Wikipedia talk:Vital articles

General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography Society STEM

Introduction

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

The purpose of this discussion page is to select 1000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles. All Wikipedia editors are welcome to participate. Individual topics are proposed for addition or removal, followed by discussion and !voting. Since the list is currently full, it is recommended that a nomination of a new topic be accompanied by a proposal to remove a lower-priority topic already on the list.

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

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

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

• 15 days ago: 12:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC) ()
• 30 days ago: 12:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• 60 days ago: 12:44, 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)

Add Afghanistan, Switzerland, and Taiwan

Since the bio split, we've had quite a bit more space. In that light, and per the country discussion above, I think there is some consensus to add these three countries. Apologies if this is a trainwreck, but I think there are some points to be had for all of them:

• Afghanistan is the first country in English alphabetical order often considered a crossroads of the world, and given such a position it has had a colorful history and managed to foil foreign-power intrigue from the United Kingdom, Soviet Union, and United States. Also, if we add it we have an unbroken chain of countries stretching from China to Turkey, perhaps the most historically-important region of the globe in human history.
• Switzerland seems a bit odd on this list, but has famously maintained diplomatic neutrality for centuries (Napoleon excepted) in an otherwise-bloody Europe, even through both World Wars; as such, it houses the International Red Cross and many international institutions in Geneva and Zurich. In addition, its highly decentralized canton structure beats even the United States for federalism, also rather special in a world of unitary countries.
• Taiwan is an important power in East Asia and has been involved with power struggles between China, Japan, and European countries. While I originally supported its removal, upon the addition of the similarly-sized Netherlands and further reflection I think it deserves a spot once again.

 – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Weak support Taiwan due to importance and controversial role in international relations as well as global economy (one of Asia's tiger economies).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Addition of countries would make the list only better. --Thi (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Support adding Taiwan If developed but less populous countries like UAE and the Netherlands are good enough for the list, Taiwan must make the cut as well. Cobblet (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
5. Support adding Afghanistan and Taiwan Afghanistan has been nicknamed as the Graveyard of Empires, and used to be a battleground for the Great Game between the British Empire and the Russian Empire. It has a long and colorful history since the days of the Durrani Empire. Taiwan is a rump state of the Republic of China (1912–1949), and represents the legacy of the Chinese Civil War into the 21st century. Both are vital players in Asian history. Dimadick (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose A and S.Afghanistan has been a passive place where big powers fight but hasn't done anything itself, and has no economic importance. Switzerland has no diplomatic importance except as the neutral meeting ground, so passive here as well, and as for their role in the economy, outside some banking aspects, it's not very important either. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
   • You use economy as a reason to add Taiwan but not Switzerland which has a larger economy? Also disingenuous to say that Switzerland's role as the neutral meeting ground isn't important, hosting offices of the UN, WTO, WHO, ILO, etc is rather important on the global stage. Also not to mention other notable aspects of Switzerland such as the Large Hadron Collider, FIFA headquarters, International Red Cross, Nestle, Rolex, etc. As for Afghanistan, I'm not too keen on the idea of adding countries solely for having large populations (Uganda is a good example of a commonly suggested country that falls under this) but Afghanistan definitely has its history and geography on its side here as a complement to its large population, even if you take out the importance in geopolitics that is the conflict of the last few decades, Afghanistan was a key component of the silk road and has been inhabited by civilisations as early as the Indus Valley. Afghanistan is also rather infamous for its unforgiving geography which has been decisive in determining the history of the region for millennia which has earned it the name of the "crossroads of Asia". -- PaleoMatt (talk) 12:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
   • Afghanistan has been a passive place where big powers fight but hasn't done anything itself So has (to an extent) Poland, which we still list.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Procedural oppose. The removal of biographies has now been reverted, for lack of consensus. Therefore any additions need to replace something, unless editors actively want level 3 to be bigger, in which case that should be agreed.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose adding Afghanistan and Switzerland We have no room for any more countries besides Taiwan. Cobblet (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose adding Switzerland Not a vital European state. Per Switzerland during the World Wars, it has mostly served as a refuge place for exiles from various countries. It has had little impact on European conflicts and alliances. The Culture of Switzerland mostly represents a crossroad for the cultures of France, Germany, and Italy, rather than being influential in its own right. Dimadick (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose Changing from support to oppose since biographies have been reverted meaning we have no space. I would support a swap of Israel for Taiwan however, both countries have similar merits but Taiwan is more populous and has a greater economy. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose The list is full. I especially oppose adsition of Switzerland which is beyond me. This is clear Western Europe has been extremally overrepresented after addition of Netherlands. Remember there are more underreresented regions in Europe and other parts of the World, various countries with greater population. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Trimming the biographies – Politicians and leaders

I'm not going to lie, I was somewhat excited when the bios were split for the amount of space it afforded us to focus on other things. Now that that's been undone, however, I still think we should trim them to about 100 or so to get that same effect, if a bit reduced. There have been attempts to make 100-bio lists, such as Thi's list and GuzzyG's list, but neither had formal !votes taken on them. I liked how we trimmed the writers' section fairly well, and would like to do that for every section, starting with politicians and leaders.

This is currently the biggest section, and to be quite frank it probably always will be. I'm going to propose the removals of people who are not on both Thi's or GuzzyG's list, as well as that of Hatshepsut, whose inclusion I'm not particularly convinced on. NOTE TO CLOSER: Just because I am nominating certain removals does not necessarily mean I support them, just that I think they are worthy of discussion. As such, do not consider me to support a nomination unless I explicitly mark a !vote in the "Support" section. Also, in the interests of not flooding this talkpage, please refrain from "bulk-nominating" the other biography sections until this one is complete.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

(Failed) Remove Hatshepsut

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 already have Ramesses II for pharaohs, and Elizabeth I and Catherine the Great for female leaders. If we really needed a female pharaoh we could have Nefertiti or Cleopatra. Although she is on both Thi's and GuzzyG's list, looking at her article I remain unconvinced that she has a legacy of actual deeds that most of the entries on this list, especially Ramesses, don't also have.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Not as necessary as some countries. --Thi (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Support swap with Cleopatra. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Support swap with Cleopatra, the latter is more famous. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
5. Support swap with Cleopatra. Interstellarity (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose I would remove one of Tudor first (for example SWAP Elizabeth I with Queen Victoria). Dawid2009 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose The Pharaohs of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt are better known to the general public than most of the others. Hatshepsut remains one of the better known rulers of the New Kingdom of Egypt. Dimadick (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose, and oppose swap with Cleopatra One woman from antiquity should be listed (we've already removed Sappho), and Cleopatra's significance is already covered by Augustus#War with Antony and Cleopatra. Attaining "unprecedented power for a woman, adopting the full titles and regalia of a pharaoh"[1] is legacy enough. Cobblet (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Strong Oppose Cleopatra overlaps with both Caesar/Augustus already, which is enough. GuzzyG (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

@Dawid2009, Dimadick, Cobblet, and GuzzyG: Would anyone support a swap for Nefertiti instead of Cleopatra? Interstellarity (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Why should we choose a consort instead of a Pharaoh? Nefertiti owes much of her modern fame to the Nefertiti Bust, not to her political activities. Dimadick (talk) 20:08, 5 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.

(Failed) Remove William the Conqueror

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.

---

He is on neither Thi's or GuzzyG's list, which is likely fitting; we already have Elizabeth I and Henry VII for British leaders; one reason he was added in the first place was that he closed the temporal gap between Charlemagne and Genghis Khan, but as this list becomes more exclusive I don't think such temporal gaps matter as much, especially during the so-called "dark ages". While I don't feel particularly strongly about this, and I originally supported his addition, I think Henry VII and Elizabeth I (and maybe Queen Victoria) are adequate to cover British history.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Elizabeth I is more cental cultural figure. --Thi (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Henry VIII and Elizabeth I played much more central roles in European history. The Norman conquest of England is not even mentioned in Britannica's history of Europe. I don't see anyone complaining that we list Caesar and Augustus rather than Lucius Junius Brutus. The Domesday Book is not that exceptional an achievement: we omit plenty of capable administrators of similar or greater repute in Europe (Constantine the Great, Justinian I, Frederick Barbarossa, Casimir the Great) and beyond. Cobblet (talk) 08:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose What is even sense to remove all political figures from UK for cost two overlaped Tudors, who represent relatively very short time and even were not (quite rightly IMHO) on this list before 2020? Clearly it is bogus to say we need more Elizabeth or Henry when we have already Reformation and two Tudors, but we do not list Norman Conquest of England, nor Normans or even England. It should be unthinkable and considered "overkill" to keep two Tudors on this list. Forget to ever touch William until we will not swap tudor(s) for other political figure or whatever. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose I don't see why he should be removed outright, I would prefer a swap. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Every king of England between the late 11th century and the early 18th century claimed descend from William. His Domesday Book is one of the most valuable sources on English economic history. Dimadick (talk) 09:05, 21 August 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.

(Failed) Remove Joan of Arc

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 am personally neutral on this; on one hand she ultimately didn't do much, but on the other she led a frenzied crusade and became a folk hero.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support. Tomorrow or in next few days I will put rationale here. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Support If you want to make room for other topics. --Thi (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Support fairly insignificant historical figure - except to French national sentiment.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I don't see why we should remove her outright similar to what I said about William above. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose She was one of the most important figures of the Hundred Years' War, and the Kingdom of France is underrepresented. Dimadick (talk) 09:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Household-levek of fame, or close enough. More famous that a bunch of kings and such that only us history buffs know. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:03, 27 August 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.

(Failed) Remove Henry VIII

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. Unless we are swapping him with Queen Victoria, I'm afraid I'll have to oppose this despite nominating it. He's one of the most famous/well-known British monarchs, and even outside of his eight wives he was crucial in the development of British constitutional history.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. So strong support One of Two tudor. But honestly I would preferencji SWAP Elizabeth with Queen Victoria. Tomorrow ot in few next days I will keep ratiknale here Dawid2009 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Louis XIV would be better choice since Elizabeth I is already listed. --Thi (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Despite being nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per nom. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Henry was the founder of the English Reformation and his Dissolution of the monasteries largely transformed England and Wales. To quote the main article: "The dissolution of the monasteries in the late 1530s was one of the most revolutionary events in English history. There were nearly 900 religious houses in England, around 260 for monks, 300 for regular canons, 142 nunneries and 183 friaries; some 12,000 people in total, 4,000 monks, 3,000 canons, 3,000 friars and 2,000 nuns." Dimadick (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

In the past some users (at least Aza24 and RReagan007) kept doubts about Elizabeth. By all that mean borg Tudor should Technical have chance/nomination for Remo Val just as Stalin/Lenin Below. If You disagree You can always make nomination with oppose vote as you Didi at Catharine Below. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 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.

(Failed) Remove Akbar

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'm leaning oppose on this but will refrain from making a !vote for now. He seems crucial in medieval Indian history, and while this isn't the best metric he has more than 125 interwikis, so I think he might be a good counterpart to Ashoka.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Tagore was added. --Thi (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Support. It's west-centric, I know, but... Akbar who? Indian history is sadly not very well known, and that is related to vital concepts. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose As long as we ar not reoving one of two Tudors I oppose'l rrmol of every bio listed underground political figures (except Joan of Arc, and Stalin/Lenin where I am neutral, I will explain Tomorrow or in few next days why) . Dawid2009 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Vital importance to that regions history. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC
3. Oppose Akbar was a successful expansionist, and the Mughal Empire was one of the most extensive empires in Asia. He was also a patron of the arts, and created "a library of over 24,000 volumes". I would put him above most world rulers. Dimadick (talk) 09:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose per all.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose per above. Akbar has the 40th highest number of pageviews out of all articles on this list in the last month. Pretty ignorant to say "not very well known". Gizza (talk • voy) 02:36, 17 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.

(Failed) Remove Catherine the Great

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, but I'll still have to oppose this. Unless we are swapping with Peter the Great, I think she represents Tsarist Russia in the era when it went from being European backwater to one of the great powers of the world, stretching from the share of Poland she conquered all the way to the first European colonies in Alaska.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support swap with Peter the Great. This is tough but I think Peter has a longer and more lasting legacy. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Despite being nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose. She is ddfinietly needed. Much more than other Women which ee list. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Typical topic of an encyclopedia, quite reasonable inclusion at this level. --Thi (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Unlike Peter I, Catherine II was a representative of enlightened absolutism. The Russian Enlightenment is largely associated with her political reforms, and manufacturing prospered under her reign. "The upper classes of Russia put more money into manufacturing, which grew during Catherine's reign. The number of enterprises increased from 600 to 700 in 1762 to over 2,000 when her reign ended." Dimadick (talk) 09:19, 21 August 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.

(Lenin removed) Remove one of Vladimir Lenin or Joseph Stalin

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.

---

Thi's list has Stalin while GuzzyG's has Lenin. I have come to agree that having both is redundant, and not in a necessary Caesar/Augustus or Socrates/Plato/Aristotle way. I would personally prefer removing Stalin, as he is covered by Lenin, Hitler, and Mao. That said, Stalin carried out much of the effort in World War II and serves as a foil to Hitler while Lenin was primarily an ideologue, so I won't let the best be the enemy of the good if consensus develops otherwise.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom; prefer removing Stalin but am fine with removing Lenin if that's where consensus lies.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021(UTC)
2. Support removal of Lenin Stalin is the most famous dictator with Hitler and Mao. Lenin is associated with Communism and Soviet Union which are listed. Currently World War II is more popular topic than the First World War. I think Stalin's article should have a little higher priority. --Thi (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Support removal of Lenin. Both are important but there has been a bit of consensus here for a while that one needs to be removed. Lenin brought the revolution but it was Stalin that built Russia into an industrialised nation and won a world war. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Support removal of Lenin Lenin served as head of government of Russia for 7 years (1917-1924). Stalin was the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union for 30 years (1922-1952). Stalin had the lengthier term in power, and probably had more of an impact. As we note in the General Secretary article: "At 30 years 7 months, Stalin was by far the longest-serving General Secretary, serving for almost half of the USSR's entire existence." Dimadick (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
5. Support removal of Lenin In the interests of trimming the biographies, per supporters !votes. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
6. Support removal of Lenin per above. Interstellarity (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
7. Support removal of Lenin with a view of getting down to 100 people articles Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Too important, defining for early communism and so on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Lenin being one of the central figures of 20th century communism and an important symbolic figure within the Soviet Union and Stalin being, well, Stalin, one of the main leaders of the Soviet Union. Roniius^{talk to me} 09:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Both Lenin and Stalin are no doubt vital at this level, since my junior high school world history textbook has both (I'm a Taiwanese!), Maoism is basically the Sinicization of Marxism-Leninism, and Stalin industrialized the USSR substantially (although he did commit atrocities).--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:08, 3 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.

Discussion at WP:VPPR

Please see this discussion at the village pump: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal:_Split_the_biographies_from_the_main_vital_articles. I opened up a discussion there for greater visibility. Interstellarity (talk) 14:58, 27 August 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)

Remove Assyria or Add Babylonia

I don't think it makes sense to list Assyria when we don't list Babylonia. I think that Assyria should either be removed or Babylonia should be added so that both articles are on the same level. I would be opposed to the removal and addition at the same time. Interstellarity (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support removal of Assyria as first choice. Interstellarity (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Support removal of Assyria. Ideally I do agree we should have both or neither and the list is 999 right now so it looks like neither wins out. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Support removal Mesopotamia covers for this, methinks.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Support addition of Babylonia or swap with Hammurabi. --Thi (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
5. Support addition.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
6. Support addition Babylonia was long-lasting and had a major impact in the ancient world. 20:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)
7. Support removal I cannot see any good reason to keep Assyria when we are above the article limit, Mesopotamia is already listed, and we don't list things like New Kingdom of Egypt, Roman Empire, Vedic period, Olmecs, or any period of Ancient China. Cobblet (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
8. Support addition, more famous. Ambivalent on removal. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal Assyria was the greatest of Mesopotamian empires, comparable to ancient Rome and Greece. Study of ancient Mesopotamia is called assyriology. --Thi (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal Assyria was the greatest empire of the first half of the 1st millennium BC, and had a great historical impact. Dimadick (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose addition We have no room. Cobblet (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose addition already covered by Mesopotamia, methinks.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

Swap: remove Lake Victoria, add Uganda

Uganda is the most populous country in the world not currently listed. World's largest lakes are listed, Victoria is the largest lake in Africa.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Support removal per nom; were it not for space I'd rather have the African Great Lakes.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I don't think we should a country simply because it is the next biggest population wise. Uganda doesn't have much else going for it other than this, we already have a lot of representation from East Africa and Uganda doesn't have anything unique enough going for it to warrant it being included alongside Kenya, Tanzania, and Ethiopia. Lake Victoria is the second largest freshwater lake in the world and is important to a large region also being one of the sources of the Nile. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose addition per PaleoMatt. Raw population is not the biggest factor in country inclusion; I'd rather have Taiwan, Afghanistan, Switzerland, and even California before Uganda.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Strong oppose removal No rationale given for removing the second largest freshwater lake in the world and the world's largest freshwater fishery when freshwater resources are already underrepresented on the list to begin with. We agreed not so long ago that listing Lake Victoria was a better choice than the African Great Lakes. Cobblet (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose removal, neutral on addition Lake Victoria has has more of an impact than most modern African countries. Its fishing industry typically feeds the entire region: "At the peak in the early 1990s, 500,000 tonnes (490,000 long tons; 550,000 short tons) of Nile perch were landed annually in Lake Victoria". Uganda is somewhat famous for Idi Amin's brutal despotism, but I doubt if it stands out as a regional power. Dimadick (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose removal per above. Gizza (talk • voy) 02:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Unlike others, I do consider population to be the biggest factor in country inclusion, but it isn't the only consideration. East Africa is relatively well represented with Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania all listed. West Africa, which has only about 10% less people, is represented only by Nigeria. Therefore I would slightly prefer to list Ghana, the second most populous West African country, before a fourth East African country like Uganda. Cobblet (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

With about 31, 1 million people, Ghana is the 47th most populous country in the world. But it has a much better economy than Uganda. The main article notes that it is the "7th largest producer of gold" worldwide, the "2nd largest producer of cocoa globally", that it exports crude oil and natural gas, and that it is the "9th largest production rate of diamonds in the world." According tp List of countries by GDP (nominal), Ghana ranks 72th in the world, while Uganda ranks 95th in the world. 21:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)

Swap: remove Shape, add Two-dimensional space

Top-priority article vs. Low-priority article (in WikiProject Mathematics). Three-dimensional space is already listed at this level.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Support More specific article. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Support removal I think geometry should adequately cover general properties of geometrical objects like size, shape, position/distance, orientation, symmetry, etc. We also list several articles on specific shapes. The article on shape doesn't add very much that isn't already covered by other articles on the list. Cobblet (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support More important Whycantusernamesbe21 (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Per nominator's rationale. Dawid2009 (talk)

Oppose

1. Oppose we already have space at this level, and while shape is more specific, it also has been the subject of deeper inquiry throughout human history.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose addition Unlike for 3D geometry, we already list plenty of topics related to 2D geometry, so a general overview is less necessary. Also, we live in 3D space, not 2D space. Cobblet (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Richard Wagner

Three classical composers and three popular musicians is reasonable number at this level.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
2. In the interests of trimming the biographies, sure.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Support It is not fair to list Wagner if we already have for example Opera over Piano and over 50℅ all Musicians are from German-speaking Countries. Removing Wagner is creating list more diverse on small space of 1000 articles. What other solutions for diversity you do suggest? I feel supporters object because of they experienced in project what actually is small space for 1000 articles but opposers started !vote mainyly per Bandwagon effect Dawid2009 (talk)
4. Support Neither Wagner nor any other composer in the history of classical music is on the same level as Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. Ludicrous to pick a fourth Austro-German composer to represent Western classical music when we deem Dostoyevsky redundant to Tolstoy, Lenin redundant to Stalin, Heisenberg redundant to Bohr, etc. Absurd to argue that removing Wagner "leaves a huge hole" when other areas of the arts like folk music, architecture, and film receive far less representation than the Austro-German tradition of classical music; to say nothing of other fields of human endeavour which are completely unrepresented. Duplicitous to argue that a fourth Austro-German composer of classical music is needed to represent movie and TV music while rejecting Lata Mangeshkar because she happens to be alive. We list a maximum of three political leaders from any one country. Only English-language literature gets four writers. We list only three chemists and three biologists. Yet we need four Austro-German composers? Cobblet (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Support per Cobblet. Interstellarity (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
6. Support Per Cobblet, removing Lenin because of Stalin, capping powerful countries to three leaders, not having Ali with Muhammad, capping religious figures to only 1 or 2 per religion, not covering the religious founders timeline with Zoroaster or important figures like Maimonides, cutting Pythagoras, Sophocles and Sappho cause of Greek overlap, scientific timeline with Francis Bacon, important leaders such as Saladin, Pope Urban II, Hernán Cortés whose names will last longer than Der Ring aspart of world defining important historical events or Emperor Meiji, or that a much better coverage of the fields today would be in Florence Nightingale (women in science/nursing), John D. Rockefeller (oil/capitalism) or Yuri Gagarin (space) - if we must do arts/entertainment - a much better well rounded representative would be to cover Marilyn Monroe, Le Corbusier, Muhammad Ali or in things we do cover Andy Warhol, Marcel Duchamp or Matsuo Bashō and Victor Hugo. It just makes no sense. We nearly removed Socrates (and had him off for ages) due to massive overlap covering the three big Greek philosophers, we don't have Raphael, we removed Alfred Hitchcock and Akira Kurosawa because 4 filmmakers was too much overlap, despite film being more prominent last century than classical music and if Wagner gets on for impacting film music than surely filmmakers themselves would be more important. (we have no sole film composers like John Williams on the 2k list either). How on earth was Goethe nearly removed and talks of removing Kafka but Wagner remains? How can it be any debate to remove every German writer but not the over bloated composers? Seems ludicrous to keep someone on the list because films and comic books were based on one of their works. GuzzyG (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
7. Support - Cobblet is convincing. 4 Austro-German composer is overkill on such a small list of biographies. Gizza (talk • voy) 02:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose no convincing reason given and we already have one less musician than artists and explorers. Wagner effectively covers romantic music, modern classical and to some extent movie, tv and video game music. Since we don't have Verdi, Stravinsky, Debussy, or Schoenberg, so removing Wagner leaves a huge hole. But mainly, I just don't think we need to be removing any musicians right now. Aza24 (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Aza24 -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Aza24 – ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Conditional oppose I support removing Wagner and getting to 100 people, but I cannot conscience removing him while the writer's category remains as crowded as it does. Ideally, an effort to remove Wagner will also involve removing Kafka, Milton, Austen, Tagore, etc. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

   I think the writers' category got as small as it ever will during the trim, which was even more ambitious than what eventually got cut.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

   I think now it is time to try cut English literature. Having five English-language writers (Mary W. is technically listed among writers on the level 4) along with English literature is apart like choosing to list either of UK and England, or either of India and Uttar Pradesh for cost (signnificant) country. Why we do not choose England ahead of Algieria or Netherlands based on "this is English Wikipedia"?. I could also be ok with trimming one German writer. Dawid2009 (talk)

   You're welcome to put your money where your mouth is by proposing the removal of Milton. Cobblet (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

   I did, if you'll recall, propose removing Milton, but it did not pass. Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

5. Oppose Wagner has had a large impact on popular culture. I have enjoyed films and comic books based on Der Ring des Nibelungen. Dimadick (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Fela Kuti (when we get under quota)

JMW suggested this person to add as a non-Western musician. However, because we are over quota, I'm opposed to adding it right now. Once we get a few articles removed, I think this might be a good representative of non-Western music. I think if this passes and we are over quota, we should wait to add it until we are under quota. Interstellarity (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support when we get under quota. Interstellarity (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

#A world musician would be nice, but we are indeed at quota at the moment.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We do not need more musicians than what we have now, and Kuti is not particularly popular on Wikipedia. Again, I sympathize with the desire to include non-Western musicians, but I am opposed to adding articles for purely representative purposes. Zelkia1101 (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

Responding to Zelkia's concern, perhaps Bob Marley is a better choice. Cobblet (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a good choice in my opinion. @John M Wolfson and Zelkia1101: I was hoping to get your thoughts on whether this is a better choice than Kuti. Interstellarity (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Bob Marley would certainly be a better choice than Kuti, but I would still have to oppose. My main contention has always been that we do not need more musicians, and that if we were going to do anything to that part of the list, we should be cutting and not adding. I personally suggest we remove Wagner and Armstrong if it came down to it. I'm not really too bugged by their presence, and I think the musicians list is fine as it stands, but I do not think that adding Marley would at all be an improvement to the Level 3 list. Ideally, there should only be five musicians, though seven is certainly acceptable -- and enough. Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm repeating myself, but I agree that it would be better to cut Wagner without adding any replacement. Cobblet (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I could see adding Marley, but I also agree that we don't really need a non-Western musician, and if we must add a biography (also debatable) I'd rather add a post-1950 figure that isn't pop culture (such as music) or politics/leadership (such as Mandela or Mao), as much as those are probably hard to come by. (I could also see another businessman to not make Henry Ford so lonely, but Rockefeller never seems to make the cut for whatever reason.) I don't think we need to cut Wagner at this time (though I wouldn't oppose), but maybe Armstrong is redundant with the Beatles and Michael Jackson.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

How is Armstrong more redundant to the Beatles and Jackson, than Wagner to Mozart and Beethoven? Cobblet (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I originally withdrew this discussion due to the removal of the people from this level, but since the removal of the vital people got reverted, I take back my withdrawal. Interstellarity (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Trimming the biographies – Religious figures and explorers

Same thing as with the political figures, but to save time I'm merging the religious figures and explorers section.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Remove Abraham

Not on Thi's list. I'm going to have to oppose this, however, given that he is the defining figure and eponym of the Abrahamic religions, whose adherents are I presume at or about the majority of the world's population. Maybe I can support a swap with Abrahamic religions (which admittedly isn't even at level 4), however.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Despite being nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Literally namesake of three of the biggest religions, way too important. -- Maykii (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Moses

Also not on Thi's list. Likewise I'll have to oppose because I feel we need one Jewish figure, and any specific historical rabbis are far too niche/"irrelevant" for this list.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Despite being nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Moses is the central figure of Judaism and is also rather important in Christianity. Maykii (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Paul the Apostle

Not on either list, and the only removal from the religious figures section in GuzzyG's list. I'm neutral on this; on one hand he's arguably redundant to Jesus (a Level 2 biography if there ever was one), but on the other he created Christianity as we know it, firmly separating it from its origins as a Jewish sect and putting it on a centuries-long path to becoming the world's greatest religion.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. I can see why people think he might be redundant but he is such a central figure to the formation of Christianity that I think he is worthy of staying here. Maykii (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Ibn Battuta

Not on either list. His article's opening sentence is essentially a "brag" about his long journeys and how they were longer than those of Marco Polo or Zheng He. Such numbers are indeed impressive, but it kind of shows that he's not as historically significant as those two, both of whom are on both lists. There doesn't appear to be any historical significance beyond "his was the longest journeys before the modern era", and if we're not adding Mount Everest because we don't accept being merely the biggest/oldest/superlative in one category, I don't think we should have Battuta on here either. We already have Jabir ibn Hayyan, Avicenna, and Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi to represent the Islamic Golden Age, so we also aren't losing diversity by chucking Battuta.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Ferdinand Magellan

Not on either list. Even though this was shot down rather recently, I'm moving from opposing this to being neutral. Although he was the one who first circumnavigated the globe, that isn't as impressive as it initially seems because the West has known that the earth is round since antiquity so Magellan's voyage didn't really "prove" anything, and Magellan himself didn't even survive the whole voyage, dying in the Philippines. If we don't include persons simply for doing something the longest or the most, as I advocate for with Battuta, then perhaps we shouldn't include Magellan solely for circumnavigating the globe, although granted at least it's more readily definable than Battuta's dubious "longest pre-modern voyage", so I remain neutral.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Vasco da Gama

On Thi's list but not on GuzzyG's list. He's the "Columbus of the East", perhaps, but we already have Columbus. This is a far more preferable removal to Roald Amundsen, who I'll propose and oppose below, although one can argue that we should have at least one of da Gama and Magellan.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom; I would rather keep Magellan, minding my comments on him above.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Roald Amundsen

On GuzzyG's list but not on Thi's list. I'm going to have to strongly oppose this, however; we need an explorer of the polar regions, the last frontier of mankind excluding space (and maybe oceans), and Amundsen fits the bill more than anyone else.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Despite being nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss