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: 09:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC) ()
• 30 days ago: 09:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• 60 days ago: 09:47, 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)

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

1. We should encourage fellow Wikipedians to spend some time participating in discussions of VA1 & 2 pages instead.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Extended discussion times and other solutions are possible. --Thi (talk) 10:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose. It helps keep things more focused to have them separate. I agree that we should encourage more participation at those levels and extended discussion times should be the default on Level 1 and 2 nominations. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Skeleton, Add Bone

We should probably list the building blocks before the ensemble piece, right? There is also much more in terms of topics branching off bone than skeleton.

Support

1. Support as nom Zelkia1101 (talk) 04:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support addition per discussion. --Thi (talk) 07:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support. I think it makes more sense to list bone. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
4. Support addition Bones are a vital part of anatomy and should be listed. -- Maykii (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal Vital in anatomy. --Thi (talk) 07:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal I would Rather remont paelontology which Seemann be arcana in comprasion to history of life which is currently not listed. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal The concept of a skeleton is vital to anatomy. Also an important cultural symbol in death. -- Maykii (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

• Both seem to be vital. No need to swap, both should be in the list. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Remove Bengali language, add Persian language

We currently have two languages from the Indian subcontinent, Hindustani and Bengali. I think Hindustani is enough to represent that particular region of the world. Bengali, though a popular language, is pretty much contained to its traditional homeland in and around the Bengal region, and in diasporic immigrant communities.

Persian is spoken today by fewer native speakers than Bengali, but historically and culturally it is the more important language, at least in my view. Its ancestor language, Old Persian, was spoken by the Achaemenid Empire of Cyrus the Great, and was the language of Zoroastrianism. Persian was later spoken by the Sassanids and the Safavids, two great powers of their own. For thousands of years the language had been used as a prestige or administrative tongue all around Central and Western Asia, and was in direct contention with Arabic as the language of the Muslim faith throughout much of the Muslim world; whereas Arabic was reserved for religious matters during much of the second millenium, Persian was the language of literature and science. Think of classic Persian authors like Rumi or classic Persian texts like the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam or the Shahnameh. Also consider the importance of Persian-speaking intellectuals like Avicenna and Al-Ghazali. Persian developed as an intellectual, bureaucratic, and literary language from Tajikistan to Ottoman Turkey to Egypt.

Among the Indo-European families we list two Indo-Iranian languages: HIndustani and Bengali. Both of these languages are part of the Indo-Aryan languages, so it would be nice to have a member of the Iranian side of the family.

Support addition

1. Support as nom Zelkia1101 (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

   Support addition per nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

2. Support addition I support Persian because there's major historical and cultural backing to Persian itself. We list Rumi; who should not be listed before his language and if anything, should be swapped for Persian if we don't want another addition. Pretty sure Hafez might be more important anyway. Sign language and Egyptian hieroglyphs are the only other language topics suitable for this list IMO. GuzzyG (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
3. The addition, since a lot of literary classics were written in Persian, and it was the literary language of the Ottoman Empire (cf. languages of the Ottoman Empire).--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Support addition Thought Turkish would be better as part of global Language system, per my comments in the Archives. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
5. Support addition Important language culturally and historically, Iran is still a vital player in the modern world. -- Maykii (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose addition

1. Cobblet (per below) User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
2. John M Wolfson (per below) User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Support removal

1. Zelkia1101 (as nom) User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose removal

1. Oppose Bengali has so many more speakers than Persian (3–4 times as many, I believe) that I cannot support the removal. I'd put Persian ahead of other Indo-Aryan languages with a greater number of speakers for the reasons given by the nominator, but I'm not sure I'd put it ahead of Sanskrit, Hebrew or Tamil. Among living languages the only one I would definitely support adding is Swahili, to give Niger-Congo languages (largest family by number of languages, third largest by number of speakers) a specific representative. Cobblet (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

   Among living languages the only one I would definitely support adding is Swahili. Swahili is already on this list. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

2. Oppose removal Top 5 language by the amount of speakers [1]; we would be odd if on a language list we didn't cover the top 5 languages spoken. Only thing a removal would do is set up a future Tagore removal and Tagore clearly shows that Bengal does have a cultural backing. GuzzyG (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
3. The removal, since there are significantly more speakers of Bengali than French (cf. List of languages by total number of speakers), Bengali should be kept.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC) added some words and altered capitalization a little 07:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC) removed a "thus" 08:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose removal Per RekishiEj. Bengali also has more speakers than German and Japanese put together. We even do not list any German writer on this level but we have Tagore. Also, every Language which has more native speakers than number of users of [[Cyrylic Script] is more vital than Tolstoy.Dawid2009 (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose removal per discussion, now also opposing addition if we don't list Sanskrit. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose removal Bengali is one of the world's most spoken languages. Bangladesh is a vital country too. -- Maykii (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I'm conflicted on removal; if India needs two languages, I would rather the second language be non-Indo-European, probably Tamil, but I believe this would make Bengali the only Top-10 world language not listed. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Though I wouldn't push for it, I also wouldn't be opposed to the addition of Tamil if a consensus developed around it. Tamil at least comes from a unique, non-Indo-European language family, and represents a far more distinct literary, linguistic, historical and cultural tradition than does Bengali when set against Hindustani. I'm not sure Tamil is a colleague of English or French or Arabic as a level-3 language, but again I wouldn't oppose its addition on this list. Zelkia1101 (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Remove Man and Woman under gender, human sexuality

the concepts are pretty well explained by gender and human sexuality. It would be unexpected if anyone would be able to expand Man and Woman to go beyond those already in those aforementioned articles, we also already have Human as well. Lolitart (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Lolitart (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support. We list Child but not Boy or Girl, so I don't really see why we need to list Man and Woman when we also list Adult at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per Rreagan007. -- Maykii (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Important topics in culture, not entirely covered by Gender. --Thi (talk) 09:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose The two main genders should be included as well as the concept of Gender itself; manhood is quite an important concept across cultures, and womanhood is no different. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Wu Zetian

arguably a female figure of much higher historical importance than Florence Nightingale. Cixi is comparable, but I'd say not as powerful and she was only a regent while Wu Zetian was the actual sovereign. Lolitart (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom - Lolitart (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support but only as swap with weak politician leader, for example Henry. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Dimadick (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We list enough Chinese leaders. -- Maykii (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

• @Loliart:This woman is part of moratorium my omnission, I admitDawid2009 (talk) so can be added only as swap, for next six months, as her candidature (unfortunetly) recently failed. (let make nomination to remove for example Heny/Akbar/Mansa Musa or Joan of Arc/Elizabeth/Shibiku). I think she should be definietly added as she is by far wealthiest woman, maybe person ever: [2]. Except your rationale for addition also the only woman emperor in hina history, Shibiku seems has isolated impact and yet not so promient in Japan, IMHO.Dawid2009 (talk) 06:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Wu Zetain is actually part of the moratorium, since she's not on the list at the top of the talk page. Zelkia1101 (talk) 12:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Zelkia is correct; Wu is not part of the Moratorium since she is absent from the list. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not per se opposed to Wu Zetain's addition on this list. In terms of importance to history, level of technical achievement, and relevance to modern users she outstrips Florence Nightingale far and away. She is probably the most powerful sovereign China has ever had, and likely the second most important behind Qin Shi Huang, all of which is incredibly impressive given that she's the sole woman to have ever ruled the country. However, I am against additions of any new biographies on this list until we've gotten our numbers down to 100. Ideally Wu would be a swap with someone else on this list. I'm going to remain neutral for now. Zelkia1101 (talk) 12:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Add Shanghai and San Francisco

As much as I understand the desire to be more representative and inclusive, to exclude some of the most well-developed cities and centers for finance and technological innovation from the list just because we already have one or two from the same countries feels like a huge mistake.

Support

1. As nom Lolitart (talk) 08:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Shanghai because it is the largest city in China by urban area population and second largest city in the world by city proper population after Chongqing, but Shanghai has almost double the GDP. Oppose San Francisco, economic powerhouse but not as significant internationally or historically as Shanghai, and even LA metro area has a larger economy if that were the only factor. Bill Williams 08:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Shanghai One of the most vital cities in the world. Why San Francisco? With a population of 873,965 people, it is only the 17th most populous city in the United States. Dimadick (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I don't think we need any more cities. Besides, I think Yellow River is a better addition than Shanghai, and SF is not the next city from the US I would add anyway. Cobblet (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose The only North American cities I would consider adding – and even then, only if we were to expand the city list by 10 or 20 – would be Chicago and Los Angeles. I would, however, strongly support listing California, which has both SF and LA (a major failing of the list IMO is that we list nothing about either Silicon Valley or Hollywood, much less both as we would if we listed California), an economy larger than all but <10 countries, and a population larger than Canada and most countries not currently listed; unfortunately, as stated below, it's been rejected a couple of times already.
   As for Shanghai, we already have Beijing and Hong Kong and recently rejected Seoul, so I don't believe it is a high priority. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

   I'm under the impression we reject Seoul largely because of the overlap of it with Korea in general, but Shanghai and its surrounding geo-cultural-economical unit is not mentioned at all. I would say Beijing is important largely for political and historical importance, it's the Rome of China in addition to being the capital, and Hong Kong is important because of its former status as a colony more than anything, Shanghai is the economic center of China and the modern day culture center for Wu speaking population, that it remain out of the list feels a bit off for me. Lolitart (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

   "Mere seats of government" don't belong on this list, which is why we no longer list Washington, D.C.; Beijing is still the dominant city of China culturally and home of the Mandarin language, and hosted the 2008 Summer Olympics among other things. However, if Hong Kong were listed merely for its former colonial status we would also list Macau; it's important for its skyscrapers and financial prowess, and I feel Shanghai would be redundant to that, in addition to my discomfort of having a single country get three cities on here. You're welcome to propose a Shanghai/Hong Kong swap anytime, however. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

   To be fair, since Hong Kong and Macau overlaps in that regard, we probably list Hong Kong as Macau is just too small and much less significant. However in an alternate world if we just have Macau, I believe Macau would be listed. Lolitart (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

3. Oppose San Francisco - impossible to add this before Los Angeles or California. And I don't think we have quota to start adding sub-national regions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose San Francisco is not best choice and more cities are currently not needed. --Thi (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose per above. -- Maykii (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

1. @Cobblet and Bill Williams: What about adding California? Lolitart (talk) 14:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

   California has been rejected at least twice. Cobblet (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

   I would support California before any more countries for the reasons given above, but Cobblet is right that it would probably fail because it happens to not be its own country. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

   I would definitely support California more than San Francisco, and it also includes Los Angeles metro area and other parts of the state, making it basically one of the world's economic powerhouses. It is also extremely culturally significant globally due to Hollywood. Bill Williams 16:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended content

To be honest it could replace Myanmar, which is not nearly as significant as the other countries or California (around the same population but much less economically and culturally significant internationally). Bill Williams 16:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC) I don't know if we really need to trim the countries, but California would definitely be a better fit than Central Asia. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC) In the interest of covering well-defined regions of the world which are otherwise unrepresented, I would prioritize listing Central America and Central Asia over California, Uttar Pradesh, Shanghai, Berlin, Rio de Janeiro, Dubai, Seoul, etc. Cobblet (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC) I respectfully disagree, though I know where you're coming from. Not all regions of the world necessarily deserve representation on here. Central America is adequately (though very imperfectly, I am aware) covered by Caribbean that we're about to add, although I would not particularly oppose its addition if push came to shove. While Central Asia is a better idea to list than its individual countries, its major historical significance is already covered by Silk Road, and being as close as it is to the literal middle of nowhere I would not put it above Afghanistan or frankly any human geography outside of possibly its individual countries, other minor countries, Greenland, and New Zealand. Don't get me wrong, I have the same feeling about it as you do Colorado River; wonderful and beautiful scenery, but just rather irrelevant on the world stage. Also, California is a cut above the other regions you mentioned except possibly Rio or Berlin; let me know when people are "Uttar Pradesh Dreamin'", or when Dubai has the technological capital of the world, or when Seoul is the Mecca of pop culture, or when Shanghai is arguably the capital of space launching and exploration. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC) Well, Shanghai is the world's busiest port, it's just a city. I 100% get your point about California though. Lolitart (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC) "Uttar Pradesh is the springhead of the ancient civilization of the Hindus." I consider that as important as anything California represents, and who knows how much longer it'll represent those things: isn't SpaceX moving to Brownsville? I don't understand how anyone could consider the location of the Great Game, the New Eurasian Land Bridge, multiple supergiant oil and gas fields (including the world's second largest gas field), Baikonur Cosmodrome, and the 20th century's worst ecological disaster "rather irrelevant on the world stage" (the Colorado River basin just does not compare at all); although I don't mind if people prefer listing Afghanistan rather than Central Asia. Cobblet (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC) @Cobblet: In that case, Uttar Pradesh would be redundant to India (i.e., Hindu civilization in general), and thus we should list Tamil Nadu instead; California is not the springhead of American culture writ large (that would be the East Coast and also arguably the Midwest), but rather by far the most important "sub-culture" of it. In any event, just because there is a Calexodus of sorts right now does not mean it's "going away" anytime soon; people fled New York in droves in the 1970s, and we would not have removed it from the list for that reason. Similarly, just because SpaceX is leaving (good on them, IMO) doesn't mean that Hollywood is also going to Texas, or overseas (Bollywood notwithstanding), or that FAANG is going to ditch Silicon Valley. Most of those things you listed about Central Asia could also apply to Afghanistan, which I would rather add as stated above. (Also, stuff like the Chinese projects you mentioned frankly seem like afterthoughts; trade routes do not themselves make a location vital.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC) If the centrality of Uttar Pradesh to Hindu civilization makes it redundant with India, then the centrality of California to the US's economic and cultural dominance makes it redundant with the US. None of the things I mentioned actually apply to Afghanistan other than the Great Game, although there are other valid reasons to list Afghanistan. I don't know why you would discount trade routes that are vital components of the global economy. I think the Panama Canal is a valid reason for listing Central America, even though I also think there are more good reasons to list Central Asia than Central America. Cobblet (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC) You're getting the analogy wrong. Uttar Pradesh is to India what the Northeast is to the United States; although we do list New York City, I am not saying we should list New England or the Northeast. I support California as strongly as I do in decent part because it is not central to the US, like Tamil Nadu or (if much smaller) Scotland and unlike Uttar Pradesh or England; when people think of the United States as a whole, they tend to think of (among many other things) overweight rednecks who don't know a whole lot about geography and like firearms. This is a fair (if stereotypical) depiction of life in the South and Midwest, but does not generally apply to California. In fact, California isn't even central to the US economy; of the ~5-6 countries whose economy is larger than California's, the rest of the US is one of them. Nor is it even central demographically; ~90% of Americans don't live in California, in fact half of them live east of Chicago, on the other side of the country. TL;DR Uttar Pradesh "is" India, and England "is" the United Kingdom, but California "is not" necessarily the United States. As for trade routes, I agree they're vital, but I would rather list the routes themselves like the Silk Road (like we already do), Suez Canal, and Panama Canal, rather than the places that have them; in short, I'd like to list the nodes and graphs, but not where the graphs are located. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC) To an outsider, Apple and Hollywood represent the US just as much as NASCAR and the NRA. The comparison to Tamil Nadu or Scotland would ring true only if Spanish was the dominant language in California or if the state had a serious seccession movement. Cobblet (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC) Be all that as it may, saying that California has the same singular centrality in originating American culture as Uttar Pradesh had in originating Hindu culture is simply incorrect historically and demographically. Also, foreigners can name California as a state, which they generally cannot do with the other 49 except for maybe New York (solely because it has the same name as the City) or Texas. Regardless, in terms of "objective" importance I feel that California has enough to warrant sui generis inclusion even without any other subnational entities. You disagree, and that's fair enough, so I don't think continuing this conversation will be productive or worthwhile. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC) I said nothing of the sort. What I said is that Uttar Pradesh is central to Hindu civilization. Obviously I cannot be suggesting that equivalent to Uttar Pradesh in this sense when "American civilization" is not a thing. These subnational regions are important in different ways. We can agree to disagree on the merits of a cradle of civilization vs. an economic and pop culture powerhouse, and on notions of peripherality vs. centrality, without mischaracterizing each other's argument. Cobblet (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC) You said that If ... Uttar Pradesh ... [is] redundant with India, then ... California ... [is] redundant with the US, which I disagree with for the reasons I subsequently gave, and which to my mind seems like you don't believe in adding California above UP or any other subnational entity. If I have in some sense mischaracterized your argument I apologize, but I don't think it substantively changes the discussion. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Grains and tubers

Add barley

Although this cereal is not as commonly consumed as wheat, rice and maize, actually it is still vital at this level since it has been cultivated and consumed widely.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. -- Maykii (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. We don't have a whole lot of space now. I could maybe support beer, but we already list alcoholic drink and alcoholism and I would much rather list soft drink, which I'm somewhat surprised we don't already list. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Not vital enough. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Add oat

This cereal, although less consumed than wheat, should still be added since prior to the introduction of automobiles it had been used widely to feed horses, and it is now frequently exploited in breakfast cereals.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per above. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Not vital enough. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose An important crop, but I don't think important enough for the list. -- Maykii (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Add rye

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Weak support because of plants are IMHO underrepresented in comprasion to animals. If we can have cow along with meat or milk+cheese etc. then IMHO coat is not out of place even if we already have bread and cereal. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per above. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Not vital enough. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Too similar to wheat. -- Maykii (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

1. Really not vital enough? Yes, it has been less consumed than wheat, yet in Russia rye bread is significantly more affordable and popular than wheat one.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

   We don't have enough space, and if we needed more biology, historic evolutionary events such as the Cambrian explosion would be far more informative than yet another cereal species. Besides, cuisine that is specific to one culture does not vitality make. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Add Cassava

Support

1. As nom.Because it is the third-largest source of food carbohydrates in the tropics, after rice and maize, it definitely should be added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Somewhat redundant to potato, but the most plausible of these listings IMO. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Too niche. -- Maykii (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Add sweet potato

Support

1. As nom. It definitely should be added since after the Columbian Exchange sweet potatoes have been frequently used in Chinese cuisine, feeding even more Chinese.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Redundant to potato. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Not vital enough. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Weak Oppose Dawid2009 (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose per above. -- Maykii (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

• The confusion regarding the word yam (which has more ENGVAR confusion than corn) doesn't help matters here. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Add taro

Support

1. As nom. Because there are plenty of dishes (sweet or savoury) using it, it definitely should be added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not above Cassava. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Not vital enough. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. -- Maykii (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Traditional African religions

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.

---

Suggested in the Chinese folk religion discussion. This seems like a gap in the current topic list. The article is not high-quality, but that's only a reason to improve it. It does not have the scope issues that Native American religion has.

Support

1. as nom User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support This is a far more sensible addition than Chinese folk religion, since at least African folk religions don't have much overlap on this list, whereas Chinese folk religion has Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism as company. Zelkia1101 (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per Zelkia and my earlier comments. Concepts from traditional African religions that entered the English-speaking world during the Atlantic Slave Trade include Voodoo and Anansi. Gizza (talk • voy) 00:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
4. We have shamanism, so my concerns about indigenous religions writ large are assuaged. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
6. Support Dimadick (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Only because Animism, which I think is more global/universal, isn't listed. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

   Animism is too historiographical a term for my liking at this level. If this fails, perhaps that should be proposed next. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

   To be fair, however, Chinese folk religion and Traditional African religions are also exonymic/academic, rather than having any basis within the cultures themselves. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

   Yes, there is debate on whether "religion" is an accurate term to describe the topic at Chinese folk religion. That issue feels less troublesome to me, but that's just my opinion. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:18, 19 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.

Add Guitar and Piano

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.

---

I know we are already pretty close to the quota, but I think we should consider adding specific musical instruments, especially if we think the arts is underrepresented. The two I think we should list are Guitar and Piano, for these reasons:

• Stringed instruments are ubiquitous in human history, whether they be lyres, lutes, ouds, or sitars, and the earliest depiction of what might be a guitar occurs in Babylonian records. I think Guitar is a slightly stronger article to list because while it is somewhat western-centric, there are close enough non-western analogues such as the oud and sitar that the concept should be universal enough, and chordophone is far too dry and niche. This isn't even getting into the centrality of the guitar in rock and thereby a large part of modern-day popular music.
• Pianos are slightly more niche and western; although modern pianos date only to the 18th century, keyboarded instruments date to antiquity with organs, which alongside clocks were the most complicated manmade devices prior to the Industrial Revolution. Somewhat more importantly, they are a staple of single-performer classical music, and stimulated the birth of equal temperament tuning; MIDI notes play in piano by default, and they are very useful as compositional aides.

I can understand if some oppose these, but I do think they should be at least worthy of consideration. If this fails, perhaps music theory would be a good choice instead (scales, tuning, etc.). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Important instruments in popular and classical music. Concrete examples of instruments are needed, also with theoretical articles. --Thi (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support piano An incredibly important instrument in the history of music. Immortalized in the works of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, the three composers we list. Zelkia1101 (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Both are more important to art history than animation. Guitar is the only question and opposes say Guitar is niche, but gets more views then piano [3] and [4] (violin does worse - [5]); probably because it's the signature instrument of popular music worldwide and thus just as vital to the history of music as piano. Definitely not niche. Guitar is immortalized in the work of the Beatles and Michael Jackson, the two popular musicians we list. (works both ways). Both make it. We need more topics in the art section and these are just as vital as genres IMO. (you have more guitarists than you do people playing certain genres, the instrument becomes before them). GuzzyG (talk) 11:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Dimadick (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, absoluetly no. Rhythm would be better. Dawid2009 (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose I'm not convinced we need specific examples of musical instruments when we don't list things like writing implements or paint or dye. Nor do I see why we need anything on music theory if we don't have anything on, say, literary theory. Cobblet (talk) 09:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

   Music theory is far more prevalent than literary theory, which is a comparatively niche field. Far more people know about scales, notes, and chords than narratives, meters, or climaxes. Also, literary theory is only at level 5 whereas music theory is at level 4, but Literary criticism (which I can see adding) is at level 4. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

3. Oppose guitar Guitar is too niche. I would prefer violin. Zelkia1101 (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Both instruments are probably more vital than articles like opera (which is listed) though I'll need to think about it a little more. Gizza (talk • voy) 13:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

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.

Swap: remove Netherlands, add Scandinavia

After addition of Carribean it makes much sense to at least reconsider addition of Scandinavia which is another unrepresented region at this level per distribution which you can see after lick here on the level 4. Our current coverage of Europe constain all Germanic countries except the Northen ones, so if one reason why swap Ukraine with Poland failed was overlap beetwen Russia and Ukraine as two East Slavic ountries (read last sentene att Orser's argument here) then it makes quite sense to reconsider removal of one country with Germaniclanguage people for Scandinavia. I do not consider Netherlands as bad inclusion for this level "on its own" but bad inclusion "on grounds of diversity", beause of it is already too much shadowed by other countries from Western Europe which are listed (analogially I was one of few editors who opposed removal of Van Gogh but we reached to consensus that Van Gogh is not needed purely "on grounds of diversity" if we have Hokusai and Picasso but not woman painter). Also Netherlands historically are signifiant but for this level is impat was quite limited, historically there are plenty countries chich won more battles (for example we do not list Sweden which is part of Scandinavia and we two times nominated for removal Poland). Does Netherlands is really more signifiant all Scandinavian put together? After addition of Scandinavia we also have (regarding English extended usage) Iceland and Finland which is not Germanic-speaking country, and this region as whole has more population than either of Netherlands and Romania.

Support

1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose It's good to have something to represent the Dutch Golden Age, its status as birthplace of modern capitalism, tulip mania, foundation of New York City, etc.. That said, I can see how diversity would be negatively affected were this swap not in place. Scandinavia gave birth to many explorers such as Leif Ericsson and Roald Amundsen, and was instrumental with its Vikings and Greenland/Iceland exploration. Ultimately, however, I think the Dutch win out on this one slightly, but am willing to be convinced otherwise. (Also, technically speaking, Finland is not Scandinavian, but it is still Nordic so I doubt it matters.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

   Would you personally prefer Northern Europe or Sweden or Nordic countries putted next to Carribean on that list? (here are random Wikipedia's statistics, I found that interesing Northern countries and Scandinavia gets very comparable number of pagewatchers what Carribean) Dawid2009 (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

   I would prefer Scandinavia of all the possibilities given, and the main debate in my head is whether Scandinavia/Nordics/etc. beats out the Netherlands. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

2. Oppose If I had to add one European region to the list it would be the Balkans, not Scandinavia. Cobblet (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Scandinavia is in no way more vital than the Netherlands in terms of global influence. The Netherlands is a highly important country in many aspects and is certainly vital at this level. I also agree with Cobblet that Balkans would be a much better addition. -- Maykii (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Netherlands is vital culturally and economically. Nordic countries or Sweden would be better additions. --Thi (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose The Netherlands has global importance and influence due to the Dutch Empire. Dimadick (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Among many subjective criterias other than population and geographical diversity why we choose "progresively" ahead of "historical resonance"? Why we care about fact that Netherlands, Singapore, and United Arab Emirates are rich but not about say fact that Poland in 17th century was more populated country than western ones and according to some sources for short time was even bit more populated than Russia (that was said as rationale for inclusion by Piotrus here) and has Copernicus. Or why there is more overlap beetwen Ancient Grece and Grece than Singapore and China? Why we shortsightly focuss on recentism? We never nominated Singapore for removal but we nominated Poland for removal two times, I even did not !voted in both discussions. Would not be the smallest country from Eastern Europe better choice? See on this report how of Greeks consider themself as superior country; According to Pew Research center 89% and compare Eastern Europe with Western on that Pew Researh Center map (BTW I would add Greek colonisation to the level 4 as this is one of few topics I remember from primary school not listed on this level). I think the Netherlands is quite significant for history as even Dutch diaspora nowdays is still quite big despite small role of Dutch language but I would like to try check feedback for removal of the Netherlands because of while Netherlands is influential then other Western European countries shadow Netherlands too much. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC) See also that analyse in collapse below:

Extended content

World has about 7.9 bln of population but India and China combinetly cover about 1/3 of world's population so without these two superior countries there are 5.2 mln of people who live on the earth. Proportional distribution of countries by purely "population measure" from the level 4 to the level 3 without India and China would be in following way (population should not be considered as the only factor but always can be helpful to analyse): Africa: Should be 10, currently 7 (Algeria, Congo DRC, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa) Americas: Should be 8, currently 6-7 (Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Mexico, USA and debatedly Carribean add representation to that list) Whole Asia without India and China: Should be 14, currently 13 (I said "without India and China", so without Hong Kong and other Category:Chinese-speaking countries and territories we also have: Bangladesh, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Japan, Pakista, Philipines S. Korea, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Veitnam, Turkey, United Arab Emirates) Europe: Should be 6, currently 9 (France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Russia Spain, Ukraine, UK) Oceania: Should be 0, currently 1 (Australia)

Swap: remove Singapore add Peru

Singapore clearly simply is not significant enough as country to be listed at this level but the Singapore as 73-th largest metropolia by population is not also significant enough as city for this list. There are on earth four more populated cities which are from countries not represented at this list as whole: Baghdad from Iraq, Khartoum from Sudan, Luanda from Angola and especially Lima from Peru which (out of these four) is the only city which has almost double larger population than Singapore. Peru is example of country which is culturally and historically very significant. It is one of the most biodiverse countries in Latin America and the biggest not listed from that region. It makes very much sense to cover Lima and Machu Pichu at this level along with Andean Civilisation and Spanish Empire if we can have overlap beetwen say: /Cair/Egypt/Ancient Egypt/Roman Empire (=Ancient Rome for thet list).

Jakarta is better example of vital city from Southeast Asia than Singapore. It does not matter Singapore was ranked as Alpha City in 2020 GaWC Ranking, 2020 GaWC ranking is only one of many subjective methodologies (we do not consider it as major criteria which why we have Rome but not Frankfurt). However, even in that subjetive measure Shanghai (anther alfa city) IMHO would be better choice than Singapore. After addition of Shanghai we would have two cities from maindland and mainland has about 2,5 more population than whole SouthEast Asia along with Indonesia. It is no surprising Shanghai is regular candidate for that level given Shanghai, New York and Tokyo are the only "at least Alpha" citis with larger population than Australia but adding Shanghai without swap with Singapore would be rather insane (we rejected overlap beetwen Morocco and Algeria even though famous people like Ibn Battuta and Augustine of Hippo were born in Maghreb). I think Singapore is simply the weakest city on this list not only due to small population but also due to small history. In terms of econoics Tiger Cub Economies in the past had comparable sinificance what four Asian tigers: [6] especially due to population. After addition of Malyasia we also somewhat can cover Malaysians who live in Singapore and constain there somewhat about 15% of that population. It gous without saying Malyasia as country which is vital just as Peru is more vital than Singapore in 2050 (proffesional raport), this will be one of the most infuential countries by PPP.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Weak support removal per above; Singapore is a major world city, and the world's only remaining secular city-state, a form of government that was once ubiquitous, but I think now that we have Malaysia (which I personally opposed) it's somewhat redundant. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition I don't think we need any more countries, and will oppose adding any more geography before California. We also already list Andean civilizations. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Swap:remove Singapore, add Shanghai

My alternate proposal if swap Singapore with Peru would be fail. I wrote above why I think why Shanghai can be potentially better choice for that list than Singapore if we have already Jakarta for South-East Asia and such small space at this level but Shanghai is one of three "alt least alfa" metropolie in the world which has more population than Australia on its own. I think Bejing and Hong Kong due to longer history and bigger population are slightly better choies for that list than Singapore. Bejing is considered as "cultural capital of China" and one of first non-European cities which reeach significant milestones in population through history (1 mln population, 2 mln population etc.).

Support

1. Support removal As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Weak support removal per above. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition I don't think we need any more cities; if we did, I would rather add Baghdad (yes, even above Iraq), Bangkok, or Berlin than a third Chinese city. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Hong Kong, Shanghai and Singapore all share a similar history: colonial trading ports that became major international financial centres. We list the two whose economic development occurred earlier as part of the Four Asian Tigers, and which have the more unique political histories. Yes, it is unfortunate that we do not list big and famous cities like Berlin or Buenos Aires or Seoul or Shanghai, or powerful subnational economies like California; but our coverage of geography as a whole is better served by listing topics such as Ukraine, Colombia, Singapore, Taiwan, and the Caribbean, than by listing topics whose parent countries are already well represented on the list. Again, this is the difference between finding a good set of 1000 vital articles and trying to find the 1000 most vital articles. Having a well-balanced mix of topics is more important than covering each of the X largest cities or each of the X largest economies or each of the X most famous people. One cannot just compare the relative importance of two topics in isolation; one has to look at which fits better in the context of everything else that is on the list. Is Shanghai the single most vital China-related topic not listed? Ahead of Yellow River or Zhou dynasty? How about topics not specifically focused on China but highly relevant to what it is today, such as sustainable development, freedom of speech, social media, etc.? Cobblet (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

   We already have Bejing ahead of Shanghai by not regarding population. Regardless of that, like having all three (in alphabetical order: Bejing, Hong Kong, Singapore) ahead of Shanghai is consistent if we choose Sauo Paulo ahead of Rio de Janerio (Shanghai is alpha+ city, Sauo Paulo alpha- city)? If having the biggest metropolia in American is so important then why not bigger, and the largest country in Central Asia (Uzbekistan), which has more popualtion than Australia and is not covered by Brazil (like Sauo Paulo)? You are saying "Ukraine, Colombia, Singapore, Taiwan, and the Caribbean, than by listing topics whose parent countries are already well represented on the list... but you probably do not want list more African countries other than Ghana. FWIW Seyschelles as one of smallest countries from Africa gets more than two times more pageviews than Sauo Paulo, of course I do not mean by that that we should now be adding Seyschelles to the list, but I those few which are with huge population could be added if nomintation to removal of the Netherlands and Singapore would fail (Africa is not only second largest continent by population, but also the biggest by number of countries). The only two other than Ghana, which I would support (as long as we have cities like Singapore or Sauo Paulo) are Uganda, and Morocco. To reffer your comment: "it is unfortunate that we do not list big and famous cities like Berlin or Buenos Aires or Seoul or Shanghai", I think Berlin was worse proposal than Colorado and I would prefer list capital of European Union or capital of African Union for that matter, IMHO Berling does not meets criteria "top of representative field/uniquess" as in Germany there is not so single outstanging city but rather multiple dominant. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Disuss all proposals (Singapore, Peru, Shanghai)

Extended content

World has about 7.9 bln of population but India and China combinetly cover about 1/3 of world's population so without these two superior countries there are 5.2 mln of people who live on the earth. Proportional distribution of countries by purely "population measure" from the level 4 to the level 3 without India and China would be in following way (population should not be considered as the only factor but always can be helpful to analyse): Africa: Should be 10, currently 7 (Algeria, Congo DRC, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa) Americas: Should be 8, currently 6-7 (Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Mexico, USA and debatedly Carribean add representation to that list) Whole Asia without India and China: Should be 14, currently 13 (I said "without India and China", so without Hong Kong and other Category:Chinese-speaking countries and territories we also have: Bangladesh, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Japan, Pakista, Philipines S. Korea, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Veitnam, Turkey, United Arab Emirates) Europe: Should be 6, currently 9 (France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Russia Spain, Ukraine, UK) Oceania: Should be 0, currently 1 (Australia)

Per my above comment, Peru and Uzbekistan fit perfectly to coverage of our countries. Perhaps I could swap also one country from West Africa for Mansa Muse if people want to keep Netherlands and do not add biographies like Emperor Meji for that list. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Interstellarity and John M Wolfson:, you are the only two users who supported earlier addition of Buenos Aires for that level. What do you think that Lima as capital of Peru has larger population than Singapore, Buenos Aires but also larger than New York City (see: Largest cities in the Americas). As I said in rationale, there are also many Malyasians who live in Singapore but even without these two countries, South-East Asia is proportionally more represented than most regions in the world. If there would be consensus to keep Singapore ahead of Shanghai, and no consensus for addition of any country, then regarding my comments around and what said Cobblet here, I think we should remove at least one city from Eruope (if population is not important then by that measure Moscow is weakest, Rome had 1 mln of population in 1'st century, second city which acheved that was Baghdad in middle ages and first "European city other than Rome" with that population was London something about 200 years ago?) and one country for Europe (probably Western country: Netherlands). Europe has smaller area than South America. Perhaps it is not necesarry to analyse representation for West and East Europe separately if we do not analyse representation of cities in South America as "East SouthAmeria vs West South America" etc. @Carlwev and Thi: You two earlier were saying that many countries are vital for that level, what do you think about my nomination of Peru? @J947: In the past you said that New Zealand can not be added ahead of Peru, what do you think about that nomination? Dawid2009 (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• I only supported Buenos Aires because I thought it would be improper for India to have two cities (while China arguably had only one back when Hong Kong was somewhat independent) and it once rivaled NYC in the early 20th century. Similarly, my opposition to Shanghai is in large part because it would give China three cities on this list whereas India would have only two and the US only one. I don't see the need for any more geography in any event. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Swap: remove United Arab Emirates, add Iraq

For Middle East I think Iraq is more vital than United Arab Emirates which have smaller population and shorter history. Either of Mesopotania and Iraq fits if we an have Egypt and Ancient Egypt. Iraq is vital especially due to fact that always was geopolitically interesing for readers of English Wikipedia. IF addition of Taiwan was snowball then I do not see why we now can not now swap Iraq for UAE.

Support

1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support removal per nom; I opposed adding UAE in the first place as I felt (and still feel) that it's too much of a "newcomer" to be sure that it won't be just a passing fancy (to be fair, that criticism applies a lot more to Dubai in particular, but it's still a slight concern for the UAE in general). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support removal The UAE is a passing thing of fancy, a rich boy's playground, a reservoir of oil, whose history and importance to the world only began roughly 50 years ago, and whose importance today does not justify its place on this list. There is no comparison between the UAE and the Netherlands, a nation whose contributions to art, history, global finance, trade, culture, etc. outstrips the UAE by orders of magnitude. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Population is important yes, but it should not be the only factor. What does Iraq have other than a larger population compared to the UAE? History? Most of the vital parts of that are already covered in the history section. The UAE is a highly influential economy and has a lot of global influence and soft power, I do not see why some people here seem to think these sorts of countries like the UAE, Taiwan, Netherlands, Israel etc are somehow unimportant and want countries like Uganda and Iraq in their place. Yes these countries have more people but a countries global standing is also important in terms of vitality I believe. -- Maykii (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose addition per my comments below. Yes, we do have both Ancient Egypt and Egypt and Ancient Rome and Italy, but we actively rejected Greece a while back for already having Ancient Greece, and Egypt and Italy are more vital in their modern states than Iraq IMO. We already have Mesopotamia, and Sumer covering southern Mesopotamia/the Euphrates, so I think we would be better off adding Baghdad to cover northern Mesopotamia/the Tigris (we used to have Assyria, and I semi-regret voting for its removal, but I wouldn't bring it back before Baghdad), even though I don't necessarily support that either. Regardless of all that, I still would not support adding yet another middle eastern country unless we removed Middle East itself, which Gizza has suggested above. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

   FWIW, I think Athens, Baghdad, Jerusalem, Mecca, Rome, and Singapore are the only cities that are more vital than their countries. With the possible exception of Singapore (on here as a city, not as a country), however, all the countries listed except for Greece and Iraq are clearly suited for here IMO. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

   1) Neither nor Summer and Mesopotamia suffiently cover history of that region, since middle ages, and throught whole human history (including the time since middle ages) there were plenty cities significant in that region, not only Baghdad 2) The proposal is swap, not straight addition and comprasion with Greece is rather "false anology" because of (as I pointed in plenty my essays under green collapses) Europe is overhemingly overrepresented in terms of distribution from the]] level 4, menwhile Asia still slightly underrepresented on the list. 3) As I pointed in my rationale, we list not only Eghypt along Ancient Eghypt but also [[Cair, and we have modern coverage of Israel along with many other historical topics from that region so it swap would fit, espeially if we were remove history of Middle East or Middle Easat. 4)If not swap then at least straight removal of United Arab Emirates is warrented at this level. I should point in my rationale that Iraq escatly has about 40 mln estimated population but it is not just about population, one of many factors also can be google trends (learly and evidentally better than pageviews) and there Iraq has better than United Emirates: [7], Google is not banned for countries where United Emirates are popular and Iraq is still promient in 10's on the graph but fact that United Emirates gives big recentism to the list should be reason why this country should not be ahed of either of Iraq AND Baghdad. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

In the past I supported addition of UAE it but it was purely to reach limit and find hard ways to finally remove not vital writers from that list. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll still have to think about the addition. We already list both Mesopotamia and Sumer, as well as Middle East and Iran. I would prefer adding Baghdad; it was the world's largest city for quite a while and a center of the Islamic Golden Age, and given that modern-day "Iraq" dates only to the 20th century I am unimpressed by arguments that we can't list a city without listing its country. (I would prefer adding Athens over Greece for similar reasons; I'm also unwilling to add any more geography before California, but this is the most plausible break in that rule.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Add Uzbekistan

It makes much sense to at least reconsider addition of at least one country from Central Asia which is another unrepresented region at this level per distribution which you can see after lick here on the level 4. Uzbekistan is the most populated Muslim country which has been estabilished after changing USSR into Russia and the most popuated country from Central Asia. Please, read also my further comment in discussion section why I think Uzbekistan is more worth addition to that levl than ey other country from Central Asia.

Support

1. Strong support As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose As said earlier, I oppose any geography additions, especially raw ones, before California both out of principle and due to space constraints. Adding Central Asia itself is already a stretch in my mind; it's the collective "backwoods" of both the former Soviet Union and China, and we already list Silk Road and don't even list Afghanistan. Adding any specific Borat-land Sporcle-meme country from that area would just be absolute bonkers IMO. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose We don't need anymore countries right now, Uzbekistan is not too important. -- Maykii (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussce

I think it is very significant that Uzbekista has the biggest population amog countries from Central Asia. FWIW we an find UZbek language as option to setting in Telegram (software) but not Kazakh language. Telegram is especially popular in countries of former USSR. Also take look how would look poportional distribution of countries from level 4 to level 3 by purely "population and geographical diversity" mthodology":

Extended content

World has about 7.9 bln of population but India and China combinetly cover about 1/3 of world's population so without these two superior countries there are 5.2 mln of people who live on the earth. Proportional distribution of countries by purely "population measure" from the level 4 to the level 3 without India and China would be in following way (population should not be considered as the only factor but always can be helpful to analyse): Africa: Should be 10, currently 7 (Algeria, Congo DRC, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa) Americas: Should be 8, currently 6-7 (Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Mexico, USA and debatedly Carribean add representation to that list) Whole Asia without India and China: Should be 14, currently 13 (I said "without India and China", so without Hong Kong and other Category:Chinese-speaking countries and territories we also have: Bangladesh, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Japan, Pakista, Philipines S. Korea, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Veitnam, Turkey, United Arab Emirates) Europe: Should be 6, currently 9 (France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Russia Spain, Ukraine, UK) Oceania: Should be 0, currently 1 (Australia)

Peru and Uzbekistan fit perfectly to coverage of our countries. Perhaps I could swap also one country from West Africa for Mansa Muse if people want to keep Netherlands and do not add biographies like Emperor Meji for that list. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Middle East, add Central Asia

I think it's best to limit our coverage of supernational geographical regions to regions that are important but whose countries are not themselves vital at this level. We don't, for example, list Western Europe or Eastern Europe since there are individual countries on the list in those areas. (I consider Oceania more one of the "7 continents" than a region, to preempt any argument about that particular case.) If the Gizzer (lol) is anything to go by, Middle East was added back when we didn't list many middle eastern countries; now we have Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran, Egypt, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and are considering swapping Iraq for the UAE. I oppose Iraq anyway due to redundancy with Mesopotamia, but my opposition is strengthened by additional redundancy with Middle East.

I'm a bit more reluctant with the addition of Central Asia, given that we already list Silk Road and the fact that the Belt and Road Initiative in the area is more China's doing than the countries' themselves, (I won't even get into the absence of a certain prominent U.S. state that I feel is more deserving of inclusion) but there has been recent discussion of adding Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan. There is absolutely no way I would ever support those countries when we don't even list Afghanistan, but this seems like a good compromise for discussion and as a region (rather than a country) I don't feel that there are many particular supernational regions that are more deserving. Ultimately, however, Central Asia is marginal enough that I will not support its addition unless the removal passes as well. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support; consider this a support of the addition iff the removal passes as well, otherwise an active oppose of the addition. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Support removal History of the Middle East is also listed. --Thi (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Our coverage of Middle Eastern history, geography, and culture is roughly comparable to our coverage of any other similarly important region in Asia. Given that we don't list an overview article for South Asia or East Asia, we don't need one for Western Asia either. Central Asia is not as important as these cradles of civilization, but neither is it so unimportant that our coverage should be limited to just Caspian Sea and Silk Road. I can support either adding this overview article or adding a country like Afghanistan (probably a better choice than Uzbekistan). Cobblet (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
4. Support addition This region has basically no representation on the list and the individual countries are too niche so this is a good compromise. -- Maykii (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose the Middle East is notable beyond being merely the word for a geographic collective of countries. The Middle East is important as an idea, as a fixture of modern geopolitics, as a historical curiosity. Think of the Near East, the Orient, and so forth. The region is vital in its own right. Central Asia is just a geographic region. The equivalent of Central Asia is not the Middle East, but Western Asia. Zelkia1101 (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose Hilarious would be listing small countries like Netherlands or Singapoore before every single from Central Asia. Not mention to listing overlap beetwen Australia and Oceania. I really do not care about metrics other than population and historical diversity much. Dawid2009 (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose addition Featured article about Afghanistan would probably be more important for an encyclopedia. --Thi (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose removal The Middle East is an extremely important region as a concept, culturally, historically and politically. -- Maykii (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

If I may play Devil's advocate. This argument makes perfect sense. But why specifically single out Middle East as an article to not be allowed due to duplication of coverage, but no where else. What's the difference to this argument and say, we should only list cities and leaders from countries we don't list. Or as we list USA Canada Mexico and also Caribbean we can remove North America as it's already covered, even more so if central America were to ever be added. Or as we list numerous countries of the Mediterranean region, we should remove the Mediterranean. I am fully aware that the Middle East is a region not a continent or Sea like the other articles I mentioned, but the question is still valid. I find in general "Middle East" very often appears as a topic in and of itself. The fact that several cities and nations from the Middle East are considered important enough to be in vital articles as well could suggest even more how important or vital the region is, and could be considered a reason to be kept, not removed.  Carlwev  16:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The major answer to your question is that countries and cities are well-defined and official areas, whereas trans-national areas tend not to be. Central Europe is a perfect example of this; is Germany part of it? What about the Baltics? Even the term "Middle East" itself referred originally to the space in between Iraq and Myanmar, including Afghanistan and India but excluding the vast majority of what we now call the Middle East. You might counter, quite rightly, that "continents" suffer from the same problem; are the Americas one continent or two? What about Eurasia? My best answer to that is that we list continents at level 2 as a way to cover physical geography as they and the oceans are the major divisions, however culturally biased, of the level-1 planet Earth, contrasted to the human geography of specific countries. Ditto for other natural geographic features such as Mediteranean. As for city-country duplication, we list both countries that are vital in their own right and cities that are vital in their own right. I do think there are a few cities that are more vital than their countries, but only Athens and Baghdad are in countries not already listed. I do, to some extent, agree with you on redundancy with respect to subnational divisions in that "peripheries" are to be preferred over "centralities"; that is why it is invalid for people to say "we can't list California if we don't list Uttar Pradesh or England"; UP and England are respectively central to India and the UK and would thus be quite redundant to them (more significantly, they lack significance that their respective countries do not already have), but California lacks that centrality in the US (better UP/England analogues in America would be Pennsylvania, New England, or Illinois) and it and other "peripheries" such as Tamil Nadu would be much better choices to list if we were to list subnational entities. But I digress. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Swap: remove History of the Middle East, Ancient Rome, add Roman Empire

We do not have enough space for many articles. This is simple way to cut two articles and cover one more(History of Middle East can be covered in couple articles, not only Roman Empire. History of Middle East is last or one of the last watched articles on the list at this level). I spend long time by observating !voting processes on historical forums to answer question "which Empire was the most influential in history?", and historians usually were choosing Roman Empire. This one is also the only empire mentioned in article Human History or Civilisation, all other empires are not mentioned there. Not sure why we list Ancient Rome ahead of Roman Empire. It is impressive Rome was larger in ancient era than most big metropolies in 19th century but that should be just covered in article on Roman Empire. Roman Empire also has better Wikipedia's own statistics (language versions, pageviews etc.), so what actually speak in favour of Ancient Rome? Also, that would be desorientation for me if I fund here user any user who argue with me that English Empire is more important in terms of analysing hisory than more foundamental Roman Empire, especially that so many historians on forums were disagree with that point and were arguing with me but, I think listing any empire but not Roman is odd; let discuss it. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. [nom]
2. Support removal of History of the Middle East. We list too many of these "history of" articles in my opinion. I also will support addition of Roman Empire. I don't think it is too derivative of Ancient Rome, the Roman Empire was such an important long lasting entity that I think it deserves to be on the list. -- Maykii (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Ancient Rome covers not only (or even primarily) the city of Rome in antiquity but the Empire, Republic, and even Kingdom of the Roman civilization over the course of a millennium. As for the middle east, I would rather remove the Middle East article before its history. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

   There is no article which has primarty topic in disambiguation Latin civilisation. Roman Empire gets far more pageveiws than Ancient Rome more often are looking for it, gets more interwiki because of that Roman Empire is more often used term for wieder context but according to Roman Empire (disambiguation) Roman Empire also may reffer to all other peirods in English language. If we do not have Roman Empire then we should reconsider removl of all other empires which can be debatedly covered in articles like European Colonisation of America, especially Spanish Empire (or that we would decide that constintency is not desirable). I noted we have also not consistency on lower levels beause out of some articles in disambig Chinese civilisation we have History of China on the level 4 but we do not have history of Rome where redirects Roman civilisation Dawid2009 (talk) 09:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

2. Oppose Ancient Rome covers the Roman Republic. --Thi (talk) 11:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above Zelkia1101 (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose removal of Ancient Rome, this article covers the Kingdom and Republic, these are important. -- Maykii (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Copyright

Important concept in business. I don't think any business article adequately covers this. Interstellarity (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Weak Support Dawid2009 (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Dimadick (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose A subtopic of IP, and even that is far from the most important legal topic not on the list. Cobblet (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose and would oppose intellectual property too. A concept more fundamental both in law and business would be contract. Gizza (talk • voy) 07:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Important Level 3.5 article. --Thi (talk) 11:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

I would rather add intellectual property in general. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Add Baseball

The only specific sports we list at this level are association football and sport of athletics, neither of which are very popular in the United States. Even the names – "soccer" and "track and field" – are different in 'Murica, and they're mainly associated with secondary school and university ("high school" and "college") students rather than actual professional play. While I get that North American sports aren't as prevalent in most of the world as footy, I think they should still receive some mention and inclusion due to their unique practices such as lack of promotion and relegation, as well as early and large-scale professionalization, not to mention America's high status in global culture.

Baseball is the canonical example of an American sport, being "America's pastime". Even though American football is more popular stateside these days, it is absolutely unknown outside the US; even Canada has its own version of gridiron. Baseball has a storied past, dating to the mid-19th century, and has had professional play since 1869. We don't list sports figures at this level, but if we did Babe Ruth would definitely be one of them, and baseball analogies are commonly used to describe the most intimate parts of American life. Even better for this list, it has had significant impact on the wider world with its emphasis on sports statistics and popularity outside of the US, particularly in Japan and the Caribbean.

I understand that we recently rejected chess; however, while chess is certainly very important for its theory, it's still ultimately for "nerds" and while well-known not particularly impactful in wider culture. Baseball is a key part of American and Japanese life and a multi-billion dollar industry, and has led the way for the practices and styles of the other major American sports of basketball, ice hockey, and American football. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Support in spirit; the level of coverage in which we cover American team sports biographies on level 4 would make it important to cover the most important one here. I can't fully prove this here as it's impossible to show in a short post; but by and large baseball players get the most results in google books and appear to be the most written about athletes by and far. There's a strong literary tradition within baseball (and strong statistical analysis with Sabermetrics); as shown by Babe Ruth [8] results versus Maradona [9] or Pele. [10] The average great player like Mickey Mantle outdoes every level 4 football player (not named Pele) [11]. Cricket's stats are pathetic outside of India and largely confined to India. Baseball has Cap Anson and even cricket has W. G. Grace; football does not come close in long term historicity. The earliest born soccer player we list on level 4 is Alfredo Di Stéfano whose career is post-war. Baseball and cricket both have a longer history; the first football world cup was 1930 FIFA World Cup. Basketball is not close to this level of long term historic value. It got massive in the 80s. Baseball is just as important as Animation and wouldn't be out of place here to represent American sports. There's clearly a disproportionate market in America for sports and level of dedication in American culture for sports; it's clear in a American context sports are very, very vital. Baseball has the oldest history of prominence; hence the "America's pastime" nickname. Considering it's dominance in literature and sports history; i think it's vital enough. I would also think one of Tennis or Golf should be added to represent individual sports too. To me; historical value always beats popularity (soccer) or tabloid fame (basketball) today and baseball has one of the longest histories. (Baseballs importance is noted by one opposer listing two baseball players on a list of 10 athletes; giving it a equal billing with football; just something worth noting) [12]. GuzzyG (talk) 07:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Compare Charles W. Alcock, Harry Cursham and Charles William Miller to any of the important old cricketers like Grace or important old baseballers like Anson and you'll see who has had a longer sustained relevance in culture. Ban Johnson [13] doubles Alcock's interest [14]; which shouldn't happen if football history has more global interest. Someone like Paulino Alcántara has no strong cultural backing in historical sources compared to a old baseball player. [15]. The most important football players are post-war and the most important baseballers are pre-war; some will cite older stuff like the old FA cup tournaments; but like old stuff like 1908 NSWRFL season; older football doesn't have cultural relevance today like baseball; so for the sake of history baseball has longer sustained importance. (from Cap Anson to Derek Jeter); this makes it vital to cover in a sports history context. GuzzyG (talk) 08:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The point about listing association football is that it is a near universally recognized, understood, and played sport around the world. Obviously baseball has extended itself outside of the United States, e.g. to Japan and Cuba as John adroitly noted, but baseball is not nearly universal enough to be given equal billing with association football. You may say that association football is not very popular in the US, and you would be right, but it is important to remember that association football is far more understood and important in the United States than baseball is in, say, Sweden or Botswana. Zelkia1101 (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

   That is a fair point with football, but "athletics" means something quite different in the United States and the sport of athletics technically doesn't even really exist in the US since it's the two sports of "track and field" and "cross country". Given that North America is quite a "sports island", I think any sports additional to football would need to include a North American sport for diversity purposes. Lack of universality didn't preclude us from listing Chinese folk religion, for example. I could support removing athletics, though; while running is certainly universal, so is wrestling and many other sports included in the already-listed Olympics, and while marathons are cool I don't see people buying tickets to running matches like they do with football, baseball, or other sports like cricket, etc. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

2. Oppose Less globally popular than cricket, for one. And I neither see why we need more sports, nor a North American sport in particular (as opposed to, say, a South Asian sport). Cobblet (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

   Mostly since South Asian sports, like other sports outside the US, are largely association football and cricket. North America is the only (major) region on Earth where football isn't prominent, and the US is a level-2.5 country of disproportionate importance, so any more sports would have to account for those facts, but as suggested here we could remove athletics instead. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

   Sorry, but who exactly plays soccer in South Asia? And is India not also a country of disproportionate importance? Cobblet (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

   According to Football in India, Football in India has historically been among the top 3 most popular sports in terms of player participation and TV viewership, together with long time number one cricket and re-emerging kabaddi, whereas in the United States it doesn't break the top 4. I was admittedly unaware of the popularity of kabaddi in India, which does weaken my point a bit, but it is marked "low importance" by WikiProject India and has much fewer interwikis than baseball. Notwithstanding all that, my point remains that either we don't need multiple sports, in which case athletics needs to be removed, or we do, in which case we need a North American sport to represent the famously-insular American sports market that is about 50% greater [in revenue] than those of Europe, the Middle East, and Africa combined, in addition to possibly cricket, etc.. I'm beginning to think that consensus will lean towards the former so will likely withdraw this nom soon. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

   More importantly, you're ignoring the huge disparity in popularity between cricket and any other team sport in South Asia, whether that's soccer, kabaddi, field hockey, etc. Athletics (which, by the way, the US is very good at) is on the list because amateur sports and individual sports are much more deserving of representation on the list than the US TV sports market. Cobblet (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

   I strongly disagree with amateur sports and individual sports are much more deserving of representation on the list than the US TV sports market; the top sportspeople in the world have been professional since the mid-20th century in spite of Avery Brundage, and athletics in particular is not at all on the same, much less higher, level as cricket, baseball, basketball, etc.. If people aren't paying to see it, it in some sense "ain't a real sport" and does not deserve to occupy the same slot as football or the Olympics themselves; if it's like swimming, we should just list running. I will not be convinced otherwise, or participate further in this argument. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

   Entertainment covers showbusiness. --Thi (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

   Indeed. If the only reason sport is vital is its multibillion-dollar symbiosis with mass media, then mass media should be on level 2, not sport. Cobblet (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

3. Oppose the only sport we need at this level is association football - I would support removing athletics (track-and-field). If we were adding an "American" sport, surely basketball would be the choice before baseball. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

   Without prejudice to the rest of your statement (which I agree with), basketball has only been professionally played on a large scale since World War II, whereas baseball has been prominent since the late 19th century and has a deeper culture around it IMO. That said, basketball might be more popular globally. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

4. Oppose Other articles cover the history of sports reasonably well. Soccer and athletics are examples of team sport and individual sports. --Thi (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

What article can i goto if i want 19th century competitive sports history? Is it "reasonably well" to miss centuries of coverage? Do you honestly believe soccer and athletics represent global sports history by themselves? Missing the three biggest countries and sports markets? Including two sports Cricket and Baseball with multiple centuries of importance; compared to soccers post-war importance? GuzzyG (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Josef Bican and Stanley Matthews are probably most famous soccer players who were born before second World War but I agree they are rather recognisable just for "soccer geeks". Guy who is listed at List of people considered father or mother of a field as father of soccer is less famous than father of basketball (and inventor of basketball did not invent dribbling moves but is known due to fact YMCA quite popularised basketball and volleyball) Dawid2009 (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

History books mention most likely the history of Olympid games. Article Martial arts covers some other aspects of sports. I don't think that another example about team sport than Soccer is necessary from concept hierarchy perspective. When you watch a sport film, it doesn't really matter whether it is about baseball, cricket or soccer, you can understand the dynamics. The subtopics of Game are maybe not the most vital articles, but they cover different aspects of main topic. Chess may actually be more vital topic as an example of game than another ball game. Articles about teams sports are important because they are popular, but listing several of them seems to belong to level 3.5 (which I think is useful as an idea). --Thi (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

So i've been thinking and since we don't include athletes; (because we can't list multiple people); the best thing would be to include multiple sports instead of the biographies. I realise this would never happen; as sports is kind of not seen as serious; but with five music genres and 2 works of architecture; i don't see how 5-7 sports would be bad. Association football, Sport of athletics, Martial arts, Swimming, Baseball, Cricket, Basketball, Golf and Tennis are all important enough to list. Swimming pools, tennis courts, golf courses, basketball courts etc are all fundamental parts of public spaces in most countries they're played in. That's much more effect than stuff we list like Animation. If millions of people participate in these sports daily and the sports are a fundamental part of public space, i don't see how that isn't in some ways vital; even if they're not studied in some kind of way like music theory or something. If these activities last decades; i don't see how they're not a fundamental part of most peoples life and the history of human activity - there's more depth here than music genres or art movements because each sport is like a whole new field itself. Just thinking out loud here, what does everyone else think? GuzzyG (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

All this is fine as a reason to list some sports; the question is how many, and at the expense of what other topic. Baseball is about as relevant to the average Indian as cricket is to the average American: are these the best topics to add when basic recreational spaces like park and beach aren't listed? (Park has some overlap with garden, but we don't even list coast, let alone beach.) How about much more basic infrastructure like electrical grid/electrification or the recently rejected public transport? What is the better representative of the global impact of American culture, baseball or fast food? (We don't even list meal or anything else related to eating habits.) How are specific modern sports more fundamental to human history and the daily lives of average people than, say, cosmetics (or any other aspect of personal grooming) or etiquette/social norms? When it comes to animation, at least anyone who has access to the Internet or a TV or a movie theatre or a video game is very likely to have at least some appreciation for the medium, which is a lot more than can be said for baseball or chess, and maybe even musical instruments like the piano. Cobblet (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Beach should be listed; park is too bland. Electrical grid and Electrification have much more important parent topics listed (Electricity etc). Baseball is more important culturally as a piece of history than fast food. (more baseballers on the 2k list, no Ray Kroc or Colonel Sanders); plus we have more important food and drink topics listed. (although i would support fast food and Soft drink). Cosmetics should be listed. "When it comes to animation, at least anyone who has access to the Internet or a TV or a movie theatre or a video game is very likely to have at least some appreciation for the medium" is a reach that can be applied to anything; i mean baseball films [16] have arguably only been less important to film history than boxing sports wise. Try to find a mega important football film, the biggest would be Bend It Like Beckham, which i doubt anyone here would acknowledge as more serious than The Pride of the Yankees or Field of Dreams or Eight Men Out or Bull Durham or The Bad News Bears and on and on. FIFA as a video game IS more important than baseball games, but video games don't have as much historic vitality as film does and football is definitely lacking in comparison. Physical education is an important part of education in some countries. (yes, not all) and especially in America; so sports are inherently apart of the education system in many countries (in all areas in the US socially, as a subject and culturally); so having a few articles on specific sports fits as a education topic and that beats seeing a couple of web comics online. Some kid for PE class or for school life may need to know a sports topic and that makes it vital to cover; yes this is specifically in a country like US maybe; but the "English" encyclopedia argument is used often and if it fits for biographies it fits here. There's precedent to cover sports as biographies on the 2k list; so we should cover more sports themselves here. I just don't see a angle where sports wouldn't fit in here. They're culturally, socially and educationally relevant in some of the biggest countries. Even for minor reasons; a baseball player is forever tied to the romanticism of hollywood, forever tied to a cultural idiom in medicine; yes - American history - but the peak of American cultural history; which is arguably peak cultural soft power today and that should count overall as worthy of this list. Cricket doesn't have the equivalent long term historic ties to the predominant cultural soft power state like baseball does (althought i'd support both). The only problem is there's not alot of space to cover lots of sports; but baseball should be. It just has a much longer cultural history of importance, longer than most sports, - including association football. GuzzyG (talk) 06:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Instead entiquette or social norms I would prefer interpersonal relationship. I would strongly support addition of coast or beach (sports are overrepresented in comprasion to resorts on all levels). I would oppose addition of fast food and I do not think any sport has relative chance to be pass at this level (all sports we list, for example swimming are more important by outstanding distance). IMHO Baseball is more vital than cartoon but far less vital than animation or say advertising. Instead adding more sports I would prefer to remove video game, card game, board game but on the other hand I have ambivalent thougs if to my mind come comprassion beetwen representation of other recreations on the list (eg. Armstron and Jazz, Rock and Pop, etc.). However, in the past music was overrepresentd more on the list. We had sometimes suggestion to add for this level Sydney Opera House but never FIFA World Cup, what is surprising. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I just want to make a quick comment about the United States, its culture, and this list, since this very point has been brought to the fore of some of our past discussions. I generally agree with the idea that topics relevant or particularly important to the United States should enjoy a reasonable, limited degree of precedence when forming a list such as this one. The United States is, after all, the world's sole superpower and the primary purveyor of culture, entertainment, literature, media, etc. for the past 70 or so years. What's more, Americans form a plurality, if not majority, of traffic to Wikipedia, and vital articles is all about cataloguing the most important articles to users, and users are understandably likely to privilege topics pertaining to their own country. It is for this reason that I support the prescence of Abraham Lincoln on this list, who, while being supremely important in America, has very limited relevance outside of it (as opposed to George Washington or even Thomas Jefferson, whose technical achievements surpass Lincoln's, and who have become an icon of liberal governance the world over). In the broad view of history, Lincoln isn't really more important than, say, Pedro I of Brazil, Benjamin Disraeli, Maximilien Robespierre, or Pope Innocent III, but it makes sense to list him and not them because Lincoln is particularly relevant to one of our largest audiences. Nevertheless, while a limited degree of American favoritism, for want of a better term, is understandable, we should not go overboard. There does not need, in my view, to be an "American" or North American sport represented on this list, precisely because there is no such sport that is equal in global importance to association football. American culture is already represented by jazz, Thomas Edison, animation, and so forth. There is no need to go overboard, in other words. -- Zelkia1101 (talk)

Jazz, Baseball, Rock and roll and Hollywood are the four main things widely associated with American culture. (Jazz and Baseball are the two main ones; as shown by popular quotes like "There are only three things that America will be remembered for 2000 years from now when they study this civilization: The Constitution, Jazz music, and Baseball" [17]. Infact; baseballs contribution to culture is shown on your own 500 persons list, where you list two baseball players on a list of 10 athletes. (given equal billing with soccer and more representatives than animation; and with no Tennis, Golf or Cricket players, all sports more global - this speaks for baseballs place in cultural history itself - that you just had to list two). Baseball; is inherently tied to American culture and history on a much deeper level than animation and tied to sports history longer than something like football. (wheres a mega important to culture pre WWII football player, comparable to a pre war baseball player). GuzzyG (talk) 06:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Jazz and baseball are not really alike in their place. Association football is the supreme sportive endeavour worldwide; all other sports fall into second position at least. There is no supreme form of music or musical genre. Classical music may be the most respected, but it's hardly more "popular" than pop, rock or jazz. As for my having two baseball players and two soccer plays, I will say, as I have said numerous times before, that a vital biography reflects the importance of the person and not of their field of endeavour. Having two baseball players and two soccer players does not mean that I judge baseball and soccer to be equally important as sports. Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually it's jazz that is the weakest in popularity; moreso listed on here for it's cultural impact on history rather than being a dominant genre in popularity. Miles Davis [18] and Louis Armstrong [19] are in the 15-18 mil range in pageviews for instance; while Beethoven [20] and Mozart [21] are in the 63-65 mil range with tons of international views; unlike Jazz. The sports and music equivalent would be; classical music is the olympics; ancient; still well regarded but not really getting any real attention in everyday life; association football is like top 40 pop; seemingly everywhere (apparently) but no real impact on any form of arts or history or being able to produce any seemingly significant historic cultural figure pre 1950s; for something so global so small in history... baseball is like jazz, highly American with major love from Japan - can produce alot of big historic figures unlike football, high influence on the arts in like film. Basketball is like Rap; the new upcomer; the most popular growing sport and genre. Rugby union is like Opera; supposedly so important but most people have zero demonstrable interest in except from a real dedicated few (Rugby World Cup claims 850 million [22]; despite none of these people being big figures lol, or Tom Brady getting more searchs than the top two Rugby players right now in every country bar NZ and Madagascar, despite this 850 mil audience [23]). Which does not lend well for sports with big claims...

I can't find a accurate sourcing for sporting numbers; but Britannica claims 250 football million players at the start of the 21st century [24] and "1.3 billion" people "interested" in football. Which would make sense; since Europe and South America are two of the smallest continents and combined do not touch a country like India's population... Some (bad IMO) sources claim a 4 billion [25] fanbase for football, but there's no way this is right. It would be embarrassing for football to have that audience and yet bare impact on arts/history pre WWII; or have a 4 billion people audience and have American sports teams be worth much more money on average as shown here; Forbes' list of the most valuable sports teams. If 250,000,000 people are playing football and this is the number or a "1.3 billion audience"; i would bet my life more people in India (1.3 billion people), Pakistan (226 million people, half of South Americas population) and Bangladesh (161 million population); there are more players of Cricket here; (ignoring the West Indies, England, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka etc players) than the 250 mil number and would be pretty close to the 1.3 bil number. (although one would assume more Europeans and South Americans would be watching this on tv individually, while in places like India it would be a massive communal event; so how can you accurately get accurate tv numbers???) Either way; it's not as "Supreme" as you think and this is not figuring in Running, Swimming, Cycling etc. Music is easily demonstrable; it's pop and rock than everything else [26]; Classical music is listed despite it's european restriction - because it has a long history of impact on cultural for music. This is why Baseball should be listed; despite it's US, Latin American and Japanese restriction; because it has a long cultural history not comparable to other sports. If football is so global and important to history and people; why does the MLB rank number one by average attendance? [27].

If being "global" was absolutely vital than why did Beauty pageant barely get onto the level 4 list; a equally global event - with most countries participating. Professional wrestling barely got on the level 4 list aswell and yet it pulled a 355k audience in North Korea and a 70k audience in Saudi Arabia; two of the most isolated countries in history. Yet not one of those two fields have any important cultural figures even on the 2k list. Being "globally" huge is not the be all end all; you need a backing in history too. Your list may focus on individuals rather than representing something; but it speaks volumes baseball can produce two worthy figures on equal billing with something seemingly mega global with billions into it. Especially when you included two baseball players over figures like Don Bradman; major historic figures from a sport with a billion fans. Either way; if these sports truly have over hundreds of millions of fans as claimed; that's only more reason to list them. Activities to hundreds of millions ARE vital and this goes to Cricket, Basketball, Baseball or Tennis or anything with this status.... Chess should've been added too. All of these sports are infinitely more widespread than Opera both in numbers of participation and fandom. There's no harm to adding things with this level of interest from readers. GuzzyG (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually let's go by numbers; the most popular sport in countries with over 100 millon in population;

China has a population of 1,411,778,724; the most popular sport is Basketball (Basketball in China)

India has a population of 1,352,642,280; the most popular sport is Cricket (Cricket in India)

United States has a population of 331,449,281; the most popular sport is American football (American football in the United States)

Indonesia has a population of 270,203,917; the most popular sport is Association football (Football in Indonesia)

Pakistan has a population of 226,992,332; the most popular sport is Cricket (Cricket in Pakistan)

Brazil has a population of 210,147,125; the most popular sport is Association football (Football in Brazil)

Nigeria has a population of 211,400,708; the most popular sport is Association football (Football in Nigeria)

Bangladesh has a population of 161,376,708; the most popular sport is Cricket (Cricket in Bangladesh)

Russia has a population of 146,171,015; the most popular sport is Association football (Football in Russia)

Mexico has a population of 126,014,024; the most popular sport is Association football (Football in Mexico)

Japan has a population of 125,360,000; the most popular sport is Baseball (Baseball in Japan)

Ethiopia has a population of 117,876,227; the most popular sport is Association football (Football in Ethiopia)

Philippines has a population of 109,035,343; the most popular sport is Basketball (Basketball in the Philippines)

Egypt has a population of 101,478,581,; the most popular sport is Association football (Football in Egypt)

So this is 7 for football; 3 for cricket; 2 for basketball and 1 for American football and baseball. Football has one in the top 5 and out numbered by total population of interested countries by Cricket and Basketball. I don't think there's a argument for this being the "supreme" sport worldwide. Even more; there's no accurate way to get numbers for such a thing; especially in some countries like some of these ones. Ignoring cultural history aswell; there's no legit claim for complete football dominance. It speaks for itself the top three countries rarely care for it and i'm not convinced if Badminton had proper international structure it would be a easy win in Indonesia and Athletics a easy win for Ethiopia and Russia was VERY close with Ice Hockey. It also speaks volumes, that none of these countries have that much presence in top rank soccer bar Brazil, the US and Mexico per FIFA World Rankings. If you don't have a clear majority in the most populated countries or dominate them; you can't be the "supreme" sport; irrespective of dominance in Spain, Brazil, France and the United Kingdom - this is not the globe and there's no clear evidence the sports section shouldn't include multiple sports like we cover the multiple genres. By this chart i would have Cricket over Opera and Basketball over Animation and Baseball by itself. Try and find equivalent participation and interest numbers for Opera and Animation around the globe. It doesn't exist. GuzzyG (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

For another claim of something; FIFA claims 1.12 billion viewers combined viewed the 2019 FIFA women's world cup [28]; yet it's biggest star gets searched less than a even lesser known mma fighter who was prominent in the same period [29]; even with "263 million" unique viewers; that's a pathetic showing in curiosity; to have so much viewers and yet noone is intrigued by the athletes! (and only 11 mil wiki views, with barely any internationally [30], which means either this website is dead or these numbers oddly don't add up!). GuzzyG (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I would list basketball ahead of either of baseball and cricket, especially due to its popularity in China. On Weibo Bryant got +10mln followers, meanwhile Cristiano + 7mln and Lin Dan + 4mln. It is impressive especially if you realise Lin Dan is Chinese, Cristiano has 374 million followers on Instagram (more than whole population of Pakistan - people interested in sport or not), meanwhile Bryant's funpage has 20 mln followers on Instagram and 15 mln followers on Twitter. Soccer and basketball are two sports which are raising popularity. 3x3 basketball recently has been olympics sport. 2026 FIFA World Cup will include 48 native teams from all parts of the world but even FIFA 2018 World Cup with 32 teams was big event (Panama national football team and [[Iceland national football team] participated in that). There are also sport films with comparable importance to Baseball films IMHO. Karate Kid has box office 130 mln $ and Goal! (film) has 27 mln $. On the level 5 the only sport films we list are: The Hustler (film), Raging Bull and Rocky Dawid2009 (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

cricket is undeniably very close to football and the next sport to list by pure numbers; baseball is the important sport long term in culture; these are the arguments. basketball is relatively newer; without both but would also qualify on a participation aspect. The The Karate Kid (franchise) and the two main boxing films (Rocky and Raging Bull are covered on this list by martial arts, which only reinforces that sports with effect on culture should matter for this list). The level 5 list means nothing; i removed Hoosiers (film) to put on the Hustler and neither pool nor highschool basketball would qualify; this doesn't uproot the fact that baseball through arts has become the leading symbol of American sports; as shown by the films; as shown by Casey at the Bat and Take Me Out to the Ball Game; in every art theres a major Baseball work in the American sense; all of these predate footballs importance too.. Which is the main argument, baseball is fundamental to sports history pre-war. Top football songs are I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles and You'll Never Walk Alone - copied from American songs with nothing to do with football; which also proves that football doesn't have an effect itself on art; it's just there - it takes. A list of "best football songs" [31]; are all post-war; contemporary. There's no history here. Goal (and Green Street (film)) are the only other main football films and theyre not big critically and flopped at the box office; for such a global sport it never seems to translate outside of it; this only reinforces this argument. Insstagram stats are irrelevant and not what you think; Ronaldo's played in Portugal, the United Kingdom, Spain and Italy. Yes, all major European football countries. France has a 37.2% percent instagram usage rate [32]; the UK 41.8% [33]; Spain 46.4% [34], Portugal 47% [35], Italy 43.3 percent [36]. Plus let's not forget the other two big football countries; Brazil with 46% [37] and Russia with 43.9% [38] (and Brazil's online audience is renowned for being very passionate and being able to bring in big numbers, (the biggest Brazilian pop star has 57.5 mil [39]). These all benefit Ronaldo. India on the other hand has a 10.2% instagram penetration rate [40]; Pakistan 5% [41]; and Bangladesh 2% [42]; so it's only natural that cricketers don't have the same audience; BUT WAIT! even with this low level of instagram usage; the biggest modern cricketer (Virat Kohli) has 171 million followers [43]; can you honestly say if India, Pakistan and Bangladesh had the European instagram usage rates that Virat wouldnt overtake Cristiano? We can't use stats that so benefit one sport; this reflects in the sports viewership amount too. It's bias to count these. GuzzyG (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Or even that the top football chant (Glory Glory (football chant)) is based on American Battle Hymn of the Republic? How does this not only reinforce American culture; thus indirectly their sports? We wouldn't list a biography who is "the most popular"; yet has no original impact on culture on the world; certainly not as the only example of the thing it represents. GuzzyG (talk) 06:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

You comfortably neglect mention that most people who follow top football stars do not come from South America or Europe but more populated Africa and quite often even Asia (just come to grographically neutral Facebook group "Oh my Goal - football experts" and check: [44]). 10% of Africa population or 10% of India population is far more than half of Brazil or half of Western Europe for that matter. Also FWIW Africa does not have high monopol on Internet or Instagram). Cristiano is the most popular athlete basicly due to fact he is the most profilic goalscorer in history of Champions League, Africa is the only continent where soccer dominated every single country and the Africa is the only continent where Champions League gets sightly better results than FIFA World Cup in google trends (at least in those countries which have hard time to quialify into World up so far, Gabon national football team is such example as Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang never played on World Cup). For globality of soccer check how high pageviews has Roberto Baggio (famous for being Buddhist) or Zico (famous for popularising soccer in Japan) on Japanese Wikipedia: [45]/[46] in comprasion to European languages. UEFA Champions League anthem is culturally more relevant than all those other songs you mention (it is often used in ringtone) but none of these much at all. I would choose soccer and basketball ahead of cricket and baseball. What I can find on Google Maps so far, the most significant Cricket stadiums from Australia have less reviews than Maracana and Sydney Opera House but more than Shaolin Temple. I do not know much about cricket so maybe I should not talk about it at all (frankly I never particularly heard about that sport before WP:VA and even if I heard then I highly doubt I did not confused Cricket with Croquet before VA) but personally I do not see how cricket is vital as recreation. Where cricket has non-proffesionall analogy to 3x3 basketball or street football?; would you list on wider list (say 5000 articles) Formula 1 due to TV marketing ahead of sports which are also vital as recreation in everyday life: moutaneering, cycling, chess, poker, or running? Either way basketball still remain as my second choice after football but I would list social media ahead of every sport and I could eventually reconsider swap Tagore or Singapore with Cricket. It is my opinion. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

To be fair to Lincoln, Tolstoy called him "[o]f all the great national heroes and statesmen of history...the only real giant...a Christ in miniature [and] a saint of humanity whose name will live thousands of years in the leg­ends of future generations" whose legacy is yet to come. While one can debate the significance of that work, it's certainly not the case that Lincoln is entirely unknown outside of the US. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Add MOSFET

Arguably one of the most important inventions of the 20th century, and the foundation of modern computing and electronics, being, per the article, "the base technology of the late 20th to early 21st centuries". Potentially redundant to the already listed semiconductor device, but I think it is important enough to merit inclusion anyway. INDT (talk) 11:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As the nominator. INDT (talk) 11:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. While I don't think this will get very far, I do think it deserves more consideration than peoples' guts would initially think. We list Green Revolution and once almost listed its "father" Norman Borlaug, as another example of a small change (well, a series of small changes) that has enormously affected people's lives since 1950, an era we don't generally cover adequately (mostly due to fear of recentism, which I can understand). I would, however, rather list transistor more generally. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

   I chose to nominate MOSFET over the more general transistor as the MOSFET is the dominant variant of the transistor; and, although they lived and worked in the U.S. for most of their lives, neither of the inventors (Mohamed M. Atalla and Dawon Kahng) were "westerners", and a little diversity is always nice. With that said, though, I would support the addition of transistor if people prefer it. INDT (talk) 05:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

2. Weak Oppose Not at all a bad nomination; MOSFET is an incredibly important component of modern technology and the modern world at large, as the nominator righly pointed out. But it's going to have be a no from me unless it comes with a swap, preferably with a biography, and even then I would prefer the more general transistors, though again I am not opposed to MOSFET appearing on this list per se. Zelkia1101 (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose I could only support a swap with semiconductor device. With that, electronics, and integrated circuit all listed, computer hardware is already a lot better represented on the list than software (computer programming?) and applications (social media?). Cobblet (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Kidney

We currently do not list anything related to homeostasis and excretion, 2 processes which are crucial to pretty much all life. Since the kidney is involved in both of these processes, I think it's inclusion is merited. I would also support adding either or both of the processes mentioned, but I think that that is unlikely to pass. INDT (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As the nominator. INDT (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
2. It can go under digestion with liver, although it is somewhat odd we don't list stomach. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Basic topic. --Thi (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose because we are close to the 1000-article limit. But I would support swapping hormone for homeostasis. Excretion is sufficiently covered by metabolism at this level. And the stomach is not a vital organ. Cobblet (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap: Remove gasoline, add World Wide Web

Diesel fuel recently failed, and it was brought up that gasoline isn't necessarily vital at this level either. While gasoline is indeed more vital than diesel fuel due to the dominance of the automobile and residual use of gasoline in piston airplanes, I don't think it's particularly more vital historically or currently than kerosene, and we already list petroleum and internal combustion engine.

As for World Wide Web, critics might note that we already list internet, but I think the two concepts are different enough to both warrant inclusion, especially since we list both telephone and mobile phone. If I am not mistaken in my analogy, the internet is the tracks and the WWW is the rolling stock, and it is the latter that better encompasses such concepts as a website and HTML/CSS/JavaScript/PHP/etc., especially if we do in fact tend to underrepresent computer software compared to computer hardware. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose both the addition and the removal. For the addition - even experts get confused between Internet and World Wide Web, there is simply too much overlap to include both at this level. For the removal - maybe in 20 years once we all have electric cars I will support removal. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Too central for everyday life and too much overlap. --Thi (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I can support the removal. I'm less convinced that both the computer network and the most important information retrieval system using that network are necessary to list at this level. I still prefer listing something that's more orthogonal to what's already on the list, such as something related to programming. Cobblet (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• I can support programming language, which I was surprised wasn't already on here, and if we were more generous could even add C specifically. I could also see operating system. I do think, however, that World Wide Web is more "popular" and directly impactful of daily lives, and I would consider it the most important "piece of software" ever written; most people don't know how to code and see the difference between Mac and Windows as nothing more than an annoyance, but we're using a website right now, for example. I can understand that WWW and internet are somewhat redundant, but WWW's wide availability in the mid-90s turned the internet from a reserve of militaries and academia into a critical part of daily life. Regardless of whether this is a strength or an additional case for "redundancy", the WWW is not merely "the most important" retrieval system of the internet, it is orders of magnitude above now-obsolete competitors such as Gopher and niche applications such as FTP, to the point where people don't know the difference between the "web" and the "internet". Indeed, if we're viewing "vitality" as "usefulness to readers", many readers will probably want to know what exactly is the difference between the two. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Procellariidae

I have nominated Procellariidae for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Level 1 discussion going on

Since quite a few people don't watch the level 1 talkpage but there is as of yet no consensus to merge it here, a discussion regarding level 1 and whether any article is fit to remove in order to add Society. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Remove Secularism

Atheism already covers this sufficiently. Interstellarity (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Not because we already list atheism (Thi rightly explains the difference), but because we don't list theocracy. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose It does not. Misunderstanding stems from listing: Secularism is not listed under Government and Atheism is misleadingly listed under Secularism. Secularism belongs to Society and Atheism to Philosophy. --Thi (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose secularism is a different concept to atheism. A belief in separating religion from the state as opposed to a lack of belief in a deity. There should be multiple articles on this topic just as there as multiple articles on major religions. Gizza (talk • voy) 22:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose per DaGizza. Cobblet (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Dimadick (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose Separation of church and state is a core tenant of modern democracies, and isn't quite comparable to theocracy, which is no longer as relevant to the modern world to merit listing. Zelkia1101 (talk) 02:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Swap: Add Blues, Remove Jazz

Jazz is blues. The influence of blues is readily apparent; bar classical music, the other genres listed are significantly influenced by it. The same can't be said for Jazz, dearly less cosmopolitan in nature. DMT Biscuit (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. DMT Biscuit (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Sigh... I love me some Son House and Howlin' Wolf, but blues is already covered adequately by rock music and jazz. While Charley Patton and the other Delta bluesmen were struggling in Mississippi, Louis Armstrong was already making hit records with jazz, and jazz remains more internationally renowned in its own right, being arguably America's greatest contribution to "high culture". If we need more music, music theory or the instruments I proposed above would be better fits than yet more genres. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Jazz has had more of an international impact. Dimadick (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

While we are one the topic then I was wondering does is it worthible to list Armstrong along with Jazz ahead of so manynsports or say rythm for music but swap Armstrong for woman musican never was sucesfull at this level. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Add Basketball and James Naismith

Basketball probably fits to this level per disussion about Baseball. There are 32 countries who can participate in basketball world cup (the same number what for soccer) and yet basketball lately has been the most important sport in China. Frankly as nominator I doubt James Naismith relatively has big chances to pass especially after so many cuts which we made (there are not 200 people on the list but 100) but it is disapointing for me how founders of sports are underrated in that projet on all levels so I am curious what feedback could James Naismith get as nomination for that level. If we would ever list any sportpeople at this level (what is not likely but would be more likely in next 50 years) then James Naismith would be absoluetly number one. There were two sport personalities nominated for that level so far (Pele and Bruce Lee). Pele was rejected as we do not need living people and nomination of Bruce Lee was failed with 1-13 score, both of them have far worse ranking on list "1000 years, 1000 people" than Naismith. Naismith in that list also surpassed some people who are listed on our list of ~~110 people, and surpassed those regular candidates from other not represenrd modern fields (fashion/medicine/acting/astronauts etc.). Actually this ranking looks in following way: # 293 James Naismith, #314 for Jonas Salk (I am talking about it because of we have Hippocrathes but we do nit have modern medicine ton the list), # 322 for Louis Armstrong (we already have Jazz), # 327 for Paul McCartney, # 328 John Lennon, # 354 for Nelson Mandela, # 442 for Turing, # 446 for Louis Lumière (suggest add him to the level 5, just as we have Jacob Grimm there), # 494 for Disney, # 514 for Hokusai, #549 Ibn Khaldun # 567 for Rumi, # 795 for Chaplin, # 840 for Pele, # 897 for Tagore, # 972 for Coco Channel, # 997 for Marilyn Monroe, # N/A for Mansa Musa, N/A for Ronald Amundsen (instead Ronald Amundsen there are astronauts with worse rank than NAismith: # 449 for Gagarin, # 696 for Neil Armstrong. BTW Goddard is 178, meanwhile Korolev and Thereskova are out of the list), # "N/A" for Brue Lee, # N/A for Zheng He, #N/A for Michael Jackson, #N/A for Shen Quo, N/A for Antoine Lavoiser, N/A for Dimitri Mendeleev, N/A for Nikola Tesla, N/A for Euler, N/A for Neother, N/A for Godel, # N/A for Micheleangelo (?), N/A for Kahlo. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. [nom]
2. Support Basketball would rather add baseball due to history, but basketball is better than no American sport IMO. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Naismith If we're adding sports figures Babe Ruth and arguably Don Bradman would have to come first. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose both If we were ever going to add an America-specific sport, which I don’t believe is necessary in the first place, it would have to be baseball and definitely not basketball. Baseball is far more culturally and historically important. As for Naismith, his presence even on the level 4 list is dubious. Certainly the most dubious proposed addition since Chomsky was brought up some time ago. Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Sports club and Excercise

Both were mentioned as thinkable options for representation of sport at the level 2 (in sense, someone said that painting which is listed at the level 2 is specific to the arts just as excercise is specific to sport, or sport club is specific to sport like film is specific to the arts). Dawid2009 (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. [nom]

Oppose

1. Oppose sports club Amateur sports is already (IMO over)represented with athletics and the Olympics. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Sports club isn't top 1,000 and exercise is already listed under the Health and fitness section. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I'll still have to think about exercise; we're quite near the quota already, so I doubt there will be room for it, and I wouldn't put it above basketball, baseball, or cricket. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Add Randomness

into Mathematics/Statistics section. It is very weird that this is not in Vital list at all. Its uses is way beyond math obviously, so I think its inclusion to level 3 is appropriate. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose inclusion into level 3 list (which is technically what this talkpage is for), but this seems reasonable at level 4. However, stochastic process is already at level 4 as well. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Probability is included here at level 3; is that enough? and also statistics and gambling cover vaguely similar ground. Agree seems reasonable for level 4.  Carlwev  16:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)