Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4

General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography Society STEM

Introduction

The purpose of this discussion page is to select 10,000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles. All Wikipedia editors are welcome to participate. Individual topics are proposed for addition or removal, followed by discussion and !voting. It is also possible to propose a swap of a new topic for a lower-priority topic already on the list.

All proposals must remain open for !voting for a minimum of 15 days, after which:

1. After 15 days it may be closed as PASSED if there are (a) 5 or more supports, AND (b) at least two-thirds are in support.
2. After 30 days it may be closed as FAILED if there are (a) 3 or more opposes, AND (b) it failed to earn two-thirds support.
3. After 30 days it may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal hasn't received any !votes for +30 days, regardless of tally.
4. After 60 days it may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal has (a) less than 5 supports, AND (b) less than two-thirds support.

Nominations should be left open beyond the minimum if they have a reasonable chance of passing. An informed discussion with more editor participation produces an improved and more stable final list, so be patient with the process.

When you are making a decision whether to add or remove a particular topic from the Vital Articles Level 4 list, we strongly recommend that you review and compare the other topics in the same category in order to get a better sense of what other topics are considered vital in that area. We have linked the sublists at the top of each proposal area.

• 15 days ago: 12:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC) ()
• 30 days ago: 12:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• 60 days ago: 12:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

If you are starting a discussion, please choose the matching section from the TOC:

Contents

People

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People for the list of topics in this category.

Entertainers

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Entertainers for the list of topics in this category.

Add Betty White

Has long career. Recently died. Interstellarity (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support [nom]
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Many other television people are at similar level of importance. Not comparable to Lucille Ball. --Thi (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Visual artists

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Visual artists for the list of topics in this category.

Add Lewis Hine

Helped bring first child labor laws to America. Interstellarity (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Opppose Not sufficiently well known and global presence. scope_creep^Talk 12:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Writers

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Writers for the list of topics in this category.

Add William Makepeace Thackeray

Thackeray is one of the canonical authors of English literature. His main work Vanity Fair has been adapted many times for the film and television. "The narrative skill, subtle characterization, and descriptive power make it one of the outstanding novels of its period." (Britannica) [2] [3] Becky Sharp has been considered one of the most vivid characters in English literature.

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discuss

Add Lady Mary Wortley Montagu

She was an influential writer. Interstellarity (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Her Turkish Embassy Letters are a vital record of the Ottoman Empire's social life. Dimadick (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Émilie du Châtelet would also be interesting addition. --Thi (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Journalists

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Journalists for the list of topics in this category.

Musicians and composers

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Musicians and composers for the list of topics in this category.

Directors, producers and screenwriters

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Directors, producers and screenwriters for the list of topics in this category.

Businesspeople

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Businesspeople for the list of topics in this category.

Add Jeff Bezos

Support

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

Oppose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discuss

Add Elon Musk

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discuss

Add Richard Warren Sears

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

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

Discussion

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

Add Ray Croc

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discussion

Add William Levitt

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discussion

Add Ferdinand de Lesseps

Suggested as the most vital businessman not listed. Interstellarity (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Developer of the Suez Canal. Common topic in encyclopedia. --Thi (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Support One of the most significant diplomats of the 19th century. Initiated plans for both the Suez Canal and the Panama Canal. He also presented the Statue of Liberty as France's gift to the United States. Dimadick (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. Interstellarity (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Explorers

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Explorers for the list of topics in this category.

Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists for the list of topics in this category.

add Emanuel Swedenborg

This guy was even suggested to be added on the level 3 (here). From the article on Goethe: Ralph Waldo Emerson selected Goethe as one of six "representative men" in his work of the same name (along with Plato, Emanuel Swedenborg, Montaigne, Napoleon, and Shakespeare). He and Nobel are probably outstanding Swedishes of all time. We are under quota but if someone has ideas on swap I can support.

Support

1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Per nom. Highly influential person, who is from the 18th century and still is pretty important. One of the older figures we miss. It's weird to list Tom Hanks and Magic Johnson types while missing people like Swedenborg who have been important for centuries. Nearly 3k hits in WorldCat [4]; shows theres lots of work available on him (compare that with 8 [5] for Claudette Colbert who we list. GuzzyG (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Swedenborg is the founder of The New Church, one of the earliest new religious movements. His ideas influenced Mormonism, New Thought, and analytical psychology. Dimadick (talk) 10:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Many prominent figures were influenced by Emanuel Swedenborg, for instance, Helen Keller, who is currently listed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Protagoras

Support

1. As nom. Because Plato credited him with inventing the role of the professional sophist, he is no doubt vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Theophrastus

Support

1. As nom. Because he is often considered the father of botany, he is absolutely vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Philo

Support

1. As nom. Because allegorical interpretation of the Bible became popular among Christians because of him, his works greatly influenced Alexandrian Christians, especially Clement of Alexandria and his pupil Origen (both are currently listed), and Judeo-Christian values have been influencing many peoples, Philo should be listed as well.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Religious figures

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Religious figures for the list of topics in this category.

Politicians and leaders

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Politicians and leaders for the list of topics in this category.

Add Abdelaziz Bouteflika

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discuss

Add Bill Clinton

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

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

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

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

Neutral

Discuss

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

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

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

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

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

Swap: Remove John Adams and James Madison, Add William McKinley

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Neutral

Discuss

Add Yumjaagiin Tsedenbal

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

Support

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

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Add Paul Biya

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

Support

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

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Add Omar Bongo

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

Support

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

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Add Mohamed Abdelaziz

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

Support

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

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Add Shang Tang

Founder of the Shang dynasty.

Support

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

Oppose

Discuss

Add Jiang Ziya

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

Support

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

Oppose

Discuss

Add Empress Lü

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

Support

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

Oppose

Discuss

Add Jean Monnet and/or Robert Schuman

These two people played an important role in shaping the European Union. Interstellarity (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. I don't care whether both are added or one of them is added, I support either way. Interstellarity (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Slightly prefer Schuman, but either is fine. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Either is fine. Dimadick (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Add Isabel Martínez de Perón

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discussion

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

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

Add Menachem Begin

He's influential since he signed a peace treaty with Egypt to normalize relations with Israel. Interstellarity (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Add Jimmy Carter

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

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

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

Neutral

Discussion

Add Khufu

This person has been influential especially with a pyramid named after him. Interstellarity (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We know very little about Khufu. Great Pyramid of Giza is listed. --Thi (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Military leaders and theorists

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Military leaders and theorists for the list of topics in this category.

Rebels, revolutionaries and activists

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Rebels, revolutionaries and activists for the list of topics in this category.

Add Clara Barton

She founded the Red Cross which is influential to this day. Interstellarity (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Support She is the founder of the American Red Cross and quite influential. But the founder of the Red Cross as a movement was Henry Dunant. Dimadick (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Add Mother Jones

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

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Often used as an example of influential woman. --Thi (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Effective union organizer. Dimadick (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Scientists, inventors and mathematicians

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Scientists, inventors and mathematicians for the list of topics in this category.

Add Christiaan Barnard

Surprised he's not on here especially since the first heart transplant was credited to him. Interstellarity (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Performed two pioneering heart transplants, and developed a remedy for intestinal atresia that reduced infant mortality. Dimadick (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Heart transplantation should be added first. --Thi (talk) 10:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Add Benjamin Spock

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

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Support His child-rearing advice are credited as a revolution in the field. However, his ideas about childhood nutrition are considered as instructions on how to cause nutritional deficiencies, instead of preventing them. Dimadick (talk) 03:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Sports figures

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Sports figures for the list of topics in this category.

Suggestion: add William G. Morgan

I suggest add one person which represents somehow Volleyball on this list. According to Sport#popularity volleyball is 5-th the most popular sport in the world and the most popular not represented on this list. Current list constain (far too much IMHO) about 100 sportpeople but I have noted there was one representative of Volleyball on GuzzyG's list of 50 sport people: [6]. GuzzyG's choosed Karch Kiraly but I think William G (creator of Volleyball) is more vital. Wikiproject's rating agrees with me. In some accidents founders of sport can be more important than celebrite athletes, I think it is certainly in Volleyball's case, because of this sport is especially important in light of recreation. The list constain James Naismith who de facto only invented game similar to basketball (he did not invented dribbling for example), but was ranked on list 1000 years, 1000 people ahead of Michael Jordan. I think William G. Mrgan has strong "top of representative field" and represents "enough important sport", can be swapped for one or more people when we are under quota and there are so plenty living sportspeople on the list (yes, I know, sport is modernly important human's activity and athletes gers achivements at young age, but I still think there are too many sport living people). So let discuss this...

Support

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

Oppose

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

Oppose swap

Discuss

If this guy is so obscure (compared to other sports figures we list); why does he get 1.3 million pageviews [7]; from as diverse languages as Spanish, Portuguese (Brazil), Indonesian, Thai and Japanese. (where volleyball is mega popular); he gets more pageviews than most of the Rugby players (only prominent in English too) here [8] and here [9]. Dare mention the two speed skaters; who are also thoroughly beat [10] and [11]. Volleyball is a major team sport, popular across the globe and in the olympics, more important than alot of the sports here. It deserves a rep. It's bad on us that American football, a extremely isolated non-olympic sport has more coverage than a major one like this. I could list many other of the sports people we list too - .... how is he unknown compared to the standards with others on this list? If him getting beat out in English disproves his vitality to English than Ingemar Stenmark faces the same issue [12]. This will be common with olympic sports; they are not always big in Anglo English speaking countries; but they are important to the history of sports; how many people have single handedly created a Olympic sport? Kanō Jigorō is another one (and it doesnt matter if a random American does not know him; as a founder of an Olympic sport; he will always be important in sports history... more so than a Jerry Rice on a global sense). If this guy is too obscure to list; can we cut down sports figures to like 50.. i'd be down for that - but at 97 - volleyball needs one. It's one of only 3 sports at 70 mil pageviews itself... (although not popular in the US so irrelevant here i gues like handball and water polo) GuzzyG (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

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

No, you just flat out do not understand the reality of this list in sports figures; this guy is middle of the pack. [13]. There's nothing out of place with this guy. The whole point of the sports list was to cover the many popular sports. Otherwise there is no justification for a Colin Meads or Ingemar Stenmark; obviously American sports media is going to push their sports; but it does not mean other sports popular around the globe in the Olympics are not as vital to list; you have a very American centric view. He fits into any sport popular in any country not in the US. You seem to hate diversity and quotas that you see as some kind of imposition on this list; but that does not mean that it's just flat out wrong to say this guy is anything different to what we cover here; you just seem to hate something new being covered (nurses, women sculptors, chefs, volleyball etc); it's only odd you consider these people as obscure; but more obscure William Jones (philologist) is on your 500. [14] and he gets less than even Morgan, globally (yeah, yeah technical achievement - like Morgan didn't invent a whole field...). It comes across as picking and choosing based on what you personally are into; rather than any actual consistent reason because you continually call people obscure yet you yourself include mega obscure people in your higher lists and that makes it hard to take seriously (especially as most of these "obscure" people perfectly fit into the standards of this list). GuzzyG (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• @GuzzyG: You pointed that Volleyball, Soccer and Basketball are the only sports at all which gets 70 mln views in all languages, yet Volleyball is extremally near to Soccer (practically the same number of pageviews in all languages, AFAIR something like 0,5%-7% difference, I am even not bother to check). So by all that mean I believe this would be preposterous to not have at this level single article for Volleyball other than the Volleyball. Even if we would remove all biographies related with American Football or Rugby Union we will still have competiition for those two sports in everyday section and do not reconpensate the ballance. This guy gets interchangebly the same pageviews what Volleyball World Cups: [15] so I am not buying opposers rationales "I do not care he is middle in views for sports, we need to drastic cut"... This is shortsighted because of most biographies are living people from 20th century, I think this would be fair if Moran was 20th cetury living guy, opposers probably even did not check when he was born. Also, fact that he is American is irreleveant if this is not popular sport in USA, Buddha also was born in Nepal where today is no Buddhism. We don't need Morgan to tell us that volleyball is important. - By this point every serious person would ulitimately admit that we of course do not need to know who is Maradona or Pele (and I am saying as someone who consider Maradona as iredible hero and like Pele, and very much like Brazil) because of Football is team sport and every serious person who studied football would say this is team sport and all individual awards are circus and off. Meanwhile founders of olimpics sport at least always will be milestone even in 2500 year, their impact is not subjective in contrast to celebrites which we are selecting by almost purely ssubjectivecriteria(which athlete is the best and why??). Morgan as death person at least beats article on Volleyball World Cup, Pele as living person does not beat article on FIFA World Cup and is less famous than current players: [16]. By all that mean Morgan probably is best example of biography which meets criteria of uniques and criteria of variety. Volleyball as organised competition for TV is less promient than Cricket but as everyday recreation itis more global than Cricket and most stats (Google trends etc.) favour Volleyball over Cricket. I am disapointed people repatedy oppose it even when we are under quota,.. So I am going to stay neutral in yuou nominations for removal those obscura Cricketers ann Rugby players but if there will appear more chances to add Morgan, then I will oppose for now Cricketers and Rugby players too; just for increase chances for inclusion if Morgan. I have very strong contigent to get this guy, and I would probably support him on list of about 40 sportpeople.. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree; founders of main Olympic sports are very vital - which is why i supported James Naismith and still do and would support Kanō Jigorō and Morgan.. all on a list of 50 too. Athletes are by and large a passing notability; they are based off on statistics and records which are nearly always passed eventually. (which is why all our athletes are almost contemporary). Founders are permanent to sports history in a way most athletes just won't be; Naismith will be important to the history of basketball forever; you can't say that about Magic Johnson. Sports is our weakeast area. We should cover 50 at most. We cover more athletes than pop musicians; despite the fact we list 3 popular musicians on the level 3 list and no athletes among many other discrepancies. It's also hard to argue that Jerry Rice is more important to American football history as a whole than Pete Rozelle or that Ty Cobb had more of a affect on baseball than Kenesaw Mountain Landis but our list is primary athletes biased instead of builders of games or coachs etc. Most editors here are from Anglo countries and thus it's easier to see why a sport like Rugby union; in which it's contemporary greatest player only has 3 million pageviews [17] and is incredibly weak in global standing is covered by three and yet a more popular, more established globally (in the olympics not as a derivative and covered twice in beach volleyball, so most countries are participants!) is covered by none; one would also think a inventor is more vital than a player like Gareth Edwards (who is almost entirely overtaken by Gareth Edwards (director) in most metrics; so doesn't really have primary importance even in his own name). I'm more surprised about; is that we HAD to cover a NZ rugby player [18] to represent NZ Rugby and we HAD to cover a very specific 19th century born fast bowler [19] but when it's time to cover one of the most popular sports outside of Anglo countries; than the arguments are agreed that we don't need people to represent ideas or that obscurity as a 19th century sports figure is out of touch with the list; it's inconsistency and we need to address it on this list; irregardless of Morgan - Barnes and Meads are way too minor; way too obscure for this list and fit better into the 15k list one. Can you really say that Barnes is more important than George Fox? Can we say being specific to NZ history that Meads is more important than Kate Sheppard or Michael Joseph Savage? Te Rauparaha composed Ka Mate which is commonly used in NZ rugby; who would be the better pick? Seru Epenisa Cakobau and George Tupou I would be better picks to cover Oceanic history too. There's no reason to be ultra specific when it comes to Meads or Barnes if we're taking obscurity into factor honestly. The athletes list should of always been primarily based in more global olympic sports rather than ultra specific Anglo team sports; despite the familiarity conveyed to a Anglo audience by a Anglo dominant sports media; if we can't cover a very popular sport like volleyball, we must cut down on more niche ones like Rugby or ones like cricket and American football which are more isolated to a specific locale. NZ is such a small country too; there's no need to cover two people from a sport there. Australia is the bigger country in that area anyway and we cover no Rugby league figures like Dally Messenger or Wally Lewis or Australian rules football figures like Leigh Matthews; despite the Australian football league having high attendance figures too [20]; but rightly we recognize these sports are too specific and regional to list here. Let's not even mention that NASCAR was voted off [21] and it's top driver [22]; yet the same type of people will argue for multiple NZ rugby players or disliking obscurity but favouring A. J. Foyt over Richard Petty for American motorsports. We cover sports in a inconsistent way; i'm in favour of having 50 sports biographies. Meads and Barnes have no place on this list; either way - we miss too many other important figures to list these ultra specific examples. GuzzyG (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: I also agree with you that opposers are inconsisent, in both: opposing that addition and in keeping Naismith on mind as possible option to drop. I probably should mention in my rationale that Naismith in that list was ranked as #293, ahead of #840 Pele (supported by daGizza on list of 130+ biographies), closely to #218 Basho (suggested by Thi on list of 120 people at discussion about Milton), and ahead of Bruce Lee (he even is not on list 1000 years, 1000 people but Zelkia1101 nominated him to level 3). Zelkia1101 choosed Wilt Chamberlain as better death person who represent basketball than Naismith to the list of 500 people what is inconsisent in his decision to choose Paul ahead of Mary on their list of 50 people because of Naismith as founder/direct-constributor-to-history gets quite comparable Google Trends to Chamberlain, meanwhile Paul is overhemigly shadowed by Mary in Google Trends: [23], they are also inconsisten by choosing Elizabeth ahead of Henry if Mary is ahead of Paul in Google Ngrams (in most languages but in English at least during time when breathingly important for bilions people vrsion of pray Hail Mary is introduced, in 16th century), meanwhile Elizabeth always loss with Henry. Regardless of that "BTW off topics" I agree with everything you said above. Volleyball is not very popular in anglophone but due to less isolated impact, olympic sport, and sport popular for twp genders, should have two subtopics "Beach volleyball" and "William G. Morgan", would be prfect choices. American Football also should have two topics "Super Bowl" and "one American player". Below you said about Chinese (Wikipedia is banned in China) Leap (film), which even on English Wikipedia recently gets interchangebly similar pageviews what [24] what Super Bowl LIV halftime show which was for a while on List of most-viewed online videos in the first 24 hours. Volleyball is global olympic sport, popular among two genders so should have at least two subtopics: "Beach volleyball" and article on William G. Morgan. I agree with you 50 biographies is good for sport. It is too bad we have more American players than all founders of olympcs sport (We could create separate category where are founder of Judo, Volleyball, Basketball, there is also founder of modern Olympics listed elsewhere) and the same number of American Footballers what number of all swimmer. Removing alpine ski racer would be terrible, for multiple people on the globe Ski Alpine and Soccer can be two the only regular recreation during season. Ski resort and Mountain hut also should be in everyday section, are better choices than Basque pelota and better than Super Bowl. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

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

@GuzzyG: just like we're about to have four people involved in Hong Kong martial arts culture Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Jin Yong and Ang Lee with Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon but no Japanese martial arts or any other martial artists I would support swap at least one of them with founder of Judo or Ultimate Fighting Champions. It is off topic but BTW UFC gets more subscribers on YouTube than for example FIFATV. I checked your list of 50 spotpeople and I would only made few corrections/disagreements: 1 I would keep Zidane because of he won everything as coach with Real Madrit and CR7 achivemented nothing until Zidane joined to the team as coach. 2I would prefer keep man Field Hockey player and swap woman Field Hockey player for Marta (footballer) or Handball woman player (She is living and last viewed biography on the level 4. I do not think we have room for her, is she really more culturally influential than say Witney Houstoy or "famous" died figures like Pocahntas?) 3I think we could have one golf player and elsewhere I would try also pick father of Bodybuilding who is slightly more famous than Morgan but has worse technical achivement IMHO (Morgan is in the Volleyball hall of fame, father of bodybuilding is not that important, bodybuilding were existing before him and there are also other sportpeople like "father of zumba" etc.) 4We would add Carlsen instead Fisher and Kasparov 5I think we could reconsider 60-70 quota for sportpeople, I noted you did not included R9 Ronaldo on your list. He was ranked in 2008 as second greatest football player of all time by Association of Football statisticians ([25] - I assume they hardly found algorithm whih gave him points for scoring 15 goals in history of World up, it was recntly broken by Klose) ahead of #6 Maradona and #55 Ronaldinho, he is very often considered as the most talented football player of all time as he was the tyoungest Ballon d Ir winner in histroy, despite living in modern era of soccer and he is known for style of playing enjoable for eyes. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Add Alexei Yagudin

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

---

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discuss

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

Remove Vladislav Tretiak

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

Support

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

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Sydney Barnes

Obscure cricketer; (has almost zero pageviews in anything other than English). Fast bowlers don't need a rep, Cricket itself covers that as a level 4 article. William G. Morgan seems to be consensus obscure. (per comments who have cited this); yet Morgan gets more views in Indonesian alone than Barnes in total. Probably one of the weakest articles we list. Compare Morgan and Barnes worldwide. [26] Morgan wins. Bradman, Tendulkar, Richards, Grace and Sobers are enough for Cricket. Why do we specifically need representation for fast bowling when we don't need to represent sports which are in the olympics and are viewed over 70 million times on this site alone? Seems ultra specific.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 10:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support let's get rid of this glut of sports biographies Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Just as a add on; 10 pin bowler Dick Weber was seen as too obscure for the 15k list; yet he gets nearly 30k more views than Barnes. [27] 168k compared to 192k for Weber. [28]; despite Cricket supposedly being the second largest sports; compared to volleyball or bowling which are supposedly obscure. I know Cricket is popular in Aus, the UK and India (all related to the commonwealth) and volleyball in places like Brazil with Brazilian Volleyball Super League (Men) and Giba and Indonesia with Proliga (Indonesia) or China with Lang Ping and big movies like Leap (film); so there may be a difference in perception and thus this athletes list massively favours sports big in Anglo countries; but we should be consistent with who is obscure - especially if by every metric they are smaller than people who are consensus seen as obscure here. GuzzyG (talk) 11:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Remove Colin Meads

Obscure rugby footballer. New Zealand rugby players don't need two reps, Rugby union itself covers that as a level 4 article and we don't need two players to show how important rugby union is, the players themselves need to show importance and Meads is not global like Lomu. William G. Morgan seems to be consensus obscure. (per comments who have cited this); yet Morgan gets more views in Spanish alone than Meads in total. Compare Morgan and Meads worldwide. [29] Morgan wins. Lomu is enough for rugby. Why do we specifically need multiple New Zealand representatives in rugby; these are not global, highly specific and meant to represent something; but as consensus is; we don't need bios to represent ideas and Meads is just not up to par as a figure himself.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 10:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support let's get rid of this glut of sports biographies Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

History

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/History for the list of topics in this category.

Basics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/History#Basics for the list of topics in this category.

Add Archive

Basic topic in encyclopedia, compare with Library. "Archival records serve to strengthen collective memory and protect people’s rights, property, and identity." [30]

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Dimadick (talk) 03:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

History by continent and region

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/History#History by continent and region for the list of topics in this category.

History by country

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/History#History by country for the list of topics in this category.

Swap: Remove History of England and History of Scotland, Add History of the British Isles

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

Support

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

Oppose

1. Oppose Too broad topic. It is reasonable to tell the histories of England, Scotland and Ireland separately. --Thi (talk) 10:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

Prehistory

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/History#Prehistory for the list of topics in this category.

Ancient history

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/History#Ancient history for the list of topics in this category.

Post-classical history

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/History#Post-classical history for the list of topics in this category.

Add Early Muslim conquests

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

Support~

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

Oppose

1. Oppose

Discussion

Early modern history

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/History#Early modern history for the list of topics in this category.

Modern history

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/History#Modern history for the list of topics in this category.

Historical cities

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/History#Historical cities for the list of topics in this category.

History of science and technology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/History#History of science and technology for the list of topics in this category.

Add Arms race

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

Support

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

Oppose

Discuss

History of other topics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/History#History of other topics for the list of topics in this category.

Add History of theatre

I would have assumed I would find it among 10,000 topics.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Swap: remove History of sport, add 1896 Summer Olympics

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

Support

1. Support [nom]

Oppose

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

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

Discuss

Auxiliary sciences of history

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/History#Auxiliary sciences of history for the list of topics in this category.

Geography

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Geography for the list of topics in this category.

Basics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Geography#Basics for the list of topics in this category.

Physical geography

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Geography#Physical geography for the list of topics in this category.

Swap: remove Mount Kosciuszko, add Cotopaxi

Per previous discussions about Aoraki, Kościuszko is not vital enough for this level. It is vital just as Puncak Jaya and Aoraki. I do not think we need to list all moutains from Seven summits at this level if there are other slightly more notable. I think Mount Kościuszko could remain if we would not have Great Victoria Desert at this level. Cotopaxi is the only famous Volcano which is higher than Kilimanjaro, I could be neutral on straight addition but prefer swap. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support [nom]
2. Support --Thi (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add West Lake

It's a UNESCO World Heritage Site, can't believe it's not on the list already

Support

1. As nom. Lolitart (talk) 08:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Definitely vital at this level, since it has "influenced garden design in the rest of China as well as Japan and Korea over the centuries". Very surprised that it is currently not listed, and was originally not listed at level 5.--RekishiEJ (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC) fixed a little 12:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Per above. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per discussion. --Thi (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

References

Add Lake Biwa

Because it is the largest freshwater lake in Japan, and many Japanese literary works mention it, it is no doubt vital at this level.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Per nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 10:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Parks and preserves

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Geography#Parks and preserves for the list of topics in this category.

Countries

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Geography#Countries for the list of topics in this category.

Regions and country subdivisions

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Geography#Regions and country subdivisions for the list of topics in this category.

Remove Daegu, Daejeon, Gwangju

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discuss

Swap: Remove New England, Add Northeastern United States

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discussion

Cities

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Geography#Cities for the list of topics in this category.

Add Brooklyn

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

• New York City (Level 3)
  • Brooklyn

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discussion

Add Manhattan

The Brooklyn discussion above is half a year old, and while it's likely going to fail I might as well revitalize it by also proposing Manhattan. My comments about it are similar to those about Brooklyn above; while it's somewhat controversial given our listing of New York City at level 3, NYC's sheer dominance among the world's cities makes it so that such redundancy is okay at level 4 IMO, especially since Brooklyn and Manhattan are each alone more "objectively important" than the listed Nashville, Tennessee, and Charlotte, North Carolina. The reason I didn't propose Manhattan back then is because I felt (and feel) that it is more redundant to NYC as a whole than Brooklyn is, especially since we're already 1 over quota both overall and in geography. Nevertheless, it would be rather silly for a list to include Brooklyn but not Manhattan, and while the latter to a much larger extent "is" New York City, it is thereby more important in its own right with such terms as Manhattanhenge, Manhattanization, and the mathematical "Manhattan metric". All told, I feel that Manhattan should not be at mere level 5, and even if this doesn't pass it's still worth discussion. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Austin, Texas

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discuss

References

Arts

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Arts for the list of articles in this category.

Add Anthropomorphism

Vital concept in psychology, culture and history of religion.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza (talk • voy) 01:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Architecture

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Arts#Architecture for the list of articles in this category.

Add Lighthouse of Alexandria

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

Support

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

Oppose

Discuss

Cultural venues

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Arts#Cultural venues for the list of articles in this category.

Literature

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Arts#Literature for the list of articles in this category.

Add Aphorism

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

Support

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

Oppose

Discuss

Add Historical fiction

Popular literary genre. Many literary mainstream books are also historical fiction (Hilary Mantel).

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Music

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Arts#Music for the list of topics in this category.

Add Musicology

I think that the study of music is clearly vital topic at this level.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Performing arts

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Arts#Performing arts for the list of articles in this category.

Visual arts

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Arts#Visual arts for the list of topics in this category.

Add Still life

Important concept in painting and art history.

Support

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

Oppose

Discuss

Add Art of ancient Egypt

Very famous exemplars in art history such as Bust of Nefertiti. Art history books typically present ancient Egyptian art and it has influenced European art and architecture.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Renaissance art

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

Support

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

Oppose

Discuss

Modern visual arts

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Arts#Modern visual arts for the list of topics in this category.

Fictional characters

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Arts#Fictional characters for the list of articles in this category.

Philosophy and religion

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Philosophy and religion for the list of articles in this category.

Philosophy

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Philosophy and religion#Philosophy for the list of articles in this category.

Remove Perfection

Similar to Sublime, Level 5 seems sufficient for this concept.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 07:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support, not quite so important as an abstract. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Opinion

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discuss

Remove Nothing, add Atomism

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discuss

Add Applied ethics

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

Support

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

Oppose

Discuss

Add Bioethics

Important area in contemporary society: Bioethics#Issues.

Support

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

Oppose

Discuss

Add Environmental ethics

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

Support

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

Oppose

Discuss

Add Fallacy

Basic topic in critical thinking and argumentation. Important in studies and in general communication, especially on the internet.

Support

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

Oppose

Discuss

Swap: remove Principle, add Explanation

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

Support

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

Oppose

Discuss

Add Scientific skepticism

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

Support

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

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Abstraction

Perhaps too advanced concept for this level.

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discuss

Remove Absolute (philosophy)

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

Support

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

Oppose

Discuss

Religion and spirituality

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Philosophy and religion#Religion and spirituality for the list of topics in this category.

Remove Fertility rite

Too many Philosophy and religion articles. This is a subset of ritual.

Support

1. Per nom. starship.paint (exalt) 14:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  09:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Revelation

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

Support

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

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add Mandate of Heaven

Mandate of Heaven, is a concept of semi-religious nature and almost has the status of a hidden conventional constitution, was used as ground revolutions in most of the history of China, and widely accepted as justification for the dethrone of emperors and the rebels, comparable to the institutionalized religions' role in Europe and the Middle East. Emperors by convention answer to the heaven, and accordingly hosts rituals to demonstrate they are still favored by the mythical and all mighty universe.

Support

1. As nom. Lolitart (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Per nom; if we don't already list divine right of kings, I would list that too, but this seems an inch more vital. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Dimadick (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Abrahamic religions

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Philosophy and religion#Abrahamic religions for the list of topics in this category.

Add Baptism

Major Christian rite, of interest to general readers and more in depth readers. Hugely widespread among many forms of Christianity, and around for at least 2000 years and still relevant today. Religion and Philosophy have a few suggestions for removal already which could balance numbers, maybe.  Carlwev  09:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  09:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support I changed opinion as we have place for that, important sacrament, in Slavic languages "Baptism" is called as "Christ" as word to Christianity. We should also swap Shahada with other article to cover similar stuff in Islam's coverage. I hope few others nomination will pass to cover ballance beetwen Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic religions. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support. It is the most important Christian rite. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Neither particularly significant in contemporary culture, nor that influential in Christianity itself. Dimadick (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose I concur. --Thi (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Eucharist

Support

1. As nom. Because of the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church, Protestant denominations usually only acknowledge two: baptism and Eucharist, these two are more imperative than the other five.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Indulgence

Support

1. As nom. This article is definitely vital at this level, since it is the sale of indulgences that caused Martin Luther to write the Ninety-five Theses, which is usually regarded the starting point of the Reformation.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Eastern religions

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Philosophy and religion#Eastern religions for the list of topics in this category.

Swap: remove Avatar, add Incarnation

Avatar is important term in Hindusim but at this level I think this is also worth to explain range and importance of Deities in other cultures, including Islam and Christianity (see for example Incarnation (Christianity) and read first paragraph in the lead). We list many Avatars on this level: Buddha, Zoroaster, Krishna etc.. I would also prefer list many specific Deities for Hindusim and make this swap to make place for them.

Support

1. As nominator Dawid2009 (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Dhammapada

Old and influential Buddhist religious text. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Suppot

1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support suitable among 10,000 articles. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Another options can be also Tripitaka and Sutta Piṭaka Dawid2009 (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Other religions

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Philosophy and religion#Other religions for the list of topics in this category.

Swap: remove Rosicrucianism, add Alchemy

Alchemy was very influential current of esoteric thought and it influenced also modern science. Nowadays nearly everybody have heard about search for Philosopher's stone. Rosicrucianism was a 17 century idea based on anonymous manifestos, not actually a widespread movement.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support for reasons stated. Zelkia1101 (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Per above. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Alchemy is already listed. It is under science though. Grey area, but I guess it’s a science attempt, or incorrect science as opposed to religious belief, could discus it’s position in list, an argument could be made either side religion v science. I think I prefer science, but not given it much thought.  Carlwev  12:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Mythology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Philosophy and religion#Mythology for the list of topics in this category.

Add Orpheus

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discuss

Add Dionysus

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discuss

Add Cupid

Eros and Cupid are well-known symbols in art. [31]

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discuss

Add Helen of Troy

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discuss

Add Prometheus

One of the basic myths in Western thought and art.

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discuss

Add Titans

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discuss

Add Phoenix (mythology)

Symbol of death and rebirth across cultures.

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discuss

Add Garuda

There is thematic connection beetwe Phoenix and Garuda but any objective oncyclopedia would list Garuda far ahead of Phoenix. Garuda appeared on few National coat of Arms, is cross culturally famous from South Asia, to Japan etc., unlike mere Phoenix. IMHO that Garuda should cover Phoenix, not another around way. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per previous discussions and comments. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Phoenix is the vastly more famous concept--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Minotaur

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Remove Persian mythology

Covered by Zorroastrianism and many other articles Dawid2009 (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. nom
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 11:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We already have too few articles on mythology. Dimadick (talk) 10:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Hindu Mythology

Covered by Hinduism excatly in the same way hat Jewish mythology is covered by Judaism at this level Dawid2009 (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. nom
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We already have too few articles on mythology. Dimadick (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Everyday life

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Everyday life for the list of topics in this category.

Clothing and fashion

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Everyday life#Clothing and fashion for the list of topics in this category.

Cooking, food and drink

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Everyday life#Cooking, food and drink for the list of topics in this category.

Add dairy product

Support

1. As nom. I'm surprised that it is not listed (it was originally not listed at level 5, which surprised me even greater)!--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Family and kinship

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Everyday life#Family and kinship for the list of topics in this category.

Household items

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Everyday life#Household items for the list of topics in this category.

Sexuality and gender

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Everyday life#Sexuality for the list of topics in this category.

Sports and recreation

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Everyday life#Sports and recreation for the list of topics in this category.

Add Sports Club

It was mentioned as possible option on the level 2 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/2/Archive_1#Sport Dawid2009 (talk) 11:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. [nom]

Oppose

Discuss

Add National team

Vital just as sport club. We have separate article about Brazil national team on FIFA World Cup but not say about any player on fifa world cup. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. [nom]

Oppose

Discuss

Swap: Remove Arm wrestling, add Powerlifting

Arm wrestling as a serious sport (as opposed to something kids do) remains fairly niche, whereas Powerlifting is quite widespread (even more so than the listed Olympic weightlifting) and serves as a counterpart to the listed Bodybuilding.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Support - we've removed board games that have been more popular and influential than arm wrestling. Gizza (talk • voy) 23:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
4. The addition, since powerlifting has been a well-known sport on earth.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support addition. Sod25 (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
6. Support addition as important as bodybuilding, which is listed and is also a World Games sport. GuzzyG (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The removal, since a lot of males engage in arm wrestling in the world.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal per RekishiEJ. While not a top sport at an organized level, arm wrestling is an ancient yet enduring pastime that spans cultures (which is not well reflected in the wiki article currently). Sod25 (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal arm wrestling is a very common activity, moreso than the various cue sports listed. I don't see why it doesn't fit. GuzzyG (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Grand Slam (tennis)

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discuss

Stages of life

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Everyday life#Stages of life for the list of topics in this category.

Society and social sciences

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences for the list of topics in this category.

General

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#General for the list of topics in this category.

Anthropology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Anthropology for the list of topics in this category.

Business and economics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Business and economics for the list of topics in this category.

Add Tencent

Tencent is big company which owns WeChat and not only. Media in sinosphere are underrepresented. According to this chart race Tecent is company slightly bigger renuve than Meta platforms (previously Facebook.inc). Dawid2009 (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. [nom]
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Culture

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Culture for the list of topics in this category.

Education

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Education for the list of topics in this category.

Add Library and Archives Canada

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

Support

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

Oppose

Discuss

Add National Diet Library

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

Support

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

Oppose

Discuss

Add National Library of Russia

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

Support

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

Oppose

Discuss

Ethnology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Ethnology for the list of topics in this category.

International organizations

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#International organizations for the list of topics in this category.

Add Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation

This organization is as well-known as the Arab League, yet unlike the latter it currently does not belong to the Level 4 list.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Support see it in the news all the time. Lolitart (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Language

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Language for the list of topics in this category.

Add Nahuatl

An incredibly important language in the history of Mesoamerica and modern Mexico, spoken most notably by the Aztecs, and still widely studied by modern linguists and examined for its features.

Support

1. Support as nom Zelkia1101 (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Per nominator. I would also swap Navajo with Navajo language because of most Navajo people speak English noways and this is good to cover languages of indigeous people, IMHO Dawid2009 (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Gizza (talk • voy) 03:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Law

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Law for the list of topics in this category.

Mass media

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Mass media for the list of topics in this category.

Remove Weekly Shōnen Jump

Like the other magazines that we have recently been removing, this just isn't vital at this level, especially for the English Wikipedia. It'll fit in better down at Level 5.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support. If Le Monde and Der Spiegel aren't at this level, neither is this. VIT5 is sufficient. czar 10:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Support not important enough to keep company with The New York Times Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose having 10 magazines (and one focused on manga) at this level feels right. I might support a proposal to remove all 10 magazines, but not just this one (which was recently added). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

   Even though it was added relatively recently, it was added at a time when we had more magazines listed at this level. But it's certainly less vital than the magazines we have recently removed or that we are currently in the process of removing, so it's completely appropriate to remove it at this time. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Der Spiegel

Since this is English Wikipedia German news magazine is probably not so important at this level. Level 5 has been created and even New Yorker, which is example of quality magazine in English language, is under removal.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Interstellarity (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support. Important periodicals but VIT5 is sufficient, per above. czar 10:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. A widely known magazine beyond German-speaking regions.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Le Monde

Four other newspapers at this level are examples of journalism. I don't think that we need any French newspaper at this level.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Interstellarity (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Support. Not vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support. Important periodicals but VIT5 is sufficient, per above. czar 10:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. A widely known newspaper beyond Francophone regions.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Popular science

Important thing in teaching scientific literacy.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

@Thi:This article is currently included in the society and social sciences subpage of the level 5 list, rather than the basics and measurement one, thus you should put your proposal in the mass media sub-section rather than here in this talk page.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Museums

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Museums for the list of topics in this category.

Politics and government

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Politics and government for the list of topics in this category.

Psychology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Psychology for the list of topics in this category.

Society

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Society for the list of topics in this category.

Sociology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Sociology for the list of topics in this category.

War and military

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#War and military for the list of topics in this category.

Biology and health sciences

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences for the list of topics in this category.

Basics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences#Basics for the list of topics in this category.

Anatomy and morphology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences#Anatomy and morphology for the list of topics in this category.

Biochemistry and molecular biology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences#Biochemistry and molecular biology for the list of topics in this category.

Biological processes and physiology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences#Biological processes and physiology for the list of topics in this category.

Botany

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences#Botany for the list of topics in this category.

Cell biology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences#Cell biology for the list of topics in this category.

Ecology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences#Ecology for the list of topics in this category.

Zoology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences#Zoology for the list of topics in this category.

Organisms

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences#Organisms for the list of topics in this category.

Add Sus (genus)

Support

1. As nom. Now that the list currently includes wild boar and domestic pig, let's include this article as well!--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Swap: reorganisation of dogs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add Deinonychus

One of the most important dinosaur genera to ever be discovered with its discovery leading to the dinosaur renaissance which completely altered the way dinosaurs are perceived from cold-blooded sluggish animals to warm-blooded active ones. One could say it is redundant to Velociraptor which is already listed but the two are important for different reasons with Velociraptor having greater importance from a cultural perspective due to Jurassic Park but Deinonychus is much more important from a scientific perspective and was the real inspiration behind the raptors in the movie. The redundancy argument also is irrelevant when we list both Diplodocus and Apatosaurus which are both members of the same family.

Support

1. Support as nom. -- Maykii (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Health, medicine and disease

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences#Health, medicine and disease for the list of topics in this category.

Physical sciences

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Physical sciences for the list of topics in this category.

Basics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Physical sciences#Basics for the list of topics in this category.

Measurement

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Physical sciences#Measurement for the list of topics in this category.

Astronomy

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Physical sciences#Astronomy for a complete list of articles in this topic.

Chemistry

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Physical sciences#Chemistry for the list of topics in this category.

Earth science

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Physical sciences#Earth science for the list of topics in this category.

Add figure of the Earth

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discuss

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

Add greenhouse gas and greenhouse effect

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discuss

Physics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Physical sciences#Physics for the list of topics in this category.

Technology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology for the list of topics in this category.

Agriculture

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Agriculture for the list of topics in this category.

Remove Permaculture

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

Support

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

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Biotechnology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Biotechnology for the list of topics in this category.

Computing and information technology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Computing and information technology for the list of topics in this category.

Swap: Remove Computer virus, Add Malware

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

Support

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

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Electronics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Electronics for the list of articles in this category.

Engineering

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Engineering for the list of topics in this category.

Industry

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Industry for the list of topics in this category.

Add Diesel fuel

Support

1. As nom. This article is not included, despite the fact that diesel has been frequently used by automobiles, ships and tractors, which surprised me.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Infrastructure

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Infrastructure for the list of articles in this category.

Remove Akashi Kaikyo Bridge and London Bridge

Akashi Kaikyo Bridge is not as famous and culturally relevant as Brooklyn Bridge and Golden Gate Bridge. Modern London Bridge is from 1971 and is not as easily recogizable as Tower Bridge.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support removing Akashi Kaikyo Bridge per nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Technology is the section most over quota and cuts have to be made. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Support removing Akashi Kaikyo Bridge Rreagan007 (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removing London Bridge Even if the current London Bridge dates only to 1971, "a" London Bridge has been around for about a millennium, and the 19th-century London Bridge still exists, albeit in Lake Havasu, Arizona. Plus there's always going to be that song.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Machinery and tools

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Machinery and tools for the list of topics in this category.

Add Petrol engine

We have diesel engine but not this article, which is illogical.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Two-stroke engine

We have Four-stroke engine but not this article, which is illogical.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Media and communication

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Media and communication for the list of topics in this category.

Medical technology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Medical technology for the list of topics in this category.

Military technology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Military technology for the list of topics in this category.

Navigation and timekeeping

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Navigation and timekeeping for the list of topics in this category.

Optical technology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Optical technology for the list of topics in this category.

Space

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Space for the list of topics in this category.

Remove Spitzer Space Telescope and Herschel Space Observatory

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

Support

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

Oppose

Discuss

Textiles

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Textiles for the list of topics in this category.

Transportation

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Transportation for the list of topics in this category.

Mathematics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Mathematics for the list of topics in this category.

Basics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Mathematics#Basics for the list of topics in this category.

Algebra

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Mathematics#Algebra for the list of topics in this category.

Calculus and analysis

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Mathematics#Calculus and analysis for the list of topics in this category.

Discrete mathematics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Mathematics#Discrete mathematics for the list of topics in this category.

Geometry

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Mathematics#Geometry for the list of topics in this category.

Probability and statistics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Mathematics#Probability and statistics for the list of topics in this category.

Other

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Mathematics#Other for the list of topics in this category.

General discussions

Reducing the People quota from 2000 to 1000

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

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

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

OK @DaGizza,

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

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

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