Wikipedia talk:Vital articles
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vital articles page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 |
Vital Articles | ||||
|
Please consider reading the frequently asked questions for this page before asking any questions on this talk page. |
This page was nominated for deletion on 9 March 2013. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Introduction
|
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- After 30 days it may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal hasn't received any !votes for +30 days, regardless of tally.
- 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: 11:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC) ( )
- 30 days ago: 11:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- 60 days ago: 11:20, 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)
Affected biographies
|
---|
Politicians and leaders
Religious figures Explorers Philosophers and social scientists Writers STEM
Musicians, artists, architects, and filmmakers Businesspeople |
Remove Nikola Tesla
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.
Cue the angry Redditors, but not on either list. He did wondrous work with electromagnetism and telecommunications, but he is redundant in that respect to Faraday and Maxwell. He also didn't do much to bring his inventions to mass market like Edison or even Westinghouse did; as said earlier with Gutenberg and Stigler's Law, that's what's ultimately just as (if not more) important for this list than actual invention, which is why we list Walt Disney (at least for now) instead of Winsor McCay and Henry Ford instead of Karl Benz or Ransom E. Olds (yes, neither of those are in the STEM sections, but the same principle applies). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom, although I could be convinced that he serves as a "foil" to Edison like Stalin serves as a "foil" to Hitler (not that any of those two pairs have anything else in common). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Support Per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Support although Tesla complements Edison's article. --Thi (talk) 07:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support switching my vote since we now have a good enough number of writers removed, and in the spirit of (hopefully eventually) pairing down the list to 100. Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support Dawid2009 (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose Very influential in the field of Physics, well known too. -- Maykii (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Incompetent as a businessman, but a key figure in making the alternating current a viable method of distributing electricity to consumers. He was also a pioneer in the development of wireless power transfer. Dimadick (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Tesla's work is more related to Edison's than to Faraday's and Maxwell's, who were scientists rather than engineers. Tesla's contributions are far more relevant to modern society (Western or not) than those of, say, Abraham or Socrates; and he gets roughly as many page views than Abraham, Socrates, and St. Paul combined. If Abraham needs to be listed next to Moses, Socrates needs to be listed next to Plato and Aristotle, and St. Paul needs to be listed next to Jesus, redundancy between Tesla and Edison is not a reasonable ground for removal. Cobblet (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - A towering figure worthy of listing at this level. Jusdafax (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Discuss
Perhaps we should canvass the Redditors? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- We already have, it would seem. Cobblet (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
The following thread started as a response to my !vote. Cobblet (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Abraham and Moses will never be removed from this list. Paul certainly will be but earlier we will probably remove both Tudors or one of them. Dawid2009 (talk)
- I'm not sure any of these figures, including Paul, will ever be removed. It would be interesting to see now how many people still feel strongly about reducing the number of biographies beyond what we have now. Cobblet (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm in full favour still of getting to 100; in full favour of doing heavy cuts to entertainers, athletes, writers and other artists on the 2,000 list and turning that one more history based and TNT'ing lvl 5 and making it 10k with more basis in history; but still covering more popular contemporary articles like Jeff Bezos or Justin Bieber; which would make it easier to remove articles like Tom Hanks from the 2000 list and wouldn't put him on a basis with Zac Efron, who shouldnt be listed anywhere. Either way; all levels i'm in favour of a little restructuring and level 5 is embarrassing, i pretty much am much more strict now and believe these lists should be more stricter. GuzzyG (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- I understand you feel that way about this list. (I have no opinion about the lists I don't look at anymore.) But do you really think it's worth going through the kind of acrimony this page has seen this year for the sake of a few more cuts? Have you noticed how some participants are turned off by it? Cobblet (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- I was just replying to your wondering about if anyone wanted cuts; not so that i want more discussion towards it - as clearly it won't do any good, but no clearly it's not worth contention; which is why i supported the moratorium and haven't nominated anything on here in forever; only participating because these lists go hand in hand with my own stuff and i have to pay attention to cuts or additions. (and i've been asked to create my own lists like Zelkias as a direct comparison, which i will do) But i also think that if debate leads to contention - like it has here; it'll probably happen outside of biographies too and that in a way it's unfortunately inevitable nature of this system, where votes are what matters - not argument and the votes are very limited so people feel the need to change votes as one can tank a whole nomination. I don't see a way to improve this other than bringing more eyes here but the contention would probably scare whoever away. I don't know a fix. GuzzyG (talk) 05:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- I understand you feel that way about this list. (I have no opinion about the lists I don't look at anymore.) But do you really think it's worth going through the kind of acrimony this page has seen this year for the sake of a few more cuts? Have you noticed how some participants are turned off by it? Cobblet (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm in full favour still of getting to 100; in full favour of doing heavy cuts to entertainers, athletes, writers and other artists on the 2,000 list and turning that one more history based and TNT'ing lvl 5 and making it 10k with more basis in history; but still covering more popular contemporary articles like Jeff Bezos or Justin Bieber; which would make it easier to remove articles like Tom Hanks from the 2000 list and wouldn't put him on a basis with Zac Efron, who shouldnt be listed anywhere. Either way; all levels i'm in favour of a little restructuring and level 5 is embarrassing, i pretty much am much more strict now and believe these lists should be more stricter. GuzzyG (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure any of these figures, including Paul, will ever be removed. It would be interesting to see now how many people still feel strongly about reducing the number of biographies beyond what we have now. Cobblet (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Swap: Remove Finance, Add Accounting
Accounting is an important in all businesses. Interstellarity (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Support
- Interstellarity
- Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose per previous discussions on both halves of this proposal. Are you suggesting financing isn't important to all businesses? Cobblet (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose removal per above. Neutral on addition. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Discuss
Remove Rabindranath Tagore
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.
Not on Thi's list. I don't know enough about Tagore and his placement in Indian culture, and whether he passes the "global secondary school standard", so I'll refrain from voting for now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support
- Strong support Tagore is important for the Indian subcontinent but not sufficiently influential for our encyclopaedia. As a poet he is studied far less than Milton or Byron. Important as a historical figure but not supremely influential as a writer, and certainly not Shakespeare or Dante. Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Strong support Per Zelkia. I do not think Tagore should represent history of literature in South Asia at this level. Bengali and Hindi language in modern world are not translated as often as European languages so have weaker monopol. We recently removed Akira Kurosawa who surpassed Tagore in Asian of the Century at category arts/culture/literature. Perhaps swapping Bhagavad Gita for Mahabharata and add something like Trimurti would be better to cover Indian culture by diverse way, however I am not convinced Tagore is neccesary, we represent pop culture at this level and soon we are going to remove more important biographies like Niels Bohr... Dawid2009 (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support per above. --Thi (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support we have Bill Shakespeare and English literature, that is enough. Also far, far, far less well-known than Jane Austen or Mark Twain in the contemporary United States. Also TOOSOON, it's hard to determine the long term impact of a writer in the first 100 years after their death. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose The Indian subcontinent is a major region for literature and it has a very long history. (goes back to Kalidasa; also another candidate for this list). India has alot of English speakers too; which makes it even more important to list a representative of on the English encyclopedia. (as shown by Tagore getting nearly 10 mil more pageviews in English than John Milton) There's no reason to cut here; if Tagore goes than Satyajit Ray must come on; Indian culture is essential for a English encyclopedia to cover. (Long history of British Raj/lots of English speakers). I would cut Rumi before Tagore. (but wouldnt cut either). GuzzyG (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose An Indian writer is definitely essential for this list. -- Maykii (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose First non Western Nobel Prize in literature. Definitely a leading figure in Indian culture. Yann (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Non-Western literature deserves a basic level of representation. Cobblet (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. I would consider a swap with Kalidasa but not an outright removal. Gizza (talk • voy) 00:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Discuss
@Zelkia1101: I would have voted to remove this entry, per the support !votes above. Not sure if that makes the difference to tip the balance in the discussion, but I do think he should be removed. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Amakuru: Hey there! It would not have made a difference. Since all nominations require a 2/3ds vote to pass we would need five additional votes in favor of removing Tagore in order for it to pass. That's highly unlikely to materialize. The rules dictate that a nomination fails after thirty days if it has "a) earned at least 3 opposes, and b) failed to earn two-thirds support." That's the case here. Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Ah OK thanks. Never mind then! Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Add James Watt
I initially forgot to add this. Watt perfected the steam engine, which enabled the Industrial Revolution. His importance is such that the SI unit of power, watt, is named for him. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support Extremally pertinent to understand history of science and history of technology. We certainly need at least father of industrial revolution. This is time when machines started replace many human's activities in everyday live. He is very easy findable in every the shortest Encyclopedia. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support If we have Gutenberg; than Watt should be on even a 100 list. Up there with Ford in my opinion. GuzzyG (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support pbp 13:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support Highly influential figure. Dimadick (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose Biography is not as important at this leval as Steam engine and Industrial revolution. "Locomotive transport, not Watt engines, accelerated the Industrial Revolution" [1] --Thi (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Similar types of arguments pro and con could be made for him, Gutenberg, and Cai Lun: they're all primarily associated with one massively important invention. Given that there remains a consensus to try to reduce bios, I will oppose additions which I think are borderline. Cobblet (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed that the steam engine and Industrial Revolution are more pertinent to readers here. Level 4 is sufficient. czar 01:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. -- Maykii (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Knowledge of Watt is tied very closely to his invention, whereas Gutenberg's fame as the quintessential inventor (along with possibly Edison) goes beyond mere technical achievement. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Discuss
@Purplebackpack89: In the past you said that Watt is more vital than Washington, do you still belive so? Would it be possible to swap Tesla for Watt and Cai Lun for Shen Kuo?. Shen Kuo gets less pagevievs than this wikiproject, some sandboxes and even some user Pages... Dawid2009 (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- James Watt, Van Gogh, Goethe and Wagner also are THE ONLY biographies which were on original list of 54 vital people by User:SethAllen623 but not on our list. Here is diff where PBP says that Watt is more vital than Washington or Gauss. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Add Frank Lloyd Wright or Le Corbusier
This has also been discussed and voted down before, but it would be nice to have an architect if we get under 120. Both FLW and Le Corbusier are the pre-eminent architects of the 20th century, and both of the collections of their works have been deemed UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Although Wright did not participate in the design of early skyscrapers like his Lieber Meister Sullivan, and only ended up designing one minor skyscraper, he did envision a mile-high tower well before the Burj Khalifa could even be imagined, and more importantly defined the transition between Arts and Crafts and modernist architecture. Le Corbusier, on the other hand, defined modern architecture and has a plethora of work to his name in Europe. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support
- Conditional support if we get down to under 120 biographies without it As nom; I'm biased towards FLW, but I'm fine with either. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nom. -- Maykii (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support Support adding Le Corbusier. I have only heard of Wright because Don Rosa likes to reference him in his stories. Otherwise, not that famous. Dimadick (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose Not neccesary, level 4 is sufficient Dawid2009 (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Strong oppose per the recent discussion on adding Le Corbusier. As pointed out previously, we already have an architect in Michelangelo, so this is really a proposal to add someone who is known exclusively for being an architect. No 20th-century architect really stands out in this regard: Le Corbusier is not more vital than Mies van der Rohe (from a technical perspective) or Gaudí (in the popular consciousness), and both Sullivan and Olmsted are just as important to the history of American architecture as FLW. Again I would go back to Mimar Sinan as an architect that truly stood out from his contemporaries, as acknowledged by both Le Corbusier and FLW (see my comments in the previous discussion), and would also happen to represent the long tradition of visual arts in the Islamic world for which we have no coverage on the list. But if the goal is to reduce the number of bios overall, I'm not going to support his addition either. Cobblet (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Not if we've cut down. FLW or Corbiusier or Mimar Sinan don't have sufficient cultural status to be on here as a artist after these cuts in my opinion. GuzzyG (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed that Level 4 is sufficient. czar 01:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Architects are just not very famous. Their work is more enduring. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Discuss
Add Space race
Certainly we have room to readd this per precious discussions. While we do not have enough space to list two comparable astronauts then we should have this article. I support this proposal especially based on Thi's rationale in the archive and sources which they showed in previous discussion. This is also de facto parent article for arms race. Cold War is extremally popular topic related with 20th century. I think if we have room for Age of discovery and polar expolar and three XV explorers, then we should have at least very parent and very wide article for space exploration (NASA have lack coverage for milestones which did USSSR). On the purely historical perspective I also believe it is fair to have three articles related with second World War (the war, Hitler, Stalin) and two articles related with Cold war (the war, and just space race). Dawid2009 (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC) Added more on 13:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)~
- Support
- Strong support as nom Dawid2009 (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support One of the greatest explorations in history. It gave us Earthrise and The Blue Marble. Space settlement is secondary. "We set out to explore the moon and instead discovered the Earth." [2] --Thi (talk) 11:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Strong support extremely important event in human history. Planting humans on the moon is likely the single most impressive technological achievement yet accomplished. A feat that children are likely to learn about for centuries in the future. Much more important for an encyclopedia than Impressionism, nursing, Twain or Kafka. Zelkia1101 (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support per above. -- Maykii (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support Not as important as literature, but still emblematic of the 20th century. Dimadick (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Per previous discussion. Redundant to Cold War and space exploration, and didn't result in permanent human habitation outside of Earth; the "good stuff" in that is yet to come. I would, however, support adding NASA. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 11:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- as per above. Yann (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- per John M Wolfson. Too much overlap with space exploration. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- I am a space geek but yeah, space exploration is enough. Is rocket a vital topic? It should be if it isn't. (Note: I checked, it's vital-3) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Per above. Space exploration already covers it. — Amakuru (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Discuss
- All of this not to mention the advent of satellite technology that powers the very cellphones and computers that all of you are using. None of it would have been remotely possible without human encroachment into space.
- The concept of an arms race dates back to at least the late 19th century and has continued on since then, whereas the space race was a decade and a half in the middle of the 20th century; I am befuddled by the assertion that the space race is somehow the "parent article" of an older and more general concept. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, my but wording but Essentials I mean that arms race and space are equelly vital, meanwhile for this level better fita space race which is not covered by military hstory. Space Exploration is not history article and I preferencji space race over NASA as the latte-rurkowcy has Łąck coverage of USSD achivements. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Add Seoul
As said earlier in the section of Taiwan, I think it would generally be preferable to add cities rather than more countries to fill out human geography, and in any event we only have 19 cities (excluding the City article itself at level 2) rather than a clean 20. I think Seoul would be a good fit for the last spot; it is considered an Alpha- city by the Globalization and World Cities Research Network, is in the Top 5 of the world's metropolitan economies with over 900 billion dollars, and is on the WikiProject Cities Core list. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support Vital city to the world economy. Dimadick (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose About half the country's population lives in the Seoul Capital Area. South Korea is not so important a country, and Seoul is not so important a city, that this kind of overlap is desirable. I'm not suggesting you would disagree, but with South Korea already on the list, it clearly makes more sense to add Taiwan than to add Seoul. I think human geography is already much better covered than physical geography as it stands, we have spent a long time in the past discussing the list of cities, and I think the choices we've made are fine. Cobblet (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Many countries would be more essential additions. --Thi (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- per Cobblet User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. -- Maykii (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose North Korea would be better option if we want add smaller countries. This would not be very fair to list South Korea and Seoul ahead of higly populated countries which we recently rejected (eg Uganda). Dawid2009 (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Sigh and sad oppose. I live there but the arguments above are sadly well made. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Discuss
Add Sundial
We are at 99 "Technology" entries currently. Very few of them are historical in nature. The sundial is a simple technology that has been used for thousands of years.
- Support
- as nom User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, list it as a bullet point under "clock". – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Dawid2009 (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose Clock does a pretty good job of covering the history of timekeeping devices. I think there are other technological areas which could use more attention – textiles is one that comes to mind, for example. Weaving? Cobblet (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_10#Remove_Sundial. --Thi (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Clock is fine. -- Maykii (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. Seems minor to me, subjective view, sure, but so are most others here :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Discuss
This is motivated by a discussion on a recent popular television series. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Add Plough
From the article, It has been fundamental to farming for most of history
. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support
- as nom User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- Seems even more fundamental than irrigation, you can plow with natural irrigation, but can't plow without it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Dawid2009 (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Weak oppose I would prefer adding irrigation. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Although I do commend the proposer for having a username that is (arguably) a stylized plough. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree that if farming technology needs more coverage, irrigation seems like a better place to start than tillage. Cobblet (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Irrigation is as vital as plough and History of agriculture is listed at this level. --Thi (talk) 08:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. -- Maykii (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Discuss
- I would probably support Irrigation as well, but don't want to open more nominations until some more of the biography discussions are closed and archived. I do note that the article Irrigation is in far worse shape than basically any article on the list; I'm doing some triage but it desperately needs attention. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Add Beef, Lamb and mutton, Pork, and Poultry
We list different types of cereals (wheat, maize, and rice) in addition to listing cereal, and we list potato and soybean as types of vegetables while also listing vegetable; as such, I think we should list different types of meat in addition to listing meat given the ubiquity and centrality of meat in human diets. Beef, pork, and chicken are by far the most consumed meats in the world today, and sheep meat generally is not too far behind outside of the west. I also doubt that there would be significant overlap with the animals themselves since we only list cattle of the concerned animals. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom; at the very least we should have beef and pork. Lamb is historically/culturally significant but possibly expendable, and I am also fine with simply listing chicken as food but think poultry is more general and including turkey, duck, etc.. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose Potatoes and soybeans are listed because they're staple crops which are globally produced on about twice the scale of poultry and pork, the meats with the highest production. Meat only features prominently in the diets of people in developed countries or in places where other protein sources happen to be scarce: they're not all that ubiquitous or central from either a global or a historical point of view. Specific meats are less vital than the animals they come from, and listing meat and animal husbandry provides enough coverage at this level. I would rather add more farm animals first: I've suggested sheep before, as another example of a farm animal that is raised for more than just meat. I would also add seafood (production of 178 million tons/year, 2018–2020 avg.) before adding any other types of meat (134 million tons of poultry produced in 2020). Meat barely mentions seafood and only focuses on the meat of livestock animals, which makes sense since the meat industry is not usually defined to include the seafood industry. However, we do list fishing. Cobblet (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose all but Poultry. Too much overlap between the animals as well as meat. I would probably support some article on pigs/swine but not pork. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose The meat is not more important than the animals themselves. I would support the addition of sheep, swine, and chicken, given their international importance as sources of food. Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Details, not necessary entries. --Thi (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- Discuss
- I would support either Poultry or Chicken but am not sure which I prefer. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'd definitely prefer listing chicken, by far the most common bird in the world, and a source of both meat and eggs. Cobblet (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- Would it be reasonable to swap with Meat? Or add Vegetarianism for ballance? Dawid2009 (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Meat and vegetable are already listed. Cobblet (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Would it be reasonable to swap with Meat? Or add Vegetarianism for ballance? Dawid2009 (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'd definitely prefer listing chicken, by far the most common bird in the world, and a source of both meat and eggs. Cobblet (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Add Sand and Cement
They are important materials throughout history. Interstellarity (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support
- Interstellarity (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support Sand. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support Sand as well. Staple of beaches and deserts. Even beyond use as a material, presents engineering problems to be solved wherever it exists. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Dawid2009 (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose Listing concrete, the most important material in which they're used, is enough. I don’t see why sand would be any more vital than clay. Cobblet (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose We already list both concrete and masonry, and I don't think sand is particularly important in its own right but rather as binding agents/ingredients in concrete and glass. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Concrete is listed. --Thi (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Cement only. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Discuss
I note we already have concrete; of course there is a clear distinction between concrete and cement. Or should glue be added instead? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- Cement is a part of concrete, but I think the difference is unimportant at this level. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I have partially withdrawn the nom. This nom is now only on sand. Interstellarity (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Two of the most common animals worldwide and some of the first to be domesticated by humans. Both are used for their meat as well as other products like wool and eggs and they have had a huge impact on human culture and society. -- Maykii (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support
- Support as nom. -- Maykii (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- While I do think we're having a lot of animals recently, our biotrimming makes it not as bad. My support for Chicken, however, is weakened by the fact that it wasn't a particularly common meat outside of Asia prior to the mid-20th century ("A chicken in every pot" referencing its luxury as late as 1928), although eggs seem to redeem it somewhat. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support both. They are arguably just as important to human civilization as cattle, which we do list. Admittedly, cattle perhaps a touch more important, since cattle are used for both meat and for drafting, but chicken and sheep are consumed more, and cross culturally the most well-known sources of meat. Sheep husbandry was an extremely vital profession throughout human history, for instance. Ewe's milk is as important as cow's milk in many cultures. Eggs, another staple food, come from chickens. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support per discussion. --Thi (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support essential animals. GuzzyG (talk) 07:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
- I won't support sheep unless either pig or domestic pig is also being added. (it's not at all obvious which to add, so I'm just going to wait for now) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- I would also support the addition of domestic pig. -- Maykii (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Add Insurance
Finance-related topic which concerns both companies and citizens. Listed among main articles in some my old encyclopedias.
- Support
- Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Crucial financial innovation that allows for otherwise too-risky investments to take place. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support undisputedly an indispensable part of the modern world Zelkia1101 (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support fundamental topic of modern day society. GuzzyG (talk) 07:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support I think this is reasonable considering the space we now have at this level. Gizza (talk • voy) 07:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Nobel prize
"The Nobel Prizes are widely regarded as the most prestigious awards given for intellectual achievement in the world." (Britannica) They cover three areas of civilization: science, arts (literature) and social ethics (Peace Prize).
- Support
- Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Weak support but I don't know where we would put it. We don't list other lists such as the Ten Commandments, and Seven Wonders of the Ancient World was actively rejected about a year ago, so I don't know if this list is accommodating of such articles. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose Ok for level 4 but really terrible addition for the level 3. Far too specific. Previosly removed with extreme consensus. I feel this is nominated purely to something "add to add" when we are well under quta. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per Dawid. If this was really that important, than one would expect other prestigious prizes like the Fields Medal or Lasker Award to be on level 4. Cobblet (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose The prize award on its own isn't important enough, but "the prize and a list of all the winners" would get close. But we don't do lists at this level. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose too trivial to be at this level. Gizza (talk • voy) 07:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Discuss
I'm not quite sold on the Ten Commandments, but they would be much better additions than the Nobel Prize in my view. Zelkia1101 (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Remove Arabic alphabet, Brahmic scripts and Cyrillic script
These are probably covered by language articles.
- Support
- Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support removing Cyrillic script. Now that Uzbek and Kazakh are abandoning it, Russian, Ukrainian, and Serbo-Croatian (in Serbia, Montenegro and Republika Srpska) remain the only languages with more than 10 million speakers which still use the script. Swapping Cyrillic for Ukraine would seem to me an improvement. The Arabic alphabet at least forms the basis of the Persian alphabet from which still other scripts such as Urdu and Pashto are derived, and Ajami script was also formerly widespread in Africa. So the significance of Arabic scripts is far from redundant to the Arabic language. Maybe Arabic script is a better choice to represent the family though, given that we list the family of Brahmic scripts rather than Devanagari. Cobblet (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support swap of Brahmic scripts with Devanagari I oppose outright removal, but Devanagari is a much more focused article and much more important to a wide swarh of the world than the Brahmic scripts article, which gives an overview of abugidas in general. I think we should prioritize specific articles over general pages. Zelkia1101 (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose Brahmic scripts unless we're swapping with Devanagari; India deserves quite a bit of representation on this list given its huge population both today and historically, and most (at least a large plurality, if not the absolute majority, of) Indo-European language speakers prior to European colonization were in India; in any event, such scripts are used also for non-Indo-European languages such as Tamil, much like the Latin script in the west. Weak oppose Arabic alphabet and Cyrillic script. Arabic is the world's most-spoken language that is neither Chinese nor Indo-European, and one of the UN's six official languages, so its alphabet is quite frequently used. However, on a global basis it is less vital than Arabic numerals, IMO. As for Cyrillic, it's also used for a UN language (Russian) and has prominent transnational use in Eastern Europe, but I could be convinced that it's rather niche globally and not as vital as the historically-important Greek alphabet despite its technically wider use. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Brahmic scripts and Cyrillic script should be kept, since they have been frequently used on earth.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose removal of Arabic script and Cyrillic script given each script's importance to human history and the cultures that use them. Zelkia1101 (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose all Dimadick (talk) 04:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Discuss
Swap: remove Cyrillic script, add Ukraine
Per above discussion. Cyryllic script should be ranked on the same level what Japanese script, at this level is not very necesarry if we can have Ukraine and Russia. This is glaring how Eastern Europe is hyperbolically underrepresented in comprasion to western if we take into account how much odd [for this level] small countries and cities we have from western Europe, western Euope is hyperbolically more overrepresented in comprasion to rest of the Europe than North Africa is overrepresented in comprasion to rest of Africa; so Ukraina simply must be added, this is extremally warranted, more vital country than Netherlands and Taiwan as Taiwan and Netherlands have smaller population and do not have cultural significance just as Israel or Saudi Arabia. I simply can not realise how we ever could add Netherlands which have far more than 50% less population than Ukraine, this is beyond me but whatever...
- Support
- As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Extremely reluctant support addition I don't want to support this, given that the current country list is adequate if not slightly bloated. Already having Poland seems rather excessive in my eyes, and having three Slavic countries is rather insane given how Western Europe is far more influential culturally and historically than Eastern Europe. Indeed, I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but I think Ukraine is approximately as vital as California; both have similar populations, and while Ukraine has more history and is more culturally marginally important (despite not being a country for most of its existence), California has had far more impact on global pop culture and a far, far larger economy. I was originally going to oppose on those grounds, but I realized that even though Taiwan has a greater economy it has a much smaller population than Ukraine, and has a rather similar relationship to the Mainland as Ukraine does to Russia. As such, I can't find a rational reason to support Taiwan but oppose Ukraine. If someone comes up with one I'd switch to oppose. Also, adding Ukraine would give us an uninterrupted land bridge between Britain and Rusia. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support Among most-referenced articles. Large and influential country. --Thi (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support Listing three Eastern European countries is very reasonable when six Western European countries are listed. People who think that the list of countries has gotten too long should not have supported adding the Netherlands in the first place. Ukraine is just one of several geography articles related to Eastern Europe and Russia (e.g., Danube; Central Asia or a country from that area) I would prefer to list over an article on the Cyrillic script. Russian orthography is already covered by Russian language; on its own, it's not a very convincing reason to keep Cyrillic listed. It reminds me of how we used to list East–West Schism in addition to Eastern Orthodox Church. Cobblet (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- This is reasonable to add one more country from Eastern Europe especially if we consider that we do list three geographical objects for Eastern Europe (along with Moscow) and nine from Western Europe (along with cities). FWIW in 1650 Russian Empire had 15 mln population, Poland-Lithuania 11 mln, England+Scotland about + 6mln, Dutch Republic 1,8 mln (during that time Kiev had 419,537, Paris 375,456, London 138,404, and Moscow 99,772). Not so long time ago we had on this level all three: Russia, USSR and Russian Empire., but in theory among say 1500-2000 articles IMHO this would be better to have Poland and Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support Per above. GuzzyG (talk) 07:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support addition This is one of the very few countries I would still support adding, one of the largest in Europe, relevant in today's world too. -- Maykii (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose removal per my comments above. Japanese also has three scripts (four if you count Romaji), the main one of which is subordinate to Chinese characters, so the analogy is not apt. Removing Cyrillic would make Rusian the only UN-official language whose script is unrepresented. Cyrillic isn't as vital as Latin script or Greek alphabet, but it's vital enough. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose removal Given the importance of Cyrillic in much of Eastern Europe. Certainly much more diffuse than the Greek alphabet, though the Greek alphabet is obviously more historically important. I'm functionally neutral on the addition of Ukraine Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose removal The script dates from the Middle Ages and has high impact. Ukraine is only independent for the last 30 years or so. Dimadick (talk) 04:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose removal Important and influential script across much of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union / Russian Empire. -- Maykii (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Discuss
Good News
here. 2804:14C:5BB1:8AF2:A8D3:102:98C:870F (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Merging levels 1 and 2 talk into this talkpage
This talkpage has 550 watchers, whereas the level 1 talkpage has only 114 and level 2 talkpage has only 89. This is to be expected; the last substantial change to level 1 was in December 2018 and the last one before that had been in August 2015, and I assume level 2 is also updated rather infrequently. I had to courtesy ping VA regulars to a level 1 discussion and it was brought up that perhaps the top three level talkpages should be merged. I think it's a good idea; the main drawback would be that it would slightly hinder archiving, but we can simply merge the archives together as well (of course, pre-merger archives would still remain available). All discussions here would, of course, refer to level 3 by default unless stated otherwise. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- per nom and my suggestion on that page User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose
- 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)
- 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.[a] 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
- ^ It is true that level 5 additions are usually unilateral, without community input, but community input has been used in such situations as sorting the musician and entertainer sections.
Add Domestic pig
Important in meat production worldwide and quite often referenced in culture.
- Support
- Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nom. I was going to propose this alongside chicken and sheep but I thought that might be too much. Pigs are just as important as other livestock though. -- Maykii (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support given the importance of swine as a source of food Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- This would be the last mammal species I'd add (and likely the animal species, though I could see pet), but just vital enough. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support per above. GuzzyG (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
If we're looking for food-related articles to add, I would rather have added meal before adding any animals which are primarily relevant as sources of meat. An article that describes an important aspect of everyone's daily habits, regardless of cultural background or dietary preference, ought to be more vital than articles that relate to a particular meat. Cobblet (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- To be fair, chickens are also almost exclusively used for food products (well, other than cockfighting, but that's secondary), and we (are probably going to) list it above Egg as food or Poultry, even though other bird meat and eggs such as duck and quail are consumed. Pork is by far the most common meat, and its presence in human culture has been prevalent and permanent such that both Islam and Judaism prohibit its consumption while the ancient Romans, and modern East Asians, consider it a prized delicacy, and the animal itself has entered folklore as a symbol of greed and gluttony. I agree that swine aren't as vital as Cat, Cattle, Dog, or Horse, but given the other additions I would say they're vital enough. I could certainly add meal, given that we still have some space from the bio-trimming. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but did you seriously mean to call pork a "prized delicacy" for "modern East Asians"? Rekishi's Chechen-cuisine-based rationale for goats being as vital as cattle is still the most bizarre thing I've heard today, but this is a strong contender for second... Cobblet (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm saying that pigs are as vital as chickens and nearly as vital as sheep. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- And I'm saying I'd rather list something more directly related to eating habits than pigs or chickens. Cobblet (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I thought you were singling out pigs since you haven't said much about chickens or sheep. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- And I'm saying I'd rather list something more directly related to eating habits than pigs or chickens. Cobblet (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm saying that pigs are as vital as chickens and nearly as vital as sheep. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but did you seriously mean to call pork a "prized delicacy" for "modern East Asians"? Rekishi's Chechen-cuisine-based rationale for goats being as vital as cattle is still the most bizarre thing I've heard today, but this is a strong contender for second... Cobblet (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Add goat
- Support
- As nom. It is, IMO, as vital as cattle, which is now listed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose No rationale for why goats would be as important to list as cattle. They're not working animals. They should stay on the same level as camel, donkey or elephant. Cobblet (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Cobblet:Because goats have been raised for their meat or milk, and lamb and mutton have been used by a lot of cuisines (e.g. Chechen cuisine[1] and Chinese one).--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- But we are probably going to list sheep, which makes goat redundant. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Goats have also been commercially exploited, and goats are no sheep.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Goats are extremely closely related to sheep, however, and you even used "lamb and mutton" to describe their meat, the same words for sheep meat. This would be like listing both Dog and Fox. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Goats have also been commercially exploited, and goats are no sheep.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- But we are probably going to list sheep, which makes goat redundant. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Cobblet:Because goats have been raised for their meat or milk, and lamb and mutton have been used by a lot of cuisines (e.g. Chechen cuisine[1] and Chinese one).--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- We do not need any more animals, especially not mammals, after sheep, chicken, and domestic pig. I would rather list Ant, Spider, and even maybe Lion and Bear before considering adding Goat. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Not necessary. --Thi (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Discuss
References
Add Southern Ocean
We list every other ocean, this one is controversial but I think it still warrants being here. -- Maykii (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support
- Support as nom.
- Strong support Its existence has not been controversial for at least twenty years (longer than Pluto's demotion from planet status), one poorly worded and unsourced statement in the Wikipedia article notwithstanding. Only the precise limits of its boundaries are subject to dispute. That makes it no different from any number of geographical constructs that don't have universally accepted boundaries or are defined differently in different contexts. People in different countries recognize a different number of continents, for example. The only reason the International Hydrographic Organization has not published an official definition of the Southern Ocean is because its member countries can't agree on one, not because this organization (or any other) denies the ocean's existence. Even National Geographic, which used to label the ocean differently from the others because of this lack of international agreement, finally changed its practice earlier this year. If the Southern Ocean isn't vital because of a lack of inhabitation, why do we list all the planets? What makes Neptune or Algeria or the Caspian Sea so much more important to the average reader than the primary storage of heat and carbon for Earth and the driving force behind the thermohaline circulation which connects the World Ocean? You do not understand global climate and ecology if you do not understand the Southern Ocean's role in it, and this topic is neither covered by Antarctica nor by any of the articles on the Pacific, Atlantic or Indian Oceans, because the modern consensus is that they do not include the Southern Ocean. Lack of population is precisely what makes the Southern Ocean one of the world's last great wilderness areas and thus the subject of a concerted international effort to establish multiple protected areas which are or would be some of the largest in the world. Why would we not have room for both Antarctica and the Southern Ocean when we have room for both Arctic and Arctic Ocean? Cobblet (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support Largely per Cobblet. Its status notwithstanding, the Southern Ocean is a conspicuous absence here, and I feel our list is incomplete if we list four of the five oceans. Obviously the Atlantic and the Pacific are essentials, followed by the Indian Ocean. But if we have the Artic Ocean why not have the Antarctic Ocean? Zelkia1101 (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support Per Cobblet. GuzzyG (talk) 06:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support Dimadick (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support Per Cobblet. I admit it was mistake when I made nomination for removal that. Souther Ocean or Ocean Current seems like good choice when we have room. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose largely because its very existence is controversial, as the article states:
geographers have disagreed on the Southern Ocean's northern boundary or even existence, considering the waters as various parts of the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans, instead
. Even assuming its existence, I believe Antarctica is sufficient to cover much of this given that the ocean's perimeter has been sparsely populated throughout human history; Antarctica is the only continent not at Level 2, so it makes sense that this would be the only ocean not at Level 3. (I would also support the removal of Arctic Ocean, but at the very least it contains the North Pole and has been continually inhabited for millennia by various groups.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Discuss
I am posting this nom here instead of level 1 because this page is watched more. There has been some talk about adding society on the level 1 page since it is a better choice for this level. I know some articles on level 1 cover society, but I was hoping that we could take out the articles that cover society such as language, and replace them with other articles unrelated to society. Interstellarity (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support
- Interstellarity (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support addition iff we swap it with human instead. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support Society is what makes us humans. At least this topic needs better article in English Wikipedia. --Thi (talk) 10:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose removal, would rather remove human The human article deals with the species Homo sapiens, its diet, distribution, evolution, etc.. We are not vital as primates, mammals, or even animals. We are vital as thinking, reasoning, and problem-solving entities, and while it's a shame that person seems to be ill-suited for inclusion this is already covered by philosophy, science, mathematics, language, and technology. Essentially, the things that make us human should take priority over the biological characteristics of what happen to be our physical vessels. The difference between "specially evolved primate" and "rational being" will become quite stark as artificial intelligence evolves and becomes just as, if not even more, competent at these tasks. Of course, the history of all of this, in human history, should remain, but it is the height of anthropocentrism to arrogate ourselves the same position as the article for life itself, and including such a "mundane" article as a specific species on a specific rock in space on what should be a pure and eternal list is what I think is the most glaring issue of the list. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Going off what John has said, society is implicitly covered in human, human history, the arts, language, and even science. Language is covered nowhere, and it is so incredibly important to the human experience across every single culture and society on the planet that it cannot be removed. Zelkia1101 (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
The following articles, IMO, already cover society to some meaningful extent:
I think removing human history is out; I'd personally never read it since it covers stuff I've learned in primary and secondary school, but that's precisely why we should have it at a high level. Also, the arts, being essentially "that which expresses the human condition", seems universal enough to warrant its inclusion here, so that's out as well. The human article predominantly covers the biological aspect of the human body, so I could see it being removed (we're relevant because of our ability to think, not as a species); however, person, which would be its replacement, has fewer than 100 interwikis and isn't even at Level 5. That leaves language as the last one to be considered; I'll have to consider it some more before I make a decision. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think of human as basically the one article on level 0. Not that I think we need a level 0 at all – I may come to regret making this comment at all. Cobblet (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- As for language vs. society: on the one hand, I'm one of the people who originally suggested adding society a long time ago. On the other hand, language enables society, and underpins fundamental aspects of human identity, e.g., culture and ethnicity. It's even thought of as something that separates humans from animals and defines us as a species. I tend to think philosophy is a weaker choice for level 1 than language. While not wholly redundant to language the way linguistics would be, a large part of modern philosophy grapples with problems of language. Cobblet (talk) 05:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Religion perharps? 2804:14C:5BB1:8AF2:8CA2:6D80:9746:C400 (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Eh, I think that's redundant to philosophy and, if we add it, society. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- I personally think philosophy is a contender for Level 0; since such an idea is ludicrous, however, we can agree to disagree. Modern philosophy might be language-focused, but it's also been such a niche and irrelevant part of philosophy (and, indeed, the wider world) that we actively removed contemporary philosophy from level 3 a month or so ago. Philosophy in general, from Socrates/Plato to Russell, underpins much of science (what is empiricism? falsifiability?) and mathematics (what is logic? do numbers actually exist?) and cognition more generally; I think the very concept of abstraction and having ideas is what separates us from beasts, and language is but a (admittedly very important) manifestation as our status of "rational animal". – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- That's fair. I would also prefer all the level 1 articles to be extremely relevant to all readers today, and it bothers me that "philosophy" is listed when "contemporary philosophy" is of rather marginal relevance nowadays. If science and math represent the aspects of "philosophy" that matter most to modern readers, listing those topics ought to suffice. Cobblet (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Religion perharps? 2804:14C:5BB1:8AF2:8CA2:6D80:9746:C400 (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
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
- Support as nom Zelkia1101 (talk) 04:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support addition per discussion. --Thi (talk) 07:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose removal Vital in anatomy. --Thi (talk) 07:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- Discuss
- Both seem to be vital. No need to swap, both should be in the list. - Floydian τ ¢ 04:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
988/1000?
What we want do with so big space?... Dawid2009 (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know, we'll probably fill it significantly with some of the articles already being proposed. Maybe some physical/human geography, or science, otherwise. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hopefully more nonbiographical essentials Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- I hope that will be stuff other than Biographies/geography. Franky I would be glad if we make no geography nomination untill we± reach at least 995/1000. IMHO number of countriesis about right meanwhile Cities MAYBE very slightly bloated. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
It would be outrageous to suggest that Wikipedia editors should prioritize improving 100+ biographies while also suggesting that fewer than ten of those prioritized biographies should be about women. And I know of no other person in history, man or woman, who has been singlehandedly credited with founding a modern licensed profession. In doing so Nightingale transformed the perception of a female-dominated field from one that was not considered respectable into one that was. We list no other person who acted so consequentially to improve the status of women in society.
- Support
- Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support A list of 110 should at the very least have 10 women (at minimum) and as has been said; one of the very few people who has played such a dominant role in a very important field today. Her biography itself is important too; unlike Gutenberg (who some fought to keep here) or Disney; where in which their invention and company is more important than them as people and their biography is unimportant (they're used as surrogates for the invention/company). Nursing has a direct impact on people and is very important unlike animation; so if Nursing makes her redundant; then i don't see how Film, History of film, Comics and Animation do not make Disney redundant. It deserves a rep here. We're also underrepresented in science figures compared to intellectuals, so Nightingale fits. Her "historical resonance"; has resulted in many things like battleships named after her USS Florence Nightingale (AP-70), asteroids like 3122 Florence, the most distinguished award in her field Florence Nightingale Medal, schools like Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, among many statues. Her legacy section is bigger than most people here, all this without the backing of a multi billion dollar company today.. i don't see how she isn't still a very important figure and there's certainly not many very important fields that affect lots of people today so singuarly defined by one person. GuzzyG (talk) 08:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- I've been convinced. Far better than Sappho, Jane Austen, or even Hatshepsut. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support While I disagree with both Guzzy G and Wolfson's arguments, Nightingale's high impact is undeniable. Dimadick (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose Could definitely be on a level 3.5 list, or a list of the 200 or 500 most vital people, but she isn't vital enough for the top 100. Her level of technical achievement and historical resonance is simply not great enough, and she's somewhat redundant now that we have nursing. We need fewer people on this level, not more. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Would suit better for larger list of biographies and separate biography project. --Thi (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Discussion
Extended content
|
---|
Nightingale resonates with plenty of Wikipedia readers. In terms of pageviews she is ahead of every listed inventor, scientist, and mathematician other than Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Edison, Tesla, Curie, Einstein, and Turing. She gets more pageviews than Gutenberg and Hippocrates combined. Her pageviews are also comparable to people like Abraham, Bach, Dante, Kant, or Ramesses II. Modern medicine deserves a representative, and nobody in the field can claim a technical achievement greater than founding a profession that underpins modern healthcare. Cobblet (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Here are relevant quotes from the sources the article on Fatimah cited for the assertion that her status in Islam is comparable to Mary's in Christianity:
Article on [Women in Islam#The Virgin Mary] clearly says
@Bzweebl and Dimadick: Those who previously supported the nomination of Norman Borlaug are invited to consider how many lives the 28 million nurses in the world save each and every day. Cobblet (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC) |
An near universal human activity and a central aspect of all human society and culture, given how it is the mechanism through which human beings continue the species. It’s importance to culture relates to complex social norms relating to sexual behavior. Consider furthermore religious proscriptions on sexual activity, social norms surrounding virginity and modesty, rules surrounding sexual ethics that regulate or prohibit fornication or adultery or incest, or the free love and sexual liberation movement. Consider legal ramifications of sexual intercourse like obscenity, rape, or age of consent. Further tied to important topics like birth control, abortion, prostitution, pornography, marriage and human sexuality. Seems odd to have AIDS, birth control or human sexuality on this list when we don’t have sexual intercourse. It is also, predictably, one of the most viewed articles on this site.
- Support
- Support as nom Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support More popular than football and board games, not that I'm suggesting their removal. Almost universal, across time and geography. Covered by human sexuality, but important enough stand alone, and gender and sexual orientation are included and also covered by that too. Many things are covered by something wider, Football by sport, Louis Armstrong by Jazz, Jazz by music. Sexual intercourse is covered by human sexuality, but I still think it is important enough. As mentioned above could be seen as odd to have AIDS before this, a sexuality transmitted disease before sex. Carlwev 00:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support We have room now and it is tied to other topics. --Thi (talk) 11:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support I had on my mind to nominate it one day. Natural behaviour which is also per Carlwev argument. Except those biologial which mentions John below IMHO we also need more human-centric. Listing human sxuality on the level 2 IMHO is not overlap but argument for inclusion Sexual Intercourse here. Not sure better than wider topic Human sexual activity which has Template:Human sexual activity sidebar but sound OK, not less vital than AIDS or Birth control. I would also add birth to 1000 articles. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose
- We already list sex (as in male or female), and human sexuality at level 2; I believe that sufficiently covers both the biological and social characteristics of sexual reproduction. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Discuss
For a bit of context, I’ve been sitting on this nomination awhile. I’ll grant there is a nontrivial amount of overlap with reproduction and human sexuality. But I’ve since reasoned that sexual intercourse’s absolute popularity across every single human society, the act itself being performed by a vast majority of humans who have reached adulthood, makes it at least as important as football, if not more since intercourse is more universal, despite the overlap. Human sexuality is also a level 2 article, so I see no harm including more articles under its umbrella. Zelkia1101 (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
We have way too many articles on specific religions overall. And what's in Bible and Quran can very much already be covered by Christianity and Islam, as well as Vedas and Bhagavad Gita for Hinduism. This is not to say they are not important, these texts are just too specific and overlaps too much with the related specific religion article. I'd prefer more high level ideas in religion rather than specific one, prophet is not even covered at this level, although essential in almost every religion.
Lolitart (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support
- Oppose
- Strong oppose the Bible and Quran are important as texts to billions of people around the world. In terms of these two works alone there is nothing quite like their singular influence in human history. Sure there is overlap with religion, but religion is such an important component of human history, culture, and society that we can have this degree of overlap. The Bible, Quran, and Vedas are also supreme works of culture that have meanings past their religious centrality. Zelkia1101 (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm fine with listing a handful of literary texts (why not, when we list 100+ biographies?), and religious texts are among the most influential examples. Cobblet (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Discuss
- To play the Devil's advocate (heh) here, we don't list any other "specific works", whether of art (like the Mona Lisa), literature (like the Iliad or Odyssey), or film (like Citizen Kane), so why should scripture be necessarily exempt from this? My gut feeling is to strongly oppose this like Zelkia, but my gut feeling was also to not add Ukraine. I'm still neutral on this, but I just wanted to point that out for now. Indeed, if we don't list Shakespeare's works since we already list Shakespeare, why not remove the Bible when we list Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Paul the Apostle? Ditto for the Quran and Muhammad, etc. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- If this fails (which is likely), might I suggest adding an East Asian work, most likely the I Ching? I would not be surprised if it were a former entry. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- We do list two specific works of architecture as extremely iconic examples of engineering and the visual arts. We used to list more, but we got rid of them. Cobblet (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough, although those are more physical. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)