User:J947/sandbox/8

Continuing off User:J947/sandbox/3.

Contents

People

About Chiune Sugihara

I don't advocate for removing it, but it should be put in the politicians subpage instead since he is widely known as a Japanese diplomat rather than an activist and the English Wikipedia page does not regard him an activist at all.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Since no one objected, I've moved the person from the activist subpage to the politician one.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Remove Grigori Rasputin from list of religious figures

Grigori Rasputin is very controversial figure. Of course he has to be in list of 50000 and 10000 articles. But he is not religious figure – he held no official position in the Russian Orthodox Church, there are no religious works from him. It is not correct take religious charlatan near other figures which are well known in christianity. --Ibidem (talk) 12:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that he doesn't belong in religious figures. Maybe the miscellaneous section is an option, in subsection paranormal or others. The article describes him as a "society figure", we have a subsection socialite, but the term socialite is tied to aristocratic or from a wealthy background - Rasputin was neither. Maybe we should introduce a section "society figure".

On the other hand, Rasputin was most noted for his political influence, so he might belong on the list of political figures. --Spaced about (talk) 15:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that it is possible to move it in one of that sections. In empty place in the list of religious figures possible add one of this persons (Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow, John of Kronstadt, Luka (Voyno-Yasenetsky)). There are so many prominent people from orthodox christianity persons which are not in list, that it was strange for me to see among them Rasputin, which is for sure not religious figure. Politicial influence charlatan, medium etc. maybe, but not religious figure. --Ibidem (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

He's a mystic and "Mysticism is the practice of religious ecstasies" so no, he belongs in religious figures, just like every other person listed in the category of 20th-century Christian mystics. Anything else is subjective opinion. GuzzyG (talk) 12:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Then move it to others or some new-age from orthodox christianity. Here we have a big mistake (it will be equal if you will take for example Salman Rushdie in Islam, because he is also mystic), which is need to be corrected. --Ibidem (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I moved him to "others". --Spaced about (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Accepted. I`m ready with russian analogue of list Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Religious figures. It will be helpful. Thank you for your work. --Ibidem (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Religious figure, but not for any orthodoxy. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Entertainers

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters#Entertainers for the list of topics in this category.

Actor quotas

In the arhives TRM pointed that there are too few actors from Asia. I also noted that @Philburmc: suggested addition of Michel Bouquet to the level 4 but he is not even on the level 5. Do you guys have any comment here? I personally do not but I am not sure at least why ballance beetwen Asia/West is other among men and women? Dawid2009 (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

This is true; as i have done with the music section; i will be going through the actors and correcting this. Bouquet is just not notable enough for this list. Because i did the majority of the women while the men had a massive dump of European actors particularly Russian at the start. Just stay with me on this one; im working on it. GuzzyG (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Actors

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters#Actors for the list of topics in this category.

Actresses

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters#Actresses for the list of topics in this category.

Directors, producers, showrunners and screenwriters

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters#Directors, producers, showrunners and screenwriters for the list of topics in this category.

Dancers and choreographers

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters#Dance for the list of topics in this category.

Comedians

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters#Comedians for the list of topics in this category.

Television hosts and personalities

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters#Television hosts and personalities for the list of topics in this category.

Other entertainment and fields

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters#Other entertainment and fields for the list of topics in this category.

Sports entertainment/amusement park people section in entertainers, temp test

I've listed sports entertainers (pro wrestlers, olden roller derby, monster truck driving, Meadowlark Lemon) in the "other entertainment" section by cutting the models, magicians and radio/podcasts section down by ten each and the adult/other sections by five each. I strongly believe these figures should be listed here; we're a encyclopedia and we should go by established ways to label things, "Professional wrestling (often shortened to pro wrestling or simply wrestling) is a form of performance art[1][2][3][4][5] and entertainment[6][7] that combines athletics with theatrical performance." is how professional wrestling is described in the first sentence; we shouldn't differ from our main article; it's a form of entertainment and thus it's performers are entertainers and not traditional athletes like traditional wrestlers; the leading company describes themselves as sports entertainers and as entertainment; it's weird to list WWE; which is described on it's article as a "American integrated media and entertainment company" as a sports league which we do aswell. People like Jerry Lawler are being listed in commentators when they're playing a entertainment role; if we list wrestlers here; we can include everyone connected to wrestling in this one section; as they're all involved in the entertainment. We list P. T. Barnum here in circus so it won't conflict if we list a person like Vince McMahon either. We're low on actual combat sport athletes and boxing with missing people like Oscar De La Hoya too; which correcting this will fix. It's established that pro wrestling is entertainment and thus wrestlers are entertainers and we shouldn't change that. The point of these fields is to entertain; not to win and that's the difference and why they should be listed apart from traditional sports.

I also created a 10 person "Amusement parks people" section; since it's better than some being under "other artists" and under "inventors"; they'll all be in one place; they may be involved in the business of entertainment and not entertainers themselves but we list Barnum under circus and it's the same thing.

I've done the edit, so people can see how it looks; but i haven't removed them from the sports page / the amusement park people on their listed pages; does anyone have any strong objections to these two fields being listed here and just going back to the status quo? GuzzyG (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I definitely favor listing these kinds of "sports entertainers" under entertainment rather than sports. Orser67 (talk) 04:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Voice actor bias

This section is biased. Of the 30 people there, 28 are English-language and 2 are Japanese-language. There aren't even any predominantly-anime dub voice actors nor even those based in Texas where Funimation is. Thoughts? I'm informing WT:ANIME. ミラP 21:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• Limit English-language VAs to 20
• Increase Japanese-language VAs to 8
• For Spanish-language VAs: add Rogelio Hernandez. No article on enwiki yet, but Alasdair Fotheringham acknowledged his voice as "indistinguishable from those of some of Hollywood's greatest stars"
• Italian voice acting is the biggest of its kind if you don't count English and Japanese, so add one Italian-language VA: either Alberto Sordi because he is the best Italian voice actor, or Francesco Pannofino

Mitsuo Iwata, maybe? Yūki Kaji? Hyperbolick (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hyperbolick: I'm also considering Miyuki Sawashiro, Nana Mizuki and Rica Matsumoto ミラP 23:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

All good. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree these are good adds, i always wanted to add some Japanese voice actors but didn't have the expertise, the section was filled by someone else before i could. I'd support cuts except the full simpsons cast since we list that at level 4. These are all good adds. Alberto Sordi is already listed under film actors. GuzzyG (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: Okay, for Italians we'll go with Francesco Pannofino. But I'm not sure we should cut all of the non-Simpsons VAs since some of them primarily do work for level 4 content like Looney Tunes, Mickey Mouse, and Mario. We should go case-by-case first and take this section into account. ミラP 20:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Urk, probematic section in general. Ouside very niche fandoms, people can't name them. Unlike actors, many people don't even know voice acting is a profession. I know V5 has room, but in all honesty I am not convinced any voice actors should qualify here. In the end, when we max 'actor' category, I bet we can find an example of a more impactful (notable, whatever) but not included actor for any voice actor we compare him or her with that is still present here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Let's see here, Japan has 126 million people and the US 327 million; and anime makes a lot of money and is taken more seriously in Japan more than cartoons are in the USA. Does that change anything? ミラP 02:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Miraclepine: Case by case basis. I know some voice actors are minor celebrities, the question is, are even the biggest VA celebrities more 'vital' than the Top x,000 actors we have room for? Right now me may have room for some, but once we hit our max items, I think they may have a tough time defending themselves. Through a few may survive. Again, I think this is not really an issue until we are out of room for new actors, the the 'vital mortal combat' will begin :) PS. For the record, I do think the current proportion are unfair to Japanese VAs. PPS. The ones which will IMHO survive are the ones which are also celebrities due to other reasons (idols, singers, in general). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

First proposal

@Hyperbolick, GuzzyG, and Piotrus: My proposal for the 20 English-language VAs is up and ready. ミラP 04:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Nancy Cartwright or Dan Castellaneta, Simpsons VA. Cut Hank Azaria, Julie Kavner, and Yeardley Smith, all three whose VA credits are confined to the show compared to their live action work.
• Keep June Foray as representative of female cartoon VAs of the mid-20th century, and keep Jennifer Hale and Christine Cavanaugh for their extreme proficiency (Jennifer for the Guinness record, and Christine for topping some Mentalfloss list). Cut E. G. Daily who, while #2 on the Mentalfloss list, has an article that downplays her VA work in comparison to her obscure music work.
• Keep Don Pardo, Milton Cross and Peter Thomas.
• Keep Jim Dale as the representative of audiobook narrators.
• Keep Vic Mignogna as the representative of anime dub voice actors and actresses.
• Keep only Charles Martinet as the only one to voice a Vital-4 video game character. Cut Troy Baker and David Hayter.
• Keep Don LaFontaine as the voice of a thousand film trailers.
• Keep Mel Blanc, Don Messick, and Frank Welker.
• Keep Jim Cummings who voices Vital-4 Winnie the Pooh.
• Keep John DiMaggio, Rob Paulsen, Tara Strong, and Billy West as representative of the newest generation of cartoon voice actors. Cut Tom Kenny as being more confined to a Vital-5 show (SpongeBob) than having a resume variety comparable to the three. Cut modern-day Phil LaMarr as not as prominent as the four. I might consider swapping John or Rob for Grey DeLisle, who's had an extensive VA career and also to reflect gender equality. This list's male:female ratio is 3:1, but an analysis for the US and Canada categories gave a 1.7:1 ratio.

1. Mel Blanc
2. Nancy Cartwright
3. Dan Castellaneta
4. Christine Cavanaugh
5. Milton Cross
6. Jim Cummings
7. Jim Dale
8. John DiMaggio
9. June Foray
10. Jennifer Hale
11. Don LaFontaine
12. Charles Martinet
13. Don Messick
14. Vic Mignogna
15. Don Pardo
16. Rob Paulsen
17. Tara Strong
18. Peter Thomas
19. Frank Welker
20. Billy West

I'd prefer all Simpsons cast to be kept, as that's the ultimate example of a American animated work, but i completely support all the rest. GuzzyG (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: I cut some of the Simpsons VAs became some of them are not as vital as the others. Marge and Lisa’s VAs have less variety in notability than Homet and Bart’s VAs, while Hank Azeris doesn’t voice anyone in the Simpsons family. ミラP 06:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Miraclepine: It's no issue and i am fine with those three being removed, it's just a shame the quotas are not big enough as they're important enough, either way you've did a good job, i appreciate the work you've done so far. GuzzyG (talk) 07:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: Thank you. I’ll consider whether or not expand the quotas later tomorrow. ミラP 07:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Miraclepine: No, i don't think that's necessary as everything's already filled out. Probably a bit weird to list every cast member of a show anyway, the only show we do that for in normal actors is Friends i think; also i forgot two that i was thinking of before, what do you think of Veronica Taylor and Adriana Caselotti; they both represent two important characters in animation history. What do you think on their chances? GuzzyG (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: We'll add them in. Now who do we swap out from the list? I'm leaning John DiMaggio but I'm not sure which one to do: Rob Paulsen or Billy West? ミラP 17:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Miraclepine:I'd support swapping both DiMaggio and West; Futurama could overlap with the Simpsons and Paulsen has Emmys and Annies, while West doesn't. Paulsen has the most wikilanguages on wikidata at 36 vs West's 27 and Paulsen's article has 2,324 edits compared to West's article having 2,208 edits. I think that makes it clear Paulsen has had the biggest impact on the field. GuzzyG (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: Keep only Rob Paulsen, got it. Now onto the Japanese. ミラP 18:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

For Japanese language voice actors, I'd suggest Koichi Yamadera? He's not only a voice actor but he's also on a similar level to Mamoru Miyano, being that he's done lots of things in television, video games, and narration including being the host of Oha Suta (a kids' variety show) for more than 10 years. I'm also surprised to see Kana Hanazawa on there when there are more prolific veterans like Megumi Hayashibara or Maaya Sakamoto. (Or even Aya Hirano, even -- she pioneered the Japanese idol and voice actress crossover.) lullabying (talk) 03:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

My few cents: Jennifer Hale doesn't seem to have won any significant awards. Ditto for Don Pardo, Milton Cross, Peter Thomas (announcer), Vic Mignogna, Charles Martinet, Don LaFontaine, Jim Cummings, Don Messick, Mel Blanc,Billy West. For me the line is drawn with comparison for example to Frank Welker "for his lifetime achievement". Others have won something that seems significant too. But the ones I link first haven't yet done so, and so I am uneasy keeping them over people from other fields (more actors, etc.) who have won so. For example, there are still many Emmy winners and I think some Oscar winners not on our list. The argument that we need to be 'representative' of various fields is fine, but weight is an issue, plus some fields are not represented. My vote is to cut the ones I named in my first sentence, keep the others. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

what awards are announcers like Pardo, Cross and Thomas supposed to win? How are 15000 people suppposed to be award winners? Emmy winners are television actors from one country, much less vital than oscar actors, and no; i personally added every oscar winner for actors/actresses/supporting actor/actress and director. If you wanna add the 850-1k best actors because you think we shouldn't list anything else than i strongly disagree, by that measure we should just up this list to 15k philosophers, physicists, politicians and saints. To deny MEL BLANC isn't a notable voice actor is ABSURD and a complete misunderstanding of voice acting. Also the clearest example of why this "awards only" approach to fields is wrong. Alfred Hitchcock never won a oscar, either let's remove him from the level 4 list. Also, exactly what entertainment fields are missing? We can add some,we cover everything from Cabaret Rodolphe Salis, to a jester Triboulet (yes, i'd support Stańczyk as well, to a geisha Mineko Iwasaki to a Koothu rep Mani Madhava Chakyar, i try to cover as much as possible, actors are exhausted; or are they not vital for not winning awards and we need Zac Efron (the level of actor, left)? GuzzyG (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• Mel Blanc definitely needs to be on a list of 20 voice actors. I'm not convinced we need multiple Simpsons voice actors. pbp 05:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I understand that few editors (I also was something about it) suggested/"consensused" in the past that level 5 should cover topics which can not be added to the level 4 due to recentism and they somewhrere could be listed but why we gonna into it by such exccredation? We have now far more actors (listed in multiple sections) from USA than all figures from Abrahamic religions through whole milleniums human history. ITW? I could understand if the quotas of figures from Abragamic religions would be the same what actors from usa ( but it still would not be sensible for purly historistic encyclopedia BTW) but why we makes this list so much similar to WP:5000 (there is also list on wijiproject biography page) and why we removed religious figures wp:bold "when we were over quota" in religious section when our projesr is "highly under construction" an the wutas are only "suggestion", not "consensused process". We should wait couple monthst until we will make any votings entry by entry instead wp:bold as long as someone can give rationale on the page. In onther case nobody will consider 5 level seriously and it is serious issue because of on noticeboards at village-ideas suggested level 6! Some people suggested there that level 5 is too broad but main issue is that we missed too many broad articles. The only woman sport journalist and even the only non-English sport journalist on this list is Esport player (IMO wrongly because of I belive there are better woman and among non-English sport journalist at least founder of LEquipe would be much better choice) and this bios is not more vital than various soccer clubs which we miss and thesemissed siccer clubs also should not be FA before something like "Sport in Brasil" Dawid2009 (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

You skipped Erin Andrews and Doreen Simmons....... and let's be honest, most women sports journalist will get criticized by the purists because their articles are mostly short and there's rarely awards in sports journalism. The esports article is the only representative of that sport, not because shes a woman. [1] esports and youtubers are getting as big as traditional sports so in a modern encyclopedia it should be covered, a woman just happens to be the best known. Also i planned to add Goddet, but the quota for journalists was reduced for yet more writers. (there's a massive recency bloat in writers in which i am yet to go through and fix). Either way it wasn't hard to swap in Goddet. GuzzyG (talk) 07:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

There i just added Helen Rollason and Jacqui Oatley who i would've and planned to add before the quotas were cut; it's not hard; i do this all day; name something and we can find it; i more than likely have it in backup for my own personal 50k list. GuzzyG (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Round 2

1. Mel Blanc
2. Nancy Cartwright
3. Adriana Caselotti
4. Dan Castellaneta
5. Christine Cavanaugh
6. Milton Cross
7. Jim Cummings
8. Jim Dale
9. June Foray
10. Jennifer Hale
11. Don LaFontaine
12. Charles Martinet
13. Don Messick
14. Vic Mignogna
15. Don Pardo
16. Rob Paulsen
17. Tara Strong
18. Veronica Taylor
19. Peter Thomas
20. Frank Welker

• @GuzzyG, Piotrus, and Lullabying: I've decided that the eight level 5 Japanese-language VAs should include Mamoru Miyano, Koichi Yamadera, some male seiyu popular in the 1970s (to avoid recentism), Maaya Sakamoto, Aya Hirano, Miyuki Sawashiro, Nana Mizuki, and either Megumi Hayashibara or Rica Matsumoto. Of course, that requires a recentism check. ミラP 03:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I think they're all very good additions compared to our current list, i support them all; they haven't won a Emmy Award lifetime achievement award but considering that's completely unrelated to their field and even country it doesn't matter at all. Good work on the good additions. GuzzyG (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Great work! Mamoru Miyano should definitely stay for being a voice actor who has won many awards and has an active live-action and singing career. Koichi Yamadera has a very diverse voice acting profile and is pretty much well-known in Japan even by non-anime fans (since a generation of Japanese kids grew up with him as he was the host of Oha Suta). Nana Mizuki and Aya Hirano were part of the boom that pioneered the crossover between Japanese idols and voice acting. Maaya Sakamoto is also a good choice. lullabying (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Unobjectionable. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Miraclepine: I think this is clear consensus for now atleast, you can do the swaps now, if anyone objects they can always start a discussion, it'll be better than our current listings anyway, it'll be best to have this section cleaned up. The only problem with the entertainers section after that will be that there's no sports entertainers section (for people like the professional wrestlers and Meadowlark Lemon and Joan Weston) in which the point of their career was to entertain first. it's weird to list pro wrestlers with actual olympic wrestlers, we can get space from the magician (10), adult (5), model (5), radio (5) sections. GuzzyG (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Visual artists

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Artists, musicians, and composers#Visual artists for the list of topics in this category.

Add Emily Kame Kngwarreye

Add Emily Kame Kngwarreye to artists/painters

Oppose: Apparently hasn't even been recognized with any Australian national level award. (Do correct me if I am wrong, though). -- Arman ^(Talk) 09:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Musicians and composers

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Artists, musicians, and composers#Musicians and composers for the list of topics in this category.

Hip hop adds/removals.

Several well-known rappers aren't on here, yet some obscure ones are. If you want my opinion, wanting seventy notable rappers may be a bit too ambitious. Below are five proposed swaps, although more could be changed. GeographyAholic talk 02:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Add J. Cole

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.

---

Support

1. Support GeographyAholic
2. Support Makkool (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Das EFX and A Tribe Called Quest are more historically important and more acclaimed lyrical/conscious rappers. GuzzyG (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2019 (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 Lil Uzi Vert

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.

---

Support

1. Support GeographyAholic

Oppose

1. Oppose Not before XXXTentacion/Lil Peep who are more influential AND popular in the soundcloud/mumble rap wave. Then there's the pioneers like Chief Keef, Lil Yachty, ASAP Rocky, Future, Bones and Yung Lean all of whom are more important on the genres development and as such have higher historical value. GuzzyG (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose Makkool (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2019 (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 Logic

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.

---

Support

1. Support GeographyAholic

Oppose

1. Oppose no, Logic is definitely before alot of current pop rap artists, G-Eazy is more important then him. GuzzyG (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose Makkool (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2019 (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 Migos

Support

1. Support GeographyAholic
2. Support Makkool (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Chance the Rapper

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.

---

Support

1. Support GeographyAholic

Oppose

1. Oppose super recentist. not anymore important then contemporaries like Tyler, the Creator, 2 Chainz, Travis Scott or Young Thug GuzzyG (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Agreed, too recent. feminist (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose --Makkool (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2019 (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 Boogie Down Productions

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.

---

Support

1. Support GeographyAholic
2. --Thi (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose highly influential in new york rap. regularly regarded as one of the greatest groups. GuzzyG (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose very influental precursor to gangsta rap Makkool (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2019 (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 Doug E. Fresh

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.

---

Support

1. Support GeographyAholic
2. --Thi (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose the greatest beatboxer, beatboxing is one of the five elements of hip-hop culture, it should have a representative . GuzzyG (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose perhaps one of the leading beatboxers today Makkool (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2019 (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 DJ Jazzy Jeff & The Fresh Prince

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.

---

Support

1. Support GeographyAholic
2. --Thi (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose highly influential in pop rap. regularly regarded as one of the greatest groups. GuzzyG (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose an early popular rap group Makkool (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2019 (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 The Sugarhill Gang

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.

---

Support

1. Support GeographyAholic
2. Support Rapper's Delight is listed elsewhere. --Thi (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose highly influential in old school rap. regularly regarded as one of the greatest groups. GuzzyG (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose the first rap group to have a big hit Makkool (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2019 (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 Geto Boys

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.

---

Support

1. Support GeographyAholic
2. --Thi (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose highly influential in southern rap/horrorcore. regularly regarded as one of the greatest groups. GuzzyG (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose one of the most notable southern rap groups Makkool (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

I can see how Migos or maybe J. Cole can make the list, but these rappers that you're calling "obscure" are rappers that made a significant influence on rap... just the fact that you put The Sugarhill Gang on the delete list is quite surprising, I consider tthe Sugarhill Gang to be the makers of basically the first mainstream hip hop song. All five of these rappers you proposed are popular in the past few years, but we have yet to see their impact on the music scene. (but you could build a case for Migos and/or J. Cole, though it is very early.)Awsomaw (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2019 (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.

Musicians section is complete

I have completed the musicians section; all the fluff has been removed; compare the current state of the musicians section [2]] and compare it to what it was [3]. I've worked on the musicians non stop for two weeks; now im doing the artists section; than the entertainers, than sports than misc and so on. I am going through every single person and removing people that are fluff or in areas we already over represent cut and swap. Everything here is perfect except we could've used 5 more Opera singers and R&B placements; as we're light on vocal groups like The Flamingos. But there's just so many musicians in general; we have over 80 missing musicians in the rock hall of fame and the same amount of winning grammy winners. I would like people to specifically go over and criticize the musicians section harshly and where we could improve. I think this section should now require a vote for any swaps; since it's our one complete/stable section/no outright bad additions, what do you all think? I disagree on how i used to operate this list and my additions and completely changed in what i believe belongs on these lists.

Pinging everybody who's edited this area a bit. @Dawid2009:, @Purplebackpack89:, @Thi:, @Piotrus:, @DaGizza:, @J947: and @Miraclepine:; what do you all think? Are there any areas or really important musicians we are missing in areas of music you know best? @Neljack: you know alot about opera from what i've seen, is there anyone missing that jumps out of the 50 i've chosen? Pauline Viardot and Giovanni Matteo Mario seem to be the two biggest misses to me. Anyway i'm happy for any constructive criticism as this section is pretty much complete in my eyes and if we were the Britannica/a print book, our first section ready to publish, what do all of you think? GuzzyG (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with music, so I can speak mainly through the prism of WikiProject Poland contributor, and note that Polish presence in this list seems to be limited to a single entry (Chopin, also at lv 4). No other names mentioned in the lead of Music of Poland are included here. Witold Lutosławski and Krzysztof Penderecki should be added, and likely Karol Szymanowski and Henryk Górecki. Ignacy Jan Paderewski should be included in either this or the politician list. I really can't comment on pop music since I simply don't listen to Polish one much, but I would ask if you have went over the names mention in lead of this article (and other Music in Foo Country articles) and considered them? Polish section in pop-culture right now lists Marek Grechuta and Czesław Niemen, I'll note that Niemien is mentioned in the MoP article, but not in the lead, and Grechuta is not mentioned at all. I'd ping an expert on Polish music but I don't know any, uh, maybe User:Nihil novi or User:Volunteer Marek could say something, but that's a long shot :) Based on just the Polish case, I am afraid the current version may suffer from WP:SYSTEMICBIAS (through a quick glance at J-pop and K-pop does suggest to me it's ok, through I'd propose adding Yoko Kanno to J-pop list). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: First i just want to say that there's no systematic bias here and i've just found swaps for every suggestion of yours; i've tried to include every kind of non-western art music and instrument i can, Chinese opera, every foreign language i can among others; unless you mean towards pop and rock music compared to classical but on the level 3 list we list a 20th century pop and rock musician but no 20th century classical musician; 20th century classical music just hasn't had the same impact on culture and should be limited in comparison. I didn't add the pianists and i thought Ignacy Jan Paderewski was in politicians, i planned to add Karol Szymanowski but somehow forgot him, we listed Ichirou Mizuki for anime composition, so that area wasn't missing. @Dawid2009: added Marek Grechuta and he's Polish. Poland isn't a country known for it's pop music and i think 2 is enough; my method of adding people is clicking through every single article in wikipedias categories and reading them and adding them to my massive excel sheet that compares things like pageviews, pageedits, wikidata languages, google ngrams and scholar hits, worldcat hits, new york times mentions, if they have a britannica article and so on etc. it's a big process and it's not based on subjective feelings. realistically the area we're limited the most in foreign languages is Arabic music; but we just don't have the quota for it; i've always said we should've had a 25k quota; but people thought it's not possible to add that much. it is; there's so many different cultures not covered. Every country probably has 5 composers that they could list like you did; we can't realistically list them all. GuzzyG (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, I am not insisting they are added, but I did want to mention them, through that said I really think Witold Lutosławski (FA, described in the lead as "one of the major European composers of the 20th century, and one of the preeminent Polish musicians during his last three decades") and Krzysztof Penderecki (from the lead: " The Guardian has called him Poland's greatest living composer") should go in - could you comment on why they didn't make the final cut? PS. Your method of calculating the entries is very interesting, would you consider sharing your excel with us? Ideally I'd suggest it it something that could be worked on collaboratively in google docs.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Jacek Kaczmarski and Ewa Demarczyk. Volunteer Marek 04:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I lost my edit i spent 40 mins on in a edit conflict so it probably won't be as indepth but, i wanted to thank you for your suggestions, i found good swaps for them and they're a improvement; they missed the final cut because i didn't come across them in my search; which is extremely time consuming to go through every countries musicians and sometimes i make mistakes. I can't share my excel sheets because it's apart of a independent website and project i am working on; but i've provided evidence they exist before and i've shown a bit of my acting sheet on how indepth they are (look at the sheets at the bottom) [4], i want to compete with sites like [5] so i don't want to go indepth on my formula; which makes them pointless to reference here but i just wanted to mention that i do have some kind of method since i am the main contributor to these lists; this is what i want to do as a career; i track anyone from politicians to reality television contestants; i want to create my own biographical dictionary; so it requires me to examine nearly everyone. I'll swap our two listed Polish singers for Marek's two. Thanks again for both of your suggestions, they're a improvement to our list. GuzzyG (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Demarczyk is probably a good addition. As much as I like Kaczmarski personally, I am not sure if he is really famous compared to 'some others'. Might be useful to look at Poland in the Eurovision Song Contest for some ideas of what people listen to now. Demarczyk is, IMHO, a famous name in Poland, but her fame dates to few decades ago... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Kaczmarski is most definitely really famous. Also got Polonia Restiuta if I'm not mistaken. Volunteer Marek 09:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Since we list so many male Polish composers; the pop music section should list Ewa Demarczyk and Edyta Górniak, what do you think? Both represent two different styles of popular singing and both represent different eras; so there's no overlap; i think they'd be perfect representations; we don't need men because we added all of the composers and they are all men. GuzzyG (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: With the repeated note that I don't consider myself an expert in the field of music, I do recognize both of those names and I think they could be included, so no objection (and I think both are more famous than JK). Through I don't think that gender bias is a factor for vital inclusion. (In fact, I'd suspect that in pop music females are more common than males anyway). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: FWIHW Edyta Górniak IMO is better choice than Doda (singer) despite fact she is not mentioned in foo in Poland aeticle. Roksana Węgiel is now known in Poland as "The new Górniak". Dawid2009 (talk) 06:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Gorniak is a good choice. Volunteer Marek 09:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Some other suggestions (I'm not familiar with the criteria here) - Jerzy Petersburski, Stanisław Grzesiuk, Fanny Gordon. Volunteer Marek 09:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: You have done an admirable job - thanks for all the great work! Just a few suggestions.

There are two tenors missing who rang among the very greatest: Fritz Wunderlich, generally regarded as the greatest German tenor, and Lauritz Melchior, almost universally regarded as the greatest heldentenor. Among sopranos, there is Victoria de los Angeles, voted the third greatest soprano of the recorded era in a BBC Music Magazine poll of critics a few years ago, and Lotte Lehmann, the great German soprano of the interwar period. And two legendary baritones of the post-war years, Tito Gobbi and Hans Hotter, are must-haves - next to Fischer-Dieskau, they are probably the most acclaimed baritones of the recorded era. Christa Ludwig is widely regarded as the greatest mezzo-soprano and should be included ahead of Cecilia Bartoli.

It is of course necessary to make room for them. While Renee Fleming and Anna Netrebko are among the leading sopranos of today, they do not enjoy the same critical reputation of others on this list. Beverly Sills and Jessye Norman, while celebrated in America, never quite attained that kind of international reputation either. Mario del Monaco was famous as the world's loudest tenor, but received much criticism for his lack of subtlety. Emma Calvé and Lily Pons, while great singers, are also probably not quite at this level of reputation - if a French soprano is wanted, Regine Crespin would be the strongest candidate. I don't think I would even include Kiri Te Kanawa, despite my bias as a New Zealander.

Carlos Kleiber, the legendary though reclusive conductor who topped a poll of his peers as the greatest conductor of all time a few years ago[6], is the omission that stands out when it comes to conductors. Nikolaus Harnoncourt and Sir John Eliot Gardiner (who both also polled highly in that poll) have had huge influence in promoting historically informed performance and also warrant inclusion, in my view. I would suggest Seiji Ozawa, Zubin Mehta and James Levine could make way for them - they are all famous conductors of recent times, but have had less of a wider influence on classical music.

Dinu Lipatti, despite his short life, is widely regarded as one of the greatest pianists of the 20th century. I would suggest swapping him for Garrick Ohlsson. Neljack (talk) 09:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Neljack: Thank you! Thanks for your help and suggestions too! so here's what i've done:

I have removed Garrick Ohlsson and added Dinu Lipatti

Removed James Levine/Eugene Ormandy/Zubin Mehta/Seiji Ozawa and added Carlos Kleiber/Nikolaus Harnoncourt/Pierre Monteux/John Eliot Gardiner

For singers i've removed Kiri Te Kanawa/Renée Fleming/Beverly Sills/Jessye Norman/Mario Del Monaco/Cecilia Bartoli/Emma Calvé/Lily Pons and added Fritz Wunderlich/Lauritz Melchior/Victoria de los Ángeles/Lotte Lehmann/Tito Gobbi/Christa Ludwig/Hans Hotter/Regine Crespin

I've kept Anna Netrebko because i think we should have two contemporary opera singers; a man and a woman preferably and we already have Jonas Kaufmann. Especially considering the popular music section has so many contemporary singers; two contemporary opera singers does not hurt in my opinion. I think we cover all main styles of singing now; is there anything still missing? GuzzyG (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: Thanks - that looks great! Monteux is a good add - he's more important that Ormandy and provides a representative of the French tradition. The only type of opera singer we don't have one of is a counter-tenor, but they are something of a niche voice type (and we have castrati, whose roles they often sing) so I'm not sure we need one. I can't see any glaring omissions of the top of my head - I think you've done a great job! Neljack (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again! GuzzyG (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for compiling much of the list @GuzzyG:. There is a lot to go through. Had a quick look at the 'Non-English language popular music' section and it appears that the biggest European country lacking representation in that section is the Ukraine. It stands out as there are smaller ex-Soviet countries with representation. Vitas spent his childhood in Odessa but I wouldn't consider him to be a Ukrainian singer. Someone like Ani Lorak or Sofia Rotaru to a lesser extent, would be useful additions. At the expense of whom? Probably a Russian since Russia has the equal highest number of articles (equal with Korea but K-pop has overall is influential and popular in the Western and English-speaking world than modern Russian music). Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@DaGizza: Thank you! I didn't add much of the Russian musicians but it appears that Joseph Kobzon, Leonid Utyosov and Alexander Vertinsky are all from the Ukraine aswell. I think Laskovyi Mai can be removed for Ani Lorak and we could find someone else for Sofia Rotaru; but i wanted to know if those three changed your mind a bit? Even though ofcourse we'd still need a modern/independent Ukraine singer. It seems our list covers all styles of Russian music pop, rock, rap, jazz, undergroud folk and punk which is why there's 20. Also do you agree with the changes to the artists quotas? I tried to make "non-western art" more representative and cut down photography by a lot, and cut down comics to make room for sculpture/architecture which has been more important longer. I'd appreciate any suggestions, thanks again. GuzzyG (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Just updating; i've swapped Laskovyi Mai for Lorak. A modern Ukrainian singer was needed. GuzzyG (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Writers

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Writers and journalists#Writers for the list of topics in this category.

Prose writers

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Writers and journalists#Prose writers for the list of topics in this category.

Poets

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Writers and journalists#Poets for the list of topics in this category.

Playwrights

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Writers and journalists#Playwrights for the list of topics in this category.

Journalists

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Writers and journalists#Journalists for the list of topics in this category.

Remove Ana Kasparian

I'm very surprised she's even on this list. It's a stretch to even call her a "jounalist". She's really just a commentator who talks about other peoples' news stories. Besides, we also have Cenk Uygur listed, and we don't really need both co-hosts of the same show.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Support per Rreagan. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 21:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
4. Support. Born in 1986. Almost nobody born that recently is 'vital'. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I disagree with the assertion that "It's a stretch to even call her a [journalist]". She has interviewed world leaders and U.S. politicians, she was a lecturer on journalism at CSU Northridge, and currently holds editorial control of The Young Turks, a significant outlet in a category of "web journalism". I believe opinion journalism would be a strange genre to exclude when determining which journalists are most notable, particularly online. In terms of notability, she was on Forbes "30 under 30" in 2016. In the category I'd say she's more "vital" than Nick Denton. And on the topic of birth year I'd like to point out that the late Paul Horner was born in 1978. BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose News commentators are journalists. She's even a good find for the list. Who else would you put on a list of journalists primarily known for their onine activities? For gender diversity, she is an ideal candidate. The category web journalists is bound to have several young people because the younger generation tends to get hired for internet journalism. --Spaced about (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Removing this messes up the counts in the journalist section and will make them uneven; but who cares about consistency.... Also if people born in 1986 are not vital for this level, prepare to remove hundreds. GuzzyG (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

These lists are under constant construction and the quota isn't set in stone, is it? The two others listed, Nick Denton and Paul Horner, appear more suitable for removal if necessary. Especially Horner. For internet journalism we might have to have a separate subsection for PR-journalists, where Horner would fit though.

What should the section on web journalists look like? Andrew Breitbart, Arianna Huffington, Ezra Klein, Griffin McElroy, and Nate Silver all fit the category web journalists, all of these except McElroy are listed (as journalists, Silver is misplaced in the social scientists section). They should all be moved to this category. Kasparian and Cenk Uygur then complement that list perfectly. --Spaced about (talk)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_16#Remove_Cenk_Uyghur - Here is lik to discussion where Cenk Uygur was reported as odd/controversial addition. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Politicians and leaders

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Politicians and leaders for the list of topics in this category.

Canadian PMs

Considering the other full sets we have of various other types of political leaders, I've went ahead and added most of the remaining PMs from 1900 onwards, the exceptions being those in the 1890s who served very brief terms. Any objections? pbp 13:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• I am in general support of your idea, however I propose we remove the very short-term prime ministers (e.g. Kim Campbell) and replace them with other Canadian politicians of great significance, for example Rene Levesque and George-Etienne Cartier are fairly obvious additions; but we could expand the discussion to include people like Nellie McClung, Peter Lougheed, and Vincent Massey. NorthernFalcon (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Pre-1911 Politicians Without 1911 Britannica articles, selected countries

An * denotes still politicking in 1911. Source.

• US: Abigail Adams, Dolley Madison, Martha Washington, Peter Burnett, Joseph Gurney Cannon*, William R. King, Benjamin Tillman*, William Tweed
• UK/Britain: John Balliol, Diarmait mac Cerbaill, Constantine III of Scotland, Cunedda, Domnall mac Ailpín, Ælfweard of Wessex, Spencer Compton, 1st Earl of Wilmington, Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale, Mary of Teck*
• Canada: All listed
• Australia: Lachlan Macquarie, Arthur Phillip, Edmund Barton, Alfred Deakin, Chris Watson, George Reid, Andrew Fisher (only two pre-1911 figures listed)
• New Zealand: Te Kooti
• Rome: Constantius II, Romulus Augustus
• Greece Gorgo
• France Chlotar II, Pepin of Herstal, Pepin the Short, Rollo, Anne of Austria, Louis Antoine, Duke of Angoulême

Germany, Austria, HRE Sophie, Countess of Bar; Bernard VII, Lord of Lippe; William IV, Princely count of Henneberg-Schleusingen; Albert Frederick, Duke of Prussia; Friedrich Günther, Prince of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt

You ask, "Why these countries?" I'm operating on the fact that Britannica 1911 disproportionately covered British, European, American and Commonwealth topics, and therefore, being absent as a politician from those countries would be a particular indictment. pbp 13:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Te Kooti sounds to me more like a religious figure than a politician. Perhaps it can be moved to that section? feminist (talk) 02:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Or maybe military given that he has a war named for him and the lead in his article discusses his involvement in that war more than anything else.--Cincotta1 (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Vincent van Gogh isn't covered either, should we remove him from the level 3 list? I mean if not being covered as a European is a disqualifier for level 5?, ignoring the fact that a "legacy" can be better documented after 100 years, or the fact women Martha Washington and indigenous leaders Te Kooti or figures from a country then without a established history like Australia who was only around 10 years old are going to be obviously missing and as such i don't think basing our modern list of a 100 year old source severely outdated with modern historiography is any improvement. GuzzyG (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Even though historiography has evolved since 1911, I believe the 1911 Britannica to be a mostly fair assessment of certain aspects of pre-1911 society. If you're a pre-1900 white male political leader who didn't make the 1911 Britanncia, that's no slight indictment. Van Gogh isn't a great example because he hadn't been dead very long when the 1911 Britannica came out. pbp 19:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• I don't see any argument for keeping them, but I'd keep Martha Washington and Abigail Adams. Britannica of 1911 was very gender biased. Today they are seen as more influential then scholarship of 100 years ago would say. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

  Oh, I'm perfectly fine with keeping them pbp 15:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Tuvalu

So just to be clear; are we making it official that out of every country; Tuvalu in particular is the ONE official UN country that will not have a representative? Is there one super important senator we're missing? GuzzyG (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

In all honestly, I wouldn't mind cutting more. Micro-states in general as a rule shouldn't have their representatives listed here unless they also had an impact internationally. Somewhere someone said that such states are smaller than neighbourhoods in big cities, and it is a point. Impact is relevant to vital inclusion. A mediocre hip hop artist or such will have much more impact than a president or such of a tiny island or city state. Of course, this can be discussed on a case by case basis. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

You have an extremely limited/strict view of "vitality", the level 5 list is "vital" in name only, it was meant to be a representative coverage of pop culture topics and people who are popular now like PewDiePie because those articles are important to have written well as they are highly viewed and won't be covered by the level 4 list for decades., which means we cover alot of pop culture things like voice actors etc. We shouldn't dismiss microstates pop culture all because they're microstates. Choosing what people matter due to their population its wrong, it's absurd. This is also what's wrong with removals like Ana Kasparian we list commentators and we have a quota of 5 for web journalists, which other web journalist is more important than her? There's not 15k "strict vital" people. 2k is even pushing it. Laurence Fishburne may be more known than Mel Blanc or John Holmes for that matter but i'd rather cover the top 30 voice/porn actors than the 851st best actor, no matter what had the bigger impact, in that case we should list 15k philosophers and physicists. GuzzyG (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem with this approach, which does have some merit, is the usual 'where do we draw the border'. Paddy Roy Bates makes the cut, for example. What about the ~30 others from Category:Micronational leaders? Surely we won't include all of them...? Top 5? Top % of a category? Case by case basis. Show me the bio of that Tuvalu politician that may merit inclusion and I'll vote on it. But if there is nothing to it than to say 'he held this position for x years and had next to zero impact on anything we can identify', yeah, I'd rather add someone like Bates, because they had more impact, as in, for example, 'received international media coverage'. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There are bigger countries with no representatives at the moment. We should focus on adding people from those countries than the smallest. If we're at 2290 articles (with a quota of 2300) and we can't find anyone else, we could re-add a leader from Tuvalu. A few months ago, there were more Oceanian modern political leaders than African and almost as many as South America. It's not as lopsided now as it was but even if the remaining quota goes to non-Oceania, it will be still feel a touch imbalanced, considering the number of countries, area, population, recorded history, etc. in each region of the world. Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Paddy Roy Bates is listed in Misc under micronations and the two we list is enough; obviously porn and voice acting has had a larger impact than micronations and it is a case by case; section by section basis. Africa and South America are low unlike Asia because i haven't done them yet, it takes time. Obviously i believe every country should be listed, i just started with the easiest first (Oceania); this is the problems with these removals, i have a mapped out plan and people start nitpicking "why list Oceania when we dont have Africa etc" i cant operate when my quotas are being changed out from under me and made uneven. It messes up my mapped out process. GuzzyG (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• I'd like to echo what DaGizza said. There are countries in Africa, as well as places like San Marino and Andorra, that have no representatives. I'd also point out that many of these teeny-tiny nations lack some of the things that you associate with a country. For example, many of the tiny Oceanian states are dependent on Australia, New Zealand or the United States for military defense. Also, if we are at or near quota, I'd urge everyone to consider the removals I proposed above. pbp 15:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

We're 213 away from quota, so i don't see why we have to mass remove people, where are these 213 going to come from? Before a removal happens we should atleast know what for. 213 spaces and we can't cover a Tuvalu, Niue or Cook Islands person? GuzzyG (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I am totally fine with adding more now. Later when we have the limit reached and we want to add more we can chat about replacing. That may be easier. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Post-1815 slant of Lv 5 politicians list?

The now-stable level 4 list contains 509 politicians of which 320 (62.9%) are from before 1815 and 189 (37.1%) are from after 1815. By contrast, the level 5 list contains 2192 politicians, of which 934 (42.6%) are from before 1815 and 1258 (57.4%) are from after 1815. Or, to put it another way, post-1815 politicians have increased 6.66-fold between Lvs 4 and 5, while pre-1815 politicians have only increased 2.92-fold. Are we too post-1815-heavy? pbp 17:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure. Consider the fact that post-1815 human population is much bigger, which means more people (and topics in general) are notable. But most of them are on average less notable than old luminaries (and concepts). So it makes sense, in fact, that as progress to less and less vital lists, the proportion of post-1815 topics would increase. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

There are two factors. As Piotrus says, one is that the human population of the world is higher post-1815 than pre-1815 and the other is that many parts of the world were not part of recorded history in ancient times. Having said that, while I agree that as the level goes higher, there will be more "recentism" in the list, the extent of the slant at the moment is still a little too high in my opinion. History is expected to be a well covered field in an encyclopedia. A ruler of an empire containing 5 million people a thousand years ago would have been much more influential than a president or prime minister of a country containing 30 million today. If you compare this list with a Britannica or another encyclopedia containing a similar number of biographies, my guess is that they would have more historical figures than us.

At the moment (and this is only one of many examples), we only have two Hittites, an important ancient civilisation. On the other hand, until recently we had three Palauans and even now we have two (one in political and one in revolutionaries). Comparing the two, the Hittites were around for much longer, had a larger population, and left a stronger legacy in terms of architecture, technology, art and literature. So yes, we have much more work to do with ancient historical figures. Gizza ^(t)(c) 21:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@DaGizza: Let's collaborate on identifying at least three more Hittites to add to the list. And we should probably also have more Carthaginians, more Roman Republic, and more Ancient Greece. pbp 21:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Right now as an approximation, ancient leaders have expanded by 2.99x, post-classical (medieval) by 2.55, early modern by 3.11, and modern by 6.67. Within post-classical, Asia and Africa have both only roughly doubled even though Level 5 overall represents a fivefold increase, the biographies target has multiplied by 7.5 and target for political leaders by 4.52. Ancient leaders need expansion too but the areas I mentioned have the biggest need to grow (and to be frank, even the Level 4 political leader and bio list is too recentist for my liking but it gets exacerbated here). To take another example, we consider the civilization of Elam to be vital at Level 4 and its main city of Susa as a vital archeological site at Level 4, but before today there were no Elamite leaders. I get it that it's easier to find modern leaders and expecting a 7.5, 5.0 or 4.52 increase for older periods to keep it in line with L4 is asking too much for the reasons discussed above but it should be much more than it is now. Especially when many ancient kingdoms, empires and civilisations currently have a zero-fold increase. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I think I'd be satisfied if we could have a 3.5-fold increase. And we should probably change some of those zero-fold increases (0 to 0) to infinite-fold increase (0 to any positive number). pbp 04:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Businesspeople

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Miscellaneous#Businesspeople for the list of topics in this category.

Explorers

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Miscellaneous#Explorers for the list of topics in this category.

Crime

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Miscellaneous#Crime for the list of topics in this category.

Philosophers

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists#Philosophers for the list of topics in this category.

Historians

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists#Historians for the list of topics in this category.

Social scientists

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists#Social scientists for the list of topics in this category.

Religious figures

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Religious figures for the list of topics in this category.

Thoughts on Protestantism, Mormonism and "Other Christians"

1. When looking at the 50 Protestant articles, 27 (54%) are American (which includes some people active in both the US and Canada), 9 (18%) are British, 6 (12%) are German, 5 (10%) come from elsewhere in Europe, and 3 (6%) come from elsewhere (one African and two Australians)
2. 36% of the Protestant articles deal with people active in the 20th or 21st centuries, 20% from the 19th centuries, 14% from the 18th, 8% from the 17th, and 22% from before that
3. When also including Mormons and "Other Christians", there are 64 articles, of which 38 (59.4%) are American, 9 (14.1%) are British, 6 (9.4%) are German, 6 (9.4%) are from elsewhere in Europe, 0 are Latin American, 1 (1.6%) is African, 2 (3.1%) are Asian and 2 (3.1%) are Australian
4. 21 of the 64 articles are about people from the 20th or 21st centuries, 20 from the 19th, 8 from the 18th, 4 from the 17th and 11 from before that
5. In general, I think it's too heavily weighted toward those of the Pentecostal and Evangelical persuasion. My count gives us 15 from that persuasion, All but Brian Houston are American, all were active in the 20th or 21st centuries and five of them are still living.
6. Of the Pentecostal/Evangelicals, I think the easiest cuts are Jim Bakker and Franklin Graham. Jim Bakker has only four interwiki links; and his ex-wife is also on the list. Franklin Graham's father is on the list. I would also rate Paula White, John G. Lake and Brian Houston as not safely on this list. None of those three has double-digit interwiki links; White and Houston also smack of recentism.
7. I think it would be good idea to add back Alexander Campbell and John Dowie. Both make appearances in the 1911 Britannica. We don't have any representation of the Restoration Movement ("Stone-Campbell Movement") that spawned the Disciples of Christ and other Christian churches around the world. Also, it seems strange to have John Lake (who was influenced by Dowie) but not Dowie himself. Dawid mentioned William Wadé Harris above; that would be a solid option for a second African Protestant (or third if we keep Lake and consider his influence in Africa).
8. On Mormonism, I think it's too heavily toward the early stuff, and should include at least one 20th or 21st century person to represent the faith's astronomical growth during that period. Gordon Hinckley would be my suggestion, swapped out for either Hyrum Smith or Sidney Rigdon.
9. In general, the list could do with less recentism and more internationalism

pbp 00:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

1. I support removing Bakker, and oppose removing Graham because he is connected to Trump, he called him his minister. That makes him permanently vital, he might be mentioned in history books someday. Paula White is also tied to Trump: she was the first woman to read the invocation at his inauguration.
2. I don't think we need anybody from the restoration movement, so I oppose Campbell and Dowie.
3. Instead, I suggest adding Katharina von Bora, Luther's wife, petty German nobility, and ex Catholic nun. She influnced Protestant family life and was the first Christian woman to marry a Christian clergyman. Another option for addition is Dirk Willems, Dutch Anabaptist. Both 16th century.
4. Mormonism already has too many representatives (in proportion to its membership), I wouldn't add anybody and remove both Hyrum Smith and Sidney Rigdon.
5. Also, I see no reason to keep William M. Branham on the list as he doesn't clearly represent protestantism.
6. An adequate section covering the charismatic movement is needed and many on the list are part of it, esp. the newer megachurch televangelists: Joel Osteen, Paula White, Brian Houston, Tammy Faye Messner. These are very influential because unlike in previous centuries they reach people directly worldwide via satellite and the internet and for the purposes of this list, their biographies can't easily be replaced by an invention or work of art or TV program. The rising Charismatic movement might explain why we have so many Pentecoastal Evangelicals on the list, because Charismatics are often classified as such or come from this background. We list about 100 videogames, so it would be justified to have room for them on the list. The charismatic movement is viewed as inter-denominational or non-denominational.
7. In terms of international diversity we have German Bonhoeffer, Swiss Barth, Canadian Lake, Australian Flynn, British John Stott, and Australian Brian Houston. Possible additions I found are: Martyn Lloyd-Jones, a Brit, and Chris Oyakhilome, Nigerian televangelism phenomenon.
8. For denominational diversity, maybe Robert Schuller has a case: Reformed, went to a Calvinist college, American, drive-in megachurch, pioneering televangelist (Hour of power).

--Spaced about (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I think there's a case for keeping either Franklin Graham OR Paula White, but I don't think we need both. If I may ask, why no to the Restoration movement? Should I make the charismatic section a section separate from Protestantism? If I do, should I retitle the residue "mainline" protestantism? I could get behind adding Bora and Willems if we find the room. pbp 20:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The Restoration movement is best presented by the article itself, we don't need representatives, and with a quota of only 500 religious figures we shouldn't add them for the sake of representing earlier centuries, because the recent overhang can be explained by the charismatic movement.

Charismatic movement, in my opinion, is a subsection of Protestantism for now, meaning in 2020. It might change in ten or twenty years. They are commonly perceived as Protestant. The opposite of charismatic is not "mainline". There is fundamental, mainline, evangelical, and charismatic, as I understand it, based on Internet research and experience. (I'm not an expert on Protestantism.) So, I would put only a subheading in Protestantism and nothing else.

Concerning room: William M. Branham is a controversial figure. I would take him off the list. The article, even though featured (recently), is misleading. He doesn't represent any denomination or movement within the Protestant church. We have no data on how large his followership still is, the article says (in the lead) they send out 2 million copies of material - that doesn't mean a thing. I have only limited trust in the rest of the article. He is widely considered a cult leader, portrayed as a prophet by his followers. Not a dangerous cult perhaps, but a cult, and that makes him not a good choice for a representative list of Protestant personalities. Sources that say he's a cult leader seem to have been ignored, maybe accidentally: Gomes, Alan W., Unmasking the Cults, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1995, page 26, confirms this view and is used in the lead in the corresponding German Wikipedia artcle, but not in the English article. The author, Alan Gomes, is affiliated with Biola University, so that's a reliable source. The English featured article names a piece by an author affiliated with Mercer University, also a reliable source, in the second sentence, to create the impression that there is a linear evolution from Branham to the charismatic movement, whose protagonists are not usually perceived as prophets. There are sources for that but I don't think that's the majority. This should be better reflected in the lead of the article. So, regardless of what our featured article says, I think Branham has no place on the list. --Spaced about (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I happen to live only a few miles from BIOLA, and while it is a university, it's one with a clear bent, and that bent is in favor of charismatic and fundamential Christianity (BIOLA is actually an acronym for "Bible Institute of Los Angeles", all students who attend are required to major or minor in Bible, and all teachers pledge to certain moral restrictions). If a BIOLA article is what's propping up his claim to influence, I'd agree that he can go. pbp 18:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the article, I know it's a Christian college, but all the more they should know. If it were true that Branham is an early predecessor of the Charismatic movement, they would acknowledge that. He is not a Charismatic and he's highly criticized, so he's not a typical representative of Protestantism and should be removed.--18:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaced about (talk • contribs)

Abraham and Old Testament

Noting that "Abraham and other Old Testament figures are listed under Mythology and legend." under Judaism seems neither correct nor sensitive. Old Testament is a Christian term.--Jetam2 (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I changed it to: "Abraham and other figures from Judeo-Christian scripture are listed on the philosophy and religion subpage." Other options include "Tanakh" or "Hebrew bible". --10:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC) --Spaced about (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Military leaders and theorists

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Military personnel, revolutionaries, and activists#Military personnel and theorists for the list of topics in this category.

Rebels, revolutionaries and activists

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Military personnel, revolutionaries, and activists#Rebels, revolutionaries and activists for the list of topics in this category.

Remove Roosh V

Not particularly notable PUA/provocateur Spacepine (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Spacepine
2. Support --Thi (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 11:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
5. Support -- Arman ^(Talk) 09:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
6. Support how on earth was this inconsequential fool ever included?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
7. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose as odious as this vote is, if we have 500 activists, it should cover every form of activism and men's rights is one form of activism. until the section is full why is there such a urge for removal? Why was the super negative guy picked over the autism, asexual, body-positive activists who have gotten less attention? we can't remove every bad kind of activism from a list of 500. Also this list isn't a honor, we have 250 criminals. not everyone is going to be an amazing person. Being one of the top 2 PUAs is enough for a 15k list. Erik von Markovik the other one is listed too. But let's show off the diversity i've created in the activists section, we have feminists and anti feminists, civil rights activists and odious people like William Luther Pierce, Gay rights activists and odious people like Fred Phelps, odious people like David Thorstad, pro and anti guns rights, pro weed legalization activists and anti drugs activists, domestic violence campaigners, union activists, =asexual rights activists, autism rights, pro body weight activists, im working on a massive list of activists and to cut out just the bad is a major setback, on a list of 500 activists is there a reason not to list one men's rights activist? Who's better / more known? I don't know. I had two to be fair, Warren Farrell and Roosh V. Anyway just thought i would give my reason for listing him, it'd be a disappointment if one kind of activism is left out because it's super bad on such a massive project. GuzzyG (talk) 05:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

   Props for the list, I think it's covered a great range of activists! But by wiki's own article on the subject Roosh V isn't event mentioned - I added Warren Farrell instead. Spacepine (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

   ... and if more than one is justified, I suspect there are better options --Spacepine (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

   Warren Farrell was on my to do list instead, i thought i must have added him. My mistake, sorry. I was not adding anyone until i transcribed the lists to my excel sheets that i work on where i track every addition by wikipedia page views, worldcat hits, britannica mentions, wikidata languages, wikiedits, google trends and a bunch of different methods, which is a part of my own independent biographical dictionary and database i am working on. My preferred methods of addition to this list is covering each genre of a field and people from each century. Naturally that means i am in support of 21st century people, now that i have finished with this section and have seen we have space for 97 more articles; i am in favor of adding more 21st century activism articles like DeRay Mckesson, Shaun King, Colin Kaepernick, Brianna Wu, Zoë Quinn, Jazz Jennings, Emma González and David Hogg. But on the other hand while we have Milo Yiannopoulos under commentators/journalists and Tommy Robinson (i didnt add Tommy). I do not believe articles such as Roosh V and articles like Lauren Southern for example are that much out of place as the Manosphere (which is what i meant) and the Alt-right are unfortunately prominent in the United States and in which have had a part in the election of the President of the United States. I think the "manosphere/red pill" movement and "alt-right" movement are dominant forms of online right wing activism and have a place in a list of 500 figures, [7] roosh himself gets 1.5 mil pageviews, which is pretty much a higher then average viewcount then normal 21st century activists and [8] the average alt-right figure at about 2.5 mil; meanwhile Warren Farrell [9] gets 236k total; so quite the difference. Now pageviews mean nothing in a historical sense; but as a tracking method for 21st century figures who are yet to be written about in a past tense it's a good measure. If we have over 50 serial killers, mass murderers and murderers being a "notorious PUA/provocateur" doesn't seem like a particularly useful removal rationale. Obviously i dislike having to defend such a figure, but as you see if you look over every section of this list and go indepth on the people listed in each field, i just have a core philosophy of trying to include everything (for example in models i list: normal models, male models, plus-size models, fitness models, cosplayers, one of each major four beauty pageant winners, playboy playmate, artists models, fetish/pin-up models and glamour models while including some from every decade of fashion modeling from the 1950s to the 2010s) i mention that so my vote is taken on it's own and not as a fan of such a subject of it. People disagree but my philosophy of building a encyclopedia is covering every strain of human endeavor and on that note Roosh is the main architect of the Manosphere which is a dominant form of men's rights activism and on that note is why i oppose the removal. Sorry if i sounded aggressive in my initial post and i shouldve made a better rationale for my vote. GuzzyG (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

   No worries at all, thanks for clarifying. I'm not objecting to his inclusion because he's a turd, but because he hasn't really done much... I think the "manosphere" in general is pretty scattered, mostly exists online and there's little verifiable information on any given leader so I would prefer to include the concept, rather than choose a figurehead. Individual White supremicists and Christian right leaders have a lot of information about them however, and probably have a larger impact on the global alt-right movement. I would support including a few of them (although it seems wrong to categorise them as activists, since they are largely regressive) --Spacepine (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Scientists, inventors and mathematicians

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Scientists, inventors, and mathematicians for the list of topics in this category.

Sports figures

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Sports figures for the list of topics in this category.

Weightlifting Section Changes

The Weightlifting section is missing some key weightlifting additions, and has sports figures that have never competed in weightlifting. Hamma085 (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Add Halil Mutlu

One of four weightlifters with 3 Olympic gold medals, 5 time World Champion, 10 time European Champion, set over a dozen world records. He is one of the most decorated weightlifters of all time. Hamma085 (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Discuss

Add Kakhi Kakhiashvili

One of four weightlifters with 3 Olympic gold medals, 3 time World Champion, 4 time European Champion. Hamma085 (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Discuss

Add new section for Strongman/Powerlifting

This is due to the fact that 3 of the most influential figures in Strongman and Powerlifting are in the weightlifting section (Ed Coan, Bill Kazmaier, and Louis Cyr) when they have never competed in an international weightlifting tournament. Hamma085 (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Discuss

General discussion

@Hamma085: At the stage we are at on this level you can just add articles yourself, but before adding those you have to consider that we already have reached the prescribed quota of seven in weightlifting. You could propose a change in quota but what would be better is if you considered if these weightlifters are more vital that the ones on the list already. I have no opinion on the section split but if it happens the quota for weightlifting should probably reduce to four. J947^{'s public account} 01:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

What J said. Identify two other sportspeople you believe should be removed and propose a swap pbp 02:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Sport quotas and diversity

IMO there are several important points:

1. Earlier @Hamma085: suggested to make new section for strongmen. I also found one cross fit person in athlets section.
2. Ballance beetwen handball goelkeepers (more notable goalkeepers than in other team sports in comprasion to field players) and Bowling players
3. One ski jumper but 30 figure skaters, C'mon, @Piotrus:, @Makkool:, @Thi: @LaukkuTheGreit: You four are from countries where this sport is popular (based on your userpages in native wikis), what do you think about that? While figure skating is notable sport (also dominated by womenwhat is important for this list) ski jumping in some countries is top winter sport I would said that for example one of the most common in Slovenia and Poland.
4. When we list for example two Australian football coaches I think someone like Martin Strel could be included to this list.
5. While number of sport people is high in comprasion to sport industry, sport clubs, events games etc at life section I would prefer not cut sport for now. I think we should first start complete this section. Beyond that if I anything cut, tenativelly I would prefer to cut every team sport -5 % (for esample soccer: 110-->105, Cricket: 60-55) where we list many mid-importance articles by wikiproject instead niche sports. There are sports which have superficial coerage (for example skiing) but some sports such like competitive eating at least do not deserve for separate categories ( Even though I am aware how Takeru Kobayashi is famous, he fits to DYK, not for featured article) I would consider just making categories more wide just as in User:SethAllen623/Vital articles/Expanded/Sports figures and I would support increase quota of religion people or businesspeople but only if other users would agree that team sports are better covered than many niches sports. Dawid2009 (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

My "Strength athletics" section shouldve never been renamed weightlifting. Crossfit is athletics. Handball goalkeepers are not vital. Ski jumping is a niche sport compared to figure skating. Martin Strel is just not one of the 20 most important swimmers. I disagree on the rest; as you can see on the music/arts section, i'm working on the fluff but it takes time. Sports and every other section will be done. GuzzyG (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Tennis

Replace Guillermo Vilas with Maria Bueno

Guillermo Vilas is a former world No. 2 with 4 Grand Slam wins (some argue that he actually was No. 1 but it is not reflected yet in the official rankings). On the other hand, Maria Bueno is a former No. 1 (in 1959), with 7 singles Grand Slam wins (3 Wimbledons, 4 US Opens) and a calendar Grand Slam in doubles (in 1960, with 11 doubles Grand Slam wins in total). So her resume is a lot more impressive than Vilas's, and if there is a need for a South American player in this list she is a much more deserving candidate to fill this slot. --Deinocheirus (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Consider replacing Li Na with Naomi Osaka

Despite both winning a couple of Grand Slams in their careers, Li Na has never been a No. 1 while Naomi Osaka already reached the top position in the world rankings while most of her career is still ahead of her. There is no doubt that her record is more impressive. Yes, Li Na has been voted to the Hall of Fame by her fans, but is having fans a good enough reason to be included in the list of 50 most important players of all times? I don't think so, otherwise Kournikova should be included as well. --Deinocheirus (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Consider replacing Kim Clijsters with Bobby Riggs

Both Kim Clijsters and Bobby Riggs are former world No. 1s, both for pretty short periods of time (Clijsters for total of 20 weeks, Rigggs for incomplete 1 year in 1939). They have similar record in terms of Grand Slam wins (4 for Clijsters, 3 for Riggs), both are Hall of Fame inductees, both have additional achievements (Clijsters has been world No. 1 in doubles, while Riggs won the triple crown at 1939 Wimbledon - thus being a member of pretty exclusive club with just Budge and Sedgman, - and also has been world Pro No. 1 in 1946—1947). So no big difference in terms of achievements, but a huge difference in terms of high profile, although for all wrong reasons. Remember that Riggs was the moving force behind the historical Battle of the Sexes; yes, he was playing the role of a villain, but without him, where would be women's tennis now? Nobody knows but it would pretty sure be lagging behind its current status. There is an additional reason to prefer Riggs over Clijsters: her era (first decade of 2000s) is pretty well covered in the list (both Williams sisters, Hingis, Henin, Capriati, Sharapova are included) while his (1930s) not so much. We have Budge and Perry, and that's it - no Henri Cochet, no Gottfried von Cramm, no Grand Slam-almost-winner Jack Crawford. So a third name definitely wouldn't hurt. If not Riggs, then perhaps Crawford? --Deinocheirus (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The Tennis quotas will be updated soon with Riggs and Bueno to be added, i'm just working on another section right now. Li Na is the only representative from China so she's staying. Cochet and von Cramm will be added too along with the likes of Anthony Wilding, Lottie Dod, and William Larned all of whom are more important than Riggs etc. GuzzyG (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Coaches

Since just one slot is allocated to tennis, I would like to suggest a discussion. Currently this slot is occupied by Nick Bollettieri. He is no doubt successful coach but the fact that he has been nominated to the Hall of Fame several times before finally being inducted suggests that he is also a rather controversial figure. Wouldn't it be better to replace him with Harry Hopman who was by any standard no less successful (having worked with an entire generation of great Australian players in 1950s and 1960s), and not just inducted to the HoF but also had a rather popular competition (Hopman Cup) named after him? Definitely a higher-profile professional. --Deinocheirus (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Which subsections for sports?

The People/Sports page lacks structure. How should the entries be grouped?

1. Air sports
2. Athletics
3. Ball sports: sub-subsections: team, individual
4. Extreme sports
5. Martial arts and Fighting
6. Racing sports
7. Riding
8. Running
9. Shooting and Hunting
10. Strength based sports
11. Water sports
12. Winter sports
13. Mountaineering and Climbing
14. Niche
15. eSports
16. Others

Is anything misssing? Do we need to group Olympic disciplines separately? --Spaced about (talk) 09:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Miscellaneous people

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Miscellaneous (minus the explorers, crime people, and businesspeople) and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists#Pseudoscience for the list of topics in this category.

Misc section

In the archives thare was proposal to make section for "Military criminals", what do you think about section called "Outlaws" where we could also list highwaymans? In the past I kept in User:Dawid2009/outlaws some outlawery-related, quoted in academic books which maybe could be interesing to inclusion. I am also wondering about number of businessman (in the pas @Cobblet: has said on his own talk page that including explorers and businesspeople is not good idea and balance beetwen 1200 sports people and several houndrets explorers and businesspeople (combined) maybe is not the best idea. Is really 20-th YouTuber more vital than average businessmen mentioned in forbes (just for example Mateusz Mach)? Dawid2009 (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

No; outlaws are rebels/revolutionaries. They fit there. KSI (entertainer) was the 20th YouTuber and yes, he's more important than Mach; [[10]] to Gen z; youtubers are as big as actors were in the golden age of hollywood. We list far too low web entertainers in that case. GuzzyG (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

People notable for notoriety

I would like to echo that @GuzzyG: recently readded to the level John and Lorena Bobbitt (Now, I did not reverted it and started discussion here as it would be 3-revert rule by philosophy of Wikipedia). Personally IMO John and Lorena Bobbit are not example notoriety-bios with significant cultural impact but there are other biographies also notable for notioriety which had impact and sometimes their inclusion could be problematic. I personally for example see issue that we list maybe too many prostitutes whose anyway are way less notable than (missed, perhaps correctly) Sarah Baartman and inclusion of this one also would be problematic as there are far too many parent topics more vital than she (name of disorder, name of tribe, probably historical articles articles around her). Personally I do not take big issue with people notable for notoriety (We list Adolf Hitler on the level 3 for example) but I think we should finally start discussion how far we can let Vital article project to covering so much detalic things. I honestly verry, verry apreciate titanic constribution of GuzzyG (he done a lot of good additions to people sections) to that list but later or earlier I think we should finally discuss this issuea, especially that some of users (not me) even have been littly discouraged/disapointed to people section in the archives. IMO this post is good statement to say that we list for example too few tribes/languages and maybe number of people included to "Sex work" section is littly to big? I am also wondering about swap John and Lorera as I did not find how they are known outside UK and have larger impact on culture than e g recently removed fictional characters. What do you think? Dawid2009 (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)'

This 30!! year old case still gets TV documentaries Lorena and has a article viewership [11] of 6,325,804 total. Which mean's it's a highly viewed pop culture article; removing this won't do anything but leave a spot in the "other" section; so to replace it, you'd have to find a better swap there. Sarah Baartman should be listed somewhere. Sex work is the oldest job and one of the most written about; highly disagree on it being covered less; most people that have a disagreement misunderstand that this is a curated list based on pop culture; "vital" in name only; they're never gonna like this list. GuzzyG (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Sarah Baartman and Ota Benga are now listed under case studies. GuzzyG (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Section for eccentricies in People/Miscellaneous?

One missing group of people that are sometimes included in encyclopedias, but that are missing from Level 5 vital articles, are people notable for the eccetricity or peculiar circumstances in their life. People like Florence Foster Jenkins, Robert Coates (actor), Mary Toft or Timothy Dexter. Could we have space for these kind of articles as well? --Makkool (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but it's all about finding room. When i get to the Misc section i'll see if we have room. Articles that get alot of traffic via "did you know" type lists are important to have featured articles on aswell. GuzzyG (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

History

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History for the list of topics in this category.

Basics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#Basics for the list of topics in this category.

Auxiliary sciences of history

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#Auxiliary sciences of history for the list of topics in this category.

History by continent and region

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#History by continent and region for the list of topics in this category.

History by country

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#History by country for the list of topics in this category.

History by city and ethnicity

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#History by city for the list of topics in this category.

Historical cities and archaeological sites

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#Historical cities and archaeological sites for the list of topics in this category.

History of science and technology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#History of science and technology for the list of topics in this category.

History of other topics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#History by topic for the list of topics in this category.

Prehistory

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#Prehistory for the list of topics in this category.

Ancient history

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#Ancient history for the list of topics in this category.

Post-classical history

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#Post-classical history for the list of topics in this category.

Early modern history

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#Early modern history for the list of topics in this category.

Is there any reason why Eastern and Southeastern Asian history are merged in the Early modern section of History level 5?

All other sections are separated, and there isn't enough overlap between the two histories in this specific era to justify why they are together. ~ P*h3i (📨) 04:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@P*h3i: Someone thought it was a good idea. Since they don't reply here, feel free to change this, as long as you can provide a good rationale. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

19th century

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#19th century for the list of topics in this category.

20th century

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#20th century for the list of topics in this category.

21st century

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#21st century for the list of topics in this category.

Geography

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography for the list of topics in this category.

Basics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Physical#Basics, Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Cities#Urban studies and planning and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Countries#General for the list of topics in this category.

Physical geography

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Physical for the list of topics in this category (most fall under this).

Add Mayon Volcano in Geography/Physical > Terrestrial features > Land relief > Mountain peaks > Asia

Mayon Volcano is known for its symmetrical cone, and also as the most active volcano in the Philippines. –Sanglahi86 (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sanglahi86:if you want to add it, just add it to that subpage by yourself, since currently adding articles to any subpage of WP:VA5 does not require any discussion, unlike removing.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the information. –Sanglahi86 (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Geography by locations articles

Recently a lot of articles of geography by location have been listed in physical geography section. I have been thinking that it is too much, because we don't list any in Level 4. So the margin of growth is great. I think we don't need to list as many geography by country articles as history by country articles in Level 5. What do you guys think? --Makkool (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Physical geography quota

It seems to me that physical geography is one of those sections that should have more relative representation the farther down the list you go (i.e. more than 5x the amount of articles at level 4). I think upping the quota from 1600 to, say, 1900 would be good. I think we could take some quota from other sections to do this. My proposal is to add 300 articles to physical geography, and remove 200 from astronomy and 100 from philosophy to compensate. Does anyone have better ideas of what sections to quota-reduce? 2604:C340:AC:4:6531:DE8B:5111:CDEE (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

FYI I'm the same person that just added some articles to the page, but apparently my IP changed in that short timespan 2604:C340:AC:4:6531:DE8B:5111:CDEE (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Everyday life section seems to need reducing. I am not so fond of taking quota from Philosophy and religion, it is traditional encyclopedic area. --Thi (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree. We could reduce from the sports quota, as the amount of those articles hasn't increased much. --Makkool (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. Taking your responses into account, I think reducing the sports quota by 50, astronomy by 150, and everyday life by 100 would be good. If no objections, I'll implement in a few days. 2604:C340:AC:4:40D0:4F50:72AC:5C61 (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and updated them. 2604:C340:AC:4:F517:92F2:FFE6:9490 (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Countries

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Countries#Countries for the list of topics in this category.

Regions and country subdivisions

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Countries#Regions and country subdivisions for the list of topics in this category.

Swap: remove Westmorland, add Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt

Based on Friedrich Günther, Prince of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt is going to be removed I suggest to swap Westmorland for Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt and also review this list. It is very odd that we do not list subdivision like Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes but subdivisions from Switzerland.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Makkool (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition: Historically small state pbp 22:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Christmas Island and Norfolk Island

While I don't think political "leaders" from this small outposts are notable, the outposts themselves may be. pbp 22:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 22:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

While population of this outpost nowdays is larger than VaticanCity I will not support this proposal. This outpost from supermely young and quite small country currently has 1500+ population. Is every town with +15 000 population and very long history automatically vital? Dawid2009 (talk) 10:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

We should have a more general discussion on whether all dependent territories are vital at Level 5. Or at least all inhabited dependent territories. The dependent territory article lists out all of them so you can get an idea of how much the list here will grow if we add all of them (not by much since many are already Level 5 if not Level 4). Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I have been adding islands to the physical geography section and I have listed both there. While I agree with Dawid2009 in that these two entities are not vital as dependent territories, because of their short history, I think they should be kept in physical geography. We have still plenty of room there, and both Norfolk Island and Christmas Island are printed in most globes and world maps you can buy, which I think is grounds for listing them at Level 5. --Makkool (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Cities

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Cities for the list of topics in this category (most fall under this).

Remove Keelung

suburb of Taipei. We already have two cities in the Taipei metropolitan area. Viztor (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Physically distinct and serves as northern Taiwan's largest seaport. I'd rather remove New Taipei City if we have too many cities in the Taipei metropolitan area, as it is basically suburban Taipei legally administered as a separate city. feminist (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Cities

Scotland Cities - add Dundee

There are 7 cities in Scotland. By population size they are Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Dundee, Perth, Inverness and Stirling.

At present Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen are included in Vital_articles/Level/5/Geography/Cities#Scotland but Dundee is not.

I would suggest that Dundee should be included as it has more in common with the 3 other "Large cities" in Scotland than with the smaller cities of Perth, Inverness and Stirling.

Evidence: Dundee has ancient Royal Burgh status and has had City Status since 1889 whereas the other smaller Scottish cities are late 20th and early 21st century creations. Dundee is one of the four Scottish cities with a ceremonial Lord Provost (equivalent to English Lord Mayor). 23 of the 25 English cities with Lord Mayors are included in the Level 5 city list. List_of_lord_mayoralties_and_lord_provostships_in_the_United_Kingdom The Scottish Government's Urban Rural Classification distinguishes between Large Urban Areas and other Urban Areas with Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee being the four areas classed as Large Urban Areas. https://www2.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/About/Methodology/UrbanRuralClassificationAndrewdpcotton (talk) 13:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Right now you can add it by yourself most of the time at this level with out the need to ask. This however, is not most of the time as we have reached the quota in cities. If you want to add Dundee it is best to see what should be removed to accommodate it. Happy Festivities! // J947 ^(c) 19:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• We should probably set quotas for them. pbp 22:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Quotas for the subsections were already set. There is room for Dundee in the Scotland subsection, so I support the addition. --Spaced about (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Arts

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts for the list of articles in this category.

Architecture

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts#Architecture for the list of articles in this category.

Cultural venues

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts#Cultural venues for the list of articles in this category.

Literature

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts#Literature for the list of articles in this category.

Webcomics

The digital art section is over-quota, and it currently has 9 examples of web-comics listed. I am asking for your opinions on should we keep them on this list or not. We could remove them, or perhaps move them to another section with free alloted slots, like in the internet subsection of Society.

Remove webcomics

Support

1. --Makkool (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

I suggest we remove all examples of individual webcomics and move the webcomics article to visual arts. None of the examples listed have had a wide and lasting cultural impact, expect maybe Pepe the Frog, which is an internet meme rather than a webcomic. Webcomics fits better at visual arts, because all webcomics are not digital art, but drawn with traditional tools and scanned for distribution. --Makkool (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• There were no passionate objections, so I have decided to remove the webcomics from the list, as both the Mass media and Digital art sections are full. I saved Pepe the Frog as it is an example of a meme rather than a webcomic. --Makkool (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• I support removal of examples of webcomics, but I think we should keep webcomics article itself. This is a new media that most people are unaware of (and much less prominent than video games). Interesting but not vital as far as examples go. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Move webcomics

Support

Oppose

Discuss

Add Nursery rhyme

Not sure where, but I think it is missing? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I'd suggest Arts-->Literature-->Literary genres-->Forms of literature-->Poetry? pbp 01:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, added. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Music

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts#Music for the list of topics in this category.

Performing arts

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts#Performing arts for the list of articles in this category.

Visual arts

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts#Visual arts for the list of topics in this category.

Proposed changes to Arts > Visual arts > Specific works of visual art

Remove Ecce Homo (Martínez and Giménez, Borja)

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 this one may have been placed as a joke. It is only notable for what has happened to it in modern times, and while this is an argument for its inclusion, I believe such notability would have expired by now as it happened almost ten years ago. I do believe it is important that the 300 article standard should be met, but I don't think this work is notable even to that extent. J2m5 (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Support

• Support as per nom. J2m5 (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support (I was the one who added it back when I also added dozens upon dozens of other visual arts works in 2018, and the section was even more under quota)--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 06:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support --Makkool (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support --Thi (talk) 07:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 21:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

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.

General discussion

@J2m5: You can just add articles yourself, because we have not yet reached the quota for specific visual artworks. --Makkool (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Makkool: I have added Black Square, Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge, Girl with Peaches, Dancing Girl, Charles I in Three Positions, Self-Portrait with Thorn Necklace and Hummingbird and Detroit Industry Murals. I'll remove the addition proposals because they clog up the rest of the discussion. If I think of any more in the meantime I will add them as well. Thanks for the reply! J2m5 (talk) 07:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I have since added The Potato Eaters, The Love Embrace of the Universe, the Earth (Mexico), Myself, Diego, and Señor Xolotl, I and the Village. J2m5 (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent art removals

Can we get a more widespread discussion on these arts removals, from just a brief look through books like A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Common Sense, A Mathematical Theory of Communication, On Liberty, Yongle Encyclopedia, Harmonices Mundi, Domesday Book, Phèdre and Shakuntala (play) all significant works with massive importance on a area of history, are being removed for books like Battle Cry of Freedom (book), In the Heart of the Sea, The Known World, The Line of Beauty, Malone Dies, The Sense of an Ending, and The Color of Water all books of no long term importance/clear societal impact like Vindication or Common Sense have had;music articles like Requiem (Mozart), Nabucco, and Gymnopédies are being removed while articles like They Reminisce Over You (T.R.O.Y.) and Leck mich im Arsch stay on. Articles like Theatre of France, Theater in the United States, and Public speaking are being removed; the first two being vital in theater as we list many overview articles like "cinema/music of" etc and public speaking should arguably be on the level 4 list. I start this discussion because i think any big removals like these need discussion.

Also this might be a good time to figure out what the quotas should be; they seem very off compared to the level 4 list. On level 4 we list; 160 literature works, 35 musical works, 30 art works, 32 films and 24 fictional characters but on the level 5 list we list 843 literature works, 400 musical works, 300 art works, 200 films and 150 fictional characters. Shouldn't film be closer to music and have more than art; considering films have more effect on modern society than artworks? It probably should've been 300 films and 200 artworks, considering even that 200 artworks is pushing it. Someone with the know how should do the math on the increase here. I might end up doing a count of how many works we list by each artist soon too. GuzzyG (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I suggest following swaps: Nonfiction: The Color of Water -> Domesday Book, In the Heart of the Sea -> Common Sense (pamphlet), The Abolition of Man (Till We Have Faces is by the same author) -> An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Battle Cry of Freedom (book) -> A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Think and Grow Rich -> On Liberty. Fiction: The Sense of an Ending -> Shakuntala (play), The Three-Body Problem -> Phèdre, Crisis on Infinite Earths -> Till We Have Faces. Music: They Reminisce Over You (T.R.O.Y. -> Gymnopédies, Leck mich im Arsch -> Requiem (Mozart), Ten (Pearl Jam album) (Nirvana's Nevermind is listed) -> Hungarian Dances (Brahms), Comfortably Numb (The Wall album is listed) -> Thaïs (opera), Axel F -> Nabucco. --Thi (talk) 12:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• I support Thi's recommended swaps. pbp 12:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
• I support Thi's swaps too. I still think Yongle Encyclopedia is a very important add when we list 100s of western fiction books. GuzzyG (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I made the changes, including swap Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus with Yongle Encyclopedia. --Thi (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Modern visual arts

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts#Modern visual arts for the list of topics in this category.

Fictional characters

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts#Fictional characters for the list of articles in this category.

Fictional characters

Right now, this section has few problems. One, is that it is overpopulated (177/150 articles), so should we increase its cap or start killing things? Second, sorry, Western folklore (44/40 articles) vs Eastern folklore (9/10 articles) is a clear systemic BIAS. Those should be equal in size. Seriously, right now this section seems to have one entry for Japan, China and India each. C'mon, people, Santa Claus's reindeer is hardly in the same league as Momotarō or the concept of Yōkai; each of those three countries probably should get 10 characters here. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

We also need to trim Characters from film and TV, which is way over quota. I'm almost to the point of making BOLD removals. pbp 04:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

If You want to drop western folklore, drop all christmas characters, except Santa Claus (I added many of them when I just continued and completed thd section), Krampus and Sinterkaals, including Father Christmas (currently we have nine characters from christmas if You count Befana and The Ginger Bread Mam but just Easter Bunny from Easter) or rather covered sub-articles just like Magic Mirror, Tom Thumb, Golden Goose (littly too many fairy tales, they are described in other articles and theit vitalness is comparable to Rumpelstilskin who is missed). If You want drop characters from TV series I would suggest drop: #Versions of Micky Mouse (While Micky is lovely character for many people, few non-English-language people realise that he is not female,mouse often is not masculine and Pluto IMO was even better despite not being anthropomorfic) #Remove Porky pig as he is not the most vital pig animated character #Swap Meena for another non-Japanese and non-Westerm character as it is article on TV, not character. BTW I also think we could have place for fictional places as we have section for biblical places on the level 4. We could have one sub artocle for Tolkien's World and I am not sure recent removal of Discworld from science fiction was ok. I do not have comment about quotas (while list is under construction, personally IMO 150 number probably is ok) but this list look strongly in comprasion to some overrepresented people/biographies meanwhile it looks quite weak in comprasion to mythological characters. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Yokai is already listed in philosophy and religion section but (mistakly) is not listed among mythological creatures (where we list only 62!). I have been watching (I gonna to archives on the level 4) how selections of "'fictional' creatures" were evolving and I found that @Carlwev: as first suggested to split religion/mythological creatures with art and later @Thi: suggested to split also folklore in art section. Folklore is more similar to mythology than literature/film, nodoubtly. IMO it is easy to decide when creature generally more represent art than spirituality/mythology/religion but not always (what do you (all pinged) think about Category:Fictional Christian saints or about UFO?). The bigger problem is in comparing media franchise to fictional character (while media franchise is more wide readers often more care about fictional character if Wikipedia wrote wrongly articles about related matters). @SethAllen623: putted all creatures in the same section at User:SethAllen623/Vital articles/Expanded/Fictional creations but I think that number of 50 000 is too small to create separate section for creatures and we could. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Philosophy and religion

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Philosophy and religion for the list of articles in this category.

Philosophy

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Philosophy and religion#Philosophy for the list of articles in this category.

Religion and spirituality

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Philosophy and religion#Religion and spirituality for the list of topics in this category.

Specific religions

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Philosophy and religion#Specific religions for the list of topics in this category.

Western esotericism and New religious movements

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Philosophy and religion#Western esotericism and New religious movements for the list of topics in this category.

Mythology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Philosophy and religion#Mythology for the list of topics in this category.

Everyday life

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life for the list of topics in this category.

Clothing and fashion

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life#Clothing and fashion for the list of topics in this category.

Color

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life#Color for the list of topics in this category.

Cooking, food and drink

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life#Cooking, food and drink for the list of topics in this category.

Sexuality and gender

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life#Sexuality for the list of topics in this category.

Sports, games and recreation

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life/Sports, games and recreation for the list of topics in this category.

Add more "Sport in country" articles?

What do you think about more "Sport in country" articles. We SUBJECIVELY list plenty of sport teams which are less vital than broader articles like Brazilian Football Confederation. Brazilian Football Confederation is nt more vital than broader article like Football in Brazil but the most vital IMO would be Sport in Brazil. Even if articles "Sport in" gets less hits we need to remember that these ones have more links and sontents, and according to guideline to featureed articles linked articles always have to be improved (everyone who have ever wrote featured article understand what I am talking about... and why if we correct article like "sport in", automatically we have more written thing than after improving article about team). Beyond that "sport in" should be compared to articles like Cinema of France, Italian cuisine, Music of the United States etc.. I do not think that sport and games should have separated category for now, because it can distract people from the list itself what could later resulting in extremally overrepresntation of games/entertaiment/sport. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: I'd support replacing the organization articles with Sport in Foo countries, like replacing the listed Brazil organizations with the overview article for Sport in Brazil. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Board and card games

Quick link: Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Everyday_life/Sports,_games_and_recreation#Board_games_(46/50_articles). I am actually a big board and card game fan (and I've even published an academic article on this), so with this said, I am surprised that those sections get so many entries. I like this stuff a lot, but I think they could be trimmed to free up few spots for other stuff discussed above (whether science or folklore). The main issue I see, otherwise, is that there is a lot of super niche, historical stuff discussed that IMHO never was or is vital, things like Agon (game) or Alquerque - games that are historical trivia footnotes, never had much impact on their contemporary society and are forgotten now. And while modern board and card gaming is still a smaller industry/activity than video games, "Specific video games and series (99 articles)" raises an eybrow where modern board/card games get maybe ~10 entries. For what should be added, it's stuff from cross-comparing Spiel des Jahres and BoardGameGeek top game list ([12]), which speaking as someone very familiar with this field will give one an idea of what board and card games have been actually significant in the last decade or two. Titles like Gloomhaven, Terraforming Mars, Twilight Imperium, Dominion (game), Pandemic (board game), or more classic Puerto Rico should certainly be on that list, replacing the obscure historical footnotes that never had a significant impact on the society that I mentioned above (this can be easily noted as most of those obscure old games don't have much in way of sections that discuss their significance or reception; they are ludology trivia and nothing but). I'll be bold and do a bunch of adjustments in the near future. I recognize there is always a bit of subjective bias as to titles to add (but then so is the selection of the 99 video games - probably too many anyway - done using subjective criteria, as far as I can tell). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good on the WP:BOLD board games plan. Individual video games could and should probably be cut to 50. GuzzyG (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good, but I'm not certain about using BoardGameGeek as a source, because it is slanted towards the hobbyist market. Hobbyist board games are a niche business (there are only handful of board game designers who can support themselves on design work alone, for example) and I think we should be aware of this. When choosing what articles to list we should remember to be as broad as possible, and include mainstream games as well, as they have more impact to society. --Makkool (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I would probably replace Senet with Chariot racing on the level 4 as Senet is only one of many obscure-very old and nowday trivia board games (and BTW I would also reduce sportpeople on the level 4 as some listed there modern sport people are less vital than Leonidas of Rhodes) butI disagree that most of these games do not makes level 5 and I disagree we should swap them mostly for modern board games. Games like Nine men's morris/Senet had religional significance for milleniums (and based on some sources even for whole bronze age) and games just like Latrunculi had just it significance for centuries; what should not be ignored on this lesel. I added several go players (for example Oskar Korschelt) and most of thosee board games based on this academic source (it is competitive category beause of it also stand based on incredible researchers of board games just as H. J. R. Murray and important social scientists just as Marshall McLuhan). Dungerous & Dragons are important but generally from historical perspective less important for researchers than traditional games like Game of the Goose/Monopoly or Whist/Bridge. You can drop some old tabletop games for space for modern by wp:bold (we have too many video games in comprasion to modern tabletop anyway) but please do it tenatively quite careful if it is possible, some can be removed but not many of them as certain number of old board and card games also should be covered to point that these games exist longer time than video games. BTW this section is also wrongly selcted. Title "traditional games" is vague and wrong (as many games included in other sections also can be "traditional games"). These section are also so much puffed up ith neccesary detalics (as Makkool pinted) that include WP:OR, for example we do not need to list so many non-game/title video game topics and vague concepts like Race game, Wargaming, (I could also add Tile-based game or wrongly described Fox games article to this list if I would consider that adding theory game/classification topic is sensible) are uneless as this section should cover articles which can be possible for featured article without promotion of one type of classification (game theorists who publish books about games often classify games in differ/contradict way each other). Dawid2009 (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I ambivalent when it comes to keep or remove Race game, but wargame is a major thing and should be kept. I'll make other recommendations below. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89, Piotrus, Makkool, and LaukkuTheGreit: My thoughts about changes in selection of games:

1. Put "board" and "card" games under new sub-category titled "Tabletop games" (handful games like Mahjong, Air Hockey which currently are listed under section "traditional games" will be in tabletop games section but outside two subsections called: "board"/"card", excatly like here non-poker players are included ahead of Poker players without sub-sub section, we will not muck category for non-board and non-card tabletop games as it would be hard and unnecesary)

1. Split two sub-sub categories for card tabletop games and for board tabletop games: for thhe board games we will have two: 1 traditional board games (aka Chess, Go, Royal Game of Ur etc.) and 2Role-playing and commercial board games (where de facto will be a lot of modern board games with one on the level 4 - monopoly), for card games: #1Traditional card games (with using traditional playing cards) and #2 collective card games. The only goal why we do selection is to make us easier to analyse the list (such like we list Abraham next to his son on the level 4). Here we need make reselection in a way we will can compare our historical coverage of human acitivities.
2. Articles which revolve around list of types of games just like Game of skill, Game of chance, Street game "ALL" should be move to general next to game mechanic to not muck abuse when for example game game like jenga or solitaire can be added under many subsections.
3. After moving all article which revolve around "list of types of games" to general section we can rename section traditional games on "other games and activities". Streetball surpringly is not listed on the level 5 yet but will not be under street game at general/terminology or next to games like mahjong but next to games like hacky hack, tag, musical chairs, cuuju etc. what also will be confortable for analyse list just as we are looking for Abraham and his sons' on the level 4.

1. Quota (65) for toys is littly to big but I think we should create on Engish Wikipedia new article called Skill toy (currently redirect to list) to cover things like clackers, paddle ball, fidget spinner etc.. If we would add this article to VA5 it would not be next to articles like "game of chance" but listed under toys. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed changes to game-related entries

@Makkool and Dawid2009: I will list proposed changes below:

Traditional games

remove 1) Calcio Fiorentino (we already have Cuju, whose lead states that FIFA recognizes it as a predecessor of football, and Mesoamerican ballgame is reasonably well developed and I think also culturally more famous). Also Episkyros, Harpastum, Kemari, Tetherball (how many historical ball games do we need?). Related to this is the concept of Hacky sack (remove). 2) Remove Beer pong, we already list drinking game and it is dubious if beer pong is the universally most common example of it anyway. 3) Remove Thumb war, Red Rover, Cornhole, Horseshoes, Knucklebones no evidence those topics have wider significance (note we already have Lawn game and I am fine with keeping that overview topic to a bunch of games here). 4) remove variants of tag (tag itself of course stays): Blind man's buff, Marco Polo (game)

Support, but for Knucklebones I am on the fence. It's an example of a game of ancient origin, that's played even today. I we decide to drop it, maybe we could include Shagai instead, which is a similar game known across many nomadic cultures. The Finnish game museum has an example of a shagai-like game played by the Sámi people for example. --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I have too many ambivalent thoughts about whole list (which should have 50 000 topics and have many overrepresented and underrepresented areas) to stand on vote enrtry by entry per se but I would oppose removing of Blind man's buff more than for Knucklebones. When we can list Paintball despite fact we have either of shooting sport and tag, I think blind man's buff is vital here. I think tag is far more close to the level 3 than 5 and we list on the level 4 for example Winnie-the-Pooh which is mentioned in the other listed article on the level 4: Teddy bear - even as subtopic of Stuffed toy. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I am on the edge when it comes to Musical chairs, I think the topic is known but the article is abysmal (no good refs/analysis, etc.). Ditto for The floor is lava which has a bit better refs but I am not sure if it is really that popular.

Both are maybe too commonplace games to have anything interesting to stay. --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

There is also a problem with guessing game with has been merged to guessing by User:BD2412, who was a sole participant of that merge discussion (in 2015). A redirect can't be a vital topic, so either we restore it or it should be removed (I am in favor of restoring it, as it is a parent concept to a number of popular games that are relatively famous and in either case may merit being added here: Hangman, I spy, Twenty Questions

Add: ball game (yes, the article is in a terrible shape, but it has tremendous potential for growth). Chariot racing (I agree it is one of the more famous ancient games, perhaps more of a sport?).

Agree that chariot racing is more a sport (and maybe ball game as well as ball sport redirects to it) --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

1. I would support removing Calcio Fiorentino; I oppose removing tetherball and hacky sack.  (Also, tetherball is not a "historical ball game", it was played on my generation's playgrounds and probably still is).  Episkyros, Harpastum, Kemari, I'm ok with removing.  
2. Beer pong you can take or leave.  I'm unsure how common it is outside of American frat parties
3.  Horseshoes should stay but Thumb war, Red Rover, Cornhole, and, Knucklebones I'm ambivalent to.  
4.  OK with removing tag variants.  
5. I would keep musical chairs but drop The floor is lava I'm OK with adding Hangman and 20 Questions
6. I thought ball game was on already but add it if it's not. Chariot racing is already on there
7. Finally I echo Dawid's comment about renaming "traditional games". My suggestion would be "traditional and children's games" pbp 00:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Prior to the merge, "guessing game" was a stub tagged as needing additional references. A separate article could exist, but not in the state it was in. BD2412 T 20:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Board games

Board games (disclaimer: I tried to use SdJ and BGG to back my personal views, but a sanity check and more opinions are always welcome, particularly due to a hobby COI, ie. subconscious tendency to list games I like and not ones I don't care for; for what is worth a while back I also read the book on modern board games Eurogames: The Design, Culture and Play of Modern European Board Games which you can probably download from Library Genesis):

Remove: Agon (game), Alquerque, Halma, Hex (board game) (that one also has a better replace wit hex map) as very minor history footnotes for ludology with no evidence of wider significance (either cultural impact or scholarly analysis). Also History of chess (the summary in chess article should be sufficient)

Support Agon and Alquerque, Oppose Halma and Hex - Halma is a canonical board game along with Chinese checkers, Checkers and Nine men's morris. Hex has received a lot of research in AI, mathematics and game theory. --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Weak oppose Alquerque and Halma neutral on the rest. Alquerque as direct procedesor of Checkers is less obscure than The Royal Game of Ur, Senet, Latrunculi etc. It is very similar game to checkers; comprasion Checkers to Alquerque is like comprasion Halma to Chinese checkers. When we can list five regional variants of chess such like Korean chess/Janggi + history of chess, I think we could kept as well two board games proved by Arabian to Europe (This one and Shatranj/Arabian chess). Dawid2009 (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Ambivalent but would like to hear other thoughts regarding removal: Game of the Goose, Jungle (board game), Ludus latrunculorum, Peg solitaire

Oppose Game of the Goose - it is a predecessor to the roll-and-move type of board games, Ambivalent on the rest - Jungle is an example of board game played mostly in Asia (Should we list one?); Peg solitaire is more a puzzle than a game and it could be moved with other puzzles; Ludus latrunculorum is a Roman historical board game, but I'm not sure is it obscure or more well known. --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Game of the Goose as 16th century "THE first commercial board game" and "THE first role-playing game" is surely vital enough at this level. I added the Jungle because of this game originally was creted based on acient board games from Asia and it influenced Stratego (already listed too). Latrunculi and Solitarie are perfect good ocassion to compare them with other historical European and non-European ball games nominated to removal. I am ambivalent about removing or keeping them them on the level 5. You currently sugest to remove some/many of them but I would like echo that @DaGizza: very strongly were defending coverage of historical human activities on the level 4, even consider inclusion Calcio to level 4 years ago and recently said there that also Hasbro is more vital among 100 000 articles so while I can remove one obscure board game from the level 4 (especially when we already have history of games there, we list Go/Mancala ahead of Mesoamerican ball game on L4 and we even removed Coloseum as parent topic for Chairot racing from the level 3 to the level 4), I can not support swap so many historical games for more than handful modern ones (even when we have so big stuff of modern video game designers for example on this level). Dawid2009 (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Ambivalent but would like to hear other thoughts regarding addition: Go-Stop, Hanafuda (classics). Transitional: Diplomacy (game). Modern: Agricola (board game) (winner of SdJ, Top 30 on BGG list, one of those titles that you can on occasion see in your local supermarket, so transitioning from niche to popular), 7 Wonders (board game) (Top 50 in BGG, bunch of awards, number 3 on BGG family list), Arkham Horror, Scythe (board game), Rising Sun (board game), Brass (board game) (all popular high rankers that I'd suggest should replace some video games), concepts of Murder mystery game, legacy game

Support Go-Stop, Hanafuda, Diplomacy, Agricola, 7 Wonders, legacy game Oppose the rest, see my last comment --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Add: 1) more famous/impactful traditional games: Mensch ärgere Dich nicht, Karuta, and transitional Talisman (board game), HeroQuest and Acquire - all are at least as vital IMHO as stuff that I suggest removing and seem a likely step above the above ambivalent consideration 2) Hex map as a concept to replace the too niche Hex (board game) 3) modern games that gained popularity with in the last ~20 years, some even <5 but just like in video games and such, recent doesn't mean not vital, based on sources I mentioned above: Gloomhaven (number 1 on BGG general list since its release in 2017 as well as on the thematic list and strategy list) Dixit (card game) (popular simple family game, very often found in supermarkets, a ton of gaming awards), Terraforming Mars (Top 3 on BGG list since its release in 2016, some awards), Pandemic (board game) (probably the most famous/enduring board game coop-type game, its recent version has been in Top of BGG list - 2nd on Overall, Thematic and Strategy lists, bunch of awards), Twilight Imperium (enduring classic, Top 6-7 on BGG overall/strategy list), Dominion (game) (the game that created/popularized the concept of a deck-building game, bunch of awards, Top 100 on BGG, that listing is not best for games of its type as it is composed of a bunch of stand alone items ranked separately), Codenames (board game) (bunch of awards, #1 in BGG list of party games: [13], Azul (board game) (another high ranker with a bunch of awards, Top 10 in overall/family), Twilight Struggle (high ranker in strategy with a bunch of awards, representative of historical simulations) 4) game concepts: Amerigame (crucial counterpart to already listed eurogame), deck-building game, Cooperative board game

Support Mensch ärgere Dich nicht, Karuta, Talisman, HeroQuest, Acquire, Dixit, Pandemic, Dominion, Codenames, Azul, amerigame, deck-building game, cooperative board game, Oppose the rest, see last comment --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I suggest Cosmic Encounter instead of Twilight Imperium, because CE is an earlier example of a variable player powers type board game that is still available today. --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent to most of these adds or removals expect murder-mystery game, which I think is a good add.  Also, if we're wanting to add more brand-name board games, Candy Land would be my first choice. pbp 00:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Mensch ärgere Dich nicht is already listed along with Ludo as subtopic of Pachisi. Probably we should remove one of them to keep more space in game section. I think Mensch argere Dich nicht is better choice (this article should be translated from German Wikipedia where is incredibly long and include informations about recent competition in that game. When we list French revolution ahead of America revolution on the level 3 I also see here exception where non-English article is more vital). According to the articles, Ludo is older 14 years but Mensch ärgere Dich nicht has been recognised as the most promient "modern version of Pachisi" and FWIHW article about Mensch argere Dich nich is worse on ENwiki than minor like Sorry! (game) (I am ambivalent about keeping race game when we have Pachisi Game of the goose etc.).. @Piotrus: Among many commercial modern board games which you nominated to addition, which ones are closest to best products like: Yathzee, Battleship (game), Jenga and which ones you would add ahead of Scattergories? (BTW d:Q897014 finally should have new article on English Wikipedia - you can try to DYK ;)) Dawid2009 (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I have never heard of Scattergories and I don't see anything in that article to suggest it should be vital, so I'd say "all of them" I'd add ahead of that particular title. pl:Państwa-miasta is amusing but I haven't heard of it before, not sure if there are any good sources, a quick search in Polish failed to find any. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Shape of the pl:Państwa-miasta indeed is totally undourced but de:Stadt, Land, Fluss and es:Tutti frutti (juego) are going to be on similar level what The floor is lava on EN wiki and the categories just is traditional (and still popular just as battlespip and gomoku on the paper) precursor of Scattegories (Categories are more popular than Scattegories and it is not particular game. It just is [common paper and pencil word game, although it has average number of language versions, although it has quite few wikies at the moment, it overweight by hits Hangman and quite canonical board game like Reversi in many western countries: [14]/[15]/[16]), beyond that that game is described in this academic source and called there as „Inteligencja” (I quite proved another article about Paper soccer which even is not mentioned in any academic source about games, purely based on Internet sources to 15 000 bytes so Categories based on verifiable sources surely could be in better shape than for example Concentration (game)) so I belive that creating as stub that article and later maybe proving to DYK could be useful for Wikipedia. I also created years ago article on musical chairs at PLwiki in minimally longer-meritorically version than on the ENwiki but now I found musical chairs actually more difficult to describe than the Categories, especially that musical chairs apparently have obscure translations; for example I found (BTW missed in wikidata) article cs: Hra s židlemi which confuse musical chairs with many other games where chair is used (probably educational childern games similar to Fruit Basket Turnover and perhaps indoor verdion of Scavenger hunt with chairs as I can see) but on the other hand the categories (d:Q897014) just have wikisource on CSwiki… Either way if you never heard about categories, I will ask in abother way: which ones (among many commercial games which you suggested) are more vital in your opinion than Chess variants/Fischer random chess? Actually I ask only about games younger than 70’s-80’s because of I maybe could consider removal of Hex but certainly not for plenty very recent board games, younger than 80’s. I would like be interested in removal of hex because of being notable in math/AI research is not enough arument if we are going to make massive cut in video games but on the other hand I am afraid with listing so many very recent geek-board games if they have lower significance than e g Fisher's random chess as there are quite many skill toys and casual board games like Connect Four Some older (and perhaps the most canonical very recent to represent newest generation) seems be OK for me. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Card games

Remove: Right now we have 8 poker-themed articles. I think that's too much. I'd suggest removing Community card poker, Five-card draw , Five-card stud, Seven-card stud and perhaps also Draw poker and Stud poker. Instead I'd suggest adding Online poker and Strip poker as wider phenomena that more people have heard about (than poker variants which are not generally of interest to anyone but poker players)

Support --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Ambivalent (consider for removal perhaps): Concentration (card game), Crazy Eights, Schnapsen (listed under Mariage (card game), do we need both?),

Support --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Add War (card game) (traditional and famous), Android: Netrunner to CCGs (high BGG ranking, awards, example of a more mature game to complement MtG, whereas Pokemon and Yugioh are more geared towards kids and teeneagers), Hearthstone (the most popular example of the Digital collectible card game)

Support War, Hearthstone Oppose Netrunner, because we would have two games from the same designer (this and MTG) --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree that there are too many and/or the wrong variants of poker.  Strip poker can be added.  Wikipedia doesn't have an article on online versions of board and card games (sort of the "parent" to online poker, among other things), which is too bad, because that would be a good add.  Concentration I'd keep but I'd drop some of the others.  War I'd add. pbp 00:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment. It may be helpful to establish some qualifying factors e.g. that a game is one or more of the following:

• National card game
• Very popular card game
• Historically important card game
• Progenitor of a family of card games
• 'Type' of a family of card games

On that basis, Concentration would probably drop out as would the two variants of Stud Poker and maybe some of the other Poker variants. Schnapsen (national and v popular), Mariage (historical and progenitor) and Crazy Eights (type) would probably stay. BTW why do some of the games have Level 4 against them but most don't? Bermicourt (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Video games

Remove: History of Eastern role-playing video games and History of Western role-playing video games (we don't list the history of other types of games). And then History and consoles, sigh, do we need 41 articles in that subcategory? I'd remove all but History of video games for being too detailed. C'mon, what other protonema gets 3+ dozens of history articles? Through I'd keep articles on prominent video game consoles like Game Boy, PlayStation, Xbox, maybe few others, but there is an overivew at Video game console and such anyway. But we certainly don't need industry trivia like Video game crash of 1983 or historical curios like Magnavox Odyssey or TurboGrafx-16 that only die hard geeks and fans remember. Similarly do we need to list all eight articles on video console generations (when we are not even listing articles on real generations like baby boomers...? Priorities, please, my fellow geeks). Oh, and Specific video games and series (99 articles) has in fact 111 entries. I think we should prune it down to below 50. As a start, how about we remove all examples of franchises? Like, Final Fantasy series can stay, but no need to list individual entries, same for GTA or Zelda and such. One game per series or the series itself is sufficient (like we list Wolfenstein but not the likely most famous milestone Wolfenstein 3D, tough choice, but we need variety, ditto for the 'how can you not list FF7', sorry, we list the series, that should be enough). Bottom line we should keep one example of a prominent game genra, plus popular franchises. And historical 'firsts' from 20th century should go away too unless they are very famous (so keep Space Invaders but remove Zork, etc.).

Support - comment: We list all "history of..." articles in the History section and they should be moved there. --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Remove the following examples of video games: Passage (video game), Animal Crossing, Colossal Cave Adventure, Contra (video game), Defender (1981 video game), Duck Hunt, Dune II, Five Nights at Freddy's, EarthBound, Fortnite, GoldenEye 007 (1997 video game), Kirby (series), Katamari Damacy, Max Payne (video game), Ms. Pac-Man, Ōkami, Papers, Please, Passage (video game), Pitfall!, PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds, Prince of Persia, Punch-Out!! (NES), Quake (series), Rez, Red Dead Redemption, Roblox, Rock Band (video game), Rogue (video game), R-Type, Shadow of the Colossus, Spacewar!, Star Fox, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, The Walking Dead (video game), and Zork. - none of which is the dominant example of its genre and for each I think a better example is already present in the list

Support - comment: Should we list one example of video games as an artform? (so Papers Please or Passage?) And if we remove both Zork and Colossal Cave Adventure we don't have any examples of text adventure, which was a major genre of computer games. (Zork is more famous, but Colossal Cave Adventure is the first, don't know which should stay) --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Fortnite removal, recent but one of the big esport games, Fortnite World Cup winner made more than a wimbledon champ. GuzzyG (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Ambivalent removals: Gran Turismo (series) or Need for Speed (not sure which is a better racing game in the list)

Ambivalent adds: Incremental game, Tower defense as new genras that are raising in prominence, and Mortal Kombat and a major franchise that's not on the list and The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt as an example of the most prominent open world game (I think a better add than the Witcher franchise)

Oppose see my last comment --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

add concepts of Loot box (could also go to gambling), game design concept Open world and to section on Video game genre: tile-matching video game, Shoot 'em up, Eroge, Music video game and/or Rhythm game, Real-time strategy, Turn-based strategy, and 4X.

Support the rest except for eroge --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Finally, add Reiner Knizia to Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/People/Artists,_musicians,_and_composers, game designers section (arguably the most prolific designers of eurogames).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Support --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Strong oppose to proposed removals of Colossal Cave Adventure, Rogue, and Spacewar!. These are games of massive historical importance; Colossal Cave Adventure and Rogue each have an entire genre named after them (adventure game and roguelike respectively), and Spacewar "is one of the most important and influential games in the early history of video games" and "was named to a list of the ten most important video games of all time". I'd rather remove NetHack than Rogue.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@LaukkuTheGreit: I don't dispute they are important for History of video games but we need to ask, how many entries that are important for this particualr subfield of history do we list. I like video games, but frankly, I don't think any particular games notable only for being historical milestones are important. I think having entries on genre such as adventure games, roguelike and such, which should mention historical milestones, plus the overview article on history of vg should suffice. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I have opposed some of your recent game submissions, because in the project FAQ anti-recentism is listed as one selection criteria. Maybe we should have a discussion how to interpret it. Maybe set a cap at some number of years where a game is too recent to be added? --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11

December 2019 (UTC) I support the suggested title removals and also the removal of some of the minor consoles.  In addition, I'd remove the "daughter" articles like Final Fantasy V (daughter of Final Fantasy) and Call of Duty 4, with Mario Kart being the one possible exception.  We need genre articles for tower defense.   As for the recency thing, I think a video game should be 5 years old before being added to this list. pbp 00:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

As Polish instead listing either of Open World and the Witcher I would definietly prefer keep for the diversity variant of tags (Blind man's buff and Paintball) but I also would not mind to keep either of Open World and the Witcher as you agreed each other.. When we list Computer chess, Computer Go, Deep Blue and Alpha Go at technology ection, I think AI player should be added elsewhere. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Reply by Dawid2009

Thank you @Piotrus: for effort to put about 150+ new suggestion in that area. That’s important point and perfect ocassion to we discuss whole life/recrearion sections and to we later compare it to currently listed 1200 sport bios. My general thoughts:

In my opinion number of listed games looks weak in comprasion to traditions sections but not weak in comprasion to stuff bios whose we list among sportpeople. While I can say that e g missed wedding reception (wedding party redirect there) is more vital than for example musical chairs (popular on wedding parties but also as children’s game) or many other less important games, suggested to remove by Piotrus, on the other hand I am ambivalent about fast removal of so many games when we list (probably to many) dozen video games personalities: 20 Video game designers ( seven Esport players+ Sjokz among sport journalists and Narcissa Wright among entertaiments (BTW also speedrun and couple esport competition ahead of olympic/worl-cup sport articles in this section).

First of all the name: „traditional games” should be renamed (why chess can not be under traditional games, and why we can not list Gomoku next to Tic-tac-toe) or whatever?). I would suggest to split it onto „outdoor games”, and „other (as non video and non tabletop) games” or whatever, something not-complicated to we do not create our imaginate new clasification.

I am ambivalent about adding technical articles like tabletop game or ball game but in general I am weakly oppose addition of new board game types/mechanic-related articles: Hex map, sub-eurogame topics. As there are many few-viewed mentioned list of types of games whose abuse could be probleatic here. Guess game IMO is not very needed when we have already puzzle, riddle, maze, charade.

Removing Schnapsen as redundand to mariage seems be OK as long as we do not Blackball (pool) (subtopics of English billiards); but I also noted that I (maybe just mistaly) putted Mahjong as Trick-taking game ( also parent topic for mariage) at „traditional games” and if we do not list game like Madiao, probably we could remove Ruff and honourswith purly historical importance. We already habe whist and contract bridge on the level 4 (BTW I think it i salso good point to we find discuss where put trick-tking and how all names of the sections should be selected). Your suggestions about Poker-subtopics swaps and adding War sound reasonable to me. Eventually we can swap the war for another card game mentioned in children’s card game template. Karuta as representation of another Japanese game also is interesing addition when we list Jianzi and Kemari which already have something common withCuju but I am definietly unsure about removal of the Kemari.

I think Calcio florentino is less vital than Cuju and Mesoamerican ball game. Potentially calcio could be sufficently covered by historical articles about soccer which are already listed in history section (mob football or history or soccer) but on the other hand I can not stat what I reasonably think about your suggestion because I have ambivalent thoughs when I see / or I am aware that we list cuple sport journalist who aruably are not more vital than game historians like the Murray. I like your comprasion "history of video games topics" to baby boomers . You have said that we list many video game histrical topics in comprasion to games but I would said that number of video games in general is big in comprasion to any historical entertaiment or any non-entertaiment topic listed in history section. On the other I think chess are actually easy enoug vital for this level when we are so highly under quota. I think that Hacky Sack(seems be more vital than strip poker which you just have suggested toadd) could be kept or swapped for freestyle football when we already list Streetball for basketball Dawid2009 (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: Do you really think 30 people representing video games (which is the highest earning form of entertainment and most popular, [17] is too much when we list 1000 musicians and 900 actors??? If anything we are under representing them and with traditional sports causing brain injuries; i wouldn't be surprised if more youth get involved in esports. Where do you get this over represented idea from? Why is 30 too low for the most popular form of entertainment when we list 30 magicians? Who do you think will have and currently has the biggest influence on gen z and under people; Logan Paul or Timothée Chalamet? We shouln't cover new actors because they have no influence, but video games/youtube/esports IS the new thing; so if we cover this centuries entertainment than they must be covered. We can't just keep saying 30 video game people and 20 web people is too much when we list 1,900 people from last centuries forms of entertainment. [18] these people completely dominate this century; we shouldn't be behind the times. These articles are popular and this is a pop culture list first; they are vital to have featured and well written/looked after in this culture; if that changes than they can be removed and the quotas lowered; if anything the web quota should be 30 considering magic is. GuzzyG (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Our fellow editors just have started discussion about the issues/ removals around the parent topics (games, including the video games) so of course I had to point that we should also have discuss about the questionable 1200 sportpeople and quotas for so many esports included there. when topics like calcio florentiono just have been suggested to removal by three users (I just remind that @DaGizza:suggested Calcio on the level 4 in the past, and, BTW, FYI I will remind that Gizza even probably thanked 01.10.2019 @Cobblet: for this edit where he pointed that we all made list is too similar to WP:5000) that's important point. In the FAQthere is NO informatin that level 5 toward more pop culture than in contrast to other levels but there are also a lot of important topics related with recreation such like calcio or zanza which IMO do not fit to the level 4 but can make material on the level 5. Pay attention that we just list the olympics on the level 3 ahead of IOC but we do not have World Cup ahead of FIFA based on fact 2026 FIFA Wolrd Cup event (maybe biggest in history such entertaiment event) because of we do not make encyclopedia based on future. While video game industry is important topic, video game designers and Esport players still are far from video game core topics (including some suggested for removal in this section) just as architects of the Notterdame are less vital than Notterdame itself but Louis Armstrong is much more vital than his many creations (honestly and authentically there are no video game perosality on the level 5 who has more language versions than for example "niche" ski jumper like Adam Małysz so for now I actually find it with hardly arguable benefit of being a productive dispute to say that it is underrepresented especially if in the past even @Purplebackpack89: suggested to keep 60 all video game non-bios topics among 50 000 all articles).I do not dispute that fields like youtubers/esports/game designers are interesig and growing dominated part of 21th century ( + strong top of representtive field if we are going to whatever represent from21th century) but on the other hand it is difficult to say whose among them are the most vital as every biography in that field can be out gone by other fellow biograpy from the same. I appreciate your big effort of creating this list and appreciate fact that you are probably the biget constributor but your stating about 30 video game people vs 30 magicians when just you earlier controlled theose two quotas by WP:bold littly is uncalled-for in light of tentive process (We need suggestions from a much larger pool of editors with expertise in a range of subjects, and a slower process to add articles with more long-term planning on how the list should be structured and organised). Personally I am afraid that numbers of sport-people and entartaiments on this level is currently exaggeration if we do not list all languages more vital than Dolly Pentreath who is already on the list. Beyond that for example, seriously/honestly Cricket have biographies with mind-importance statement by wikiproject... meanwhile William Wadé Harris (top-importanc christianity topic which also represent Africa) is not listed among religious figures. Either way I already opened new section about FAQ . if you have something interesing to say about fact that the FAQ inaccurate describe recentism on L, kept comment there (where I just pinged you), but please no longer reply here, under this subsection, because of here is hard discussion about games but not about thousand topics among whole 50 000 list. Cheers Dawid2009 (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Huh? Some of the changes you mention weren't me. I continue to believe that the space devoted to video games (especially individual titles) is excessive and drastic pruning is needed. As for sportspeople, nearly all my work at this level is in either basketball or Am football. I was also just about to suggest some changes to Protestant religious leaders. pbp 23:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Even if we list 50 games. the personalities don't conflict, every single one of those 20 designers is vital in modern day American or Japanese culture; that's where you don't consider; video games are massive in Japan and people like Lim Yo-hwan and Faker (video game player) are vital to modern South Korean sports where esports is one of the biggest sports already; the fact that you outright lied while saying "honestly" and said no video game makers have close to the ski jumper (Shigeru Miyamoto and Markus Persson do and 8 others come extremely close) in Wikidata languages makes it hard to consider what you mean. Also you have to consider that competing in the Olympics is automatic notability and editors routinely create multiple articles for a Olympian; which shouldn't even be a factor, by your method Corbin Bleu is more important than Shakespeare, Picasso and Mozart. Are you saying creating a Level 4 franchise (pokemon), isn't enough to list Satoshi Tajiri? We list one video game designer on the level 4 list, is it really that much of a leap to have 20 here? I think there should be 5 esports people; i just havent got around to cutting the others yet; im constantly working but i cant do everything at once, there's so many culture and fields to examine; i posted about how musicians were done but i discovered i was wrong instantly and will do more cuts to popular music; it just takes time and trying to rush everything is a waste of time. There's two competitive eaters because one is the most vital in America and the other in Japan and i didn't want to be bias. Cricket is the 2nd biggest team sport and you're using it as a example of something covered too much? If we had one athelte on the 129 list based off of good stats only we'd list Don Bradman, i don't understand your methodology in that case? Entertainers will get a massive cut when i get to that section; but still web people won't; i linked a study showing web influencers are just as known but better liked than Lebron who is a level 4 article; do you have a source saying that web entertainers don't compare to actors? Articles like porn stars, youtubers and criminals are integral to this level and i stand by that. People like Linda Lovelace, Hulk Hogan, Bonnie and Clyde and PewDiePie are vital, their fields just don't have the seriousness factor to them so they're not in the level 4 list. I strongly disagree with Cobblet when it comes to this level and his method of "what an encyclopedia should prioritize"; we shouldn't play god on this level; we should mostly go by what field is popular and not what we subjectively believe we should prioritize if youtubers articles get over 10 million views we should prioratise that to be a featured article. By Cobblet's method William Wadé Harris is more important than Pablo Escobar to have featured because of the seriousness of Harrises field compared to Escobar, but Escobar is one of the few articles with over 100 million views combining all the languages; what article is more important to have featured? Clearly linking to a years old post when my methodology has clearly changed is wrong too; i'm sure Cobblet wouldn't have such a reaction if he seen what i've done to the artists & musicians page; except we don't have ancient composers, people like Kassia, national anthem composers, more non western art musicians and foreign language musicians like Clarence Wijewardena but it takes time; you're citing things that will get removed in due time, like when you started the Randall Munroe discussion early, you have to just be patient. I did try to get others opinions too, when i asked everyone in my "musicians is complete " post and i incorporated the feedback; the only section that got swapped completely was the Polish musicians which you had added. Basing vitality off of things like wikidata stats or wikiproject importance ratings is not the way to go in my opinion. Every section of artists & musicians, sports, entertainment, misc, writers and such will get a complete makeover; the writing/activism section is terrible; but i can't change everything at once and musicians/artists will be my focus for a bit as i figure out what to cut. GuzzyG (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Also the problem with considering scientist biographies that people don't realize is that nowadays they work in teams; for every vital discovery it's a team; i get we need every nobel winner just because the award has a big amount of respect to it; but let's be frank that makes us list 3 relatively minor people like Robert Coleman Richardson, David Lee (physicist) and Douglas Osheroff who are known for the exact same thing and there's many three pairings in Nobel history. We could find hundreds of bios of teams members like this; but for the general sake i still stand by that a article like Charles Manson is more vital to have a featured article for the sake of the people who read this site. If we play activism based on "who deserves" a placement this list would only be scientists, religious people and philosophers. Since this site depends on readers, we can't dismiss what people are actually interested in too. GuzzyG (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually after examining the data again; i take back the point; i'm not in favour of any esports cuts while the niche quota itself remains. Esports is the most popular sport that's ever existed in the niche category; this year the Leagues of Legends event passed the superbowl in total viewers [19] and it's being debated for the olympics in a serious way; unlike any other of the niche sports we list [20] (also from that article is:"Esports will be a medal event at the 2022 Asian Games") and there's a Olympic sanctioned tournament at the next olympics for Street fighter [21], which calls into question the removal of Daigo Umehara before. Players of a more recent tournament win more prize money than players who win Wimbledon. [22] Honestly; for a sport of this level of viewership it's undercovered and should be ten; all because Gen Z is in a position where their interests aren't reported on as much as traditional sports, that doesn't mean it's not important too; we don't have to build a "encyclopedia for the future" just accurately cover what is actually popular right now; i'd love to see ski jumping independently get 100 million viewers. The focus on ski jumping and not skiing itself is weird too. Even in Poland the president is advocating for esports. [23]. If one of the highest watched, with one of the highest prize pools sports isn't worth 7 spots than we should cut our sports quota by 400 atleast, since 400 people wouldn't make it if their sport was held to the same standard. GuzzyG (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Also last point: but actually looking into ski jumpers; the next ones we'd list would be Sara Takanashi, Simon Ammann or Kamil Stoch; the fact that you chose Adam Małysz over them is odd considering he's less successful than them, but he does have more wikidata languages than most of the video game designers unlike the others; also the fact that Takanashi is not as popular in her home country as the esports players despite being the greatest female ski jumper of all time; signifies the importance of esports players it'd seem and the fact that Małysz has more wikidata languages than them signifies how much of a unreliable system just depending on that alone is. sports is the one section that should be recent leaning; athletes don't have that much historical value unless they hold a record or they're a anomaly like Babe Ruth, as such we should be more focused on current athletes. GuzzyG (talk) 04:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Purplebackpack89#@GuzzyG:,_@Dawid2009:_and_Vital_articles - here we both already discusset and said enough related matters (on PBP's talk page). Either way I just echo my last and main point: Calcio Fiorentino is not more vital than Mesoamerican Ballame but enough vital for this level if we consider what else we cover on this level, even despite fact we list articles related to history of soccer. It is more vital game from Florence than Game of the Goose (first commeecial game) which is also from Florence so Calcio automatically is more vital than most commercial video games. This centureies game is also so traditional game that Italy it is the only country n Europe where name of soccer is not called there by Linguistic purism as foot+ball (see it:Calcio). I am not sure how to compare articles like Fortnite or Ninja (video game player) (really global but the most recent and in near future will be easier to compare) but Calcio and Game of the Goose, certainly are more important to FA than most games like Passage (video game). Dawid2009 (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

FAQ

Althoug the FAQ refer about „anti-rcentism”, currently we have often discussions about fact that some fields (just like films or video games) need this rigoristic limit less than the others (just like literaturę, oral tradition etc.). Is someone interested to correct there? Another interesing thing i salso „tiloring to readers of the English Wikipedia” as it also is going to be more confused on lower (L4 and L5) levels and contradict to WP:Bias which whay active participitians have differ definitions about vitalness in that project. In the past @Power~enwiki: tried start this discussion on Jimbo’s talk page here but it did not get tany attention. Maybe now on the level 5 (when talk on L5 is more than double times more viewed than talk on L3) we could hve any consensus here? I also echo discussion above where Calcio fiorentino and a lot of parent bvideo games are suggested to the removal meanwhile @GuzzyG: defend Esport players. I am generally ambivalent as I only will wait for consensus among larer number of ditors but I would like to ping @Headbomb: who added almost all video game topics on this level and @Carlwev: who originally pointed in the past that we often miss parent topics on the level 5 (as Carlwev also speciffically were reffering to fact that we were listing for example Esport players before video games, meanwhile we now we again are going to cut video games back). Dawid2009 (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: who added almost all video game topics on this level I did? If I did so, I added generations + biggest members of the generation, and some historically important games / franchises. No real strong feelings about particular target number of articles, but IMO the generations, the big consoles, and those historically important games should stay. (@Dawid2009: Also your above post contains a rather large number of typos which makes it hard to understand.) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

111+ individual games seems rather high though. Cutting down by ~50 ish should leave plenty behind. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the current list, I'd purge the following

1. Angry Birds
2. Animal Crossing
3. Assassin's Creed
4. Asteroids (video game)
5. BioShock
6. Call of Duty
   1. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
7. Candy Crush Saga
8. Castlevania
   1. Castlevania: Symphony of the Night
9. Civilization (series)
   1. Civilization
10. Colossal Cave Adventure
11. Counter-Strike
12. Contra
13. Dance Dance Revolution
14. Dark Souls
15. Digimon
16. Donkey Kong
17. Defender (1981 video game)
18. Deus Ex
19. Doom (1993 video game)
20. Dota 2 Dota
21. Dragon Quest
22. Duck Hunt
23. Dune II
24. EarthBound
25. The Elder Scrolls
26. Elite
27. Fallout (series)
    1. Fallout
28. FIFA
29. Fire Emblem
30. Final Fantasy
    1. Final Fantasy
    2. Final Fantasy IV
    3. Final Fantasy VII
31. Five Nights at Freddy's
32. Fortnite
33. Frogger
34. Galaga
35. Gauntlet (1985 video game)
36. GoldenEye 007 (1997 video game)
37. God of War (franchise)
38. Grand Theft Auto
    1. Grand Theft Auto III
    2. Grand Theft Auto V
39. Gran Turismo
40. Guitar Hero
41. Half-Life (series)
    1. Half-Life
42. Halo (franchise)
43. King's Quest I King's Quest
44. Kirby
45. Katamari Damacy
46. Kingdom Hearts
47. League of Legends
48. The Legend of Zelda
    1. The Legend of Zelda (1986)
    2. The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past
    3. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
49. LucasArts adventure games
    1. The Secret of Monkey Island
50. Madden NFL
51. Max Payne
52. Marvel vs. Capcom
53. Mario (franchise)
    1. Mario Kart
    2. Super Mario Bros.
    3. Super Mario World
    4. Super Mario 64
54. Metal Gear
    1. Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game)
55. Mega Man
56. Metroid
    1. Metroid Prime
    2. Super Metroid
57. Minecraft
58. Minesweeper
59. Mortal Kombat
60. Ms. Pac-Man
61. Myst
62. Need for Speed
63. NetHack
64. NBA Jam (1993 video game)
65. Overwatch
66. Ōkami
67. Pac-Man
68. Papers, Please
69. Passage
70. Pitfall!
71. Planescape: Torment (could be replaced with Baldur's Gate)
72. PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds
73. Pokémon (Level 4)
    1. Pokémon Red and Blue
    2. Pokémon Go
74. Pong (Level 4)
75. Portal
76. Prince of Persia
77. Pro Evolution Soccer
78. Punch-Out!! (NES)
79. Quake
80. Rez
81. Red Dead Redemption
82. Resident Evil
83. Roblox
84. Rock Band
85. Rogue
86. R-Type
87. Second Life
88. Shadow of the Colossus
89. Silent Hill
90. SimCity (1989 video game)
91. The Sims
92. Sonic the Hedgehog
    1. Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game)
    2. Sonic Adventure
93. Souls series
94. Space Invaders
95. Spacewar!
96. StarCraft
97. Star Fox
98. Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic
99. Street Fighter
    1. Street Fighter II: The World Warrior
100. Super Smash Bros.
     1. Super Smash Bros. Melee
101. Team Fortress 2
102. Tetris (Level 4)
103. Tomb Raider
104. Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six
105. Tekken
106. Ultima series
107. The Walking Dead
108. Wii Sports
109. Wolfenstein
110. World of Warcraft
111. Zork

That would remove 37 entries. A couple of those could be trimmed/replaced with the franchise entry. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I would also trim the following: Call of Duty 4, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Civilization I, Legend of Zelda 86, A Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, Super Mario Bros, Super Mario 64, Super Mario World, Metal Gear 98, Super Metroid, Pokémon Red and Blue, Sonic 91, Street Fighter II, Super Smash Bros Melee pbp 00:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd support PBP's suggestions except; Pokémon Red and Blue, Super Mario 64, Super Mario Bros. and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time all are super important on their own; the last two i'd rather list over their franchises aswell before they were removed. Super Mario Bros. is the The Birth of a Nation of games and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is the Citizen Kane of games. I also have no clue why Level 3's anti recentism rule is cited at level 5; where all the listed examples of who not to list are listed at level 4, except Trump. GuzzyG (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think Dota 2 should be swapped with it's bland franchise article; it's one of the highest paying esports and is regarded as one of the greatest games itself. GuzzyG (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It's strange how we list rarely any of the Game canon [24], with these proposed removals we won't have any of the top 10 of metacritics highest rated games [25], not that we have many of them now anyway. Do we really need to cut video games down? [26] it's the highest selling form of entertainment. Nearly triples films revenue; what articles will replace them in the sports and games section that's so important? More sports teams? Space Invaders has grossed in total more than nearly triple Dallas Cowboys are worth and even super recent Grand Theft Auto V has made more in gross than the Cowboy's are worth. Do we have any replacements planned or are we just cutting to cut? GuzzyG (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

There are only a few here I'd cut, like Digimon, Passage (video game), and Ultima (series). Many of these are listed in the list of video games considered the best which indicates, to me at least, that they shouldn't be cut (e.g. BioShock and Assassin's Creed, two of the best selling game franchises. In fact, I'd make some additions and modifications to the list:

• SimCity (1989 video game) should be placed under a SimCity header. (SM2K was successful too)
• Quake should get, at least, Quake III Arena because of its eSports scene, alongside Quake Live.
• StarCraft should get StarCraft (video game) (I'm not sure about SC2 being listed).
• Counter-Strike could possibly see Counter-Strike: Source and Counter-Strike: Global Offensive.
• I'm surprised Wolfenstein doesn't have Wolfenstein 3D.
• Fortnite should be changed to Fortnite Battle Royale. All the hype around this game was not for the survival mode and this should reflect that. Alternatively, list BR under Fortnite.
• This one might be recentism at play, but I wouldn't be opposed to World of Warcraft Classic being listed either, under World of Warcraft.

I'm very much opposed to the cuts that Purplebackpack89 proposed. Every single game they listed has been influential in some way. Similarly, Dota 2 is undeniably more popular than anything else listed in Dota and should not be cut. Other games, like The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, could be added to this, though this discussion is not the place for that. Anarchyte (talk | work) 10:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Anarchyte:: The thing is, I'd like the titles section to have about half the titles it does now. I just find it excessive to have 100+ video game titles. And I think it's unnecessary in most cases to have multiple titles from the same franchise or series. pbp 14:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

We have 523 total sport-related vital articles. For swimming we have, among others, Synchronised swimming, Swimming (sport) and Water polo. For gymnastics we've got Balance beam, Pommel horse, Uneven bars, etc. That's no different to having a few Mario games that sold more than 70 million units and another series that sold over 135 million units. Pokemon Red and Blue were the first games in what is now the biggest media franchise in the world. I don't think the same can be said for the floor. Anarchyte (talk | work) 16:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion seems to have stalled so I'm doing another proposal to get things moving and arrive at a quota. What about we do a vote on how many specific games/series we want, after closing take the median value and (for the sake of aesthetics) round it to the nearest number divisible by 5, or divisible by 10 if the median happens to be exactly halfway between two numbers divisible by 5. For the record, my vote would be 80 games. (The other video game subsections seem fine to me in terms of size.)--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

My suggestions are that we should:

• Remove Animal Crossing, Civilization (series), Colossal Cave Adventure, Contra, Defender, Duck Hunt, Dune II, Fallout (series), Five Nights at Freddy's, EarthBound, Fortnite, GoldenEye 007, Half-Life (series), Kirby (series), Katamari Damacy, Max Payne, Metal Gear, Ōkami, Pitfall!, PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds, Prince of Persia, Punch-Out!!, Quake, Rez, Red Dead Redemption, Roblox, Rogue, R-Type, Shadow of the Colossus, Souls series, Star Fox, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, Street Fighter
• Definitely keep Assassin's Creed, BioShock, Civilization (video game), Dark Souls, Deus Ex, Doom, Dota 2, Elite, Fallout (video game), Final Fantasy VII, Grand Theft Auto III, Grand Theft Auto V, Half-Life (video game), Metal Gear Solid, Pac-Man, Pokémon Red and Blue, Pong, Resident Evil, SimCity, Space Invaders, Spacewar!, StarCraft, Street Fighter II: The World Warrior, Super Mario Bros., Super Mario 64, Super Metroid, Tetris, The Legend of Zelda (video game), The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, The Secret of Monkey Island, Tomb Raider, World of Warcraft, Zork --Makkool (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll follow suit - my votes for the procedure I proposed below:

• Keep/upvote: Angry Birds, Assassin's Creed, Asteroids (video game), Call of Duty, Castlevania, Civilization (series), Colossal Cave Adventure, Doom (1993 video game), Final Fantasy, Grand Theft Auto, Half-Life (series), League of Legends, The Legend of Zelda, LucasArts adventure games, Mario (franchise), Super Mario Bros., Mega Man, Metal Gear, Metroid, Minecraft, Myst, Pac-Man, Resident Evil, Rogue, Silent Hill, SimCity (1989 video game), The Sims, Sonic the Hedgehog, Dark Souls, Space Invaders, Spacewar!, Street Fighter, Tomb Raider, Ultima series, World of Warcraft
• Remove/downvote: Animal Crossing, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Civilization (video game), Contra, Duck Hunt, Dune II, EarthBound, Fallout (video game), Final Fantasy (video game), Final Fantasy IV, Fire Emblem, Five Nights at Freddy's, Fortnite, Grand Theft Auto V, Kingdom Hearts, Kirby, Katamari Damacy, Marvel vs. Capcom, Max Payne (video game), Metal Gear Solid, Metroid Prime, Super Metroid, Minesweeper, Ms. Pac-Man, NBA Jam (1993 video game), Papers, Please, Ōkami, Overwatch, Passage, PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds, Pokémon Go, Prince of Persia, Punch-Out!! (NES), R-Type, Red Dead Redemption, Rez, Rock Band, Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game), Sonic Adventure, Souls series, Star Fox, Super Mario World, Super Smash Bros. Melee --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Sports teams

Basketball

I've added Harlem Globetrotters to three NBA teams. This team popularized the game more than any single NBA club. --Deinocheirus (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Association football

I strongly suggest replacing R.S.C. Anderlecht with AFC Ajax. The Dutch club won the Champions League and its predecessor 4 times (the Belgians never won it) while also adding an Intercontinental Cup and a couple of UEFA Super Cups. All Anderlecht has got is two Cup Winners' Cups (Ajax actually also has one) and one UEFA Cup (Ajax also has one). So I don't see any reason to keep Anderlecht on the list in place of a much more successful club. --Deinocheirus (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Stages of life

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life#Stages of life for the list of topics in this category.

Society and social sciences

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences for the list of topics in this category.

Generations

I think we should add all entries from Template:Generations sidebar here. As far as I can tell neither is listed here, and those are big concepts (Millennials, Baby boomers, etc.). That's 7 articles. And Generation should be level 4 vital at least, I guess I'll go to V4 talk page and propose adding it there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I support adding the articles for specific generations. Sdkb (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Support from me as well. --Makkool (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Racial groups missing

It appears we don't list white people or black people, and possibly a bunch of other ethnic groups. Where should they be added? Sdkb (talk) 06:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

To Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences, either to anthropology or sociology/Society sections. The white/black duality is the classic one and so I support both of the above terms. Worth noting that Mongoloid is already under Society, as is Negroid and the Caucasian race, all subset of Race topic - this is probably where the two terms you added should go. Asian people is not listed here yet. Through one issue to discuss is whether we need two articles that are to some degree very similar (ex. white people ts the Caucasian race). One is more about the social aspects and the other is more about biological ones, but the overlap is big, and I could see some people arguing we have room for one but not both concepts. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Race categories like those we already list are historical and not used in modern language. It would be better to replace them with modern terms like "white people", "black people", "asian people" etc. --Makkool (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree with those above. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

FWIHW, IMO we should have separated section for racial names from Biological anthropology perspective and from Folk taxonomy perspective, both are important. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

How many languages and tribes should be included on the level 5?

In my opinion number of lanugages and tribes included to the level 5 (when language is level 1 article and tribe is level 4 article), could be veeeeeeeerrrrryyyyyy bigg. I would like point that we list Dolly Pentreath who is less notable than Cornish language. What do you guys think? Dawid2009 (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Basics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Basics for the list of topics in this category.

Anthropology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Anthropology for the list of topics in this category.

Business and economics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Business and economics for the list of topics in this category.

Culture

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Culture for the list of topics in this category.

Education

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Education for the list of topics in this category.

Ethnology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Ethnology for the list of topics in this category.

International organizations

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#International organizations for the list of topics in this category.

Language

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Language for the list of topics in this category.

Law

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Law for the list of topics in this category.

Mass media

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Mass media for the list of topics in this category.

Cartoon shows removed

I just reverted an edit [27] which removed a dozen articles from Society and social sciences. Can we get a consensus on de-inclusion before articles are removed because of "bloat"? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion WP:Bold editions should be couraged, not discouraged, although should more focussed on inclusion rather than deletion when we are under quota (although I realise that many articles were earlier added without discussion). Worse issue which we currently do IMO is sinhandelly stating suggesting quotas for future but on the other hand we also do not have enough participants on the level 5 to make productive discussins about everything. So we should take patient approach (I of course hope we will finish the list). In the archives there were even suggestion that maybe 50 000 is too larger number but there were alsosuggestions about reaching limit and later romoving wrong articles instead slow process Dawid2009 (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Could the vital articles FAQ be a good starting point for consensus? It says that vital articles are "considered essential to the subject". So what shows would be essential in a discussion of tv history?--Makkool (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

In the question of deletion/inclusion, I think that both are equally important. The current state of the list is directing the work of the editors by example. I think the list should reflect the our consensus even in an incomplete state. --Makkool (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:CAREFUL comes to mind here too though as the changes effected a number of pages that also saw another editor undo. The only reason why I left a warning template is that I saw other editors had raised the same concerns in the past on the part of Makkool. Starting a discussion on inclusion might be for the best. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Museums

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Museums for the list of topics in this category.

Politics and government

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Politics and government for the list of topics in this category.

Psychology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Psychology for the list of topics in this category.

Society

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Society for the list of topics in this category.

Digital divide

Add Digital divide to society topics? Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Sociology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Sociology for the list of topics in this category.

War and military

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#War and military for the list of topics in this category.

Biology and health sciences

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences for the list of topics in this category.

Basics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology#Biology basics for the list of topics in this category.

Anatomy and morphology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology#Anatomy and morphology for the list of topics in this category.

Biochemistry and molecular biology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology#Biochemistry and molecular biology for the list of topics in this category.

Biological processes and physiology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology#Biological processes and physiology for the list of topics in this category.

Botany

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology#Botany for the list of topics in this category.

Cell biology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology#Cell biology for the list of topics in this category.

Ecology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology#Ecology for the list of topics in this category.

Zoology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology#Zoology for the list of topics in this category.

Organisms

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Animals for the list of topics in this category.

Health, medicine and disease

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Health for the list of topics in this category.

Please add an article (Vaccine hesitancy)

Hello. --Алёна Пескова (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Quote from article (It is identified by the World Health Organization as one of the top ten global health threats of 2019.). --Алёна Пескова (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I've added this myself to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Health since it is still far below quota. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Physical sciences

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences for the list of topics in this category.

Basics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Basics and measurement#Science basics for the list of topics in this category.

Measurement

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Basics and measurement#Measurement for the list of topics in this category.

Astronomy

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Astronomy for a complete list of articles in this topic.

Nice model

You have the Nice model under physical cosmology, whereas it is actually a model for the formation of the Solar System planets. I think it should be placed under Solar System. Praemonitus (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Chemistry

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Chemistry for the list of topics in this category.

Earth science

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Earth science for the list of topics in this category.

Physics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Physics for the list of topics in this category.

Technology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology for the list of topics in this category.

Agriculture

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Agriculture for the list of topics in this category.

Biotechnology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Biotechnology for the list of topics in this category.

Computing and information technology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Computing and information technology for the list of topics in this category.

Electronics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Electronics for the list of articles in this category.

Engineering

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Engineering for the list of topics in this category.

Industry

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Industry for the list of topics in this category.

Infrastructure

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Infrastructure for the list of articles in this category.

Machinery and tools

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Machinery and tools for the list of topics in this category.

Media and communication

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Media and communication for the list of topics in this category.

Medical technology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Medical technology for the list of topics in this category.

Military technology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Military technology for the list of topics in this category.

Navigation and timekeeping

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Navigation and timekeeping for the list of topics in this category.

Optical technology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Optical technology for the list of topics in this category.

Space

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Space for the list of topics in this category.

Textiles

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Textiles for the list of topics in this category.

Transportation

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Transportation for the list of topics in this category.

Mathematics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics for the list of topics in this category.

Basics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics#Basics for the list of topics in this category.

Algebra

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics#Algebra for the list of topics in this category.

Calculus and analysis

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics#Calculus and analysis for the list of topics in this category.

Discrete mathematics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics#Discrete mathematics for the list of topics in this category.

Geometry

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics#Geometry for the list of topics in this category.

Probability and statistics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics#Probability and statistics for the list of topics in this category.

Other

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics#Other for the list of topics in this category.

General discussions

YMCA

I believe that the YMCA is vital at this level, but in what section or subsection does it belong? pbp 18:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: IF we are going to keep specific olympics/sport iterations (I do not know how far much the iterations are vital in diffrent sports) we should also list World Youth Day which is similar to YMCA, but when we are going to list niche sports I would also cinsider addition of niche religions (just like Cargo cult), niche languages (WE have two last native speakers in misc section of people). I also belive that we also have clearly too many universities on level 4 and way too few languages there. Jagiellonian University (Top 400 in world [28]) can not be more more vital than Catalan language. What do you think? Dawid2009 (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: probably in Non-governmental organizations under Society and social sciences. feminist (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89 and Dawid2009: I support having some notable NGOs at Level 5 vitals. The correct location is Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Society_and_social_sciences#Non-governmental_organizations_(60_articles). I'd also suggset adding World Wide Fund for Nature (better known as WWF), BRAC (organization), Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, World Vision and TED (conference). Sources for importance: [29], [30]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Inactive Bot

I've recently noticed that Bot0612 is inactive. So is the user operating it. It's written that Rreagan007 is supposed to count, but they didn't do that for a long time. The last update of the count was on February, exactly 8 months ago, and I am certain that the number of articles has increased since then. I didn't know who to report it to, so I went here. A new bot is very much needed. Fr.dror (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

No one is responding, despite the increased view count, and I don't know where to report it. All that's needed is a user that is able to build a simple counuting bot, nothing else. Fr.dror (talk) 08:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fr.dror: I agree with you that we need a bot to do that. Unfortunately, I don't know how to build or run a bot, unless there's some code somewhere I could appropriate to build this bot. pbp 13:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Earlier discussion (archived)--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 19:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Dammit. Seems as thought it's complicated, but I really don't know why, I started counting manualy and I found an algorythem that works. Maybe I'll try to fix it. And I'll probably consult the user who tried to fix it but failed. Fr.dror (talk) 10:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest to report it to Wikipedia:Bot requests (BTW we could also prove more editors here). Dawid2009 (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Rreagan007: Yes, please take it to Bot requests, doing this manually will lead to errors and is just time consuming. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, let's take it to Bot Requests (even though there's a backlog there); Bot maintenance is crucial for preventing this project from decaying. I'd also support the creation of additional tools, such as one for identifying articles that have been listed twice or articles listed at a higher level but not a lower one. Sdkb (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

It was also already earier discussed here. If nobody will keep here any comment in next few days I will try singlhandedly report it to WP:Bot requests. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Hallelujah! A new bot is in operation (albeit not without quirks; Sports, games and recreation is way off at the time of writing)--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 15:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Add more National flags, Coat of arms and National athemns

Is someone interested in addition of more flags, coats of arm and national athemns? Personally I think National flag and Coat of arm, both clearly should be level 4 article. We are more and more close to the limit at the level 5 and if we pass limit I belive many topics could be swapped for coat of arms or flags. In my opinion Coat of arms of Armenia or Flag of the United Kingdom are clearly vital articles and if we have specific olympic iteration or video game topic I would even except to list all national flags. Interesing would be also inclusion coat of arms for cities. Thoughts? Dawid2009 (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. You can find relevant articles listed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. Dimadick (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Feminist:, @Purplebackpack89:, @Power~enwiki: What do you think about it? Are you also still interested in estabilising cities and subdivisions? Dawid2009 (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I already added all national flags. I think all of them are certainly vital (Flag of Nepal has comparable Wikipedia own's statistic to Tenzing Norgay who is listed on the list with five times harder requirement). During that time I found two interesing things: 1Flag of Russia, Flag of China and Flag of USA are listed among history section too (IMO adding more "History of country would be better for that section) 2 Flag of India and Flag of South Africa got rate from Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team but never have been nominated to the level 4. Dawid2009 (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

To add to this, It is very posible that I accidentally missed one or handful countries; now I have problem to review it and found among ~~200 ones. I hope that I did not missed any important country but it would be nice if someone could help review this list. Dawid2009 (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Subcultures

So a third of it is dominated by subcultures. Not sure if this is far inclusion. Might be worth splitting subcultures to their own section, including them under sociology is very arbitrary. In either way, I'd suggest:

• removal of Pickup artist (minor) Also higher level concepts missing that should be added here are dating, Courtship and Intimate relationship, but they are all vital 4 already. Shouldn't they be added here, or are they present at another Vital 5 subpage and I missed them?
• removal of Preppy - not well known outside US, where it is limited only to a part of the country
• removal of Riot grrrl and Straight edge - I think it's enough to keep Punk subculture
• why is Skinhead listed under youth subculture, unlike punks and such? Just a technical note it should be moved one level up in the listing
• removal of Greaser (subculture) - IMHO not as famous as hippie and others which are known internationally.
• removal of Mod (subculture) - ditto.
• to add: Otaku

Thoughts? Anyone feels we should vote on any of those? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Most of these are my additions, and I'm ok with them being trimmed. Otaku is already covered by Geek and Anime and manga fandom, and I would replace either one with it instead of adding it out right. --Makkool (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

A bunch of basic science terms

I think we should add the following to Vital 5 (if not higher), but I am unsure what sections would be best, some kind of general section for sciences? (I will note that IMHO equivalent terms like Axiom, Paradigm, Hypothesis, Theory, Deductive reasoning are a V4 article in Philosophy; Experiment and Observation are V4 in Physics, Conjecture is V4 in Math, Academic journal is V4 in Society, Belief is V3 in Philosophy, Scientific method is V3 at Science). In V5 from the concepts I was reviewing I just found Academic publishing (V5 in Society). Some of what I propose below could go to Philosophy, but probably not all of it.The following are IMHO relevant concepts that should be V5. Some of those might warrant a discussion at V4 level.

• Academic conference
• Categorization
• Discipline (academia)
• Evidence
• Falsifiability (Verification for science redirects there)
• Generalization
• Human subject research
• Methodology
• Operationalization
• Peer review
• Phenomenon
• Prediction
• Qualitative research
• Quantitative research
• Reproducibility
• Research question
• Scientific community
• Survey (research)
• Taxonomy (general)
• Variable and attribute (research)

Separately, I will also list the concept of Clinical trial, as rather important, through not to all branches of science. That one can probably be added to medicine or health section or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I support adding these. Maybe the best place is Science - Basics? --Makkool (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I would add most of them to science - basic (but not all). IMO all should be tenatively listed elsewhere when we are under quota, Scientific community surely is more vital than plenty listed bios on the level 5 and article like Peer review for nodoubtly deserve nomination to the level 4. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Star Trek

Add Star Trek. Not sure where to add as franchise as a whole is more significant than the work in any specific media. Show creator Gene Roddenberry is in under TV people, but media has far surpassed his involvement (compare, both George Lucas and Star Wars--specifically the franchise--included). Hyperbolick (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd support a swap of Star Trek the franchise for the fictional characters listed. BTW, fictional characters needs clean up: I tried to clean it up, but some of my proposals were archived. pbp 22:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Hadn't realized there were characters. Agree with that swap. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

What is this discussion about? The article "Star Trek" is already listed in fact it's actually listed at level 4 under TV shows....The article is about the franchise in general, but it is listed under TV shows presumably because it was that first, and it is that most people associate it with being. If a general encyclopedia were to cover the topic, I think the general article about Star Trek would be the one it would list, and it would be the one most people would search for. I believe it would be silly to swap it for another, just so we can pigeon hole in comfortably in our existing lists in this case of other TV shows. Other franchises are listed at other places within level 4, for example Star Wars in movies is about the franchise not the first movie, and Pokemon is listed in videogames, is about the franchise as a whole not one specific game, I agree these articles are the ones we should list. On a side note, I personally think the articles on Star Trek: The Original Series and Star Trek: The Next Generation would be better than the listed Captain Kirk and Spock at level 5.  Carlwev  18:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Much more than TV shows, though. Thirteen feature films, video games, comics. Franchise as a whole is significant apart from TV. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I kind of agree with you. I have not been following the level five list as much as the others. At least at level 4 there is no "franchise" section at present, TV shows would be the best place, although technically wrong, same as best place for Star Wars is movies but again technically wrong also. We could discus having a "franchise" or cross media work or another name section, for things like Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Pokemon, Mario, James Bond and others. Perhaps near fictional characters. Characters are based on a single character but are still kind of franchises, like Superman, Batman, Tarzan, Harry Potter, James Bond etc, where as Star Trek Star Wars Pokemon are not about single fictional people. In short, we could discus having a "franchise" section to include articles I mentioned and more.  Carlwev  19:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Definitely support that. Reasonable strictures. Potter/Bond center on characters. Star Trek/Wars/Pokemon branched far beyond initial characters. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• I support adding Star Trek, major franchise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• I definitely support adding a franchise category, perhaps even at level 4. Off the top of my head, Star Wars, Star Trek, the Avengers, X-Men, Fast and Furious, Transformers, and the Harry Potter universe are all most important as franchises rather than as one specific tv show, movie, or character. Orser67 (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Seems nothing but support. What now? Hyperbolick (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Unidentified flying object under "Film, television, animation, comics, and video game"?

Seems inapt. UFOs may be much represented in fiction, but the term comes from real life. Sociological, maybe. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Add Dungeons & Dragons

The cultural impact of this game is extremely significant and it should be at Vital 5, if not higher. Not sure which section of Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts would be appropriate. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• Agree entirely. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

This is listed in Everyday section among games (Level 4 include Mahjong and some games which earlier were removed from level 3 just as chess). BTW this section need to reworking (compare quotas for video games in life and quotas for tradition in society, Is Video Game Culture really mire vital than Reformation day, Easter monday or whatecer from non-western traditions Why we limit traditions two times more rogoristic?). IMO we have too many all games but on the other hand way too many films on the level 4. Film jump not-proportionally in comprasion to games from level 5 to the level 4. A lot of articles related to video games are also listed in technology but I am surprised why AI player is missed. I am also not sure missing Super Mario Land is good idea (while rated mid-importance by wikiproject, it was one of few games which have ever been ob the top.). In general I think it is not right if video games gets 185 quota meanwhile culture et 105 (Is really Video game culture more vital than Name day?) Dawid2009 (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I concur it should be the other way around.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

remove Randall Munroe and xkcd

IMO both are less vital than many articles which we removed recently in arts by WP:Bold. Xkcd is famous in many laguages but is younger than Penny Arcade and not more influential than Hetalia: Axis Powers or Pepe the frog. Probably Webcomic and Internet meme are anough to cover such articles among 50 000 core topics.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Munroe should be kept; webcomics are one of the most important forms of comics, one rep should be kept. I'm still going through artists and this section will be fixed. Stay with me. GuzzyG (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

I support removal of Munroe but I'd rather keep xkcd or remove Pepe the Frog. This is purely subjective, but I have heard of Penny Arcade, Hetalia and xkcd but of the two other topics. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Same. I support removing Munroe, but I'd keep xkcd, because it's an example of a webcomic with a wide readership. --Makkool (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Just updating that Munroe has now been removed, i did big cuts to increase our representation of non western arts. This is why votes like this in non complete sections are a waste of time, because i'm constantly changing things up. GuzzyG (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Possible voting method to prune sections

It's mostly agreed upon that lists of video games and fictional characters are in need of pruning. (Deciding a specific quota for video games is a separate issue from what I'm going to suggest, although it's needed for the final step.) However I think the existing methods to remove entries by consensus are inefficient when there are very many to remove. What I propose is a procedure in which each entry in a section to prune is assigned a priority score (calculated from the votes it gets) and only the entries with highest priority scores are kept.

First, every user posts a comment where they list A) the entries they wish to keep, and B) the entries they wish to remove. Not every single entry has to be voted on, only those the user has a strong opinion on. (It's acceptable - though not preferable - for an entry to receive no votes at all!) This stage goes on a while - let's say for a month or two or until enough people have voted.

Next, voting is closed and priority scores calculated. Something like the following formula is used: P=(K+2)/(K+R+4)*100, where K is the amount of keep votes and R remove votes an entry has gotten, and P is the priority score as a percentage of keep votes. The +2 and +4 essentially add dummy votes (2 keeps and 2 removes) so that an entry with only a few votes for one side does not instantly get a 100% or 0%. So what happens is that the default P is 50%, and the more votes it gets on one side or the other, the more it approaches 100% or 0%. Entries everybody thinks "obviously belong" on the list get a high P (in video games these would likely be Doom, Space Invaders and such), controversial ones or those with few votes get around 50%, and those that "obviously don't belong" get a low P.

Finally, entries are sorted by their P and only the highest ranked ones that fit within the quota are kept. The cutoff point for P isn't necessarily ~50%; if it's higher then the controversial or overlooked entries will not make it, if it's lower then they will.

Thoughts?--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Interesting idea. We would still have to have a single section for every single entry which is inefficient for this level at this stage. Individual letters, for example, were added to the language sections, A to Z. Then, obviously someone was trying to give it global scope and added the first five letters of the Hebrew alphabet and then just stopped. All of these, English and Hebrew, should be removed without much discussion at this point. Maybe with a general discussion about bulk removal. Another aspect is that we can make room for some sections that are over quota by reducing the biography quota which is currently 30%. --Spaced about (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like a smart way to manage this. If you decide to use this voting method, I have listed my suggestions for what articles to keep and remove in the previous thread. --Makkool (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

One potential problem is that there'd turn out to be no clear cutoff point (e.g. the cutoff P for video games is 40% and there are ten games with that P, but only some of those fit within the quota) - in that case we could wait for more votes, temporarily err on the side of inclusion, or even do a separate voting round for the ambiguous entries. In any case, the situation should already be much better than what we began with, and then we can proceed with the familiar one-at-a-time voting method to fine-tune the list. Also, I think entries on other levels should be exempt from this process (Tetris stays no matter what) and be separately discussed on the appropriate level.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

"Complete"

If a section is 98-99% complete, shouldn't we tag it as "complete" and mandate any other additions to be discussed? pbp 19:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Change to wording at WP:VA5

I re-worded a paragraph to reflect the reality that we have several completed sections where additions and removals should be discussed. pbp 22:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Old paragraph read:

This list is in the process of being created. Everyone is welcome to participate. If you see an article that you think should be included, then add it to the list. If you are unsure, then you can propose it on the talk page. Please do not remove articles which have some reasonable chance of staying here upon completion. If something was added which seems obviously not able to stand as one of the 50,000 then you can remove it, with discussion if contested, always assuming good faith. Mass deletes of articles should always be preceded by discussion. We should ideally wait until we are close to the quota in each section before engaging in serious debate over what should stay or go.

New one reads:

This list is in the process of being created. Everyone is welcome to participate. If you see an article that you think should be included in an incomplete section, then add it to the list. If you are unsure, then you can propose it on the talk page. Please do not remove articles which have some reasonable chance of staying here upon completion. If something was added which seems obviously not able to stand as one of the 50,000 then you can remove it, with discussion if contested, always assuming good faith. Mass deletes of articles should always be preceded by discussion. Additions AND removals to sections that are complete or nearly complete should be discussed. Sections that are at 98% or more of their capacity have been tagged as "complete" below.

Everybody OK with this change? pbp 22:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we should start individual proposals in stages, starting from the top. And also, I was thinking we should start the discussion after a moratorium. This would enable users to make some last changes that they have had in the back of their minds but never got around to make, in an uncomplicated way. It would also enable users to review and research proposals in a more organized way. So, more precisely, this would mean discussing

• writers and journalists starting March 1, 2020
• artists and musicians starting April 1, 2020
• and so on.

--Spaced about (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of final total and subquotas outside people section

I think we should discuss quota for sections other than biographies first. If the biographies are complete, than additions and removals could be discussed in only that section. For sections like Art, social sciences, and also health, and probably several other sections, it's too obviously insane to call them "complete" other than meaning it has reached the arbitrary number in the table on the front page. The quotas for sections outside of people were never discussed. Now the people section is full and it sets the pace. The other sections should match the people section in its depth. That means for Arts approximately 5000, and for Social sciences about 8000, Health: a reasonable estimate would be about 5000. I haven't had a closer look, those are just preliminary estimates.

The most obvious is the social sciences tab. There are 14 (!) topics on there. Most of these fields you can get a PhD in.

At the discussion where the subquotas for people were discussed and total number for people was set at 15,000 it was clearly stated that the total number of articles on level 5 still needs to be set - that was like 2 years ago and it never happened. What should the total be: 100,000? Should we start increasing in 5000 or 10000 steps and see how it goes? 55,000 for a start or maybe 75,000?

A discussion for every single entry (in analogy to other levels) for 100,000 with a half finished list like the current one, like you seem to be suggesting - that won't work, in my opinion. I would prefer longer discussion and thinking this through before plunging the project into such a crisis. Level 4 is already pretty unwieldy. Can you imagine that times 5.

Other solutions might be:

• moving the current people section to a level 6 with 100,000 and reducing it to about half for level 5.
• moving current people section to the core biographies list as a level 2 there, and reducing it to half its size here.

Thoughts? --22:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)--Spaced about (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to show how distorted the socalled target number is: If we extrapolate the table from level 4 to this level it would look approximately like this:

List No.	Section	Level 4	Level 5 (L4x5)	L5 proportionate to people
1	People	2,000	10,000	15,000
2	History	675	3,350	5,025
3	Geography	1,200	6,000	9,000
4	Arts	670	3,350	5,025
5	Philosophy and religion	430	2,150	3,225
6	Everyday life	485	2,430	3,645
7	Society and social sciences	925	4,650	6,975
8	Biological and health sciences	1,475	7,350	11,025
8.1	Health, medicine and disease	275	1,330	1,995
9	Physical sciences	1,100	5,500	8,250
9.1	Basics and measurement	80	390	600
9.2	Astronomy	195	900	1,335
9.3	Chemistry	270	1,350	2,030
9.4	Earth science	260	1,300	1950
9.5	Physics	295	1,490	2,200
10	Technology	740	3,700	5,550
11	Mathematics	300	1,500	2,250
	Total	5,000	50,000	75,000

• I was under the impression that the total was always 50,000. I think that was set before the size of the sections was set; I believe it was set in the initial discussion to create Lv 5. I don't have much of a problem with people being a greater percentage of Lv 5 than of Lv 4. There are some topics that just can't have a fivefold buildout from Lv 4 to Lv 5. For example, we have every country at Lv 4...how do you build that out to Lv 5? pbp 16:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe the discussion where the people quotas were set is on L4.There was no talk about other quotas. Just that it remains to be seen how large the total will be. No matter how it was back then, we are now facing the fait accompli of a disproportionately large people section for 50,000 articles.

I'm not saying that simply multiplying the quota is the solution. Some sections might need more, some less. The social scienes section to me is the most obvious needing more. The effect of this deficit can be felt on the top level 1 where people feel we need more coverage of social sciences.

The other thing is the health section. More and more people look for medical information on the internet, and the articles get a surprising amount of page views: random example: Norovirus 120,000 in the last 30 days, Hantavirus 20,000. Both are not listed on any level. I think we are underestimating the need and the potential of a larger health section. --Spaced about (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Global proposals

Move History of video games and Olympics events to history section

Article like History of video games should be listed in history section agaist articles like Generation X. Article like 1896 Athens or History of chess should be listed in history section against articles like history of ballet or History of the FIFA World Cup. Why we list all these historic articles in every day section? And why we list so plenty specialistics terminology to video games? Should we also list endless topics for terminologies related to chess gameplay or clasical music (including very few viewed pages just like altissimo) in art section? Dawid2009 (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts:

1. First off, at Lv 5, sports should be spun off from life onto its own page
2. Specific iterations of the Olympics, or any other sporting events that make Level 5, should be listed under sports
3. History of...'s should be at history
4. Video games need to be pruned bigtime pbp 20:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Spin of "Fashion and other entertainment industrys" onto new own page

Support

1. Support As nom. The word "other" would be associated with context that it is dedicated section for other entertainments than games. This section would be the most below under games section. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Spin of "Cooking and cusine" onto new own page

Support

Support As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

I am also wondering what we could do with "humamsexuality" section and section related with friendship/familu/neighborhood etc.. Should we have in biology section dedicated category for sociobiology (where we would put human sexuality)? @Maunus: You edit pages associated with anthropology, what do you think? Dawid2009 (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

We should definitely not have a section dedicated to sociobiology, since this is not a field of current research into human behavior, and is considered obsolete by anthropologists (still used for non-human animals), previous human sociobiologists have now mostly moved to Evolutionary Psychology. The right field would be biological anthropology, or perhaps better, simply anthropology, since both sexuality and kinship/sociality falls into both social anthropology and biological anthropology. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Sociobiology is a subfield of sociology. Well, also of biology, but in general it is closer to socio than bio. Keep those topic(s) there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

FYI: Consensus discussion?

As a heads up, there is a discussion on making VA a consensus-building discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4#Add Pocahontas. J947 ^(c), at 22:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)