Wikipedia talk:Vital articles

General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography Society STEM

Introduction

FA FA GA GA A – Total December 1, 2007 83 45 90 139 25 690 1022 June 1, 2008 88 46 79 140 25 670 999 December 1, 2008 88 50 72 145 24 682 1014 FA A GA B C – Total December 1, 2009 82 7 49 586 146 129 999 January 1, 2011 78 8 60 472 255 113 986 January 1, 2012 76 1 76 454 275 109 991 June 29, 2013 88 3 88 450 289 82 1000 October 13, 2013 90 4 92 446 284 83 999 January 13, 2015 90 2 96 417 333 60 998 December 23, 2016 94 2 107 425 355 17 1000 December 10, 2017 91 3 115 392 376 17 994 January 22, 2019 92 4 122 389 380 12 999 December 20, 2019 88 2 121 390 383 17 1001 November 25, 2020 83 1 127 373 402 15 1001

The purpose of this discussion page is to select 1000 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. Since the list is currently full, it is recommended that a nomination of a new topic be accompanied by a proposal to remove 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.

• 15 days ago: 12:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC) ()
• 30 days ago: 12:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• 60 days ago: 12:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Biography moratorium until May 1, 2022

Per the discussion of September-October 2021, the following biographies may not be discussed for removal or addition, except as a component of swaps with biographies not on the moratorium list, until May 1, 2022. In addition, no "bulk proposals" related to biographies, whether additions or removals, may be held in that time.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Remove Nikola Tesla

Cue the angry Redditors, but not on either list. He did wondrous work with electromagnetism and telecommunications, but he is redundant in that respect to Faraday and Maxwell. He also didn't do much to bring his inventions to mass market like Edison or even Westinghouse did; as said earlier with Gutenberg and Stigler's Law, that's what's ultimately just as (if not more) important for this list than actual invention, which is why we list Walt Disney (at least for now) instead of Winsor McCay and Henry Ford instead of Karl Benz or Ransom E. Olds (yes, neither of those are in the STEM sections, but the same principle applies).  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom, although I could be convinced that he serves as a "foil" to Edison like Stalin serves as a "foil" to Hitler (not that any of those two pairs have anything else in common).  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support although Tesla complements Edison's article. --Thi (talk) 07:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support switching my vote since we now have a good enough number of writers removed, and in the spirit of (hopefully eventually) pairing down the list to 100. Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Very influential in the field of Physics, well known too. -- Maykii (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Incompetent as a businessman, but a key figure in making the alternating current a viable method of distributing electricity to consumers. He was also a pioneer in the development of wireless power transfer. Dimadick (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Weak oppose We recently removed more STEM scientists than intelectuals from social sciences. I do not think straight removal is approciate now, perhaps after moratoium or swap with Watt. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Perhaps we should canvass the Redditors? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

We already have, it would seem. Cobblet (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Remove Claude Monet

Not on GuzzyG's list. I don't know enough about art to have an opinion on this.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support We already have four modern artists, we do not need that many. If I had to keep one it would be Picasso, the rest are expendable. -- Maykii (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support removal or eventually swap with Impressionism which is wieder topic (Impressionism for example mentions Debussy, article on Monet does not). Per above, having four modern artist for such small list which is focussed on whole human history which cover thousands years is rather short-sighted and eurocentric. I support trimming biographies to 115 quota because of I belive that articles related with art movements (impressionism, surrealism etc.) and other art stuff like textile art, rythm, piano (FWIW Monet gets worse Google Trends in France than Chopin: [1], even though Chopin is Pole lited currently at the level 4, Monet is French listed at the level 3) harmony etc. are more needed than whole biography about Monet. Removal of Monet would not be out of place, especially swap with Impressionism which mention Monet 34 times would not be out of place; Impressionism never was listed at Wikipedia:Contents/Overviews and Monet never was on meta list of 1000 articles which constain 200 biographies because of he is not so famous; he is influential but so are Wagner, Monteverdi, Lumierre Brothers, Sophocles (all level 4) and plenty others. Level 4 should sufficient, not 3 where we already have history of painting. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Breakdown of our 8 artists leans 3 old masters, 4 modern ones and one Asian artist. Considering most importance in painting leads older; i see no reason why we should serve modern arts more. (would be like having 4 pop musicians over 3 classical musicians, we cover 3 of each in music fine). Monet is the weakest of the modern 3. Impressionism is the better fit as any encyclopedia would list the movement over Monet first. I don't see how Monet is any more vital than Salvador Dalí, Peter Paul Rubens, Albrecht Dürer or Diego Velázquez. Monet is more on the level of those four and if we had to cover a modern French artist instead of a painter i'd prefer Auguste Rodin or again, even Le Corbusier or Marcel Duchamp, those three would cover more ground. Can Monet be said to be a stronger 19th century arts figure than Wagner (who was removed) or 20th century figure than Lenin (also removed). Van Gogh, Picasso and Frida. (and Leo/Michelangelo) are the big five in worldwide fame/recognition. They're the essential five , Monet could easily be cut. GuzzyG (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support swap with Impressionism. Monet is easily covered there. Interstellarity (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support swap with impressionism; other artistic movements are also listed.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Support with or without swap, per Dawid czar 05:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
7. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
8. Support formerly oppose from me on account of our bloated writers list. I still think Austen and Twain should go before we remove Monet, but I'm satisfied enough with the removal of Kafka and Milton to give Monet up. Zelkia1101 (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Few can lay claim to spearheading an entire art movement that would develop and be reacted against for decades to come. Monet can. DMT Biscuit (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Impressionism and Monet are also popular with the general public. --Thi (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose The de facto founder of Impressionism, and counted as an ideological ancestor to Modernism. Primarily, because he challenged conventional notions about art and its purpose. Dimadick (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose The list should contain a representative of French art and aesthetics, particularly when we also list two Dutch artists, two Italians, and a Spaniard. We removed Wagner because we also list Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven; comparing the removal of Monet with the removal of Wagner would make more sense if we listed Ingres, Delacroix and Manet in addition to Monet, which we don't. Having said all that, I would support a swap of Monet for Coco Chanel. Cobblet (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I have opened proposal to swap Monet with Impressionism because of some users earlier pointed that one of these two articles is warrented to cover history of art at this level. Personally I think Impressionism is better article in light of "trimming number of biographies". If we decide to add Impresionism to this list then that would be the starter. I would like to hear what others think about that idea. Perhaps we could have more room for all important art movements if we would say... Replace some animals with pet and livestock? What do you think? Dawid2009 (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Czar: It is quite confusing way to! Vote. I Understand you much prefer straight removal but would be also ok to swap with Impressionism if there is nno other strong consensus, based on fact you belive artists are generalny overrepresented? Dawid2009 (talk) 05:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Dawid2009, I think a swap with Modern art would be fine but otherwise I don't see the harm in removing Monet with no replacement. I don't think Impressionism is a Level 3 concept fwiw. czar 06:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Swap with Impressionism

Support swap

1. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support A art history encyclopedia would prioritise this movement over the artist. GuzzyG (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per vote above. Interstellarity (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support swap with impressionism; other artistic movements are also listed.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support --Thi (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Support as second best choice if Monet is removed. Modern art probably overlaps too much with Modernism. --Thi (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose swap

1. Oppose. Modern art would be the more appropriate stand-in at this level, and even still, level four is sufficient, given its peer topics. czar 05:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Impressionism in an art context usually only refers to a specific Paris-based group of painters in the 1870s and the 1880s. It's far more niche than the other art movements we list. It does not even include slightly later figures like Cézanne and Van Gogh who are usually described as post-Impressionists. I agree with Czar that modern art would be a more appropriate choice for this list, even if there is overlap with modernism. I'd suggest that even contemporary art is a more reasonable choice for this list than impressionism. Or, if one wished to swap Monet for a topic more related to his legacy, a genre like landscape painting could be considered, although that should probably be counterbalanced with a different and equally important genre such as portraiture. Even these may be too niche for level 3, but I do think they're better choices than listing impressionism. Cobblet (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose but support a swap with modern art per above. Gizza (talk • voy) 03:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I do not see how modern art would be better than say surealism and impressionism. One potentional Issue which I see with counterproposal to swap with modern art is fact that it is debatable to swap Monet for Modern art but not Van Gogh too for that matter. On the other hand I quite can see how Van Gogh would be better pick over postimpressionism than Monet over impressionism. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@GuzzyG, Interstellarity, John M Wolfson, and Thi: Are you four Ok to swap Monet with modern art per Czar, daGizza and maybe Cobblet? What do you think to Open New proposaland later ping more users? Or we are able to deal it in similar way what we did at swap Ibn Battuta for Mansa Musa? Dawid2009 (talk) 06:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Remove Vincent van Gogh

Not on either list. I don't know enough about art to have an opinion on this.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support per what I said about Monet. -- Maykii (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support. Agreed with Maykii that Picasso is the only modern artist realistically needed at this level. Level four would be sufficient. Not in the same plane of influence comparable to the other biographies at this level. czar 05:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose As a matter of principle, I will oppose any attempt to whittle down the number of musicians or visual artists when we have such a bloated writer’s category. Both Monet and Van Gogh are far more aesthetically and historically significant than Austen, Kafka, Milton, or Tagore. Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Van Gogh is probably the most well known modern artist with Picasso. Ideally both Monet and Van Gogh should remain, I think Rembrandt is weaker because two other old masters are listed. --Thi (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose I am somewhat reluctant about this, as he accomplished very little before dying at the age of 37. Posthumously, he was a key influence on Fauvism and Expressionism. Like him, they embraced a "subjective perspective" of reality and rejected the conventions of Realism. Dimadick (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap: Remove Finance, Add Accounting

Accounting is an important in all businesses. Interstellarity (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity
2. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per previous discussions on both halves of this proposal. Are you suggesting financing isn't important to all businesses? Cobblet (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal per above. Neutral on addition. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Chess

Since we're trimming the biographies, I think we should add some non-biographical articles to compensate. Although we already list board game, chess is unique among board games in its ubiquity, having such variant forms as suicide chess, correspondence chess, and in the depth of mathematical and computational study that has been undertaken on it; there are plenty of chess engines, but not so many (significant) checkers engines, poker engines, bridge engines, or backgammon engines. Elo ratings, now ubiquitous in sports statistics, originated as a way to compare chess players. It is also international and long in its history, dating from medieval India via Persia to eventually become a truly global game, and by far the most vital indoor game (some, though not yours truly, might even call it a "sport").  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)\
2. Weak support I am a little conflicted about this one, but I've decided to voice my, admittedly halfhearted, support. Chess (and its derivates) is an incredibly old game whose salience to the lives of everyday people spans over a millenium of human history. It's far older than association football, for instance, to say little of the historical importance of chess's predecessors, namely Shatranj. Chess is also incredibly diffuse as a human endeavor, right on the level of football I think, though football obviously captures far more attention. Overall, chess would be a nifty addition to this list. I am, however, concerned about overlap with board game. I realize that we are over quota as it stands, and people do not seem to want to commit to slashing the biographies to a more workable number, so I am wary of cold additions. Zelkia1101 (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Weak support Frankly, I find it to be more amusing than any ball game. And it has had a large influence on popular culture. See Category:Films about chess. Less vital, however than most art forms. Dimadick (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support. A major type of sport, for the brains not brawns. At least one example is needed here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support due to unquestionably greater cultural representation than any other Western board game. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

   @Hyperbolick But is it Western? :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

   How is it not? Hyperbolick (talk) 06:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per previous discussion when this was nominated for removal. Recently we were discusing removal of board game and few mentioned that it has overlap with game. Even though Chess and Go maybe are games with greatest tradition, I do not think this is on the same level what other Sports/Recreations we list (for example football, swimming etc.) which are popular among men and women. I call it sport but I do not think it is important enough for this level. (BTW Carlsen, player with highest Elo is not listed on the level 4 yet, I think we could already discuss to add him or swap with Fisher) Dawid2009 (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Perhaps if this were a Russian-language project. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose I recommended removing this a long time ago. I have done as much as anyone on Wikipedia to document the worldwide popularity of the game, but I would still consider it overly niche for this level. There are several sports with a broader following, and there must be many other things people do for enjoyment (pet is the first thing I thought of) that are a lot more essential to understanding the human condition. I would also consider it infinitely more important for people to know something about a person like Emmy Noether than to know something about chess. Cobblet (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose unless it is a swap with Board game. --Thi (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose per above. -- Maykii (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I agree there's a case to be made for swapping Fischer for Carlsen on level 4 nowadays. Cobblet (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cobblet: Except Carlsen... I had recently also on my mind to add AlphaZero to the level 5, IMHO far more important than Deep Blue which I added few years ago (very innovative, invented in specific way, as this AI does not analyse humans constributions to the game through history).. Despite recentism I would also probably add Alpha Go to the level 4 ahead of Computer Chess or Computer Go, because of some book sources compared "Alpha Go vs Lee Sedol" to effect of sputnik... USSR sputnik was inspiration/motivation for United States to constribute more to space technologies, meanwhile Alpha GO was inspiration/motivation for Sinosphere to constriubte more to AI technology in last few year. Alpha Go was achivement for Western company (Google). This is mentioned at the first pages of the AI Superpowers (according to Kai-Fu Lee sputnik 1 is milestone for space race beetwen USA and USSR, meanwhile Alpha Go is kind of milestone for Artificial intelligence arms race, beetwen China and USA). What do you think? Dawid2009 (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

AlphaGo/AlphaZero are very reasonable additions to level 5 but probably not level 4. IMO, they're not that much more vital than something like Pluribus (poker bot), and maybe no more of a milestone in AI than the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, or the assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh and the events at Natanz over the last two years. On that note, even cyberattack/cyberwarfare is still not listed on level 4 – Stuxnet was over ten years ago now. Cobblet (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cobblet: I noted you years ago were playing, correspondence chess with others on Wikipedia, let start again :P Dawid2009 (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure! We can start a new game on that page if you want – hopefully VM won't mind. Cobblet (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Dawid2009/chess Dawid2009 (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC) Everyone is welcome to add this page to watchlist, or play in my team. @Volunteer Marek: you started this trend years ago, you can play on my sandbox too if you want too. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: Good luck! It's your move... Cobblet (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Remove Mark Twain

Not on GuzzyG's list. I'm going to have to oppose this, if somewhat weakly. Twain is the only American writer on the list, and, while this isn't the best (or, really, a valid) argument, I do personally enjoy his works. While people do (sometimes rightfully) complain of Americentrism on the list, the United States is the largest country in the world where the majority population speaks and writes in English natively, and the writers list is disproportionately European, not American. So this is one of the few times where I argue for an American to be on the list for representation purposes.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support Twain does not really distinguish himself from other canonical American authors like Hemingway or Poe. I understand why people want a rep for American literature but Twain just is not Shakespeare level and is not historically or aesthetically significant enough. Shakespeare is enough for English-language literature and our writers’ category is too bloated. If this were a top 200 list Twain may have a place, but alas we need to be sensible and not have this many authors of fiction when other fields are neglected. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support I can dig a one of each language approach. (except Austen because she represents women and we can't go below 10 total, no way. All languages with one, but English with two would fit the English language encyclopedia focus i guess too). But it's clear that Twain is the dominant American writer, that's not in doubt. [2]. I just think our coverage of Jazz (Armstrong); American pop music (Michael Jackson); Hollywood (Charlie Chaplin) and Rock and Roll (The Beatles) cover American contributions to art and art forms sufficiently. Americans are not as big in Literature and visual arts or classical music so it's fair not to list them here. We don't list Andy Warhol for visual arts. GuzzyG (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support I do not think we have room for single US writer. This country is sufficiently represented by pop culture figures and has shorter history than United Kington. This is almost preposterous we have six articles related with English literature but four (soon maybe 3) related with Greek Philosophy, three related with Hinduism and three related with Second World War. Mark Twain is mentioned in article English Literatue and for ballance I support adding many American Writers to the level 4 which is more toward recentism and is not focussed on things with civilsational impact etc. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per above. -- Maykii (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Kafka would be better example of short story writer. Twain is most famous for his novel Huckleberry Finn and there are many other novels with similar status. Sophocles was removed, although Oedipus the King is called by some as the greatest play ever written. --Thi (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
7. Support we have Bill Shakespeare and English literature, that is enough. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Despite being nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Twain wrote A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, one of the most influential works of time travel in fiction. Dimadick (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose I particularly take issue with the comment "we have Bill Shakespeare and English literature, that is enough." pbp 03:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Famous enough to be very vital, IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Rabindranath Tagore

Not on Thi's list. I don't know enough about Tagore and his placement in Indian culture, and whether he passes the "global secondary school standard", so I'll refrain from voting for now.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support Tagore is important for the Indian subcontinent but not sufficiently influential for our encyclopaedia. As a poet he is studied far less than Milton or Byron. Important as a historical figure but not supremely influential as a writer, and certainly not Shakespeare or Dante. Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Strong support Per Zelkia. I do not think Tagore should represent history of literature in South Asia at this level. Bengali and Hindi language in modern world are not translated as often as European languages so have weaker monopol. We recently removed Akira Kurosawa who surpassed Tagore in Asian of the Century at category arts/culture/literature. Perhaps swapping Bhagavad Gita for Mahabharata and add something like Trimurti would be better to cover Indian culture by diverse way, however I am not convinced Tagore is neccesary, we represent pop culture at this level and soon we are going to remove more important biographies like Niels Bohr... Dawid2009 (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per above. --Thi (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support we have Bill Shakespeare and English literature, that is enough. Also far, far, far less well-known than Jane Austen or Mark Twain in the contemporary United States. Also TOOSOON, it's hard to determine the long term impact of a writer in the first 100 years after their death. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The Indian subcontinent is a major region for literature and it has a very long history. (goes back to Kalidasa; also another candidate for this list). India has alot of English speakers too; which makes it even more important to list a representative of on the English encyclopedia. (as shown by Tagore getting nearly 10 mil more pageviews in English than John Milton) There's no reason to cut here; if Tagore goes than Satyajit Ray must come on; Indian culture is essential for a English encyclopedia to cover. (Long history of British Raj/lots of English speakers). I would cut Rumi before Tagore. (but wouldnt cut either). GuzzyG (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose An Indian writer is definitely essential for this list. -- Maykii (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose First non Western Nobel Prize in literature. Definitely a leading figure in Indian culture. Yann (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Non-Western literature deserves a basic level of representation. Cobblet (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose per above. I would consider a swap with Kalidasa but not an outright removal. Gizza (talk • voy) 00:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Add James Watt

I initially forgot to add this. Watt perfected the steam engine, which enabled the Industrial Revolution. His importance is such that the SI unit of power, watt, is named for him.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Extremally pertinent to understand history of science and history of technology. We certainly need at least father of industrial revolution. This is time when machines started replace many human's activities in everyday live. He is very easy findable in every the shortest Encyclopedia. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support If we have Gutenberg; than Watt should be on even a 100 list. Up there with Ford in my opinion. GuzzyG (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support pbp 13:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Highly influential figure. Dimadick (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Biography is not as important at this leval as Steam engine and Industrial revolution. "Locomotive transport, not Watt engines, accelerated the Industrial Revolution" [3] --Thi (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Similar types of arguments pro and con could be made for him, Gutenberg, and Cai Lun: they're all primarily associated with one massively important invention. Given that there remains a consensus to try to reduce bios, I will oppose additions which I think are borderline. Cobblet (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Agreed that the steam engine and Industrial Revolution are more pertinent to readers here. Level 4 is sufficient. czar 01:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose per above. -- Maykii (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

@Purplebackpack89: In the past you said that Watt is more vital than Washington, do you still belive so? Would it be possible to swap Tesla for Watt and Cai Lun for Shen Kuo?. Shen Kuo gets less pagevievs than this wikiproject, some sandboxes and even some user Pages... Dawid2009 (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Add Frank Lloyd Wright or Le Corbusier

This has also been discussed and voted down before, but it would be nice to have an architect if we get under 120. Both FLW and Le Corbusier are the pre-eminent architects of the 20th century, and both of the collections of their works have been deemed UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Although Wright did not participate in the design of early skyscrapers like his Lieber Meister Sullivan, and only ended up designing one minor skyscraper, he did envision a mile-high tower well before the Burj Khalifa could even be imagined, and more importantly defined the transition between Arts and Crafts and modernist architecture. Le Corbusier, on the other hand, defined modern architecture and has a plethora of work to his name in Europe.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Conditional support if we get down to under 120 biographies without it As nom; I'm biased towards FLW, but I'm fine with either.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. -- Maykii (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Support adding Le Corbusier. I have only heard of Wright because Don Rosa] likes to reference him in his stories. Otherwise, not that famous. Dimadick (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Not neccesary, level 4 is sufficient Dawid2009 (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose per the recent discussion on adding Le Corbusier. As pointed out previously, we already have an architect in Michelangelo, so this is really a proposal to add someone who is known exclusively for being an architect. No 20th-century architect really stands out in this regard: Le Corbusier is not more vital than Mies van der Rohe (from a technical perspective) or Gaudí (in the popular consciousness), and both Sullivan and Olmsted are just as important to the history of American architecture as FLW. Again I would go back to Mimar Sinan as an architect that truly stood out from his contemporaries, as acknowledged by both Le Corbusier and FLW (see my comments in the previous discussion), and would also happen to represent the long tradition of visual arts in the Islamic world for which we have no coverage on the list. But if the goal is to reduce the number of bios overall, I'm not going to support his addition either. Cobblet (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Not if we've cut down. FLW or Corbiusier or Mimar Sinan don't have sufficient cultural status to be on here as a artist after these cuts in my opinion. GuzzyG (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Agreed that Level 4 is sufficient. czar 01:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Architects are just not very famous. Their work is more enduring. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Space race

Certainly we have room to readd this per precious discussions. While we do not have enough space to list two comparable astronauts then we should have this article. I support this proposal especially based on Thi's rationale in the archive and sources which they showed in previous discussion. This is also de facto parent article for arms race. Cold War is extremally popular topic related with 20th century. I think if we have room for Age of discovery and polar expolar and three XV explorers, then we should have at least very parent and very wide article for space exploration (NASA have lack coverage for milestones which did USSSR). On the purely historical perspective I also believe it is fair to have three articles related with second World War (the war, Hitler, Stalin) and two articles related with Cold war (the war, and just space race). Dawid2009 (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC) Added more on 13:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)~

Support

1. Strong support as nom Dawid2009 (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support One of the greatest explorations in history. It gave us Earthrise and The Blue Marble. Space settlement is secondary. "We set out to explore the moon and instead discovered the Earth." [4] --Thi (talk) 11:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Strong support extremely important event in human history. Planting humans on the moon is likely the single most impressive technological achievement yet accomplished. A feat that children are likely to learn about for centuries in the future. Much more important for an encyclopedia than Impressionism, nursing, Twain or Kafka. Zelkia1101 (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per above. -- Maykii (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Not as important as literature, but still emblematic of the 20th century. Dimadick (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per previous discussion. Redundant to Cold War and space exploration, and didn't result in permanent human habitation outside of Earth; the "good stuff" in that is yet to come. I would, however, support adding NASA.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 11:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
2. as per above. Yann (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
3. per John M Wolfson. Too much overlap with space exploration. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
4. I am a space geek but yeah, space exploration is enough. Is rocket a vital topic? It should be if it isn't. (Note: I checked, it's vital-3) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

• All of this not to mention the advent of satellite technology that powers the very cellphones and computers that all of you are using. None of it would have been remotely possible without human encroachment into space.
• The concept of an arms race dates back to at least the late 19th century and has continued on since then, whereas the space race was a decade and a half in the middle of the 20th century; I am befuddled by the assertion that the space race is somehow the "parent article" of an older and more general concept.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Add Taiwan

Our country list already has 81% of the world's population, and I would assume a roughly similar if not greater proportion of its GDP, so I am highly wary of adding any more countries (especially solely on a population basis) and think that any deficiencies in human geography are best served by adding cities rather than countries; that said, I do think removing Taiwan was a mistake when we list the similarly small-but-developed Netherlands and the similarly-small-but-geopolitically signficant Israel, and my previous proposal to re-add it failed by one oppose !vote that was procedural and unrelated to Taiwan itself.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Not only the Netherlands and Israel but also the United Arab Emirates is another economically advanced country that is listed and has a significantly smaller population than Taiwan. Taiwan's economy is nearly twice as large as Israel's or the UAE's in nominal-GDP terms and is also nearly 40% larger than the Netherlands' in PPP-adjusted terms. If we are keeping all three of the other countries, it makes no sense not to list Taiwan. It is no exaggeration to say the world depends on Taiwan for semiconductors; Taiwan counts Ang Lee, Teresa Teng, and the National Palace Museum (the most significant museum collection in the Sinosphere) among its cultural capital; and Taiwan is the most acute geopolitical flashpoint in Chinese–US relations. China's campaign against recognition of Taiwan has even affected Wikimedia's participation in UN agencies. Cobblet (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Per Cobblet. Taiwan is a fundamental part of today's landscape and not even the smallest encyclopedia would miss it today. GuzzyG (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support addition of Taiwan, Iraq and Ukraine. --Thi (talk) 08:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support addition of Taiwan based on GDP, importance to the semiconductor industry (and subsequently numerous other industries, see 2020–2021 global chip shortage and [5]), and geopolitical significance. INDT (talk) 08:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Support Removing this was a mistake I will admit. -- Maykii (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
7. Weak support. Important in geopolitics, but to some degree I think this is a temporary 'vitality'. If China would be united again it would soon lose its importance, and historical one is quite 'recentist'. In a 1000 years it will likely be forgotten just as some older Chinese splinter entities. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
8. Weak support Important for contemporaneous geopolitical developments, and a economic powerhouse, but I'm not quite sure it's on the same level as the United Kingdom, France, or Japan as the top whatever most important states. Zelkia1101 (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
9. Support per the nom's comparison with Netherlands and Israel (and UAE). It is an interesting question whether this article would be listed if the KMT acceded to PRC government in 1954, but I am not going to use my crystal ball for that. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

   I doubt it, since Taiwan would be a part of China if I'm not mistaken whereas they are currently de facto two different countries. We don't list California (although we should, IMO, but that's another discussion) since it's a part of the United States, so I don't think we would list a less-important-for-English-speakers subnational entity either.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

10. Support Far more vital than most states in Asia. Dimadick (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose per previous discussion. Netherlands should be removed or swaped Ages ago for Ukraina or other country which is at underrepresented region; and UE swapped for Iraq. It is gratutitous to list so man countries with small population if we rejected Uganda, Ukraine Morocco etc. List would be more objective if we include countries with big population. For example in Europe there is big gap beetwen 9-th country (38 mln) and 10th (19 mln), so I have no clue idea why we list 12-th NEtherlands no mention to fact is shadwed by other countries by western Europe. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

   As I've said/implied, I take rather little stock in raw population when adding any more countries; we already have 81% of the world's population even without Taiwan, and all of the truly big 100 million+ countries, leaving only several "middling" countries with fewer than 50 million people (Uganda, the biggest, has 42 million, not significantly larger than Canada). As such, unless we plan to list every single country, any new country would have to be significant to the wider world, either historically (Greece and Iraq, perhaps, but we already respectively list Ancient Greece and Mesopotamia/Sumer and have shot down Greece for that reason), culturally (I actually can't think of too many not on the list, though we do list Portuguese language without listing Portugal; this is why I'm not kidding when I say I'd rather add California than the vast majority of remaining countries), economically (like such countries we list as the UAE or Netherlands, and Taiwan), geopolitically (like Taiwan or the listed Israel), or in representing an underrepresented region of the world (Ghana for Western Africa, perhaps); all this is why I think any additions to human geography (which, as Cobblet mentioned, is already inclusive as is) are better served with cities rather than countries. I actually do agree about the UAE, not because of its population but rather because it's still "the new kid on the block" in relevance and might not have staying power in that regard, which is why I would strongly oppose adding Dubai.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

   leaving only several "middling" countries with fewer than 50 million people (Uganda, the biggest, has 42 million, not significantly larger than Canada). I do not care what population has Canada, this is irrelevant (North America deserve representation in "human geography" if we list so plenty object related with physical geography for that region). I care about fact that Netherlands has 17 mln population, meanwhile Uganda 42 mln. This is very relevent not due to fat that Uganda has almost triple more population and far more promient growth of population but this is relevant just due to fact that Netherlands already represent overrepresented region and is shadowed by other western countries there! (FAQ says about diversity, and Netherlands is more comparable to Belgium which is lsited on the level 4 than to Italy/Spain, this addition was opening pandorra box, do we will add Belgium next and Portugal next? yet over Ukraine?). We should firstly add at least Ukraine before start discuss to add whatever from Western Europe. Israel and Saudi Arabia are the only two exception where I am able completly ignore popiulation factor regardless do we want more countries or bit less. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:30, 16 October 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.

Add Seoul

As said earlier in the section of Taiwan, I think it would generally be preferable to add cities rather than more countries to fill out human geography, and in any event we only have 19 cities (excluding the City article itself at level 2) rather than a clean 20. I think Seoul would be a good fit for the last spot; it is considered an Alpha- city by the Globalization and World Cities Research Network, is in the Top 5 of the world's metropolitan economies with over 900 billion dollars, and is on the WikiProject Cities Core list.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Vital city to the world economy. Dimadick (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose About half the country's population lives in the Seoul Capital Area. South Korea is not so important a country, and Seoul is not so important a city, that this kind of overlap is desirable. I'm not suggesting you would disagree, but with South Korea already on the list, it clearly makes more sense to add Taiwan than to add Seoul. I think human geography is already much better covered than physical geography as it stands, we have spent a long time in the past discussing the list of cities, and I think the choices we've made are fine. Cobblet (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Many countries would be more essential additions. --Thi (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
3. per Cobblet User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose per above. -- Maykii (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose North Korea would be better option if we want add smaller countries. This would not be very fair to list South Korea and Seoul ahead of higly populated countries which we recently rejected (eg Uganda). Dawid2009 (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Sigh and sad oppose. I live there but the arguments above are sadly well made. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Sundial

We are at 99 "Technology" entries currently. Very few of them are historical in nature. The sundial is a simple technology that has been used for thousands of years.

Support

1. as nom User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Sure, list it as a bullet point under "clock".  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Clock does a pretty good job of covering the history of timekeeping devices. I think there are other technological areas which could use more attention – textiles is one that comes to mind, for example. Weaving? Cobblet (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_10#Remove_Sundial. --Thi (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Clock is fine. -- Maykii (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Seems minor to me, subjective view, sure, but so are most others here :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

This is motivated by a discussion on a recent popular television series. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Add Plough

From the article, It has been fundamental to farming for most of history. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Seems even more fundamental than irrigation, you can plow with natural irrigation, but can't plow without it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose I would prefer adding irrigation.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

   Although I do commend the proposer for having a username that is (arguably) a stylized plough.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

2. Oppose Agree that if farming technology needs more coverage, irrigation seems like a better place to start than tillage. Cobblet (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Irrigation is as vital as plough and History of agriculture is listed at this level. --Thi (talk) 08:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose per above. -- Maykii (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

• I would probably support Irrigation as well, but don't want to open more nominations until some more of the biography discussions are closed and archived. I do note that the article Irrigation is in far worse shape than basically any article on the list; I'm doing some triage but it desperately needs attention. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Add Beef, Lamb and mutton, Pork, and Poultry

We list different types of cereals (wheat, maize, and rice) in addition to listing cereal, and we list potato and soybean as types of vegetables while also listing vegetable; as such, I think we should list different types of meat in addition to listing meat given the ubiquity and centrality of meat in human diets. Beef, pork, and chicken are by far the most consumed meats in the world today, and sheep meat generally is not too far behind outside of the west. I also doubt that there would be significant overlap with the animals themselves since we only list cattle of the concerned animals.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom; at the very least we should have beef and pork. Lamb is historically/culturally significant but possibly expendable, and I am also fine with simply listing chicken as food but think poultry is more general and including turkey, duck, etc..  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Potatoes and soybeans are listed because they're staple crops which are globally produced on about twice the scale of poultry and pork, the meats with the highest production. Meat only features prominently in the diets of people in developed countries or in places where other protein sources happen to be scarce: they're not all that ubiquitous or central from either a global or a historical point of view. Specific meats are less vital than the animals they come from, and listing meat and animal husbandry provides enough coverage at this level. I would rather add more farm animals first: I've suggested sheep before, as another example of a farm animal that is raised for more than just meat. I would also add seafood (production of 178 million tons/year, 2018–2020 avg.) before adding any other types of meat (134 million tons of poultry produced in 2020). Meat barely mentions seafood and only focuses on the meat of livestock animals, which makes sense since the meat industry is not usually defined to include the seafood industry. However, we do list fishing. Cobblet (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose all but Poultry. Too much overlap between the animals as well as meat. I would probably support some article on pigs/swine but not pork. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose The meat is not more important than the animals themselves. I would support the addition of sheep, swine, and chicken, given their international importance as sources of food. Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Details, not necessary entries. --Thi (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

• I would support either Poultry or Chicken but am not sure which I prefer. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'd definitely prefer listing chicken, by far the most common bird in the world, and a source of both meat and eggs. Cobblet (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Add Sand and Cement

They are important materials throughout history. Interstellarity (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Sand. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Sand as well. Staple of beaches and deserts. Even beyond use as a material, presents engineering problems to be solved wherever it exists. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Listing concrete, the most important material in which they're used, is enough. I don’t see why sand would be any more vital than clay. Cobblet (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose We already list both concrete and masonry, and I don't think sand is particularly important in its own right but rather as binding agents/ingredients in concrete and glass.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Concrete is listed. --Thi (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Cement only. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I note we already have concrete; of course there is a clear distinction between concrete and cement. Or should glue be added instead? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Cement is a part of concrete, but I think the difference is unimportant at this level.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I have partially withdrawn the nom. This nom is now only on sand. Interstellarity (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Add Chicken and Sheep

Two of the most common animals worldwide and some of the first to be domesticated by humans. Both are used for their meat as well as other products like wool and eggs and they have had a huge impact on human culture and society. -- Maykii (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. -- Maykii (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
2. While I do think we're having a lot of animals recently, our biotrimming makes it not as bad. My support for Chicken, however, is weakened by the fact that it wasn't a particularly common meat outside of Asia prior to the mid-20th century ("A chicken in every pot" referencing its luxury as late as 1928), although eggs seem to redeem it somewhat.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support both. They are arguably just as important to human civilization as cattle, which we do list. Admittedly, cattle perhaps a touch more important, since cattle are used for both meat and for drafting, but chicken and sheep are consumed more, and cross culturally the most well-known sources of meat. Sheep husbandry was an extremely vital profession throughout human history, for instance. Ewe's milk is as important as cow's milk in many cultures. Eggs, another staple food, come from chickens.
4. Support per discussion. --Thi (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• I won't support sheep unless either pig or domestic pig is also being added. (it's not at all obvious which to add, so I'm just going to wait for now) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I would also support the addition of domestic pig. -- Maykii (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Add Insurance

Finance-related topic which concerns both companies and citizens. Listed among main articles in some my old encyclopedias.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Crucial financial innovation that allows for otherwise too-risky investments to take place.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support undisputedly an indispensable part of the modern world Zelkia1101 (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Nobel prize

"The Nobel Prizes are widely regarded as the most prestigious awards given for intellectual achievement in the world." (Britannica) They cover three areas of civilization: science, arts (literature) and social ethics (Peace Prize).

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Weak support but I don't know where we would put it. We don't list other lists such as the Ten Commandments, and Seven Wonders of the Ancient World was actively rejected about a year ago, so I don't know if this list is accommodating of such articles.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Ok for level 4 but really terrible addition for the level 3. Far too specific. Previosly removed with extreme consensus. I feel this is nominated purely to something "add to add" when we are well under quta. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Dawid. If this was really that important, than one would expect other prestigious prizes like the Fields Medal or Lasker Award to be on level 4. Cobblet (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose The prize award on its own isn't important enough, but "the prize and a list of all the winners" would get close. But we don't do lists at this level. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Arabic alphabet, Brahmic scripts and Cyrillic script

These are probably covered by language articles.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support removing Cyrillic script. Now that Uzbek and Kazakh are abandoning it, Russian, Ukrainian, and Serbo-Croatian (in Serbia, Montenegro and Republika Srpska) remain the only languages with more than 10 million speakers which still use the script. Swapping Cyrillic for Ukraine would seem to me an improvement. The Arabic alphabet at least forms the basis of the Persian alphabet from which still other scripts such as Urdu and Pashto are derived, and Ajami script was also formerly widespread in Africa. So the significance of Arabic scripts is far from redundant to the Arabic language. Maybe Arabic script is a better choice to represent the family though, given that we list the family of Brahmic scripts rather than Devanagari. Cobblet (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Brahmic scripts unless we're swapping with Devanagari; India deserves quite a bit of representation on this list given its huge population both today and historically, and most (at least a large plurality, if not the absolute majority, of) Indo-European language speakers prior to European colonization were in India; in any event, such scripts are used also for non-Indo-European languages such as Tamil, much like the Latin script in the west. Weak oppose Arabic alphabet and Cyrillic script. Arabic is the world's most-spoken language that is neither Chinese nor Indo-European, and one of the UN's six official languages, so its alphabet is quite frequently used. However, on a global basis it is less vital than Arabic numerals, IMO. As for Cyrillic, it's also used for a UN language (Russian) and has prominent transnational use in Eastern Europe, but I could be convinced that it's rather niche globally and not as vital as the historically-important Greek alphabet despite its technically wider use.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Good News

here. 2804:14C:5BB1:8AF2:A8D3:102:98C:870F (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Merging levels 1 and 2 talk into this talkpage

This talkpage has 550 watchers, whereas the level 1 talkpage has only 114 and level 2 talkpage has only 89. This is to be expected; the last substantial change to level 1 was in December 2018 and the last one before that had been in August 2015, and I assume level 2 is also updated rather infrequently. I had to courtesy ping VA regulars to a level 1 discussion and it was brought up that perhaps the top three level talkpages should be merged. I think it's a good idea; the main drawback would be that it would slightly hinder archiving, but we can simply merge the archives together as well (of course, pre-merger archives would still remain available). All discussions here would, of course, refer to level 3 by default unless stated otherwise.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
2. per nom and my suggestion on that page User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

I don't see what has changed to make this necessary now. Cobblet (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Somebody bothered to make a level-1 proposal for the first time in years. It should have been where people pay attention. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

What is the number of watchers for the other levels of the project for reference? are they around the same or greatly higher, it's been a while since I checked that kind of stuff. Is this just to merge the talk pages, but not the lists themselves? (similar to how lev 4, geography, history and bios etc are on different pages, but discussed on one page) Is this wha the proposal is? And the actual lev 1 talk page would just contain a manual or automatic redirect to here, at lev 3. Is this what you mean?  Carlwev  21:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is to merge solely the talkpages and leave due redirects; it would also merge subsequent (but not pre-merger) archive pages, unless consensus is strongly against that.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, the level 4 talk has 196 watchers (31 of whom viewed recent edits, and 1,391 pageviews in the last month) and the level 5 talk has 91 (32 of whom viewed recent edits, and 412 pageviews in the last month). As a refresher, levels 1 and 2 have respective 23 recent-edit viewers/452 last-month pageviews and 24/182. It would, however, be extremely impractical to merge levels 4 and 5 due to their unwieldy sizes, and the analogy between the levels is imperfect since levels 4 and 5 are supposed to change quite often and thus don't need "special attention" given to them when changes are in fact proposed. Overall, I still think this is a good idea, especially given the small size of Levels 1 and 2 meaning that they don't particularly need their own talkpages.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Notes

Add Domestic pig

Important in meat production worldwide and quite often referenced in culture.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. I was going to propose this alongside chicken and sheep but I thought that might be too much. Pigs are just as important as other livestock though. -- Maykii (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support given the importance of swine as a source of food Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
4. This would be the last mammal species I'd add (and likely the animal species, though I could see pet), but just vital enough.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss