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: 11:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC) ()
• 30 days ago: 11:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• 60 days ago: 11:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Cleanup time

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles#Cleanup time. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Red categories

Hey team - a fair number of categories for vital articles have not been created and so appear red on Special:WantedCategories. Can someone from this project take on the task of setting them up? Thanks in advance, UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Swap: Remove William the Conqueror, Add Emperor Meiji

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.

---

We list three English monarchs, one should go and I'm nominating William as I feel like he is the weakest. I'm proposing a swap for Meiji as we do not have any leader of Japan and he is by far the most important. His reign saw Japan go from a collection of basically feudal states to becoming an empire on par with the western powers, leading to Japan becoming an industrial power and one of the most powerful nations in the world with a legacy that continues today. -- Maykii (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Suppport as nom. -- Maykii (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Per nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Henri VIII is the weakest, especially with overlap and the fact we don't cover much early first millennium figures, but i realise Tudor history has alot of TV pop culture backing, so i will support William going as a concession. Either way, the Meiji Restoration is fundamentally more important to Japanese history than WWII. Hirohito may be more famous in the west; but Hideki Tojo was just as involved and that counts against him. (also we removed Churchill for having overlap with Hitler/Stalin and we don't list FDR, there's just too many things that count against Hirohito). GuzzyG (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support while I agree with Guzzy and think that Henry VIII is weaker than William the Conqueror, as a swap this is a massive improvement. Emperor Meiji is the person most responsible for turning Japan into an industrial superpower, and making Japan the first non-Western, non-white developed/first world country. Don't think we need another WWII axis power leader. Hitler is sufficient. Gizza (talk • voy) 11:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Support removal William the Conqueror is a rather marginal historical figure who, while important, is not important enough for this level. Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
6. Support removal per Zelkia1101. --Thi (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
7. Support removal per previous comments. To only cast doubt Meiji's role in achievements under his reign (which, to be fair, is a subject of controversy among historians, although I'm not qualified to comment on how neutral that article is), while unquestioningly reciting William's achievements as if they are solely attributable to him (e.g., conveniently forgetting that even the success of the Norman Conquest owes much to the timing of the Battle of Stamford Bridge), does not make any sense. Cobblet (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
8. Support removal per Zelkia, oppose addition per Zelkia. czar 22:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
9. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong, strong oppose No single rationale given for removal/swap. Especially when we are in business removing biographies and we have reformation over everything related with Normans/England, we even do not list the latte-rurkowcy to. Willism's Impact is very Long. For me Elizabeth I is weakest British politican leader because of this is difficult to argue Elizabeth can be more vital than Henry but too comfortable to argue that Henry is more vital. I can not see sense for that swap especially after removal of Lenin... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawid2009 (talk • contribs)

   Irrespective of everything else; even on a list of 100; do you really think the single most figure of the industrialisation and rise of Japan and the resultant rise of Japan as one of the most important countries on the world stage is not important to cover? Hokusai and Murasaki Shikibu are important cultural reps (and Japan has one of the biggest cultures in the world and is sufficiently represented here); but surely the leader who is most responsible for the rise of the country is just as important to list? From a world sense, three Japanese figures on a list of even 100 is proportionate. Every other country listed in the Great power article has a political leader on this list. (Rome for Italy, although cutting one of the emperors for Giuseppe Garibaldi would be ok on a 100 list aswell); would you really say that in the case of one single person responsible for a country becoming a great power is not enough for this list; why would Japan be the only sole super power we don't cover? Especially considering it's extreme cultural presence today? It would make no sense. We list Milton and Disney but not someone responsible for a great power? GuzzyG (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

   @Maykii and GuzzyG: Actually I could support addition of Emperor Meji purely for diversity reasons (We recently added Mansa Musa for the diversity) but certainly not this version of swap. I could deal to change my !vote from "Oppose per se" to "Support addition" only if someone make counternomination to remove tudor(s), for example swap Elizabeth with Queen Victoria and tenativelly/rmporary cancel removal of William. My (quite) strong contident is that one of the Tudors should go before William. We at this level do not have Constantine the Great who legalised Christianity in Roman Empire so why on the earth we need two political leaders connected to English Reformation? I could be wrong but what I can see Elizabeth is not even mentioned in canonical events according to english-heritage.org. However, in recent discussion User:Aza24 said honestly I'm not really sure how a comparison can even be made., is not that 200% true? Jstor/Ngrams/WorldCat/GoogleScholar/Google Trends etc. all agree with their statement: [1],[2],[3]. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

2. Oppose addition While William the Conqueror is a marginal figure, Meiji is even more so. A better choice would be Hirohito, though not even he is good enough for the list. Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose addition "Emperor Meiji's role in the Restoration, as well as the amount of personal authority and influence he wielded during his reign, remains debatable." History of Japan is more important topic. --Thi (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose it's impossible to imagine a history of England without William the Conqueror, and it's impossible to imagine an English encyclopedia without a history of England. Also opposed to the addition; we need fewer political bios, not more. I would certainly prefer to use the quota to remove History of East Asia and add History of China and History of Japan. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose removal, neutral on addition William has had a large impact due to the successful Norman Conquest, development of an entirely new elite under his rule, his redistribution of land, his Domesday Book being the most comprehensive survey available to historians and economists, and the "formal elimination of slavery" which coincided with his reign. I doubt that Meiji himself can be credited for the innovations of his reign. The Meiji (era) was vital to history. But its driving force was a new oligarchy which was determined to advance huge reforms, and (in the process) eliminated traditional class distinctions. Dimadick (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose No Emperor of Japan is of vital interest to an English-language encyclopedia, especially not over the Norman duke responsible for the creation of England as a polity. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I think we should also consider Hirohito. I think between Meiji and Hirohito, I can't really decide who is more vital between the two. Interstellarity (talk) 23:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

We removed Churchill due to overlap with Hitler and Stalin and this is also the reason we have never added FDR. Too many WWII leaders. The Meiji Restoration is more fundamental to modern Japan than WWII. -- Maykii (talk) 00:17, 25 September 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.

Trimming the biographies – STEM

This will be the penultimate section of trimming unless we want to redo writers. Oddly enough, neither list proposes any changes to the mathematicians section, but I have my own proposal.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

(Passed) Remove Jabir ibn Hayyan

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'm neutral on this; on one hand he's not even definitely historical (though technically neither is Jesus) and much of his work included non-scientific musings, he is representative of the Islamic Golden Age and all it gave us.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support not vital enough for this list Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support There is genuinely not much on this guy and his article talks about alchemy and magic... I've wanted him removed for a while. -- Maykii (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Islamic Golden Age is included and Ibn al-Haytham would be better choice than Jabir ibn Hayyan. --Thi (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per Maykii and Thi czar 22:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose "Most contemporary scholars... agree that the Iliad and the Odyssey were not produced by the same author"; yet that doesn't stop us from listing Homer. Being the "father of Arabic chemistry" is enough reason to be included in a list of 100 vital bios, and the fact that the Jabirian corpus also includes topics outside alchemy/chemistry only makes the case for including him stronger. We don't disqualify Newton either even though he "was not the first of the age of reason, he was the last of the magicians." Cobblet (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Remove Johannes Gutenberg

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 either list. I'll have to oppose this; even if he didn't technically "invent" the printing press, he brought it to widespread adoption throughout Europe with movable type, which kicked off a revolution in its intellectual culture and changed Western history forever; per Stigler's Law, that's what ultimately matters.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support I would rather list the printing press itself. -- Maykii (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support The printing press is more vital. --Thi (talk) 07:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support. Agreed per Thi that the Printing press is the more vital concept, covered in Level 4. czar 22:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support What Stigler's law actually implies is that a person with only a single invention to their name is not all that vital, and that printing press should clearly be listed instead. Cobblet (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Support Per my comments elsewhere and above. GuzzyG (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Despite being nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose - I think out of all the people nominated in this section, this one is least likely to go since he played a pivotal role in getting information to the commoner. Interstellarity (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Strong oppose second only to Newton as the most influential person of the 2nd millennium. World's most influential inventor. Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Per Interstellarity: he played a pivotal role in getting information to the commoner in the West. Maybe I could eventually very weakly support swap Shen Kuo for Cai Lun but let keep Gutenberg on this level, he is far too influntial. I can not see why we need either of printing press and printing, and the latter seems much better option. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose The printing press allowed dissemination of ideas at a much faster pace, helped in modernizing Europe and its colonies, and was likely an underlying cause in both the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. 15:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)
6. Oppose User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
7. Oppose pbp 02:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
8. Oppose The fact that he didn't first invent the movable type printing-press is extremely telling in itself. That is, when he did, its influence was monumental, but his invention specifically was the catalyst. Aza24 (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

(Passed) Remove Benjamin Franklin

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 either list. This is a somewhat reluctant support for me given Franklin's varied life and achievements, but he's more famous/notable for being "the first American" than he is as an actual inventor, and we already have American Revolution and George Washington at this level.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support We don't list stronger figures like Louis XIV so i don't see how he represents enough to make this list; you can't claim polymath status if there's stronger inventors out there (like James Watt) and stronger political leaders out there. Washington is enough for this era. GuzzyG (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Weak support Franklin's a wonder, but he's not supremely vital or influential either as an inventor or as a politician. There are much weaker people on this list that need to be cut (our bloated writers' list), but Franklin can go too.
4. Support per above. -- Maykii (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Louis XIV would be better choice. --Thi (talk) 07:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
6. Support. Level 4 is sufficient, if the concern is Founding Father representation. czar 22:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
7. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose He advanced studies on electricity, created a functioning lightning rod in 1752, and corrected some early misconceptions on the actual properties of the Leyden jar. These alone would make him an influential figure in science. Dimadick (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose You cannot call Wikipedia a serious encyclopedia for the common reader if you remove a Founding Father who is taught to so many in primary school. We ought to avoid preferring obscure but important topics over the middle-of-the-road characters part and parcel of basic education. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Remove Nikola Tesla

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

Support

1. As nom, although I could be convinced that he serves as a "foil" to Edison like Stalin serves as a "foil" to Hitler (not that any of those two pairs have anything else in common).  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support although Tesla complements Edison's article. --Thi (talk) 07:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose much more vital than Kafka, Milton, Austen, Noether, or Chaplin Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Very influential in the field of Physics, well known too. -- Maykii (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
3. 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)

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)

(Removal passed, addition failed) Swap: Remove Niels Bohr, add Max Planck

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.

---

This is proposed by GuzzyG's list, whereas Thi's list has a straight removal. I'm neutral on this; on one hand, Planck actually invented (well, discovered) quantum mechanics, but on the other, as I've said with Gutenberg and Tesla, that invention/discovery is secondary in importance to actually "doing something" about the invention/discovery, and it could certainly be argued the Bohr's work brought Planck's discovery to fruition/maturity with his model of the atom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Support removal of Bohr

1. Support removal No need for him when there's Einstein. He's just fluff. Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Removal per above. -- Maykii (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support removal - I think one 20th century physicist (Einstein) is enough for this level. Interstellarity (talk) 10:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support removal Einstein is needed and I would support the addition of History of physics. --Thi (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Support removal Bohr is not Einstein level and it seems to be consensus to only list one 20th century physicist and obviously that is Albert Einstein. GuzzyG (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
6. per above; we can make due with Einstein alone at this level. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
7. Support removal per above, oppose addition per below. Level 4 is sufficient. czar 22:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
8. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose removal of Bohr

1. Strong Oppose both the removal and the swap. We certainly should have both Bohr and Einstein at this level. Bohr has very high google Trends. He is usually !voted in extremally wide Internet Pools among physicians as Fourth to Maxwell, Einstein and Newton ahead of others. I think he has stronger totop of representative field in natural sciences/Physics than Nietze in philosophy/social sciences who is not going to be removed because of Nietze usually is! voted by specialists about in top 10. We currently are not going to remove Nietze with Score 4-2. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose both the removal and the swap. Bohr's atomic model marks the real beginning of QM as the fundamental explanation for everything that happens at the atomic and subatomic level. Both Planck and Einstein rejected the Copenhagen interpretation developed by Bohr (and his assistant Heisenberg), which the overwhelming majority of physicists today accept, in no small part due to the outcome of the Bohr–Einstein debates. Bohr and Einstein are fully equal in stature as physicists and to suggest one is redundant with the other makes about as much sense as saying Stalin is redundant to Hitler. The rejection of determinism in physics and the rejection of Hilbert's program, both of which forced us to acknowledge the limitations of scientific inquiry, are revolutionary advances in human thought as important as any historical event in the 20th century. To remove Gödel and call Bohr redundant while keeping Amundsen, Socrates, and St. Paul demonstrates an embarrassing lack of and disdain for basic scientific literacy. Cobblet (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
3. oppose removal Bohr is credited as one of the founders of the CERN. Dimadick (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose removal per above. Gizza (talk • voy) 09:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Support addition of Planck

Oppose addition of Planck

1. Oppose addition Planck is very underappreciated, of course, but not vital or seminal enough for the list. Covered by other articles. Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Addittion per above. -- Maykii (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose addition per above. Interstellarity (talk) 10:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose addition Good idea, but probably not really necessary. --Thi (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose addition per my comment above. GuzzyG (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
6. per above; we can make due with Einstein alone at this level. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
7. Dawid2009 (per above User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC))
8. Cobblet (per above User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC))

Discuss

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

Swap: Remove Emmy Noether or Kurt Gödel, add Georg Cantor

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.

---

As I've said above, Noether is the most obscure westerner on the list (uniquely, I didn't know who she was before I found this list), and Gödel is second, being known to the general public mainly for "proving math impossible to complete". I'm willing to relax the "secondary school standard" for mathematics (but not science), and all three of Noether, Gödel, and Cantor are rather grad-school in level. That said, I do think that set theory, Cantor's line of work, is the basis of modern mathematics and his work on real numbers arguably separates math into a "before" and "after", and is more fundamental to overall mathematics than the works of both Noether and Gödel. I fully understand if others disagree, however.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom; I would prefer removing Noether, but if female representation in STEM is that important on the list we could axe Gödel instead.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support removing both Both are obscure, relatively unknown past their fields, and have little relevance to our readership base. I think Noether is a little less relevant than Godel, but they are both not vital enough for this list. Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Removal of both per Zelkia. -- Maykii (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose per previous comments by Blueclaw and Abstractillusions here and my comments [[4]] and in the discussion re Ibn Battuta above. Cantor's contributions to set theory could maybe be argued to be slightly more fundamental to pure mathematics than Noether's contributions to abstract algebra; but Noether also made a fundamental contribution to modern-day theoretical physics in the form of Noether's theorems. The depth of her contributions to both pure and applied math puts her ahead of Cantor IMO. I'd consider Noether more vital than at least half of the ten women on the list. Meanwhile, as others have noted, Gödel's incompleteness theorems are possibly the single most profound contribution to math in the 20th century; I'd also put him ahead of Cantor. I consider both Gödel and Noether easy choices to remain on a list of 100 biographies. Cobblet (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose per Cobblet. GuzzyG (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose addition Cantor is not nearly vital enough for this tier. Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Addition per above. -- Maykii (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Cobblet. Also anecdotally, before encountering this list I was more familiar with Noether than many of the other Western biographies and I'm not a math major, so that argument doesn't resonate with me. Gizza (talk • voy) 08:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose addition History of mathematics is listed and no more mathematicians are needed. --Thi (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
7. Oppose No reasonsble rationale given for the removals Dawid2009 (talk) 08:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
8. Oppose removals Noether has had a large impact on theoretical physics. Gödel was a philosopher in the field of religion, and tried to prove the existence of God through pure logic. They had an impact outside mathematics, something which I am not certain is also true for Cantor. Dimadick (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

If Noether's theorem is so important, we should be listing it and not Noether. The point of an article being vital is that the person himself or herself is vital. Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

As already explained, her legacy is twofold: her eponymous theorem is part and parcel of modern theoretical physics, but separate from that, she was also responsible for systematizing abstract algebra as a major discipline within modern mathematics. Listing her theorem does not capture her vitality any better than listing a painting by Rembrandt or a work by Nietzsche captures theirs. And my previous comments are directed specifically to why we need her biography on the list. Cobblet (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I’m afraid neither of the two achievements you mentioned actually make Noether the person vital. It’s the same deal with Godel. His Incompleteness theorem is a central axiom of mathematical logic, but Gödel the individual is obscure and unknown outside of mathematics departments. Contrast Noether or Gödel with Einstein or Turing and it becomes obvious. Not to belabor the same points, but Noether is not like Neitzche or Rembrandt in that the latter two and their works are not obscure to most of our readers. Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I very strongly doubt the average reader would be able to say anything intelligent concerning Nietzsche or Rembrandt (and even you can't spell the first name). Their names are more famous than Noether's, but I strongly disagree that bare name recognition should count more towards vitality than concrete achievements. I also note that I am not supporting the removal of either Nietzsche or Rembrandt. Cobblet (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

It has little to do with whether the average layman could say “something intelligent” about any of these people and much more to do with whether each individual captures the audience’s interest. Rembrandt and Nietzsche are both far more popular with our users than Noether. And I never, ever said or suggested that name recognition trumps technical achievement, or is more important. Rather that inclusion on this list requires a holistic review that takes into account technical achievement, salience to history, and popular saturation. Someone with exceptional technical achievements who is unknown to readers is not vital, just as an incredibly popular figure whose technical achievements are minimal also is not vital. Both components are necessary. Notice I compared Noether to Einstein and Turing, both of whom, we can easily see, exceed Noether where technical achievement is concerned. I wish people like Noether or Borlaug could be more recognized, but the truth is they aren’t, and it isn’t right to make space for them on the basis of technical achievements alone. Zelkia1101 (talk) 01:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

A truly holistic review must take into account how fewer than 10% of biographies deemed vital are about women, an imbalance more extreme than even the gender gap in the English Wikipedia's editorship, let alone the proportion of women among Wikipedia's readership. I only point out the magnitude of Noether's technical achievements to dispel any notion of tokenism. On achievements alone I already consider her a better choice for the list than Cantor. Cobblet (talk) 16:46, 10 October 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.

Trimming the biographies – Artists

This is the last section I'm planning to do. Sorry to do this so soon after the previous section, but this is short enough that I think it's fine.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Remove Claude Monet

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discuss

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

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

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

Swap with Impressionism

Support swap

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

Oppose swap

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

Discuss

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

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

Remove Vincent van Gogh

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discuss

Remove Walt Disney

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 either list. I'm conflicted on this; on one hand he is the preeminent figure of animation and created such icons as Mickey Mouse, thereby being foundational to corporate pop culture, but on the other hand we already list both the Beatles and Michael Jackson for post-1950 pop culture. If we do remove him we need to merge Charlie Chaplin into the Artists section since "filmmaker" is too specific a category to have its own section with only one person, unlike "businesspeople".  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support the Walt Disney Company is supremely important, and if we had a list of corporations it ought to feature, but Walt himself is not particularly important as a filmmaker or cultural icon. Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support too much overlap with all of Film, History of Film, Animation and Comics listed. Irrespective of the company, the man's biography is not vital enough for this level. Even in business, businesspeople like John D. Rockefeller and J. P. Morgan affected capital at their peak and we don't list them. Nor Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. Ub Iwerks shares alot of co-credit for Disneys stuff too. Alfred Hitchcock and Akira Kurosawa were removed and they have infinitely more influence on actual filmmaking... He's not the second filmmaker you'd choose, or the second businessperson; combining them doesn't make him better; we list Michael Jackson for modern day pop culture. As John mentioned elswhere; there's Winsor McCay and if animation was treated as a serious art and it's influences given proper attention and focus; (and thus McCay was as famous); he'd come out on top too. Someone's importance shouldn't rely on the other figure being not as known. On such a top list; Disney is just not as unanimous and clear a figure as a artist should be like Beethoven or Picasso. His name is spread apart of his business and highly recognisable; but so is Coco Chanel and that never helped her and again - so is J. P. Morgan and ignoring pop culture; any academic study of business would focus more on the namesake of the United States biggest bank than it's biggest company in pop culture presence. (even if you think that's unfortunate). He's no Ford and personally in a biographic sense no Chaplin. Definitely on a 150/200 list, but not on a smaller one. Too much against him. GuzzyG (talk) 02:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Michael Jackson was voted for representative of American popular culture. --Thi (talk) 08:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support. Would support a swap for the company, if speaking to his media property's influence, but that has far less to do with the biography of the man. czar 22:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The Walt Disney Company (under its earlier corporate titles) was indistinguishable in the public's mind from Walt Disney during his life, and its creative process was so tightly centred on Walt that it struggled after his death. The studio was highly innovative in animation, and remains iconic: to this day a certain set of characteristics come to mind when someone says "Disney film" (which resulted in the company creating other studio brands for other types of films that it produced). I can think of other filmmakers who could be considered to be vital to the history of filmmaking, but I can't imagine a history omitting the role of Walt Disney. isaacl (talk) 01:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Disney is the only animator on the list and he is by far the most influential. -- Maykii (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose I would argue that Walt has had a far more global influence than J. P. Morgan or Rockefeller. Disney comics are being published and produced across Europe, in Brazil, and in Egypt. Disney films and characters were cited as influences by Osamu Tezuka and Albert Uderzo. Disney's storyboard technique is still standard in the film industry. What cultural impact can a mere banker have? (I would place Morgan as less vital than the likes of Max Fleischer, Walter Lantz, or William Hanna). 17:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)
4. Conditional oppose As long as we are not removing at least one viual artist I am opposing to remove any filmmaker. I do not see how Disney is more redundant to animation (article listed on Wikipedia:Contents/Overviews than Monet is to Impressionism (article not lited on Wikipedia:Contents/Overviews), and I especially do not see how Monet is more vital to English Wikipedia. Both are milesones in their fields but Disney is more famous in English speaking World. I will change my !vote from "oppose" to "support" IF we are able to reach consus for swap Monet with Impressionism. I do not have now any comment about other filmmakers (Lumierre Brothers, Chaplin, Hitchook, Kurosawa etc.) but just will note Disney is the only filmmaker which have French counterpart. If we would decide remove Disney then I think we should have one filmaker section, do not split it with visual artists. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose see below pbp 03:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

On what planet would the creator of Woody Woodpecker be more important than one of the main driving forces behind American Gilded Age capitalism and whose company (his namesake) has descended into JPMorgan Chase; the largest bank in the US. Which has more global power today, the United States biggest bank or Woody Woodpecker? I'm not gonna even get into the Rockefeller Foundation's impact (hint Norman Borlaug or hard accomplishments like Central Philippine University). I'd like to think funding top international universities has the same cultural impact as some comics published by his company. I see no reason why animators deserve a figure here; sports has more hard impact on culture (football/soccer) and is not covered, i know Wikipedia demographics lean more comics but comics are still a relatively niche thing compared to literature/music/film. It's a massive reach to cite Disney's companies comics for his own importance. By this type of reach you could argue for Ric Flair being listed because he headlined a event of 355k people in North Korea once (Collision in Korea) among many other international things. Why do we need so many 20th century American culture figures, did Disney really have more of a global impact than Franklin D. Roosevelt? It makes no sense to list him when so many other people of his era did more than make comics and especially when in his own time we don't list the leader of the winning side of that centuries (and the US) biggest war. GuzzyG (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, Mickey Mouse is far more iconic than what most other countries create, but I get your point that Rockefeller would be better than Disney.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The logic you are employing disadvantages almost all artists and creatives, since their influence tends to be far less pronounced than that of industrialists, scientists, politicians, etc. JP Morgan is definitely more influential than Disney in the absolute sense, but he is also more influential than Chaplin or Twain, and yet they are on this list and he isn't. Of course, both Disney and Chaplin are much more well-known to popular audiences, and their work, and thus their influence, is much more accessible to a layman, which is why they are both on this list. I'm saying this not to defend Walt per se but to underscore the impracticality of judging vitality on the basis of "influence" alone. Zelkia1101 (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Mickey Mouse is a co-creation with Ub Iwerks (so shared importance for that) and even Mickey Mouse can't compete in global influence as JPMorgan Chase or the oil industry. The biggest bank is more of a globally powerful influence than cartoons and comics. Woody Woodpecker is another thing. If it was a businessperson in Australia i'd agree; but these are figures that signify the rise of the biggest economy today and that has to be more "vital" than a cultural example of that growth. It's all moot anyway; because Franklin D. Roosevelt is infinitely more bigger as a global policy maker in Disneys exact time period and we don't list him so publishing comics is inherently of weaker global influence, so there's no real need for Disney (and there's no argument for a sports figure being listed, despite a bigger international and historic presence for sport than animation, most cultures have a sport like game, not the case for animation, dance arguably is more spread amongst cultures historically too and yet isnt covered). We list 12 artists who have lived in the 20th century (17 every other category combined in the 20th century); it's way too much on a short list and Disney is the weakest. (we already list animation AND comics, that's enough). GuzzyG (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Also if we ignore the main participants in American capitalism's growth (Rockefeller and Morgan) and go for global cultural symbols of American capitalism instead; Mickey Mouse would be up there with McDonald's and Coca-Cola and yet Ray Kroc or Asa Griggs Candler/John Stith Pemberton are not on the 2000 list; we've chosen to list the things over them; so i see no case why even Mickey would result in Disney being on this list. With historical perception in a couple of decades i'd even put Microsoft and Apple Inc. as bigger global changemakers than Disney too and we list neither founders. If he stays; move him to business; because it's not his filmmaking that qualifies him but his business work. (and no film scholar would list Disney second in filmmaking). (also filmmakers should remain a separate category, even with Chaplin). GuzzyG (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Walt Disney is very heavily conflated with his business; it's valid to compare him with business people. (his main artistic work is a co-creation, Snow White is a adaption and many others worked on it). Steve Jobs funding of Pixar, helping it survive is another more important business person involved with changing animation (from traditional animation to computer generated/John Lasseter is not on the level 4 list). Disney is mainly a film producer; as such he is a business man through and through; hence i compare him with business people. Flowers and Trees was the first animated cartoon to win the oscar and Disney was not the animator, just the producer. No; Shakespeare level artists in their own art forms are generally permanent in history; film is inarguably one of the most dominant art forms of the 20th century and Chaplin is it's leading symbol (and he's held this all throughout films prominence). As long as film lasts; he will - that does hold more longevity than being one of the most prominent figures in the rise of American capitalism; because Henry Ford symbolises business better and film will probably hold it's importance for a couple centuries and Chaplin is inextricably linked to it. Disney is stuck; Hayao Miyazaki is more critically well regarded (and in his own article; cited by Glen Keane as a huge influence on the studio since The Rescuers Down Under; the second film into Disneys Disney Renaissance which gave rise to their most important period) and John Lasseter is just as much a game changer (to computer animation). I would personally think that film as a art will last longer than the American economy; so his influence will outlast most American business people. Twain is only number one in American literature and that's clearly more important than any Animator. Animations importance is defined by the fact we only cover 3 on the 2k list (McCay, Miyazaki and Disney). We cover 88 entertainers (and 59 actors), 21 architects and 97 athletes, all major fields, spread globally more than animation with more of a historical base and yet we cover none on this list. It's disproportionate. We cover Animation (over Science fiction) and Comics on this list and that's enough coverage for this art form. If animation is so important to deserve a figure here; than why do we not add more to the level 4 list? We can't correlate Disney with the company; if anything of Disney must be listed it would be the company; but Standard Oil and Microsoft would outrank it; so again - why would the founders of those not be more important? I've never suggested to add Morgan because he is outdone by Rockefeller and there's overlap to the point you'd probably need both (or Carnegie); but Disney shouldn't squeeze in anyway. Chaplin and Twain are more important than Morgan (and Disney); because film and American literature in a normal trajectory should outlast even a American state; which Morgans importance is forever tied to. Disney may define animation and theme parks but they're not on the film/literature level in anything. Superman is just as much a global symbol like Mickey Mouse and yet we cover none of it here. There's nothing in which Walt or something he is involved in does not clash with something else. GuzzyG (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I mean, to be clear, I support removing Walt Disney, and I'm largely in agreement with your argument. My sticking point is that, at least in this case, we shouldn't compare two folks across fields, because the influence of a banker does not look the same as the influence of an animator/director etc. Rockefeller is arguably more influential than Disney, of course, but Disney's products are much more recognizable to an everyday audience. Standard Oil is an artifact of history. The Walt Disney Company is by far the most well-recognized producer of popular entertainment in the 20th century. As for Chaplin, I'm not sure I agree with your characterization that he best represents film as a whole. Chaplin is mainly associated with a period of comic silent films. He typically ranks high in importance, but he usually isn't a top of all time. Figures like Audrey Hepburn or Humphrey Bogart are more typically associated with the pinnacle of cinema than Chaplin, who is more comparable in influence to Harry Houdini. In terms of plaudits, Disney has received the most Academy Awards of all time. What I mean by all of this is that, while I don't think Disney is sufficient for this list, I don't think Chaplin is very sufficient either. Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the arguments being made about the relative importance of other persons. I disagree with minimizing Disney's contributions by saying he just produced the studio's works, though. He was the creative force that shaped and approved everything the company did. (The company didn't require scripts to greenlight animation projects back then; it only worked because Walt would act out the entire storyboard to sell it.) Mickey persisted in popularity long after Iwerks left as the character's whole personality (and originally his voice) was from Walt. (I'm not clear on why you keep mentioning Woody Woodpecker, which isn't a Disney character.) isaacl (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

(Note about Woody Woodpecker reference: This discussion started as a comment to Dimadick's vote and it was moved to this section.) --Thi (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that clarifies matters. isaacl (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

"one of the main driving forces behind American Gilded Age" A short-lived historical era in a single country. Like most of the robber barons of the era, I have never seen any history book even mentioning him. I have seen and read biographies of Walt Disney, watched documentaries on Walt's life and influence, and have seen works about his impact on American cultural imperialism, such as How to Read Donald Duck. How many biographies of Morgan have been published outside the United States? Dimadick (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Mickey Mouse post-50s pop culture? Mickey Mouse debuted in 1927 and Walt only lived a few years beyond the 1950s. Walt is on here for a lot of reasons other than just Mickey Mouse, such as Disneyland and Snow White. I'm late to the Michael Jackson discussion, but I'd have removed MJ before Disney. pbp 03:59, 15 October 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 Finance, Add Accounting

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Neutral

Add Chess

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

Support

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

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

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

Oppose

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

Discuss

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trimming the biographies – Writers

I wasn't originally going to do Writers since we had a similar discussion to this several months ago, but might as well to complete the biographies. After this is all done I'll have a section on possible additions.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@力 and Splitzky: In the past you two were saying that it is unnecesary to list so many writers if level 4 exist for less prenient and more detailed stuff. Do you still believe so? Which number for Blbiographies (perhaps beetwen 100 and 130) would be the most prefelable according to you two? Dawid2009 (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

It was @Splitzky:, 力, and I who advocated for removing so many authors and moving the less vital to level 4. I've taken the liberty to pin (him/her?) on their talk page so they can have a look at these removals, so they may be able to answer your question. I would personally like to see 100 biographies on this level, of which no more than ten are authors of fiction. Hopefully we can at least remove abominable inclusions to this list like Kafka without having to reach 100. Zelkia1101 (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

(Passed) Remove John Milton

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 either list. I'm fairly neutral/conflicted on this and shall refrain from voting for now.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support Painful for me since this guy is a personal hero and his inclusion on this list is because of me. Milton is probably the second most well regarded English language writer, at least in academia. Paradise Lost is a seminal work of English literature. Areopagitica is one of the most important documents in the history of liberalism. But I’m afraid Milton himself just isn’t that diffuse or vital to be on this list. Unfortunately being the second best English-language author just is not enough. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Might be more important critically; but i'll say that both Geoffrey Chaucer and Lord Byron are just as important to English literature; Paradise Lost might be a canon work; but Chaucer is more important chronologically (and The Canterbury Tales arguably just as important); while Milton is covered by Shakespeare and Lord Byron was one of the defining figures of Romanticism and affected culture so much he became his own archtype Byronic hero; Milton's biography has never achieved that. (as shown by Paradise Lost receiving more pageviews at 10,982,339 views [6] compared to Miltons bare 6,157,244 views [7]. Since we can't list all three English language poets, (and Walt Whitman and Edgar Allan Poe just as noteworthy in the US), i can't see listing Milton on a list so small (and western culture figures/artists should atleast have more than 10 mil views imo; say Tagore gets seen as unimportant but he has 22 mil views total [8], with nearly 10 mil more than Milton in English). GuzzyG (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Chaucer, Defoe, Swift or Dickens are equally well known literary figures. --Thi (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support per above. -- Maykii (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Support per comments above and in previous discussions. Cobblet (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
7. Support per above. Gizza (talk • voy) 09:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
8. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Large impact on literature. "The Victorian age witnessed a continuation of Milton's influence, George Eliot and Thomas Hardy being particularly inspired by Milton's poetry and biography. Hostile 20th-century criticism by T. S. Eliot and Ezra Pound did not reduce Milton's stature." Dimadick (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
2. John Milton's literary works are so vital that prior to 2011 every majors in the English department of UCLA must take a course of him, according to Heather Mac Donald's The Diversity Delusion.--RekishiEJ (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

(Passed) Remove Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

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, and I agree with this removal. I know Goethe's a hero in Germany, but for the wider world I struggle to find a reason to really care about him (or even differentiate him from other ~contemporaneous Germans like Schopenhauer or Hegel) compared to the much more distinctive Kafka (who I'll get to later).  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Not so widely read outside German-speaking countries. Cicero represents humanism. --Thi (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support If we don't have room for any modernist writers, we can afford to lose a German intellectual. There are plenty left on the list besides Goethe. Cobblet (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support We overcompensate for Germans in intellectuals and music; we can cut Goethe. GuzzyG (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I think a German writer is warranted for the list, Goethe is more vital than Kafka. -- Maykii (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Goethe's Faust has received numerous adaptations and derivative works, his poem The Sorcerer's Apprentice has a similarly large number of derivative works, and his The Sorrows of Young Werther inspired many copycat suicides. Dimadick (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

# Oppose To remove Goethe for Kafka is like removing Shakespeare for Dickens. It's better we lean towards older figures than newer ones in artists anyway. Goethe has lasted nearly 200 years as his countries most dominant writer; we don't know yet if Kafka will outdo that. (or outlast Goethe in general). Until this happens; we must pick Goethe. (and German writers should not be represented twice over Russian or French either, so one has to go). GuzzyG (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC) 

I am not necessarily opposed to removing Goethe per se, but I won't vote on his removal until I know Kafka is getting the boot as well, since it makes no sense to me that Kafka should remain over the undisputed master of German literature. Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• I am vocally neutral on this one. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:17, 14 October 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.

(Passed) Remove Jane Austen

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 either list. I agree with this removal; for female writers we already have Murasaki and for Englishwomen of the late 18th/early 19th century (and also, arguably, writers) we have Wollstonecraft. We also don't list the Brontë family at this level.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Strong support Austen is great fun but Shakespeare is sufficient for English-language literature. I’m afraid there isn’t anything that distinguishes her from the Dickens or Orwell tier or pushes her up to the Shakespeare tier. Austen is obviously very important as a writer but 16 authors of fiction is too much and Austen is not cross-linguistically diffuse enough to be included. If Dickens was removed, so too should Austen. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support We don't need multiple English writers, Shakespeare is enough. -- Maykii (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support A separate list of 500 biographies could contain all the major writers. --Thi (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support swap with Florence Nightingale. Interstellarity (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
7. Support we have Bill Shakespeare and English literature, that is enough. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
8. Support Fully committed to the idea of one writer per language in the writers section now; which is the best way to cover literature on a list as as small as this. (and we also list Wollstonecraft anyway). Nightingale can be proposed (and is much needed to balance science with social science/writers). GuzzyG (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I am not a fan of her work. But her works have remained popular for about two centuries, and have been receiving academic attention since 1883. Dimadick (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose reducing the number of women biographies on the list to fewer than ten, but considering that another English writer (Mary Wollstonecraft) is listed, I'd support a swap for a woman in a different and unrepresented field, such as Florence Nightingale. Cobblet (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Weak oppose Austen Remains as my Choice for the only woman writer on the list. I would Rather swap Shibiku for Wu Zeniten. I also belive one day this will happen. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Oppose' There should be two writers who represent English on a English encyclopedia and Shakespeare and Austen are good contrasts. (and there's no Janeite equivalent for Mark Twain). GuzzyG (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear what makes Austen a good companion to Shakespeare, or why Shakespeare even needs a companion in the first place. Why not Dickens? His work is much more diffuse and cross-linguistically significant. Why not Agatha Christie, who is the second most best-selling author of all time, after Shakespeare? Hell, to bring up an old example, why not J. R. R. Tolkien, whose work singlehandedly popularized and redefined fantasy literature as we know it? My point is that there is nothing that really distinguishes Austen other than she has a term named after her. If we were going to add a second English-language author, I think Twain would make the most sense, since at least Twain could represent American literature and Shakespeare Commonwealth literature. But I don't think that's good either. By adding an English-language companion to Shakespeare we are insinuating that the author's influence on English literature is comparable to Shakespeare's, and I don't think that's true of anyone. Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The centuries long dominance of pop culture puts her above Christie and Tolkien; Dickens may be as known; but it's obvious that Austen holds up too and we should cover a woman. Austen is on the current Bank of England £10 note; which makes her extremely present in modern day British culture; Dickens is not on currency; which shows who in Britain is seen as more of a better representative. They're close; but Austen edges him. GuzzyG (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Funnily enough, Charles Dickens was on the same tenner note that Austen now occupies. Have a look. I don't know why inclusion on currency is a metric, but that's that. Austen and Dickens are both roughly equal in terms of pageviews, Google trends and Austen only barely edges Dickens out in terms of ngrams. But again, I struggle to see what Austen has that puts her up with Shakespeare? If it's that she's a woman, why does Murasaki not cover that? At least Murasaki represents a different language and a different region of the globe. Austen doesn't particularly cover anything necessary. The novel's supreme representative is Cervantes. Perhaps she represents satire? But then again why not have Swift? Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I will not !vote in that section because of I do not think it is neccesary to remove women from this list without swap even for cost "reducing overrepresentation" but just will note that "apperance on money for short time, for few years" should not be considered as "argument for cultural significance". Atlanic Ocean is named after Greek Mythology subject for centuries but Greek Mythology was denied (instead adding greek mythology, regular candidates are subtopics of Apollo program even though this one does not have WP:primary topic for Apollo, or prove disambiguation against it), Marusaki Shibiku apperaed on Japanese money but this does not seems be very significant. What I can see in Japanese "Google trends for searching encyclopedias and dictionuares", topics related with Greek Mythology are more popular overhemingly than Marusaki Shibiku [9], [10]. However I would not support removal of Marusaki Shibiku either. While I can see how for some strange can be having Shikibu ahead of Twain then I feel we should have at least one yellow woman on this list and Shibiku is one of the best picks for that, perhaps I could support removal of Shibiku if we would have Wu Zeiten on this list who was one of the richest people in history and the only woman emperor in China. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

"the author's influence on English literature is comparable to Shakespeare's, and I don't think that's true of anyone." I find the overestimation of Shakespeare rather annoying. I have enjoyed Macbeth, King Lear, and Richard III (play), but I do not see anything particularly groundbreaking in most of the man's works. I see Bardolatry as quite absurd. He is not as witty as Molière's satires, as inventive as Aristophanes, or as influential as Plautus. And I would consider Pierre Beaumarchais' politically subversive depiction of the aristocracy to have had more of an impact than Shakespeare's tragedies. As for the writers Zelkia1101 mentioned, I would happily place both Christie and Tolkien above Shakespeare in their impact on the reading public. Dimadick (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with whether you like Shakespeare or not. I prefer Milton to Shakespeare. That doesn't really matter though. We are talking about influence, and there quite simply does not exist any writer of literature who has exerted the same magnitude of influence over the English language as Shakespeare. There's a reason bardolatry is a thing, whether you like it or not. Obviously Jane Austen was an incredibly witty, incisive author, but she just is not equal to Shakespeare or Dante or Homer in the realm of influence over literature, and we already have enough novelists in Cervantes, Voltaire, and Tolstoy. Zelkia1101 (talk) 01:34, 3 October 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.

Remove Mark Twain

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

Support

1. Strong support Twain does not really distinguish himself from other canonical American authors like Hemingway or Poe. I understand why people want a rep for American literature but Twain just is not Shakespeare level and is not historically or aesthetically significant enough. Shakespeare is enough for English-language literature and our writers’ category is too bloated. If this were a top 200 list Twain may have a place, but alas we need to be sensible and not have this many authors of fiction when other fields are neglected. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support I can dig a one of each language approach. (except Austen because she represents women and we can't go below 10 total, no way. All languages with one, but English with two would fit the English language encyclopedia focus i guess too). But it's clear that Twain is the dominant American writer, that's not in doubt. [11]. I just think our coverage of Jazz (Armstrong); American pop music (Michael Jackson); Hollywood (Charlie Chaplin) and Rock and Roll (The Beatles) cover American contributions to art and art forms sufficiently. Americans are not as big in Literature and visual arts or classical music so it's fair not to list them here. We don't list Andy Warhol for visual arts. GuzzyG (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support I do not think we have room for single US writer. This country is sufficiently represented by pop culture figures and has shorter history than United Kington. This is almost preposterous we have six articles related with English literature but four (soon maybe 3) related with Greek Philosophy, three related with Hinduism and three related with Second World War. Mark Twain is mentioned in article English Literatue and for ballance I support adding many American Writers to the level 4 which is more toward recentism and is not focussed on things with civilsational impact etc. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per above. -- Maykii (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Kafka would be better example of short story writer. Twain is most famous for his novel Huckleberry Finn and there are many other novels with similar status. Sophocles was removed, although Oedipus the King is called by some as the greatest play ever written. --Thi (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
7. Support we have Bill Shakespeare and English literature, that is enough. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

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

Discuss

Remove Rabindranath Tagore

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discuss

(Passed) Remove Franz Kafka

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 GuzzyG's list. I'll have to oppose this, and I'll have to strongly oppose having Goethe but not Kafka. I'm aware that Goethe is probably the "more objectively famous" German writer, but there's really not much to differentiate him from being just "some German dude" like Hegel or Schopenhauer. Kafka, on the other hand, defined an entire genre of works with his surrealism that gives us the word kafkaesque, and therefore seems to have a much broader global appeal and "wins" by marginal considerations.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support Kafka isn’t even clearly the most important writer of the 20th century, and he is by no means Shakespeare or Goethe level. Having Kafka as one of the top 10 writers just makes so sense, and kicking Goethe out makes much, much less sense. Goethe is the Shakespeare of German literature, as recognized by Germans themselves. Goethe is far, far more important. Kafkaesque is a term but so is Orwellian, and Orwell is a much more well known 20th century author, and yet he isn’t on this list. Kafka adds nothing to this list quite frankly. Modern literature is represented with Tolstoy and Kafka wouldn’t even be my third choice for 20th century author. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Per my Twain vote; one writer for each language except English with two is a good idea. I agree with Zelkia; Goethe is the most dominant in his country (it'd be like removing Shakespeare for Dickens); 20th century literature has not settled on a clear defining figure yet; let's let it settle and see who survives; there's way too many potential writers still. I'd prefer Surrealism; Kafka isn't more important to that movement than Salvador Dalí (who's been removed). There's no way to fit him in. GuzzyG (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Redundant to modernism. Recent discussion about Goethe convinced me that he should be the only German writer on this list. This is of course far better to have two dramatists (Goethe and Shakespeare) than countless number of Englishlanguage writers. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per above. -- Maykii (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Impressionism, expressionism and surrealism should have their own articles at this level, but this is the way you want. --Thi (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
7. Support too recent, and as noted we probably don't have room for both Goethe and Kafka. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Despite being nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Large impact on other writers, particularly dystopian fiction. "Shimon Sandbank, a professor, literary critic, and writer, identifies Kafka as having influenced Jorge Luis Borges, Albert Camus, Eugène Ionesco, J. M. Coetzee and Jean-Paul Sartre. Kafka had a strong influence on Gabriel García Márquez and the novel The Palace of Dreams by Ismail Kadare." ... " Much of the post-Kafka fiction, especially science fiction, follow the themes and precepts of Kafka's universe. This can be seen in the works of authors such as George Orwell and Ray Bradbury." Dimadick (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose His literary vision is utterly unlike that of any other writer on the list, and an understanding of that vision is just as relevant to readers today as reading about Socrates or Abraham, particularly when we already list other Greek philosophers and biblical figures, but list no other literary modernists apart from Kafka. Cobblet (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I don't see why an author having a "large impact" on other writers qualifies them to be on the level 3 list. There are so many authors that have had a "large impact" on others that we simply cannot accommodate. Writers with "large impacts" are supposed to belong on the level 4 list. Obviously authors like Kafka, Twain and Austen are important, but they are not on the same level as Homer or Shakespeare relative to cultural, linguistic or historical importance. You could easily swap Kafka here with Orwell or Hemingway and make the same statements about them. It's a weak defense to say that the criterion for inclusion is that they influenced people when this list is supposed to be the most vital of the most vital. Zelkia1101 (talk) 01:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

"His literary vision is utterly unlike that of any other writer on the list" could be said of so many writers, and yet we don't feel the need to include them on this list. Two German authors is already too much, and Goethe is the supreme representative of German literature. There's no more need for a modern author when we already have Tolstoy. Zelkia1101 (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider Tolstoy a modern writer at all. There is far more overlap between Socrates and Plato than between Tolstoy and Kafka or between Goethe and Kafka. Cobblet (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Why not? Tolstoy is objectively classed with the modern school. He died in the early 20th century. His great works were compiled in the late 19th century. That's modern. Socrates, furthermore, is the founder of Western philosophy, and has broader cultural, social, and academic recognition than Kafka, who fundamentally adds nothing to this list, and whose name could easily be swapped out for any other 20th century authors who are just as famous as he. Furthermore, it is ridiculous to have two German-language authors when we only have one French author and one Russian author, when French and Russian literature are more read by English-language audience. Hell, it's possible after this that there may only be one English author left, so it's ridiculous to me to potentially have two German-language authors and one English-language author on English wikipedia's top authors list. Goethe is the supreme German man of letters, as acknowledged by the Germans themselves, so Kafka is redundant. Zelkia1101 (talk) 11:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

In that case, you're welcome to rewrite the article on literary modernism to include Tolstoy. It's not exactly surprising, and rather irrelevant, that the Germans do not recognize "a specifically Jewish writer" and, per Harold Bloom, "the only modern rival of Sigmund Freud as a dark guide to the spiritual future of any secular Jewish culture", as the supreme German man of letters. What the Germans do recognize is that even though Goethe and Schiller are also obligatory reading in their country, the "one undisputed favourite both on the curricula and among German teachers", according to the Goethe-Institut(!), is Kafka. Even if Austen and Twain are removed, we still have Shakespeare and Wollstonecraft and English literature. This is not and has never been a list of "top authors": this is a list of priorities for Wikipedia editors. We should prioritize working on both articles related to the canon of modern literature (W. H. Auden: "Had one to name the artist who comes nearest to bearing the same kind of relation to our age that Dante, Shakespeare and Goethe bore to theirs, Kafka is the first one would think of") and on articles related to the classical Greco-Roman canon. We should not be excluding one for the other. Cobblet (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The article on literary modernism only mentions Kafka once, in a list among many other authors who are equal to him in stature, so I don't know what you're getting at. Tolstoy represents modern literature. I mean, nobody was suggesting that Kafka is unimportant, rather that he simply does not fit in a list of the top 10 or so most important authors of all time. That Kafka is a Jewish writer is obviously important, but why do we have him when, even as you point out, Bloom describes him as being second to Freud, who is more important, and actually represents something new. Furthermore, it's ridiculous to suggest that Wollstonecraft in any sense represents English literature. It would be like saying that Søren Kierkegaard represents Danish literature. They aren't primarily known as authors of fiction. Kafka is an important writer, but there are other writers of his stature in the 20th century alone, and he has not yet done anything to put himself at the top unfortunately. Zelkia1101 (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately for me, I've only just noticed your comment in a previous discussion referring to the inclusion of Kafka as "abominable." Abominable: "worthy of or causing disgust or hatred." Given that is how you describe your point of view, it was a mistake for me to attempt to engage in a rational discussion in the first place. Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

You may wish to actually read what I had written, because I called Kafka's presence on this list abominable, not Kafka himself. Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure, that's what Cobblet said: your comment in a previous discussion referring to the inclusion of Kakfa isaacl (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Well yes, that's the point. It has nothing to do with Kafka's position as an author and everything to do with the fact that he, Twain, and Austen don't fit on this list. Perhaps abominable was too strong a word, but it wasn't a value judgment on Kafka as a writer Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:07, 13 October 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.

Biographies – Additions and moratorium

Since we've been removing a few biographies, I think we should add a few to compensate for the losses. I also think we should have a moratorium on discussing the relevant biographies for the next six months, as I propose below. Since the trimming is still ongoing, I think it might be appropriate for !voters to cast !votes conditional on how many/what biographies are trimmed.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

(Failed) Add Thales of Miletus or Pythagoras iff Socrates is removed

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.

---

This entire nomination is conditional on Socrates's being removed, and will automatically fail if he is retained. I think if we are going to remove him we should have a pre-Socratic philosopher to compensate. Thales is the "canonical" first Greek philosopher, but Pythagoras was formerly on this list and had more mathematical impact.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom; I'd rather have Pythagoras but Thales is fine as well.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Dawid2009 (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Not top priorities at this level. --Thi (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Strong oppose I oppose listing a third Ancient Greek philosopher after Plato and Aristotle, but if one has to be listed it should be Socrates. Listing Ancient Greek philosophy suffices to cover the rest. Cobblet (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Socrates would be third but we should only have two. (We should have no threes except for the classical music three). (Thales doesnt get the credit like Socrates or have the cultural status of him to be on here... id say yes if he was just as known; to cover the earliest example). GuzzyG (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
5. czar 01:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose if Socrates if removed, we will end up with Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Euclid, Archimedes, Hippocrates, Herodotus and Alexander the Great from Ancient Greece. 8 out of about 120 seems proportionate to their contribution to human civilisation overall. For comparison there are 5 Romans (Caesar, Augustus, Cicero, Virgil and Paul the Apostle). Gizza (talk • voy) 04:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Add James Watt

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discuss

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

(Failed) Add John D. Rockefeller or Andrew Carnegie

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.

---

This is a perennial proposal but I still feel that it should be discussed; I do hate seeing Henry Ford all alone in businesspeople, and Guzzy did keep bringing Rockefeller et al. up; indeed, if I were the "king" of the list, I would add Rockefeller, Taiwan, and California. Rockefeller and Carnegie are some of the richest men in history and defined American capitalism; more importantly, unlike Mansa Musa or Crassus, they were able to accrue their wealth without being political leaders. One could argue that Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk has rendered their legacies obsolete, but not only are they too recent, but their philanthropic activities are also yet unclear; Carnegie had his Carnegie libraries, and Rockefeller not only started a political dynasty but created what he considered to be his greatest achievement, my alma mater the University of Chicago.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom; as in earlier discussions, I'd rather have Rockefeller but won't let the best be the enemy of the good.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose country specific. Not any more vital than misssed father of industrial Revolution (James Watt). Dawid2009 (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose Entirely unnecessary given the consensus that we should be aiming to reduce the number of biographies. We list Edison as an inventor but he could just as easily have been listed as a businessperson alongside Ford. How does it make sense that Lenin can be deemed redundant to other people on the list, but not Rockefeller or Carnegie? Cobblet (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose There is no need to overemphasize the American businessmen. --Thi (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose I'd support Rockefeller on a 150 list (and this one if i was king too because i think business had just as much impact last century as film and should be covered as much; although that's likely a waiting game for Bill Gates or Steve Jobs to be seen as historical figures). But as of now? We've agreed to cut down; so he does not fit. I was just using him as a example against Disney; cause Disney is on here for his business and he does not compare to Rockefeller; but arguably none should be listed as of now. I agree with Cobblet; Edison/Ford/Rockefeller is too much overlap if we cut Lenin for overlap. GuzzyG (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Per above czar 01:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Add Frank Lloyd Wright or Le Corbusier

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

Support

1. Conditional support if we get down to under 120 biographies without it As nom; I'm biased towards FLW, but I'm fine with either.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. -- Maykii (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

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

Discuss

(Failed) Add Neil Armstrong or Yuri Gagarin

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.

---

This has been discussed before, but I still feel that I should oppose it even though I work in the space industry. I nevertheless think it should be brought to a vote.

I oppose this addition for these reasons:

• Armstrong and Gagarin were simply "men doing their jobs"; they were hired/recruited for the position and had little to any creative control over their respective missions. For Armstrong specifically, it was JFK who decided to go to the Moon and NASA in charge of the Apollo and preceding Gemini missions; we don't list either JFK or NASA, but I might support adding NASA. In general, astronauts and cosmonauts are akin to military servicemembers, whom we don't list – indeed, we don't even list Eisenhower for World War II, much less Audie Murphy. This relationship is also a large part of why we don't list sports figures such as Babe Ruth or Don Bradman, and I'd rather add those. While the explorers of the Discovery Age did usually serve monarchs, they did so in a relationship more akin to a contractor rather than an employee, and retained most if not all creative control and impetus for their exploration.
• Even ignoring this, the Space Race itself ended up having no further significance that other parts of the Cold War didn't have, and we actively removed it a while back. After Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins, people did go back to the Moon for a couple of years, but human lunar adventures didn't survive the Nixon years. We just went back to Earth, had the Space Shuttle and space stations (cool in their own right, but nowhere near level 3), and are just now, after 50 years, starting to ramp up super-orbital space exploration again. While I have full confidence that there will be people who spend the entirety of their lives never having visited Earth by the end of the century, it won't have been the Space Race that did that, but rather Musk, Bezos, or some other figure that is currently or will soon be active; maybe one of them will be the only living person on this list, but who knows.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Despite being nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Strong oppose per comments in previous discussions. Cobblet (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Space race is more important. First Moon landing was a special event in human history. --Thi (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose Not after the cuts we've had; although i do think as a symbol of human accomplishment these two will continue to last more. The "employee" thing be damned; (Although with astronauts it's understandable; but athletes or actors less so). GuzzyG (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
6. czar 01:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Moratorium: No more discussion of the relevant biographies, or bulk removing biographies, for the next six months

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 think it's clear at this point that we're not getting to 100 biographies, and this exercise, while stimulating, has been a timesink for the project. Therefore, I proposed that any biographical article that has been discussed between the beginning of September and now (including the ones in this section, Thales through Gagarin), not be discussed again through the end of April, 2022. Nor shall any talk of "bulk nominations", whether removals or additions, be had in that time. Other biographical articles, whether currently on this list or as a proposed addition, are exempt from this.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Though would like reconsinsider Addiction of more Women on pair with wikiproject Women in red Dawid2009 (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

   In fairness, adding more people (except for these ones) would be exempt from the moratorium.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

3. Support We've talked a lot about bios this year. Time to talk about something else. Cobblet (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Biographies on this page are worn out largely. GuzzyG (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support there isn't consensus to cut to 100 biographies, and there wouldn't be consensus on how to do it even if there was. I haven't checked, but most (if not all) the borderline cases have a recent discussion. Strong support for a six-month moratorium on bulk nominations. Very weak support for "recently discussed"; if people like that idea we should make it a permanent rule and compile a page that links "most recent discussion(s)" for articles. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Support though I think proposed swaps where the removal on its own was discussed and the addition is new should be allowed, because the proposal as a whole is different. Gizza (talk • voy) 03:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
7. Support.... please..... Aza24 (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
8. Support per above. -- Maykii (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I think moratoria like these are arbitrary and undemocratic. If someone proposes to remove a biography article, you can just ignore them, but there is no point, in my eyes, to stifling discussion on what is obviously a hotbed area of contention. Zelkia1101 (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I also was wondering does it would be worhible to make Rule that the same person can not make more than 10 nominations per week or 30 per month. List should be diverse product of consensus. Addition of Taiwan also now seems be more WP:forum and Horse death if was recently failed due to small population. Dawid2009 (talk)

The proposal to add Taiwan stood at 5–3; we've previously left open 5–3 discussions for as long as 365 days before closing them. Closing the discussion was not against the rules we've established, and I understand the need to close proposals more quickly when the talk page gets long. But it still isn't our standard practice to close any discussion that has a realistic chance of passing at the first possible opportunity. So I don't have a problem with that particular proposal being reopened.

I agree with you that it's not very fair for John to expect the rest of the community to discuss a massive number of proposals of his choosing all at the same time. But he's not the first person to do that here, he contributes in good faith to the discussions he starts, and I think dialogue is a better way to deal with procedural issues than making more rules. I interpret this proposal as John's promise not to bring up the same biography removals again for six months. Cobblet (talk) 04:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

In fairness, with the biographies I was simply generalizing a process that had been started by others (with the Writers), and while I did exercise some editorial discretion (Hatshepsut and Noether/Godel) I was mainly relying on Thi's and GuzzyG's list and didn't even support many of the removals. I do agree to drop my part of the stick assuming others involved with this biography hubbub do the same; I'm personally sick of bios at this point myself.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 11:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, no problem, I admit/agree 👍(I could support daGizza proposal to swaps be allowed but only in the case if woman is at entry. For example I can not see why proposal to swap Joanna of Arc with Coco Channel would have to be not allowed. After Six months I would be ok to New bulk of removals at all. It is good time to mostly take breath from biographies) Dawid2009 (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I've been off VA for a bit: could somebody remind me again why the obsession with 100 biographies? Maybe point me to the discussion where it was agreed on? pbp 04:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The point is that a reduction to 100 biographies was discussed and found to not have consensus. Several editors (myself included) have commented that 100 is a nice round number, and it would be nice to have more quota for other types of articles. Other editors think that approximately all the 120 biographies we have are vital. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:19, 15 October 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.

Add Space race

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

Support

1. Strong support as nom Dawid2009 (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support One of the greatest explorations in history. It gave us Earthrise and The Blue Marble. Space settlement is secondary. "We set out to explore the moon and instead discovered the Earth." [13] --Thi (talk) 11:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Strong support extremely important event in human history. Planting humans on the moon is likely the single most impressive technological achievement yet accomplished. A feat that children are likely to learn about for centuries in the future. Much more important for an encyclopedia than Impressionism, nursing, Twain or Kafka. Zelkia1101 (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per above. -- Maykii (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

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

Discuss

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

Add Molière

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.

---

Hi, I expected to find Molière in the list of core biographies, as one of the greatest writers in the French language and world literature. French is often referred as "the language of Molière". Regards, Yann (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose We already list Voltaire, and Shakespeare is far more influential in drama.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose abovesaid. --Thi (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose too many writers! Perhaps could reconsider swap with Tagore if there was consensus to move Voltaire to philosophers. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose per above. -- Maykii (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose Nuch lesss famous than most vital folks. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose The only way this would work is moving Voltaire to the social scientists section and adding Moliere. But the list is already disproportionate as is, we don't need anymore writers or intellectuals. (social scientists being listed more than scientists + Voltaire hidden in writers, despite covering close to 100 more scientists on the level 4 list...). . GuzzyG (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

   I think it's because whereas science has quite a few "good" (level-4) contributors it has a relative paucity of truly "great" (level-3) contributors, being that everyone's on each other's shoulders, etc., compared to the more individualistic advancements of writers and philosophers. It might also be that "modern" science dates only to the past half-millennium whereas writing dates all the way to the Fertile Crescent and philosophy to Greece.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Isn't there a language bias here? In the French speaking word, Molière is much more influential that Shakespeare in drama. Voltaire is known for his contributions to philosophy, not to language. And again, in French speaking areas, Molière and Voltaire are equality famous. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Molière might well be so known inside France, but is virtually unknown outside of it unlike Voltaire; Shakespeare is renowned both in and out of the Anglosphere, and is thus more global. This isn't even getting into the Anglocentric bias that is to be somewhat expected on the English Wikipedia.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I can't support a cold addition. A swap with Voltaire may be justifiable, but not likely to garner my support. Molière enjoys greater fame as a wordsmith and literary figure in the Francophonie than does Voltaire. The French often call their language la langue de Molière, or "the language of Molière," so Molière certainly isn't a lightweight. But I'm just afraid that John has a point; Voltaire has far greater international appeal, cultural salience, and historical importance than does Molière, though Molière may be the superior man of letters. That having been said, I want to make it clear that I view Molière as a respectable contender for this list, and I think he'd be a much better addition than Austen, Twain, or Kafka. Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:56, 12 October 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.

Add Taiwan

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

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Not only the Netherlands and Israel but also the United Arab Emirates is another economically advanced country that is listed and has a significantly smaller population than Taiwan. Taiwan's economy is nearly twice as large as Israel's or the UAE's in nominal-GDP terms and is also nearly 40% larger than the Netherlands' in PPP-adjusted terms. If we are keeping all three of the other countries, it makes no sense not to list Taiwan. It is no exaggeration to say the world depends on Taiwan for semiconductors; Taiwan counts Ang Lee, Teresa Teng, and the National Palace Museum (the most significant museum collection in the Sinosphere) among its cultural capital; and Taiwan is the most acute geopolitical flashpoint in Chinese–US relations. China's campaign against recognition of Taiwan has even affected Wikimedia's participation in UN agencies. Cobblet (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Per Cobblet. Taiwan is a fundamental part of today's landscape and not even the smallest encyclopedia would miss it today. GuzzyG (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support addition of Taiwan, Iraq and Ukraine. --Thi (talk) 08:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support addition of Taiwan based on GDP, importance to the semiconductor industry (and subsequently numerous other industries, see 2020–2021 global chip shortage and [14]), and geopolitical significance. INDT (talk) 08:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Support Removing this was a mistake I will admit. -- Maykii (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
7. Weak support. Important in geopolitics, but to some degree I think this is a temporary 'vitality'. If China would be united again it would soon lose its importance, and historical one is quite 'recentist'. In a 1000 years it will likely be forgotten just as some older Chinese splinter entities. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
8. Weak support Important for contemporaneous geopolitical developments, and a economic powerhouse, but I'm not quite sure it's on the same level as the United Kingdom, France, or Japan as the top whatever most important states. Zelkia1101 (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
9. Support per the nom's comparison with Netherlands and Israel (and UAE). It is an interesting question whether this article would be listed if the KMT acceded to PRC government in 1954, but I am not going to use my crystal ball for that. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Oppose

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

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

   leaving only several "middling" countries with fewer than 50 million people (Uganda, the biggest, has 42 million, not significantly larger than Canada). I do not care what population has Canada, this is irrelevant (North America deserve representation in "human geography" if we list so plenty object related with physical geography for that region). I care about fact that Netherlands has 17 mln population, meanwhile Uganda 42 mln. This is very relevent not due to fat that Uganda has almost triple more population and far more promient growth of population but this is relevant just due to fact that Netherlands already represent overrepresented region and is shadowed by other western countries there! (FAQ says about diversity, and Netherlands is more comparable to Belgium which is lsited on the level 4 than to Italy/Spain, this addition was opening pandorra box, do we will add Belgium next and Portugal next? yet over Ukraine?). We should firstly add at least Ukraine before start discuss to add whatever from Western Europe. Israel and Saudi Arabia are the only two exception where I am able completly ignore popiulation factor regardless do we want more countries or bit less. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Seoul

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

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

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

Discuss

Add Sundial

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discussion

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

Add Plough

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

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

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

Discuss

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

Add Beef, Lamb and mutton, Pork, and Poultry

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discuss

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

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

Add Sand and Cement

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discuss

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

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

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

Add Chicken and Sheep

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

Support

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

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add Insurance

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

Support

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

Oppose

Discuss

Add Nobel prize

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

Support

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

Oppose

1. Oppose Ok for level 4 but really terrible addition for the level 3. Far too specific. Previosly removed with extreme consensus. I feel this is nominated purely to something "add to add" when we are well under quta. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Dawid. If this was really that important, than one would expect other prestigious prizes like the Fields Medal or Lasker Award to be on level 4. Cobblet (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Arabic alphabet, Brahmic scripts and Cyrillic script

These are probably covered by language articles.

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discuss

Good News

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

Merging levels 1 and 2 talk into this talkpage

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

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add Domestic pig

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

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. I was going to propose this alongside chicken and sheep but I thought that might be too much. Pigs are just as important as other livestock though. -- Maykii (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss