Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Maykii (talk | contribs) at 09:28, 22 September 2021 (→‎Finding a consensus on 100 articles: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconVital Articles
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Vital Articles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of vital articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and work together to increase the quality of Wikipedia's essential articles.Vital ArticlesWikipedia:WikiProject Vital ArticlesTemplate:WikiProject Vital ArticlesVital Articles 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: 14:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC) (Purge)
  • 30 days ago: 14:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • 60 days ago: 14:24, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support
  1. Support removal of Assyria as first choice. Interstellarity (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  3. Support removal Mesopotamia covers for this, methinks.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support addition of Babylonia or swap with Hammurabi. --Thi (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support addition.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  8. Support addition, more famous. Ambivalent on removal. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  3. Oppose addition We have no room. Cobblet (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose addition already covered by Mesopotamia, methinks.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  5. Oppose removal per above. Gizza (talk • voy) 02:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  2. Support More specific article. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  4. Support More important Whycantusernamesbe21 (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  3. Oppose shape is the important concept; the article should be improved and not removed. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  2. In the interests of trimming the biographies, sure.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  5. Support per Cobblet. Interstellarity (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Aza24 -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Aza24 – ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I did, if you'll recall, propose removing Milton, but it did not pass. Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
Discuss

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support
  1. Support Mythical figure, less important than the Book of Genesis which contains tall tales about him. Dimadick (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Mythical figures were not included for example in Zelkia1101's list of biographies. --Thi (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support We've previously removed Zoroastrianism and rejected the addition of Greek mythology. Given that, I don't think it's fair to list two figures from Abrahamic mythology when the Bible is already listed, and no mythological figure from any other culture is listed. FWIW, Abraham gets fewer page views than Zoroastrianism or Krishna. Cobblet (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Might be a radical opinion, but i'm not in favour of mythological figures being listed at all (and definitely not next to real people), as there's way too many competing ones across civilizations, (Yellow Emperor or Gilgamesh for example and there's no reason to prioritise here). Moses, Homer, Jabir ibn Hayyan and Laozi fit this description, but i'm more lax with the latter three. GuzzyG (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support despite his importance to the Abrahamic religion. We should also be removing Laozi Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Despite being nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Literally namesake of three of the biggest religions, way too important. -- Maykii (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. [Dawid2009; see Moses]
  4. Strong oppose Although there is scholarship casting doubt on his historicity and his story contains legendary elements, this is the founding figure of Judaism and the faiths that followed: Christianity and Islam. He is to The Jewish tradition what Jesus is to Christians or Muhammad to Islam. Page views are irrelevant. This is a significant religious figure to multiple religions. I’m surprised this is even being raised as a theoretical exercise. Montanabw(talk) 06:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Support
  1. Support Mythical figure, less important than the Book of Exodus which covers fairy tales about him. Dimadick (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per above. GuzzyG (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support since Jewish tradition is present at this level via Talmud. --Thi (talk) 09:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support despite his importance to the Abrahamic religion. We should also be removing Laozi Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Despite being nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moses is the central figure of Judaism and is also rather important in Christianity. Maykii (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. TLDR Indeed Waste of health and time to bothering about it. IMHO entitres where nominator technically oppose own proposal should be closed as WP:Snow because of what is sense to open disussion where nominator technically is even not neutral by!voting?...What is purpose of such discussion then? Every central figure is just as important, he is central for his religion(s) just as Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha etc. I am opposing every Religious figure being removed per that rationale and my recent comments in the archives. See also Ngram Viewer 14:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
    To answer your question, I'm proposing these discussions because I think they're at least worthy of discussion in the interest of "bulk-reducing" the biographies, even though I myself disagree with it. Saying that such is not neutral is like saying nominating something you support is not neutral.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose if someone suggests a swap for Ten Commandments ... I would still oppose that, but less strongly. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Support
  1. Weak support If some religious figure has to go, of those being proposed on this page, this one could. He is important, but if we have to trim, he’s less significant than Abraham or Moses—or Jesus or Muhammad. That said, My only real argument here is his relative rank. Montanabw(talk) 07:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per above. Three figures for one Christianity (when we don't even have two for Islam) is too much and there's much closer overlap between Paul and Jesus than Martin Luther. GuzzyG (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Three other Christian figures including Thomas Aquinas remain. --Thi (talk) 09:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  2. [Dawid2009; see Moses]
  3. Oppose Much of the New Testament consists of the Pauline epistles, and he has had more of a historical impact than Jesus. Dimadick (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose certainly more important than Aquinas. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Incredibly important figure in the history of religion. He's on my Top 50 list. The New Testament, which he wrote the greatest portion of, is one of the most important texts in the world. Christianity is what it is today because of Paul. How is he less important than Goethe or Twain or Austen or Kafka? Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per nom. Maykii (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yeah. Not top tier historically. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per above. --Thi (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support swap with Mansa Musa. Interstellarity (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support; neutral on a swap with Mansa Musa. We shouldn't have Marco Polo, and shouldn't have Battuta either. All that is known about Ibn Battuta's life comes from the autobiographical information included in the account of his travels should be more than enough to remove a 14th century figure. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support swap with Mansa Musa. Per others users who support that swap. Along with me perhaps there are four users who are ok with that. :1Me 2Cobblet 3JMW 4Iterstellarity and at least Power does not oppose that. Musa is certaintly by far better biography which somehow represent West Africa than Fela Kuti who is suggested in discussion above. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support a niche figure. Mansa Musa is not necessary. Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Significant explorer. Dimadick (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    # Oppose He should be swapped with other biography which somehow represents Islam World or remain on the list. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I could only support a swap with Mansa Musa, who is better known and left a more significant legacy. In terms of page views, Mansa Musa is ahead of Ibn Battuta and even Magellan nowadays. Cobblet (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I could support a swap with Musa, but as said earlier Battuta just doesn't make the cut IMO.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I'm in favour of a cut down to 100, but not if figures like Ibn Battuta, Zheng He, Shen Kuo and Emmy Noether are the first cut, in which i fear they will be. I'd put Battuta over Wagner, Disney, Gödel, Bohr, Magellan, Milton, Amundsen, Weber, Henry VIII and Franklin, who are the real weak links of overlap/more niche figures that we list. GuzzyG (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Noether should be cut, IMO; she's by far the most obscure westerner on the list, and a general view I have on biographies is that if they're not widely known by the end of secondary school in "any culture" (western, etc.) then they don't belong on here. In fairness, though, she's a better placement than Ludwig Wittgenstein, whose work is even more theoretical, niche, and irrelevant to everyday life, would be. That said, at the rate this is going I highly doubt we'll ever reach 100 biographies; 120 is an acceptable compromise, IMO.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 11:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We recently just removed Lenin who had so significant impact for example on Chinese politics... Perhaps Shen Kuo is not biography which we should cut first but I would not hestitate to reduce his priority on the level 4 (if we are in business removing important bios). He has less pageviews than "that niche project or some user pages" and we rejected earlier Cai Lun. I have generally similar definition of vitalness what earlier User:Zelkia1101 said. I also belive English-language writers are weakest bios on the list. We have five English-language writers on the list (if we count Mary W.), after remove any sea explorer we would have the same number of sea explorers what English-language wrtiters... Dawid2009 (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss
Oppose swap

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)[reply]

Support
  1. Initially I opposed this but to be honest, I feel like we don't need as many explorers on the list as we currently have. Magellan didn't even survive his main voyage and we already knew the Earth was round. -- Maykii (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support His achievement of a "circumnavigation" (which of course he did not actually complete) boils down to his discovery of the Strait of Magellan. That's significant, but not enough to put him ahead of Vasco Núñez de Balboa (first European to find the Pacific from the New World) or Andrés de Urdaneta (who actually made trans-Pacific commerce possible). I consider their legacies redundant to Columbus's in the same way the legacies of Bartolomeu Dias and Afonso de Albuquerque are redundant to da Gama's. In the context of Spanish imperialism I'd consider both Hernán Cortés and Bartolomé de las Casas to be far more significant figures; I reserve an adjective like "towering" only for people like the latter. In my view, the fact that Magellan is only mentioned in the context of Oceanian exploration in human history (alongside Abel Tasman and James Cook) weakens his case rather than strengthens it. Do Jadwiga of Poland and Władysław II Jagiełło also have to be included on this list because they appear in that article? Cobblet (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Figures like Hernán Cortés are more important as explorers, more locked into history as a representative of Spanish imperialism and Magellan didn't actually complete his most important achievement. We list Turing, not Charles Babbage. GuzzyG (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support His name is famous, but the actual achievements can be told in the article Age of Discovery. --Thi (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support It's not our job to post obscure geniuses on here (see my comments on Noether in the Battuta section), but nor should we put people who are known for a simple superlative that has no further significance (also see Battuta); we don't have Gagarin or Armstrong on here (rightfully so, IMO), so we shouldn't have Magellan.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per JMW. Interstellarity (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support a famous name, but we have too many explorers, and he didn't even complete the circumnavigation. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Per my comments now in the Archives. He is relevant to the most core articles on Wikipedia like Human history or Pacific Ocean. Magellan and Columbus are the most highly ranked explorers in plenty independet reliable sources [1],[2]. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose One of the towering figures in human history. Dimadick (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose though an unpleasant individual, the circumnavigation that has his name was a significant milestone. Certainly no educated person still believed the world was flat, but the significant thing is that it was accomplished, even if others may have more sophisticated impacts. Montanabw(talk) 07:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per Montanabw. Jusdafax (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Support

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

  1. I honestly don't think we need Magellan or da Gama, both of their discoveries are not as important as others on the list. -- Maykii (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose He opened India to European trade and colonization. Dimadick (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I'd say he is the second most important explorer after Columbus on the list. Remove Cook and Amundsen first. Gizza (talk • voy) 05:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I share DaGizza's view. --Thi (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per DaGizza and my comments in the previous discussion. Cobblet (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Alright, you've convinced me.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose I made a mistake when i took him off, he is important enough. GuzzyG (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Incredibly important figure in world history. He's on my Top 50 list. Much more important than Kafka or Milton. Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss
  1. I support the removal in principle, and made this exact proposal a few months ago (which was rejected). I am procedurally neutral at this time. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support
  1. Support just not as influential as more vital explorers. Gizza (talk • voy) 05:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support He is not culturally influential just as other nominated explorers. He is not typical topic in early primary school. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Many other related to history or polar regions are equally vital. --Thi (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Another controversial take and i support a cut down to 100, but polar exploration is on the same level as space (Gagarin or Armstrong), aviators (Lindbergh,Earhart or the Wright Bros) and the ocean (Jacques Cousteau), Amundsen doesn't have the same cultural profile as a Marco Polo or Columbus to significantly elevating him into the top 100 people of all time. Not when we're missing Emperor Meiji or Saladin founders of important countries today or important historical dynasties. To cut Lenin but keep Amundsen is odd. GuzzyG (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support to make the cut to 100. Interstellarity (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak Support only support if there is consensus that the target is 100 names at this level. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support While I'm sympathetic to the inclusion of a modern explorer, how is Amundsen's legacy more vital than Ibn Battuta's Rihla? Cobblet (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Despite being nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agreed with nom that we need a polar explorer on the list and there is no better pick than Amundsen for that. -- Maykii (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes, agreed as well. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Led the first expedition to make a complete passage of the Northwest Passage, led the first expedition to reach the South Pole, led the first verified trip of any kind to reach the North Pole, and his disappearance made headlines. Probably the most important explorer of the 20th century. Dimadick (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose mostly per Dimidick, but also of note that we have few modern day Scandinavian explorers and in his time not being an Englishman was held against him to some extent, one reason he doesn’t have the publicity that other, less accomplished arctic explorers got…Montanabw(talk) 07:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Finding a consensus on 100 articles

It seems to me that more and more people on this page are trending towards the feeling that we should cut down our biography section to 100 articles. I have been seeing John posting biography articles for deletion in mass. Most of these are, predictably, failing to pass. I think this is because people have not reached a consensus about what articles should be trimmed, are people are judging each article on the merits of its own case rather than on its relative importance to the other articles on the list. For that reason, I thought it may be a good idea to have a place to formally discuss removals before they are nominated so most of us are at least on the same page come time to actually nominate articles up for removal. In addition, discussing removals beforehand allows us to negotiate certain people on and off the list, with the view of achieving some sort of overlapping consensus. You may wish to create subheaders to organize discussion around individual. Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go first. These are the removals I would consider making in order to get to 100:

(Politicians - 5) William the Conqueror, Henry VIII, Akbar, Suleiman the Magnificent, Catherine the Great
(Religious figures - 4) Abraham, Moses, Laozi, Adi Shankara
(Explorers - 1) Ferdinand Magellan and/or Roald Amundsen, ideally we would be adding Neil Armstrong
(Philosophers and social scientists - 3) Ibn Khaldun, Mary Wollstonecraft, Max Weber
(Writers - 6) Murasaki Shikibu, John Milton, Jane Austen, Rabindranath Tagore, Franz Kafka, Mark Twain
(Musicians - 1) Richard Wagner
(Inventors and scientists - 4) Shen Kuo, Jabir ibn Hayyan, Benjamin Franklin, Niels Bohr
(Mathematicians - 1) Emmy Noether

These should all reduce down to 100. Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Such type discussion was closed recently few months ago when Aza24 said that we could make moratorium or be more focussed on improving articles. Now it is more "forum about rankings" or try cut biographies "just to cut". Why reduce to less than 115? I agree with JMW comment in Battuta section that for example 120 would be more reasonable compromise (at least for now given how fastly this list is able to change), given how various are opinions/feelings in that projects (note few years ago some users even suggested larger quota larger than 150). I assume now this will go to the same point what recently but will wait again what others think (one thing which strike me at above proposal is cutting William and Henry as I would prefer swap Elizabeth for Queen Victoria and keep Henry, the rest I kept at my !votes). Cheers Dawid2009 (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't think 100 is feasible if people don't agree on the specific removals themselves, and 115-120 is a more realistic target. As such, any bulk action as you are proposing here would result in a clustermuck and a time sink compared to what I'm doing now. As for any more additions, I would oppose Armstrong and Gagarin as they were "men simply doing their jobs" and the Space Race (which we actively removed a couple of months back) didn't lead to permanent human habitation of space; we'll have to, Sagan willing, wait for Elon Musk to do that and become the only living person on the list. I'd only really support Rockefeller and maybe Mansa Musa.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be completely honest I don't really get why we need to lower the biographies so much other than people are just bored and want to add stuff from other categories. -- Maykii (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles&oldid=1045764127"