• SimCity (1989 video game) should be placed under a SimCity header. (SM2K was successful too)
• Quake should get, at least, Quake III Arena because of its eSports scene, alongside Quake Live.
• StarCraft should get StarCraft (video game) (I'm not sure about SC2 being listed).
• Counter-Strike could possibly see Counter-Strike: Source and Counter-Strike: Global Offensive.
• I'm surprised Wolfenstein doesn't have Wolfenstein 3D.
• Fortnite should be changed to Fortnite Battle Royale. All the hype around this game was not for the survival mode and this should reflect that. Alternatively, list BR under Fortnite.
• This one might be recentism at play, but I wouldn't be opposed to World of Warcraft Classic being listed either, under World of Warcraft.

I'm very much opposed to the cuts that Purplebackpack89 proposed. Every single game they listed has been influential in some way. Similarly, Dota 2 is undeniably more popular than anything else listed in Dota and should not be cut. Other games, like The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, could be added to this, though this discussion is not the place for that. Anarchyte (talk | work) 10:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Anarchyte:: The thing is, I'd like the titles section to have about half the titles it does now. I just find it excessive to have 100+ video game titles. And I think it's unnecessary in most cases to have multiple titles from the same franchise or series. pbp 14:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

We have 523 total sport-related vital articles. For swimming we have, among others, Synchronised swimming, Swimming (sport) and Water polo. For gymnastics we've got Balance beam, Pommel horse, Uneven bars, etc. That's no different to having a few Mario games that sold more than 70 million units and another series that sold over 135 million units. Pokemon Red and Blue were the first games in what is now the biggest media franchise in the world. I don't think the same can be said for the floor. Anarchyte (talk | work) 16:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion seems to have stalled so I'm doing another proposal to get things moving and arrive at a quota. What about we do a vote on how many specific games/series we want, after closing take the median value and (for the sake of aesthetics) round it to the nearest number divisible by 5, or divisible by 10 if the median happens to be exactly halfway between two numbers divisible by 5. For the record, my vote would be 80 games. (The other video game subsections seem fine to me in terms of size.)--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

My suggestions are that we should:

• Remove Animal Crossing, Civilization (series), Colossal Cave Adventure, Contra, Defender, Duck Hunt, Dune II, Fallout (series), Five Nights at Freddy's, EarthBound, Fortnite, GoldenEye 007, Half-Life (series), Kirby (series), Katamari Damacy, Max Payne, Metal Gear, Ōkami, Pitfall!, PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds, Prince of Persia, Punch-Out!!, Quake, Rez, Red Dead Redemption, Roblox, Rogue, R-Type, Shadow of the Colossus, Souls series, Star Fox, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, Street Fighter
• Definitely keep Assassin's Creed, BioShock, Civilization (video game), Dark Souls, Deus Ex, Doom, Dota 2, Elite, Fallout (video game), Final Fantasy VII, Grand Theft Auto III, Grand Theft Auto V, Half-Life (video game), Metal Gear Solid, Pac-Man, Pokémon Red and Blue, Pong, Resident Evil, SimCity, Space Invaders, Spacewar!, StarCraft, Street Fighter II: The World Warrior, Super Mario Bros., Super Mario 64, Super Metroid, Tetris, The Legend of Zelda (video game), The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, The Secret of Monkey Island, Tomb Raider, World of Warcraft, Zork --Makkool (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll follow suit - my votes for the procedure I proposed below:

• Keep/upvote: Angry Birds, Assassin's Creed, Asteroids (video game), Call of Duty, Castlevania, Civilization (series), Colossal Cave Adventure, Doom (1993 video game), Final Fantasy, Grand Theft Auto, Half-Life (series), League of Legends, The Legend of Zelda, LucasArts adventure games, Mario (franchise), Super Mario Bros., Mega Man, Metal Gear, Metroid, Minecraft, Myst, Pac-Man, Resident Evil, Rogue, Silent Hill, SimCity (1989 video game), The Sims, Sonic the Hedgehog, Dark Souls, Space Invaders, Spacewar!, Street Fighter, Tomb Raider, Ultima series, World of Warcraft
• Remove/downvote: Animal Crossing, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Civilization (video game), Contra, Duck Hunt, Dune II, EarthBound, Fallout (video game), Final Fantasy (video game), Final Fantasy IV, Fire Emblem, Five Nights at Freddy's, Fortnite, Grand Theft Auto V, Kingdom Hearts, Kirby, Katamari Damacy, Marvel vs. Capcom, Max Payne (video game), Metal Gear Solid, Metroid Prime, Super Metroid, Minesweeper, Ms. Pac-Man, NBA Jam (1993 video game), Papers, Please, Ōkami, Overwatch, Passage, PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds, Pokémon Go, Prince of Persia, Punch-Out!! (NES), R-Type, Red Dead Redemption, Rez, Rock Band, Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game), Sonic Adventure, Souls series, Star Fox, Super Mario World, Super Smash Bros. Melee --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Since new games have been added I will also vote to remove Animal Crossing: New Horizons, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Ratchet & Clank, and Red Dead Redemption 2.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 06:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Voting on video game inclusion using Laukku's method

Here are the results so far. There are only two voters if we only count those who explicitly intended my method, but I hope for more.

Article	P	K	R	Notes
Pokémon (Level 4)	100			exempt as on lvl 4
Pong (Level 4)	100			exempt as on lvl 4
Tetris (Level 4)	100			exempt as on lvl 4
Assassin's Creed	67	2	0
Doom	67	2	0
Super Mario Bros.	67	2	0
Pac-Man	67	2	0
Resident Evil	67	2	0
SimCity	67	2	0
Dark Souls	67	2	0
Space Invaders	67	2	0
Spacewar!	67	2	0
Tomb Raider	67	2	0
World of Warcraft	67	2	0
Angry Birds	60	1	0
Asteroids	60	1	0
BioShock	60	1	0
Call of Duty	60	1	0
Castlevania	60	1	0
Deus Ex	60	1	0
Dota 2	60	1	0
Elite	60	1	0
Final Fantasy	60	1	0
Final Fantasy VII	60	1	0
Grand Theft Auto	60	1	0
Grand Theft Auto III	60	1	0
Half-Life (video game)	60	1	0
League of Legends	60	1	0
The Legend of Zelda	60	1	0
The Legend of Zelda (video game)	60	1	0
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time	60	1	0
LucasArts adventure games	60	1	0
The Secret of Monkey Island	60	1	0
Mario	60	1	0
Super Mario 64	60	1	0
Mega Man	60	1	0
Metroid	60	1	0
Minecraft	60	1	0
Myst	60	1	0
Pokémon Red and Blue	60	1	0
Silent Hill	60	1	0
The Sims	60	1	0
Sonic the Hedgehog	60	1	0
StarCraft	60	1	0
Street Fighter II	60	1	0
Ultima series	60	1	0
Zork	60	1	0
Animal Crossing: New Horizons	50	0	0	added since voting began
Candy Crush Saga	50	0	0
Civilization (series)	50	1	1
Civilization (video game)	50	1	1
Colossal Cave Adventure	50	1	1
Counter-Strike	50	0	0
Dance Dance Revolution	50	0	0
Digimon	50	0	0
Donkey Kong	50	0	0
Dragon Quest	50	0	0
The Elder Scrolls	50	0	0
Fallout (video game)	50	1	1
FIFA	50	0	0
Frogger	50	0	0
Galaga	50	0	0
Gauntlet	50	0	0
God of War	50	0	0
Grand Theft Auto V	50	1	1
Half-Life (series)	50	1	1
Gran Turismo	50	0	0
Guitar Hero	50	0	0
Halo	50	0	0
King's Quest I	50	0	0
The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past	50	0	0
The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild	50	0	0	added since voting began
Madden NFL	50	0	0
Mario Kart	50	0	0
Metal Gear	50	1	1
Metal Gear Solid	50	1	1
Super Metroid	50	1	1
Mortal Kombat	50	0	0
Need for Speed	50	0	0
NetHack	50	0	0
The Oregon Trail	50	0	0	added since voting began
Planescape: Torment	50	0	0
Portal	50	0	0
Pro Evolution Soccer	50	0	0
Ratchet & Clank	50	0	0	added since voting began
Red Dead Redemption 2	50	0	0	added since voting began
Rogue	50	1	1
Second Life	50	0	0
Street Fighter	50	1	1
Super Smash Bros.	50	0	0
Team Fortress 2	50	0	0
Tekken	50	0	0
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six	50	0	0
Touhou Project	50	0	0	added since voting began
The Walking Dead	50	0	0
Wii Sports	50	0	0
Wizardry	50	0	0	added since voting began
Wolfenstein 3D	50	0	0	added since voting began
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare	40	0	1
Castlevania: Symphony of the Night	40	0	1
Defender	40	0	1
Fallout (series)	40	0	1
Final Fantasy (video game)	40	0	1
Final Fantasy IV	40	0	1
Fire Emblem	40	0	1
GoldenEye 007	40	0	1
Kingdom Hearts	40	0	1
Super Mario World	40	0	1
Marvel vs. Capcom	40	0	1
Metroid Prime	40	0	1
Minesweeper	40	0	1
NBA Jam	40	0	1
Overwatch	40	0	1
Ms. Pac-Man	40	0	1
Papers, Please	40	0	1
Pitfall!	40	0	1
Pokémon Go	40	0	1
Quake	40	0	1
Roblox	40	0	1
Rock Band	40	0	1
Shadow of the Colossus	40	0	1
Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game)	40	0	1
Sonic Adventure	40	0	1
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic	40	0	1
Super Smash Bros. Melee	40	0	1
Contra	33	0	2
Duck Hunt	33	0	2
Dune II	33	0	2
EarthBound	33	0	2
Fortnite	33	0	2
Max Payne	33	0	2
Ōkami	33	0	2
PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds	33	0	2
Prince of Persia	33	0	2
Punch-Out!!	33	0	2
Rez	33	0	2
R-Type	33	0	2
Souls series	33	0	2
Star Fox	33	0	2

The distribution of games per level of P is as follows: 3 of P=100, 11 of P=67, 32 of P=60, 51 of P=50, 27 of P=40 and 14 of P=33. Including games of P=50 and above would result in a list of 97 games, nicely close to 100.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

How can my votes above be applied to your method? pbp 21:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

(Link to where I detailed the method, for the record.) Most convenient for me would be for you to, like I and Makkool did right above, list game articles to keep and to remove. I could just add "remove" votes to all entries you wanted to remove - I hesitated because A) the comment was made before my method's introduction and you could've voted differently with it in mind (there is ambiguity in particular whether to interpret the other games as being voted as "keeps"); B) I was too lazy to sift through the "I support Wikipedian X's removals except with these differences" style comments and C) the comment is outdated since the addition of even more games to the list (I should update my votes).--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 06:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Here are the ones I vote to remove right now: Animal Crossing, Assassin’s Creed, BioShock, Call of Duty 4, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Civilization I, Digimon, Dota, Final Fantasy game, Final Fantasy IV, Final Fantasy VII, God of War, GTA III, GTA V, Half Life game, King’s Quest, Kirby, Katamari, Kingdom Hearts, Legend of Zelda 86, A Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, Max Payne, Marvel vs Capcom, Super Mario Bros, Super Mario 64, Super Mario World, Metal Gear 98, Metroid Prime, Super Metroid, NetHack, NBA Jam, Okami, Papers Please, Passage, Pitfall, Pokémon Red and Blue, Pro Evolution, Rez, Red Dead Redemption, Roblox, Shadow of the Colossus, Silent Hill, Sonic 91, Street Fighter II, Super Smash Bros Melee, Tekken, The Walking Dead, Wii Sports, Zork pbp 01:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Updated table:

Article	P	K	R	Notes
Pokémon (Level 4)	100			exempt as on lvl 4
Pong (Level 4)	100			exempt as on lvl 4
Tetris (Level 4)	100			exempt as on lvl 4
Doom	67	2	0
Pac-Man	67	2	0
Resident Evil	67	2	0
SimCity	67	2	0
Dark Souls	67	2	0
Space Invaders	67	2	0
Spacewar!	67	2	0
Tomb Raider	67	2	0
World of Warcraft	67	2	0
Angry Birds	60	1	0
Asteroids	60	1	0
Call of Duty	60	1	0
Castlevania	60	1	0
Deus Ex	60	1	0
Elite	60	1	0
Final Fantasy	60	1	0
Grand Theft Auto	60	1	0
Halo	60	1	0
League of Legends	60	1	0
The Legend of Zelda	60	1	0
LucasArts adventure games	60	1	0
Mario	60	1	0
Mega Man	60	1	0
Metroid	60	1	0
Minecraft	60	1	0
Myst	60	1	0
The Secret of Monkey Island	60	1	0
The Sims	60	1	0
Sonic the Hedgehog	60	1	0
StarCraft	60	1	0
Ultima series	60	1	0
Assassin's Creed	57	2	1
Super Mario Bros.	57	2	1
BioShock	50	1	1
Candy Crush Saga	50	0	0
Civilization (series)	50	1	1
Colossal Cave Adventure	50	1	1
Counter-Strike	50	0	0
Dance Dance Revolution	50	0	0
Donkey Kong	50	0	0
Dota 2	50	1	1
Dragon Quest	50	0	0
The Elder Scrolls	50	0	0
Fallout (video game)	50	1	1
FIFA	50	0	0
Final Fantasy VII	50	1	1
Frogger	50	0	0
Galaga	50	0	0
Gauntlet	50	0	0
Grand Theft Auto III	50	1	1
Gran Turismo	50	0	0
Guitar Hero	50	0	0
Half-Life (series)	50	1	1
Half-Life (video game)	50	1	1
Madden NFL	50	0	0
Mario Kart	50	0	0
Metal Gear	50	1	1
Metal Gear Solid	50	1	1
Mortal Kombat	50	0	0
Need for Speed	50	0	0
The Oregon Trail	50	0	0	added since voting began
Planescape: Torment	50	0	0
Pokémon Red and Blue	50	1	1
Portal	50	0	0
Rogue	50	1	1
Second Life	50	0	0
Silent Hill	50	1	1
Street Fighter	50	1	1
Street Fighter II	50	1	1
Super Mario 64	50	1	1
Super Metroid	50	1	1
Super Smash Bros.	50	0	0
Team Fortress 2	50	0	0
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six	50	0	0
Touhou Project	50	0	0	added since voting began
Wizardry	50	0	0	added since voting began
Wolfenstein 3D	50	0	0	added since voting began
The Legend of Zelda (video game)	50	1	1
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time	50	1	1
Zork	50	1	1
Civilization (video game)	43	1	2
Grand Theft Auto V	43	1	2
Defender	40	0	1
Digimon	40	0	1
Fallout (series)	40	0	1
Fire Emblem	40	0	1
God of War	40	0	1
GoldenEye 007	40	0	1
King's Quest I	40	0	1
Metroid Prime	40	0	1
Minesweeper	40	0	1
Overwatch	40	0	1
Ms. Pac-Man	40	0	1
NetHack	40	0	1
Pokémon Go	40	0	1
Pro Evolution Soccer	40	0	1
Quake	40	0	1
Ratchet & Clank	40	0	1	added since voting began
Rock Band	40	0	1
Sonic Adventure	40	0	1
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic	40	0	1
Tekken	40	0	1
The Walking Dead	40	0	1
Wii Sports	40	0	1
The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past	40	0	1
The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild	40	0	1	added since voting began
Animal Crossing: New Horizons	33	0	2	added since voting began
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare	33	0	2
Castlevania: Symphony of the Night	33	0	2
Contra	33	0	2
Duck Hunt	33	0	2
Dune II	33	0	2
EarthBound	33	0	2
Final Fantasy (video game)	33	0	2
Final Fantasy IV	33	0	2
Fortnite	33	0	2
Kingdom Hearts	33	0	2
Marvel vs. Capcom	33	0	2
NBA Jam	33	0	2
Papers, Please	33	0	2
Pitfall!	33	0	2
PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds	33	0	2
Prince of Persia	33	0	2
Punch-Out!!	33	0	2
R-Type	33	0	2
Red Dead Redemption 2	33	0	2	added since voting began
Roblox	33	0	2
Shadow of the Colossus	33	0	2
Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game)	33	0	2
Souls series	33	0	2
Star Fox	33	0	2
Super Mario World	33	0	2
Super Smash Bros. Melee	33	0	2
Max Payne	29	0	3
Ōkami	29	0	3
Rez	29	0	3

I took the liberty of interpreting Purplebackpack89's votes for Red Dead Redemption and Animal Crossing as meaning Red Dead Redemption 2 and Animal Crossing: New Horizons respectively, since the former games had been removed and the latter added since HeadBomb's list above.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Support / Vote to keep for keeping Halo (franchise), but I figure that not much debate is needed on this. Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I updated the updated table with your vote.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks :) Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• My personal opinion is that we should probably be a lot stricter on what gets in, like 30-ish max as opposed to the current 100 - you can't deny that most of the games currently listed are important to video games, but are they vital article level important? Not nearly all of them. casualdejekyll (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  When there are multiple hundreds of TV programs and sitcom, 100 video games of different genre combined doesn't sound like a lot. Of course the TV program section should get slimmed down too. C933103 (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Although I've been hoping for more votes, I'm considering finally going ahead and removing all games with a P score of 33 or lower. That'd leave us with a bit over 100 video games (reasonable IMO, at least moreso than 138) and bring us very close to the quota of 360 "Games" topics. One factor to consider when deciding how many video games we ultimately want is that the "Sports, games and recreation" subquotas don't add up to the quota listed at WP:VA5 (1150 vs 1250).--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• I went ahead and removed the articles in question. There's still some significant fine-tuning required, like the possible removal of most if not all individual entries of a series and those that are too recent or otherwise questionable, some possible additions (e.g. Fate/Stay Night to represent visual novels).--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Aren't PUBG, Animal Crossing, Fortnite, Roblox, and Souls series among those with score 33 quite notable? At least I think they are more deserving to be keep than Portal, Ms. Pac-Man, Rock Band, Team Fortress 2, GoldenEye 007.

As for visual novels, in addition to F/SN, I think Air would also be a good addition

Disclaimer: I haven't played all these games except Portal, and are merely judging from their external impact. C933103 (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Anti-recentism contributes to why the majority of those were voted down (lasting influence is preferred, which new or newly popularised games simply don't have), and I for one considered the Souls series redundant with the also-listed individual Dark Souls game (I furthermore think listing the first Civilization and Fallout games in addition to their series is overly redundant and would only include the series). Rock Band I agree should be removed but I was the only one to vote so. You're free to add your own vote in the same format and I will revise the included games if you do; you can propose changes in a more straightforward manner too if you prefer. And as for Air as an addition... eh, I'd rank it below Ace Attorney, YU-NO and earlier nakige like Kanon in importance - and of those would only seriously consider adding Ace Attorney (in addition to F/SN of course).--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 21:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I hereby officially vote for keeping PUBG, Fortnite, Roblox, and removing Ms. Pac-Man, Team Fortress 2, GoldenEye 007. C933103 (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Updated table:

Article	P	K	R	Notes
Pokémon (Level 4)	100			exempt as on lvl 4
Pong	100			exempt as on lvl 4 (at the start of voting)
Tetris (Level 4)	100			exempt as on lvl 4
Doom	67	2	0
Pac-Man	67	2	0
Resident Evil	67	2	0
SimCity	67	2	0
Dark Souls	67	2	0
Space Invaders	67	2	0
Spacewar!	67	2	0
Tomb Raider	67	2	0
World of Warcraft	67	2	0
Angry Birds	60	1	0
Asteroids	60	1	0
Call of Duty	60	1	0
Castlevania	60	1	0
Deus Ex	60	1	0
Elite	60	1	0
Final Fantasy	60	1	0
Grand Theft Auto	60	1	0
Halo	60	1	0
League of Legends	60	1	0
The Legend of Zelda	60	1	0
LucasArts adventure games	60	1	0
Mario	60	1	0
Mega Man	60	1	0
Metroid	60	1	0
Minecraft	60	1	0
Myst	60	1	0
The Secret of Monkey Island	60	1	0
The Sims	60	1	0
Sonic the Hedgehog	60	1	0
StarCraft	60	1	0
Ultima series	60	1	0
Assassin's Creed	57	2	1
Super Mario Bros.	57	2	1
BioShock	50	1	1
Candy Crush Saga	50	0	0
Civilization (series)	50	1	1
Colossal Cave Adventure	50	1	1
Counter-Strike	50	0	0
Dance Dance Revolution	50	0	0
Donkey Kong	50	0	0
Dota 2	50	1	1
Dragon Quest	50	0	0
The Elder Scrolls	50	0	0
Fallout (video game)	50	1	1
FIFA	50	0	0
Final Fantasy VII	50	1	1
Frogger	50	0	0
Galaga	50	0	0
Gauntlet	50	0	0
Grand Theft Auto III	50	1	1
Gran Turismo	50	0	0
Guitar Hero	50	0	0
Half-Life (series)	50	1	1
Half-Life (video game)	50	1	1
Madden NFL	50	0	0
Mario Kart	50	0	0
Metal Gear	50	1	1
Metal Gear Solid	50	1	1
Mortal Kombat	50	0	0
Need for Speed	50	0	0
The Oregon Trail	50	0	0	added since voting began
Planescape: Torment	50	0	0
Pokémon Red and Blue	50	1	1
Portal	50	0	0
Rogue	50	1	1
Second Life	50	0	0
Silent Hill	50	1	1
Street Fighter	50	1	1
Street Fighter II	50	1	1
Super Mario 64	50	1	1
Super Metroid	50	1	1
Super Smash Bros.	50	0	0
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six	50	0	0
Touhou Project	50	0	0	added since voting began
Wizardry	50	0	0	added since voting began
Wolfenstein 3D	50	0	0	added since voting began
The Legend of Zelda (video game)	50	1	1
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time	50	1	1
Zork	50	1	1
Civilization (video game)	43	1	2
Fortnite	43	1	2
Grand Theft Auto V	43	1	2
PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds	43	1	2
Roblox	43	1	2
Defender	40	0	1
Digimon	40	0	1
Fallout (series)	40	0	1
Fire Emblem	40	0	1
God of War	40	0	1
King's Quest I	40	0	1
Metroid Prime	40	0	1
Minesweeper	40	0	1
Overwatch	40	0	1
NetHack	40	0	1
Pokémon Go	40	0	1
Pro Evolution Soccer	40	0	1
Quake	40	0	1
Ratchet & Clank	40	0	1	added since voting began
Rock Band	40	0	1
Sonic Adventure	40	0	1
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic	40	0	1
Team Fortress 2	40	0	1
Tekken	40	0	1
The Walking Dead	40	0	1
Wii Sports	40	0	1
The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past	40	0	1
The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild	40	0	1	added since voting began
Animal Crossing: New Horizons	33	0	2	added since voting began
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare	33	0	2
Castlevania: Symphony of the Night	33	0	2
Contra	33	0	2
Duck Hunt	33	0	2
Dune II	33	0	2
EarthBound	33	0	2
Final Fantasy (video game)	33	0	2
Final Fantasy IV	33	0	2
GoldenEye 007	33	0	2
Kingdom Hearts	33	0	2
Marvel vs. Capcom	33	0	2
Ms. Pac-Man	33	0	2
NBA Jam	33	0	2
Papers, Please	33	0	2
Pitfall!	33	0	2
Prince of Persia	33	0	2
Punch-Out!!	33	0	2
R-Type	33	0	2
Red Dead Redemption 2	33	0	2	added since voting began
Shadow of the Colossus	33	0	2
Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game)	33	0	2
Souls series	33	0	2
Star Fox	33	0	2
Super Mario World	33	0	2
Super Smash Bros. Melee	33	0	2
Max Payne	29	0	3
Ōkami	29	0	3
Rez	29	0	3

This moves Fortnite, PUBG and Roblox to 43 P, Team Fortress 2 to 40 P, and GoldenEye 007 and Ms. Pac-Man to 33 P. If I keep the threshold of 40 P for inclusion this adds back the 3 foremost and removes the 2 lattermost. Pong was demoted at one point from level 4 but I'm keeping it at 100 P for now. Before I go ahead with changes I'm going to ping @Headbomb who contributed to earlier discussion, hoping to see if I could get another vote.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I decided to not wait any longer and carried out the removals and additions. There are still tweaks I'd like to make (removing e.g. Rock Band, Civilization 1 and Fallout 1, and adding Adventure (1980) and Fate/Stay Night) in a way that trims the list down to 100, but I'm planning to propose the details in a future comment.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 20:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Sports teams

Basketball

I've added Harlem Globetrotters to three NBA teams. This team popularized the game more than any single NBA club. --Deinocheirus (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Association football

I strongly suggest replacing R.S.C. Anderlecht with AFC Ajax. The Dutch club won the Champions League and its predecessor 4 times (the Belgians never won it) while also adding an Intercontinental Cup and a couple of UEFA Super Cups. All Anderlecht has got is two Cup Winners' Cups (Ajax actually also has one) and one UEFA Cup (Ajax also has one). So I don't see any reason to keep Anderlecht on the list in place of a much more successful club. --Deinocheirus (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)