Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20
PASSED
5-0, swapped. --Thi (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

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.

Swap: remove Nagarjuna, add Ashoka

Nagarjuna and Ashoka are listed ahead of theology. I nominate addition of Ashoka who was notable as early influential Indian politician and early religious figure. He has been consensually regarded (the list is in chronological order badsed on traditional religious sources, this is not ranking.) by Britannica among 100 the most influential religious figures of all time. He is way more vital as religious leader than Franklin as scientifist. His religious impact is quite nicely covered on wikiquotes, I noted that in the archives Ashoka was suggested many times by various users for last several years in that project.

Support
  1. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Seems quite reasonable swap in English Wikipedia. Ashoka is important name in general history. --Thi (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support - on the whole, agree with the above. Gizza (t)(c) 23:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support somehow missed this vote before, Ashoka is clearly the more vital person. GuzzyG (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support Orser67 (talk) 21:52, 2 December 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.
FAILED
1-4, not swapped. --Thi (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

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.

Swap: remove Louis Armstrong, add Pop art

Jazz is easy enough for this level (Carlwev ad J probably have agreed each other tht Jazz is enough on this level ([1], [2]) especially if we take into fact that Armstrong has weak top of representative field here. Yes, he is commonly known as "King of Jazz" but we even do not list any of his compositions on the level 4 and he was not first Jazz composer added to this list (check discussions in archives, moreover we list compositions of some Jazz musicians or Michael JAckson's compositions on the level 4 but we do not list any Armstrong's on the level 4). I think that Pop art is vital article as pair with folk art and parent article for Andy Warhol and Roy Lichtenstein.

Support
  1. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We do not list any of Armstrong's compositions on level 4 because we hardly list any jazz compositions there. We hardly list any jazz compositions there because nobody who participates there seems to care about jazz. The lists are only as good as our biases will let them be. I don't see how an art movement like pop art that barely lasted two decades could possibly be vital at this level, and the comparison to folk art can only be explained by an utter lack of understanding of what pop art is – it is not analogous to "pop music" in the way "folk art" is analogous to "folk music". Cobblet (talk) 03:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose If for example Elvis Presley is listed, Armstrong can be in it too. Pop art is similat to many other art movements and periods which could be listed. --Thi (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Removing representation of African American contribution to the domination of American music in the 20th century for a niche art genre would be absurd. Conceptual art or Graffiti are more important than pop art and are relatively similar ish. Andy Warhol would be the better add but only as a example of a English speaking artist being on the list. What a Wonderful World (and City Lights, Impression, Sunrise and arguably Self-Portrait with Thorn Necklace and Hummingbird SHOULD all be added on the level 4 list, i am a strong believer that if an artists work can't be on the level 4 list than they should not be able to be listed on the level 3, it should be a requirement too actually.) GuzzyG (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Thi. Suggest close. Jusdafax (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

I know that it hardly mater to discussion here, but potentially; no Armstrong's compositions and prevuous discussions are not the only objectios ([3] - this list include a Jazz composer who is not even on the level 4, what is purpose of two level difference?) to say that Armstrong do not have stronger top of representative field than Beatle in Rock or Michael Jackson in Pop. Thouhts? Dawid2009 (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Removing John Coltrane on level 4 so that someone like Gabriel Fauré can be added can only be described as breathtakingly idiotic. (And I say that as someone who really likes Fauré.) Cobblet (talk) 03:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
To be fair i voted in favor of Coltranes removal so people like Peter Abelard could be added, i hoped a reduction in music would continue, ultimately i was wrong. Coltrane and arguably Nirvana too are massive misses and removals a mistake, but i was hoping Jazz would go down to 8-9 (and other genres going down too).
A bizarre thing to say, even though I sort of understand where you're coming from. Why jazz should go from 12 down to 8 or 9, while there remain 36 composers and performers to represent Western classical music in the 20th century, is beyond me. Why are we picking on genres that are already underrepresented to begin with? Adding Abelard is fine, but why not swap with people in a related field, like the 23 psychologists, instead of looking for cuts to already underrepresented genres in an entirely unrelated field? Cobblet (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
In a way yeah, but after actually going through scientists in my own project i can see now that we are missing too many compared to modern figures, i've grown alot more mature in what i think should be added and i am ready to make cuts. 8-9 was maybe too much but i believe 10 for sure. I just don't think Jazz should be higher than "Blues, R&B, and soul" when Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, Lead Belly, Charley Patton, Jackie Wilson are just as important to American music. Nina Simone, Mahalia Jackson, and Bessie Smith being more important than Ella Fitzgerald or Leontyne Price. I also think that classical performers, especially singers is way too based in the 20th century especially with figures like Farinelli and Maria Malibran missing. Gabriel Fauré, Ralph Vaughan Williams, Philip Glass, Pierre Boulez, Mstislav Rostropovich, Jean Sibelius, Herbert von Karajan, Arthur Rubinstein, and Leontyne Price can all be cut from 20th century classical music and maybe more. I agree on psychologists, i'd agree they should be around 15-20, certainly 20 at least. GuzzyG (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The argument that artists must have a particularly notable work listed at a lower level to be listed at a higher level is interesting but flawed. A person in any field (artistic or otherwise) can be vital if their body of work as a whole makes a significant impact, even if no individual achievement of theirs is singularly notable on its own. Even within art, there are many genres (like theatre acting, or poetry, or improvised/"non-composed" music, or the applied arts) that would be disadvantaged by such a standard. I don't think it's necessary to list Ode to Aphrodite, or any specific poem by Li Bai, or any hit single or recording by Louis Armstrong, on level 4 to justify their biographies being on level 3. Armstrong's virtuosic and expressive technique, his use of scat singing, and his sense of rhythm, harmony, melody and structure are not qualities that can be neatly distilled into one or two representative recordings; one must listen to his work as a whole to understand the full impact of his genius. Cobblet (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Not on any level, only on this level, relatively ancient people like Sappho and Li Bai should get a pass, even though i'd support adding Ode to Aphrodite or Three Hundred Tang Poems to cover more diverse time periods than the works we list. I understand your concern regarding "theatre actors, improvised/"non-composed" music, or the applied arts" but i don't think anyone in them would make the level 3 list. I agree generally with you though. Sidenote: I know there's way too many writers here, but i really think African culture deserves a rep and if Imhotep is too unlikely, what would your opinion on Chinua Achebe's chances be? GuzzyG (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
We list anthologies if we have no better choice (e.g., for anonymous folk tales, fairy tales, etc.), but I think there are usually better choices. If you want to experience Chinese poetry, of course you start by reading Three Hundred Tang Poems; but if what you actually want is to read one Wikipedia article to learn about Chinese poetry, Tang poetry, Classical Chinese poetry forms and of course Chinese poetry are all more helpful than the article about the anthology.
While I'm here, I might as well use this example to explain what I mean when I object to articles being listed because they overlap too much with other articles, and why a broader subject like Chinese poetry is not always necessarily more vital than a narrower topic like Tang poetry; because it seems that some contributors here do not understand this. We also list Chinese literature, and if one has read that already, one might not get much new information out of Chinese poetry, since poetry is such a big component of Chinese literature and the former article ought to cover Chinese poetry pretty well already. If you're specifically interested in classical Chinese poetry (which many people are, if they're interested in Chinese literature at all), you might learn more by reading the first two articles instead. That would be what makes them better choices for the list than Chinese poetry – the most vital articles are the articles that, when read together as a set, give the most readers the most useful information. All articles overlap with or nest within other articles: the list must balance the general with the specific, not simply opt for the broadest articles every time. The list is not improved by replacing Chinese and Japanese literature with East Asian literature and Asian literature.
I don't think Achebe is a better choice than Fela Kuti, who used to be listed here, but was removed. Cobblet (talk) 04:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you that sometimes it's better to have a specific article rather than a broad article, especially the example of Chinese/Japanese lit being better than East Asian/Asian lit. The only reason i thought Achebe might be a better add than Kuti, along with Rabindranath Tagore being a better choice than removed Ravi Shankar is that literature is considered higher than music on the totem pole and that literature like Achebe/Tagore would be taught in schools way more than Kuti/Tagore. I just really think we should have a culture representative figure from Africa, India and South America; it's our biggest miss (other than Saladin, Ashoka and a 20th century philosopher). GuzzyG (talk) 23:25, 8 November 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.

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.

Better guidance on what these levels are

Imo you shouldn't have to click all the way through to the FAQ to find out what these Levels are and how they work. Could a simple explanation be placed on the lists of articles themselves? (Might need a template if they're all to have this?)

Also I can't find anywhere explicitly stated that the Level 1 articles are the top (rather than bottom) category: for someone wanting to quickly understand this system that would be useful. Eteb3 (talk) 08:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Um, dude, there already is an explanation at the top of Wikipedia:Vital articles. And that explanation does state that Levels 1/2 have fewer articles than levels 4/5 do. pbp 14:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure, it can be inferred with some effort: but something as simple as "Level 1 are the most important articles" would save the casual visitor from having to do the mental gymnastics. (After all, it's still not a solid inference that smaller category => more important.) Imho it currently reads like an engineering manual. Maybe I should just improve it. Eteb3 (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Eteb3: If you really think that still is littly confusing and maybe not the most clear for outside readers you can eventually renamed Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions#What are these lists? for Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions#What are levels? and add FAQ's link to the very first paragraph/second sentence by WP:Bold (Personally I do not think it is so big issue to need a consensus but I can not do it due to my language ability). Anyway I belive everyone who is more than superfically interested in that project would put effort to check that level 5 does not include 10 articles and level 1 does not include 40 000/50 0000 Dawid2009 (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I may do that. It still seems like a lot of clicks to know what you're looking at. Maybe that doesn't matter as it would appear I'm an outside reader - but I thought Wikipedia was meant to be an open project that welcomed all comers. Given that by definition all the most important articles have a link to the categories page at the bottom, it would be nice if it was clearer, quicker, to the average reader. Just my humble opinion. But maybe one of those where I can just get on and change it rather than asking first. Eteb3 (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes it would be good if the levels were explained clearer. Nearly every person who stumbles upon vital articles get confused initially. You can be bold and add an explanation yourself. If anyone has concerns with the way it's worded it can be discussed on this page. Gizza (t)(c) 22:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I added a section on levels in the FAQ. Hopefully it's an improvement. Orser67 (talk) 17:38, 16 November 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.
Added 5-2 Cobblet (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

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.

add Decolonisation

Definition of this concept is needed for this level. Many suggestions (for example adding Spanish Empire) were failed due to Decolonistion is more vital topic. This topic is needed when we constains few topic related history of some regions/countries.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Colonialism and imperialism primarily cover the nature of these ideologies, and do not provide a chronology of the worldwide decolonization process. Only this article provides that. Gizza's suggested swap is also reasonable. Cobblet (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Colonialism and imperalism are probably redundant, but the decolonization (particularly from about 1945 to 1975) is one of the most vital events in human history and there should be an article primarily devoted to that at this level. Orser67 (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom GuzzyG (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support - as the potential swap has not been proposed, out of the two possible options (adding decolonisation or not) I think we would be better off having it at L3. Gizza (t)(c) 12:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We already list colonialism and imperialism at this level, and both articles cover decolonization. We don't need to list this article separately at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Probably not at this level, when we have other articles about decolonization process. I would rather add more countries. --Thi (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

I'd support swapping colonialism out for decolonisation. There is more overlap between imperialism and colonialism (both similar ideologies) than imperialism and decolonisation (a historical process and series of events). Gizza (t)(c) 01:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I can get behind this idea Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 14:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Note the article is at Decolonization. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:27, 23 September 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.
PASSED
5-0, added. --Thi (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

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.

Add Power (social and political)

Basic issue in social science and politics. We list topics related to anthropology and ethnology (Folklore, Oral tradition) and cultural studies (Popular culture). Power and authority are important concepts in sociology and political science.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. I didn't think that it can be added!--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
    Could you elaborate? J947 (c), at 04:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support – My first thoughts were that it could be a bit broad, but on reflection it covers a very important aspect of both social science and politics. J947 (c), at 04:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Sdkb (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support The list could use more articles on social interactions, and power is an important aspect of these. Cobblet (talk) 21:38, 14 December 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.
PASSED
Swapped 5-0. --Thi (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

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.

Remove Electrolysis, add Redox

Other topics under Chemical reaction are Acid–base reaction and Catalysis. Electrolysis is an example of redox reaction (reduction–oxidation reaction): Redox#Redox_reactions_in_industry. Electrolysis and Redox are both important topics, but perhaps Redox is better choice at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Redox is the name for a vast category of chemical reactions that are the basis of everything from cellular respiration to catalytic converters to electrochemical cells. Electrolysis is just one practical application of an electrochemical cell; batteries (which are also listed) are another. Cobblet (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support removal. Neither seems vital enough to be listed at this level to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom GuzzyG (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom Awvazquez (talk) 18:26, 15 December 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.
PASSED
5-1, added. --Thi (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

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.

Add Welfare

According to the article, social security is in the United States usually called Welfare. This may be one of the reasons for that Social security is not yet listed at this level. I think that either Welfare of Social security is as vital issue as for example globalization.

Support
  1. Support per this and previous noms. --Thi (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom GuzzyG (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support or perhaps the more general social policy, despite it not being at L4. J947 (c), at 04:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom Awvazquez (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support An important enough worldwide government function to be included at this level. Though if welfare moves to level 3, it might make sense to remove welfare state (perhaps in favor mixed economy?) from level 4.Orser67 (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Referring to the government function, this term not a globally broad enough to warrant inclusion at this level. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Providing for a basic level of well-being for its citizens is just one of many tasks a government performs. Some functions of government are listed (e.g., self-preservation through the use of hard and soft power, i.e., police and ideology; protection of human rights; conflict resolution through the rule of law, although judiciary is not listed and neither are elections) but others, such as regulation of the economy (public finance) or implementation of policy (public administration), are not. The social issues that welfare programs seek to address, e.g., poverty and social equality, are listed. Cobblet (talk) 14:46, 29 July 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.
NO CONSENSUS
1-2, no consensus. --Thi (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)--Thi (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

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.

Add Exploration

Dawid2009 has proposed to add this at level 2, where it failed but got a bit of traction, so I think it deserves some further consideration here. The previous nomination at this level got sidetracked by a mostly unrelated swap, so there wasn't consensus either for or against it. The basic case for it is that we already list 8 people here under the explorers category, plus we list a subfield of exploration, Space exploration, and related topics like Scramble for Africa. Sdkb (talk) 05:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Weak Support as nom. I'm mostly listing this to continue a discussion on it I think should be had, rather than since I feel it's a particularly glaring absence, but I do think the case for it is reasonably good. Sdkb (talk) 05:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Too much overlap with other articles. --Thi (talk) 10:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  2. Weak Oppose I've got back and forth on this, but in the end, I think our coverage of the history of exploration is good enough that adding this overview article doesn't significantly improve the list. Cobblet (talk) 05:18, 2 November 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.
NO CONSENSUS
1-2, no consensus. --Thi (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

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.

Swap: remove Fyodor Dostoyevsky, add Sima Qian

Number of the writers in general is way too big when we list only 13 languages, one specific philosophy, history of literature ahead of: Arabic numeral, Decimal and Nonverbal communication etc.. We just have no room for two Russian writers of romanticism.

Qian is considered as "Chinese Herodotus" ([4], [5]). His constributions/reviews are associated with Chinese classics. We do not list any Chinese classics when we list other religous texts so IMO adding Sima Qian (when we also list Herodotus) makes this list better and more diversited. Thoughts?

Support
  1. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Chinese literature is covered by Li Bai; the only major country missing in the literature section is India, in which i would support a swap with Dostoevsky for Rabindranath Tagore. Qian should be added, but Tagore comes first because there's no representation of Indian culture listed while Chinese culture has one atleast. Either way Dostoevsky has to go as Alexander Pushkin is more important to Russian literature if we absolutely need to list two Russian writers. GuzzyG (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose There were doubts about vitality of Herodotos at this level. Dostoyevsky can be removed with other similar topics, but there are maybe less influential names, which can go first. --Thi (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

We also list History of literature and English literature on the level 3 when we overrepresent 6 English writers (if we count Mary Wollstonecraft who is listed among philosophers on the level 3 and as writer on the level 4). Most of listed English writers are from last two centuries and they are not mentioned in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies#Western literature. Thoughts? Dawid2009 (talk) 22:29, 30 October 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.
NO CONSENSUS
1-1, no consensus. --Thi (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

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.

Swap: remove Thomas Aquinas, add Theology

Freud had not swapped for psychiatry in Thi's proposal but swapping Thomas Aquinas for theology makes much sense. I take issue to listing all three: Thomas Aquinas, Paul The Apostle and Martin Luther+Reformation if we do not list for example notable Islamic philosophers (Al-Ghazali and Averroes were suggested in the archives), Mary who would represent women and except christianity has some significence in Islam or Ashoka to represent East Culture.

Theology is one of the 56 the mst vital religus topics because of theology is vital for religion just as scientific method is vital for science. I would pick it ahead of something like Literary review because of theology revolve around spirituality (which IMO should be listed on the level 2) and it is so popular topic that even proved int erdiscipline like neurotheology.

Support
  1. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose No list that ever proclaims to list vital biographies, atleast anything higher than 15-25 biographies can exist without Aquinas. He's that important. When you mix the two most long lasting historically ways to be important (religion/philosophy) and are the biggest name in that mix, you're not being removed on a list with 130 people and when people like Walt Disney are listed. to suggest random popes are more important than top five/canonical artists and yet to suggest to remove Aquinas seems odd at best. No opinion on theology. GuzzyG (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Thelogoy is not same thing what religious studies or religious education. These two certainly are not among 56 the most vital religous topics but definietly should be listed level 4 if we can list (IMO totally wrong anyway) sexual education on the lvel 4. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:45, 2 November 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.
NO CONSENSUS
1-1, no consensus. --Thi (talk) 13:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

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.

Add Decorative art

Tatoo and Mask maybe could be covered by Folk art but Decorative art should not be missed when we list jewellery. Not less vital than any missed toic related to architecture.

Support
  1. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose In my opinion Decorative arts is not the most general article. --Thi (talk) 11:01, 31 October 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.
FAILED
3-3, not swapped. --Thi (talk) 11:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

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.

Swap: remove Elvis Presley, add Michael Jackson

We can have two rock representatives on this list. Religious figures unarguably are more underrepresented than artist on this list based on my reasons below, apparently cogent analogies in section: "remove Richard Wagner, add Folk art, Folk religion", especially at discussion. Listing of Elvis is unjustifited on this list when we have Beatles (or that we decide to remove Beatles but we would lose Bands' representative). Jackson at least would be picked for extremaly diversity reasons as no overlap, just like we list Frida Kahlo (woman paiter) ahead of Raphael. While resley always will be known as one of first greater pop stars, Michael Jackson regardless diversity at least is also less country specific and will be known as first star whose death had sociological influence ifor History of Internet. TLTR: It is no way to we list both (or that we decide to remove The Beatles): Elvis and Jackson, we logically need to pick only one of them. They are arguably much less vital than any random important pope and we even do not list Krishna or Mary...

Support
  1. Support Religious figures are more underrepresented on this list. The 1000 Years, 1000 People ranks Chaplin 795-th ( and BTW 794-th is just puted random more important Pope), meanwhile hindustic religious figure like Ramanuja (less notable than Krishna for FA) is listed on the 187th position. I know that this type lists have some issues and as this ranking go longer as is more strangly diversited but Administrator who is especially responsible for featured articles (ping @Ealdgyth:) in this statement (please see it) gave important opinion about our project and stated there - Time Magazine's various "Man/Woman/Person/Topic of the Year" ... while not perfect, it will give you some idea of what was considered important. (…) And I don't see that anyone in the VA project is really trying to bring any sort of sources to their discussions. Of the year/of the century – while not perfect measure, we at least can find something in these sources, and here we can find the structure which clearly shows that various religious figures relatively are highly stated, higher than pop/rock musicians. Religious figures in various fields/nations (real or fictional) are always quite important, at least critically and impact of religious is not subjective in contrast to some other fields (a ka overrated astronauts/models/sportpeople are more famous than underrated for laymans (regardless non-laymans)), they can be measured for example by population of their beliefs/followers. Musician deserve more than superficial representation but IMO better is have diversited list for musicians from 20th century (what do ou think about one jazz, one rock and one pop?) than list two rock representativies from short 60’s-70’s time peirod. Impact of Rock/Pop people generallt revolve around celebrity and sociological impact meanwhile impact of classical is relevant to musical education, musicology. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Totally agree. The FAQ about vital articles says that "Individuals within the People section represent the pinnacles of their field" and Elvis Presley doesn't represent the Rock music pinnacle at all. Michael Jackson really represents the Pop music pinnacle (and development). Swapping Michael Jackson with Elvis we'll get one Jazz, one Rock and one Pop representative of 20th century music. About Michael Jackson... his huge influence in the development of music videos, a legacy in Dance that is globally known and timeless (e.g. The Moonwalk).. and a death that is already part of History (with dance tributes in practically all the main cities of the World or a funeral with a billionaire audience). I think Michael Jackson definitely deserves to be Level 3, and yes, remove Elvis Presley (since there are many other artists that are also more important and even vital than Presley).Salvabl (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom Awvazquez (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The only person Elvis should be swapped with is Chuck Berry, a impressionist can be more famous and break more records and be awarded more than Monet but they can never be more important or more influential than him, simply for the fact that there's a order of precedence based on time and Monet started it. Presley was the first big pop star, without him there's no Jackson. "sociological influence for History of Internet" means we list Jennifer Lopez on the level 4 list because her Green Versace dress influenced the creation of Google Images; or even better if involvement in the history of the internet makes Jackson level 3 vital, let's add Tim Berners-Lee. "they are arguably much less vital than any random important pope" this is false, any of the mega important people of the big five arts (literature, painting, sculpture, music and film) will always be more important to history and last longer than any random pope, unless you think; Shakespeare, Dante, Da Vinci, Van Gogh, Picasso, Michelangelo, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Louis Armstrong, Presley, The Beatles, even Jackson himself, Chaplin, Hitchcock, Kurosawa and yes Marilyn Monroe too; who are all the top tier of their artforms (the latter only seem out of place to the former due to it being hard to place contemporary ish figures on a level of older ones) as less important than the likes of Pope Francis, Pope Benedict XV, Pope Pius VIII, Pope Alexander VIII and Pope Clement XI; on which we could go on forever. The only two popes i'd vote for on this level are Pope Urban II for initiating the Crusades or Pope John Paul II but only on a loop hole where his five years of the 21st century count him as this centuries or this millenniums most important religious figure. The mega important people in religion are the founders or people like Martin Luther. Teresa of Ávila and Maimonides are the only missing figures and more for what they represent than their influence. Listing a pope instead of founders is like listing a vice president or prime minister instead of the head of state. Krishna overlaps and i'm sure in other religions they would have equivalents and Mary, mother of Jesus overlaps with Jesus, what is her influence on history other than giving birth? If Cleopatra is denied because she had no influence and was just famous, Mary goes under the same measure, would you list Aminah? It would have been logically possible to list Jackson at the start of last year, 3 modern musicians would've been ok, if Chopin, Dali, Hitchcock, Kurosawa and Poe weren't removed. Also arguably Bob Dylan is more important to 20th century music than Jackson. GuzzyG (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Not really needed at this level, Louis Armstrong and The Beatles are famous popular musicians. --Thi (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Elvis had a unique influence on pop and rock because he incorporated elements of black music into his style. A number of recordings of Black spiritual gospels sung by Elvis exist, even though they are less well known. The style of black singing he listened to as a child in a black church in the American South influenced all of his best selling songs heavily. He was an innovator in that sense and that's what makes him important to the industry and influential to everybody who came after him. Michael cannot beat that just by being black. Other than that it's certainly a tough call to make: sacrifice a few scientist biographies to put Michael on the list, perhaps? -- Spaced about (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

[6] - According to this link (updated one hour ago, it is not WP:Reliable source but just links from this channel were recently discussed on User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 238#Most Popular Websites 1996 - 2019) Michael Jackson dominated part of 80's and 90's menwhile Presley dominated 1973-1975. I do not know why it is not right with List of best-selling music artists but I assume it is methotology by monthly/in quartars, not "time after time, who is best selling of all time" (sorry for my odd English). Dawid2009 (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

It's no surprise that pop music is popular. You may find this list interesting. Brief comments on methodology here. Cobblet (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I have noted that you in the archivs suggested rigoristic limit for biographies in that project [7]) and you also were suggesting that covering impact of Michael Jackson maybe could be interesing [([8] [9] for this list for many perspectves of diversity. Problem with Michael Jackson is fact that he is still recent but nowi it is 10 years after his death and among entertaiment area we list „video games” which are recent comparable to Jackson and looks quite weak among other activities. Anyway how would be your opinion now, did you changegen your mind since then? Dawid2009 (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Linking a video where Presley's prime is over is unfair, the fact that he still dominated two years nearly 20 years after his prime speaks more in his favor than not. GuzzyG (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
This is a good video to see the record sales: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3w8I8boc_I In some moments the record sales by Michael Jackson are twice that of the second artist on the list, and remains in first position for several years.. It is certainly something unique, that makes him the greatest Pop star ever. Salvabl (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
That's the same exact video linked above and does not include Elvis at his peak, Elvis topping two years in that video is like if Jackson charted in the 2000s, Elton John would be on the level 4 list if sales mattered alone; also Eminem reigned for seven years and doubled second place in that video and yet he's not in the level 4 list. if you can convince me that Michael made a bigger contribution to 20th century music than Bob Dylan, that pop deserves representation over folk, that Jackson is more important to music than Frédéric Chopin or Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina, that Fela Kuti or Bob Marley are not better additions than Jackson for geographic diversity, that Jackson would be a better pick than Édith Piaf which would represent non-english speaking music and represent women, or even that instrumentalists like Jimi Hendrix and Ravi Shankar; one of whom is from one of the biggest countries in the world and a culture not represented here unlike the US; are not better representations than yet another singer. If you can refute all of those arguments/additions with something other than "sales", than Jackson can be considered. "best selling/sales" means J. K. Rowling, Samuel L. Jackson, Russo brothers, Eagles (band) and Markus Persson get listed on the level 4 list and most "famous" means Marilyn Monroe and Cleopatra get listed on the level 3 list, both of which i'd support over Jackson as women are needed on this list more than men. 20th century music is so full of people, it's best to wait another 50 years for the dust to get settled. Elvis is on as the clear FIRST of a phenomenon, he's the first pop/rock star (Just like Chaplin in film). In 50 years we can go over this again and see who stands tall and add another two or so 20th century music figures. GuzzyG (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
But the current proposal is a swap, not straight addition so Salvabl did not suggested to keep two rock representatives from 60’s-70’s (or three along with Bob Dylan) or keeping non-English language pop representatives on the list. He only reffered to „How Michael Jackson has top of reprsentative field in pop”, and for the record.. he said „in some fragments” so in this video Michael Jackson „several Times” was on the pick and de facto for most of 80’s and 90’s, meawhile Eminem was relatively short moment on the top (I only clarify Salvabl's context but everything what I think about this video I said before, and I also even gave link to article on Wikipedia about selling - personally I do not have any comment about measure by (purly) sales and I did the nomination more due to diversity reasons). Dawid2009 (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I think it is necessary to include non-English speaking music artists like Édith Piaf, and I agree with GuzzyG that other artists can provide greater geographical diversity to the list. But if we focus on this swap (remove Elvis Presley, add Michael Jackson), I think it is something appropriate that improves the list. Maybe in the future we will be voting another swap in which Michael Jackson is removed and another artist added, but in this case I support removing Elvis now and adding Michael (because I think this improves the list). Awvazquez (talk) 18:28, 15 December 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.
NO CONSENSUS
1-2, no consensus. --Thi (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

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.

Swap: remove Richard Wagner, add Folk art, add Folk religion

Folk religion is wide topic and important part of anthropology. This topic revolve around all religions around the world, including ethnics, neonatives and global (for eample folk catholicism). Folklore is level 2 article and without it any religon would not have any cultural impact on the world. This topic would also cover important missed topics included in Portal:Religon just as ethnic religions from Africa. Folk religions authentically are the most practiced religions through history, now also practiced by atheists and agnostics and this topic would better cover Chinese folk religion which probably should NOT be ignored ([10], [11]). I am also opened about addition of folk art which was discussed earlier in section about craft and on the level 4. Folk religion two recently two had relative chances to be passed into level 3.

Richard Wagner is a very vital classical composer but if also take into fact that we also already list 2-3 other German composers and two rock figurees, current structure of the list and diversity really does not make any sense, at all. I belive early romanticism should be only represented by Beethoven when we list history of music based on my rationale in discussion.

Support
  1. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose no to more niche overlapping articles like folk art/folk religion. GuzzyG (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Musicians do not overweight religious figures or people like Sima Qian who reviewed Chinese classics. For example Jean-Paul Sartre is a notable French XXth entury philoopher overweight classical musicians and visual artists on French Wiki by number of pagewatchers, it goes in that way: Sartre>>Chopin>Monet>Durkhelm>Ravael>Debussy (Also, Émile Durkheim who is considered as important piooner „anthropology of religion” gets similar statistics on FRwiki despite fact France according to this review apparently seems be country where religion is not more vital than i others European countries). Monet influence in France was comparable to Chopin which got removed and John Paul II also is more important than Curie/Chopin (there are Columbus day and Pope John Paul II Day but there are not for example "Curie day") in Poland. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC) Dawid2009 (talk) 14:46, 2 November 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.

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.

Gender breakdown of people

I was curious about the gender breakdown of the people we list at this level, so I did a quick count. We currently list 11 women and 118 men, meaning the list is about 8.5% women, well less than the ~18% of biography articles on Wikipedia about women total. I'd be interested to know what the ratio is at levels 4 and 5, but that'd be a lot to count.

I'm not arguing that we ought to actively try to add more women — it seems plausible that the oppression of women throughout history could well have made them less than a tenth as likely to become notable at the VA3 level — but given that this project generally tries to identify articles of greatest importance rather than just greatest popularity, the breakdown is one stat I think we ought to have in mind. Sdkb (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I have previously commented on this with respect to level 3 here and here, and with respect to level 4 at least here. Cobblet (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm glad to see it's been discussed! Interesting that Jane Jacobs came up for level 4, given that I just nominated her for it. Did any of the other proposals from that discussion move forward in a more formal way? People like Julia Child might have a decent case. Sdkb (talk) 08:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The lack of women like Cleopatra, Queen Victoria and Marilyn Monroe on this list is a shock, but they're generally regarded as just famous names with no actual influence. I now disagree, obviously. Sarah Bernhardt could be listed as the prototype of the modern celebrity and Coco Chanel could be on as our one fashion person and one designer, but celebrity is not really taken seriously and fashion is generally not represented well on these lists. Isadora Duncan and Anna Pavlova could represent dance; but people will say dance is not as important in culture. Leni Riefenstahl, Amelia Earhart, Teresa of Ávila, Simone de Beauvoir and Édith Piaf could represent areas on here we don't cover women in. We could list Emmeline Pankhurst. The problem is women don't get generally regarded as prominent figures in sources and throughout history and their fields of interest diminished, like Estée Lauder was a struggle to get on the level 4 list, but she's just as dominant as any other mega titan she's just not reported on the same; same with Florence Griffith Joyner, Suzanne Lenglen or Babe Didrikson Zaharias. Florence Nightingale could be a very good choice. Also Harriet Tubman could be a choice for Activism; but others will say she overlaps with Lincoln.
Either way i would support getting our numbers of women to the level of biographies on the site, the trouble is getting consensus. The level 4 list i'm unsure of, i got Lauder listed and am now trying to get Clara Schumann, Lotte Reiniger, Diana, Princess of Wales and Amrita Sher-Gil listed; and would support Julia Child. The level 5 list, which i've edited alot of i have actively been trying to include women in every section; even in fields like baseball where women are not that prominent (due to softball, which we list Jennie Finch) we list figures like Dorothy Kamenshek; i think we can do better but we are doing not totally bad either. GuzzyG (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Idle thoughts:
    • Too many mathematicians?
    • Explorers and leaders draw heavily on people of military significance, a category (with essentially ONE exception) that's overwhelmingly male
    • Mary for Paul?
    • While it's easy to have several actresses on a list of 2,000 bios, it's difficult to pick a single actress for this list.
    • Do we really need Wagner? We have three other Classical composers who came from the German-speaking world

pbp 23:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Around 2015, about 10% of biographies on Wikipedia were female. The percentage has gone up because of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red initiative. The mathematician section at the moment is on par with the overall list of biographies in terms of the gender ratio (1 out of 9 is female). Some sections, as pbp said, have a militaristic slant and would be more male-dominant than average but some sections have zero women despite women having a strong presence in that field. The one that stands out is music. Hildegard of Bingen used to be listed but was removed. In modern times, Madonna would probably have the best case. For a long time, Level 4 had 8 out of the top 9 best-selling musicians (list [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists and the one which was missing was Rihanna. She has the second highest number of total certified units of all time behind the Beatles. Obviously, there are recentism concerns and sales/mass popularity are not everything but it counts for something (otherwise Star Wars and so many superheroes wouldn't be listed at Level 4). But Elton John has since been removed at Level 4 so Rihanna's absence doesn't stick out like a sore thumb any more. Adding a suffragette and/or Nightingale would also be good at this level. Mary for Paul and removing Wagner sound like good ideas.
A few of the women on the list (Kahlo and Hatsheput) are regular candidates for removal but the proposals are never successful. Still, a significant portion of the voters here believe they're listed because of "political correctness" as opposed to their achievements. They also happen to 2 of the 3 non-white, non-Western women (and Murasaki was only recently added). I'm open to swapping Hatsheput with Nefertiti but Cleopatra is only famous for her relationship with Caesar, who is listed. Egypt was in decline during her time. Gizza (t)(c) 22:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Level 3 is differ from 4 and does cover many white man from second millenium because of they had significant influence on changes in history of world (age of discovery etc.). Lists the on level 4 and the level 5 are more diversided, white man cover lower fraction but on the other hand we have more recentism there. My general observations:
  • Generally I agree mostly what PBP has said.
  • I belive number of all English writers from last half millenium should be lower than number of all religious figures which represents Abrahamic religions through human history. I nominated Dostoyevsky and Rumi before Enlish writers because of I wait for more opened discussion about all English writers at the same time. I am also not sure why we need three classical composers from German-speaking country or two rock representatives if we do not list something like fashion (IMO more deserve for FA than Impressionism) in culture area. I also belive Sappho can debatedly represnt women in music area and Hidegard of Bingen also would be more notable as religious figure than musician excatly just as Joan of Arc is more notable as religious figure than military figure
  • The Joan of Arc is more notable as religious figure than as a military figure even is she has been venerated thank to her military constributions (see wikidata, gogle results, wikiproject statestments, how editors fint that article and even short describtions in rankings about the most inflential people in history) so IMO number of religious figures can be higher when we can list someone like Joan of Arc. IMO it is beter to add Mary and two non-Abrahamic figures (e g Zoroaster and Krishna) than swappping Paul for Mary (I also was wondering about withdrawn nomination with Thomas Aquinas). On the other hand we also potentially can add one man pure military figure because of we list man military figures who were politicians but Joan of Arc is the only pure military figure on the list (although on the other hand missed historic articles like Norman Conquest of England and Roman Empire seems be more important, influential and vital)
  • I agree with PBP that Exploration and military are more specific activities for men but on the level 4-5 we should also cover activities which are dominated by women?). BTW according to this reliable and reviewed source (pp 16) pilots are in 99% men so I have trouble think about adding Amelia Earhart to represents pilots when for example my nomination of William G. Morgan has been failed on the level 4 (Even if inventor of the Volleyball unarguably is less notable than Amelia Ehart how he must be 100 times less vital if we got consensus that Chief designers are more important than astronauts? Or that number of biograpgies on the level 4 is too low?). Personally I think Aviation and History of aviation would be more esential topics to encyclopedia and comes first anyway. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I generally agree with the idea that Sdkb laid out earlier: "the oppression of women throughout history could well have made them less than a tenth as likely to become notable at the VA3 level." I'm certainly ok with using gender balance as a factor in evaluating vital articles, but I would be against setting any specific proportion or number regarding gender (and, for that matter, race/culture/ethnicity). Orser67 (talk) 07:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Also, specifically in regard to Level 3, I would be open to supporting Nefertiti and Queen Victoria depending on who would be removed. I would also potentially be open to supporting women in fields other than politics, but I mentioned them specifically since they seem like decent candidates. Orser67 (talk) 07:55, 1 December 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.

Swap: remove Great Barrier Reef, add Coral reef

NO CONSENSUS
3-3 not added (per bullet point 4 of the introduction) * Pppery * it has begun... 21:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

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.

General article instead of exemplar is possibly better starting point for a reader of an encyclopedia.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support I agree that general topics are better than exemplars at this level. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom GuzzyG (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose To me it seems a little strange to list coral reef ahead of rainforest, although it could also be argued that since we list several terrestrial biomes already, listing a marine biome would make sense too. Also, among natural wonders I would value an exceptional hotspot of biodiversity like the Great Barrier Reef more highly than an exceptional stratigraphic column like the Grand Canyon. Cobblet (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose addition, biome has been proposed above and is a better choice than coral reef, which as Cobblet says shouldn't be in before rainforest. Neutral on removing GBR since consensus on whether we should have specific sites vs general (like this or the pyramid proposal) is still in a state of flux. Gizza (t)(c) 23:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose The great barrier reef article should include a summary of a coral reef ecosystem. A 50000 word article specifically on coral reefs is too detailed for the average reader. With Great Barrier Reef, we can cover a major landmark and a prime example of an important type of ecosystem in one article. --Spaced about (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap: remove Area, add Symmetry

Removal fails 1-6; addition has no consensus (no !votes in over 30 days) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

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.

Symmetry is in the meta's list and I think it is more interesting. There was a comment in meta that symmetry is quite general concept in geometry and important beyond mathematics, for example in visual arts.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support addition Dawid2009 (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support ADDITION as an important gneral concept. RJFJR (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  4. Addition.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal. Area is too important of a geometric concept. Rreagan007 (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I don't see why we would remove area but keep volume. To be fair, length or distance are not listed either, so there is also an inconsistency in the list as it currently stands. Cobblet (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose because of area's importance. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Removal basic concept. RJFJR (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  5. Removal.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  6. Oppose removal – Area is more important than half the geometry concepts on this list. Even if we really do decide that we should be removing area we should remove volume as well, and that thought came to me before I looked at Cobblet's comment. Neutral on Symmetry's addition if length and distance aren't listed. J947 (c), at 01:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Symmetry was added to level 4 here. J947 (c), at 21:52, 16 January 2020 (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.

RFC: Merging CoreBios into Vital Articles project?

An RfC on this topic has been started. It can be found here pbp 00:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Remove Armour

NO CONSENSUS
No !votes in over 30 days. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

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 that it is too specific topic at this level, similar to Artillery which was swapped for Military history. In my view there are more important technology articles such as Satellite navigation, which started as military application but is now widely used by civilians.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Too nany weapons in comprasion to food on this list. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - if this is removed, the military section will become more imbalanced. There are 6 articles on offensive military technology (firearm, bow and arrow, knife, nuclear weapon, explosive and tank) while there are only 2 on defensive military technology (fortification and armour). Gizza (t)(c) 11:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

@Dawid2009: But as Gizza points out, armour is not a weapon. If anything it is a type of clothing (although it also includes things that are not clothing), and I don't think clothing is overrepresented. Cobblet (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Cobblet: For my it seems be about the sme vitalness level what sword which we already removed. Dawid2009 (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Armour was added in 2018 and proposed for removal in the same month as this nomination. J947 (c), at 21:55, 16 January 2020 (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.

Merged article

Just a heads up that Animated cartoon has been merged into History of animation. Both are level 5 but I guess this frees up a slot? PC78 (talk) 04:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject listings

FYI, JL-Bot can now be used to create listings of vital articles by WikiProject or task force. For an example, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Vital articles. PC78 (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Concept of work (labor/labour) for Level 2

It's a little surprising that "work" (as in labour/labor) is nowhere to be found at the higher levels. Admittedly the state of the article is poor at present (and mixed up with disambiguation). However, work is central to studies in anthropology, sociology, history, economics, politics, law. Every single society in human history has incorporated regulations, social norms and cultural practices that are rooted in work. Work is central to the entirety of human history. It makes sense that agriculture and trade are level 2, but to sit alongside business, which is a recent concept (human history wise, the birth of the corporation is relatively recent, the idea that a street-vendor is a business person is even more recent, since just 30-40 years ago they would have been classified as an informal labourer). Industry also seems somewhat misplaced in level 2 (covered by technology and economics and a more recent historical phenomenon). My proposal would be to include work in Level 2. I'm less certain whether it should be work or labour, but would tend more towards work for the simple reason that it avoids US/UK English spelling issues. As a small addendum, for indicative purposes, an Ngram search comparing work with business and industry (and labour/labor) shows a far higher prevalence for work.--Goldsztajn (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

From memory, job was a Level 2 article but then was removed. The rationale was that while it sounded like a vital concept in theory, in practice there wasn't much to write about it in an encyclopedia. Work may be vital though work and labour are disambiguation pages currently. Gizza (t)(c) 12:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
"Work" is such a broad category that I share DaGizza's concern over how much there is to actually say about it. And the disambiguation is also a stumbling block; perhaps employment might be the best candidate? It's currently level 3, which seems mostly sufficient to me. Sdkb (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I would definitely be open to supporting something like labor/work, but I'm reluctant to support the addition of a disambiguation page. Also, I notice that we have employment at level 3 and job at level 4, which seems like an unnecessary overlap (between those two articles, and not with the proposed addition of labor/work) to me. Orser67 (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion craft covers everything what is not oeverlap beetwen job and employment and would be better chioce than work/labor. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Remove Cenk Uyghur

I don't seem to see him in any discussion and yet his talk page was modified to declare him vital to journalism. Despite being low rated on several other scales. Coming here rather than reverting on the off chance I missed something Slywriter (talk) 04:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

He's listed at level 5, so discussion should take place here: Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5. Orser67 (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Add History of religion

NO CONSENSUS
2-2 not added (per bullet point 4) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

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.

History of religion revolve around calendar or histography. It naturally fits on this level especially because of it is fr more vital than History of Middle East and we had in the past articles related to history of religion on the list, for example a East West Schism.

Support
  1. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom Salvabl (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Spaced about (talk) 09:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose It is mainly an extension for the main article (Religion). Almost too general topic for this level. --Thi (talk) 09:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Social sciences are subjects which are relatively easier to be replaced with articles "hitory of" than Natural sciences. We did not picked articles like History of physics or History of Biology ahead of scientifists like Heisenberg etc. because of really these types of articles do not give much more than something like history of science or History of education. Calling things like Big Bang as "recent thing" is confused meanwhile specific articles associated with social science/history are much easier to be covered in "history of" article. That is maybe why we swapped some filmmakers for "history of" but people like Aristotle, Pesteur, Galileo, Freud pritty fit as representation "history of biology", "history of physics" etc.. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I am surprised that article Social science is listed on the level 3 (while ago it was level 2), meanwhile Natural science even is not listed on the level 4. We lately added natural philosophy to the level 4 and we do not have article history of philosophy on the English Wikipedia. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:46, 2 November 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.
FAILED
1-3 not added. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

Swap: remove Hatshepsut, add Nefertiti

Hatshepsut is the first important female politician; but Nefertiti had more of a impact when Egypt was more at it's peak; combine the fact that Nefertiti likely had more of a influence; combined with her being a big pop culture name but with influence unlike Cleopatra; i think Nefertiti is a better addition.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Egyptologists consider Hatshepsut one of the most successful pharaohs. She acutally ruled as a pharaoh for a long period of time - Nefertiti probably not (views on that among Historians differ). --Spaced about (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Hatshepsut definitely the more significant figure in history. Acted in her own right, not the woman behind the scenes. Pop culture popularity definitely not the reason to list something as a vital article. Montanabw(talk) 16:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per others. --Thi (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

I agree on the big pop culture name, however Hatshepsut's political and historical influence is far greater. She actually ruled Egypt, built the great Mortuary Temple among others, sent an expedition to the Land of Punt, re-established lost trade routes and is generally regarded by Egyptologists as one of the most successful pharaohs, who left behind a prosperous country. Nefertiti was Akhenatons wife, who, according to some scholars might have briefly ruled Egypt. However, Amarna was abandoned anyway and the old Pantheon restored. All the best Wikirictor 20:16, 31 December 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.
FAILED
1-4 not added. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

Swap: remove Herodotus, add Sima Qian

We list 4 Greeks in a row in the "Philosophers and social scientists" section; not to mention all the other Ancient Greeks around the list; it wouldn't hurt to include Sima Qian and have 2 Chinese and three Greeks.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Herodotus is the father of history. Sima Qian is not. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  2. We need at least one historian at this level pbp 14:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I'm neutral on adding Sima Qian, but I definitely oppose removing the individual often considered to be the "father of history" in the West. I would probably feel the opposite if this were the Chinese language Wikipedia, but Herodotus has had a much bigger impact on Western and English language scholarship than Sima Qian did. Orser67 (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - per above !votes. Jusdafax (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

What exactly would you call Sima Qian, a actor? This is exactly what's wrong with this list; Herodotus may be the "father of history" to the west; but Qian is father of history to the East and Qians model of history lasted longer in his part of the world than Herodotus history lasted in the west. Atleast click on the article before straight away opposing. Records of the Grand Historian is just as important as Histories (Herodotus); except to a higher percentage of people considering the population differences between Europe/China. China's population was always MUCH bigger than Ancient Greece [12] GuzzyG (talk) 06:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thought i'd post an excerpt from the Records of the Grand Historian article here; since articles don't get clicked; "The Records has been called a "foundational text in Chinese civilization".After Confucius and the First Emperor of Qin, "Sima Qian was one of the creators of Imperial China, not least because by providing definitive biographies, he virtually created the two earlier figures""; sound like a 129 level figure when we list Walt Disney and Animation and have a quota of 1000. Without Qian; the history of the east would be differentGuzzyG (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-6 not added. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

Remove News

since we're one over quota; do we really need a subsection of journalism at this level? What makes this general topic vital?

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose whether it's electronic, on paper, or word of mouth at the village well, news have been important for mankind throughout history. --Spaced about (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose we have better candidates for removal. Sdkb (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose clearly vital pbp 14:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Vital topic in modern life. Newspaper is historically influential institution, but it was removed because News is listed. Publishing is maybe not so important at this level. --Thi (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Thi and others. Jusdafax (talk) 12:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  6. Oppose; I'd say News is more important than the production of itself, Journalism. It has been the vehicle of change throughout civilisation; without it we'd we far behind in the course of humanity, each household living in their own little bubble. J947 (c), at 01:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
So have Containers but it's just too general a article. GuzzyG (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Clearly vital? Britannica doesn't have an article on it[13], maybe their mistake? A everyday service doesn't equal a vital encyclopedic article. GuzzyG (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3 not added. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

Remove New religious movement

At this level, it's sufficient to cover the bigger established religions. New religious movement is not more important than Paganism which is not on L3. --Spaced about (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Spaced about (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose pbp 14:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I think it's a useful umbrella article for describing a wide range of movements, some of which are fairly popular. Looking at philosophy and religion, I'm not sure that Western esotericism is worth listing at this level. Orser67 (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Useful at this level. --Thi (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3, not added. --Thi (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

Add New Zealand

There is only one country in this list part of Oceania. I think this should be added to this list as well. Interstellarity (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Not bad, but I would prefer to add Papua New Guinea, or New Guinea. New Zealand has population of under 5 million, and human history only starts less than 800 years ago, one of the last large places discovered by humans. Papua New Guinea has been inhabited by humans for somewhere in the realm of 50,000 years or more, has 8 million people and is one of the most language and culture diverse places on the planet. Agriculture was independently developed there.  Carlwev  18:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
This has been discussed previously. I still oppose adding New Zealand, per the comments of the opposing !votes in that discussion. Oceania is not underrepresented: there are four countries with populations larger than all of Oceania that are not on the list. Cobblet (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I oppose per Cobblet. Sdkb (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per my comment here. If diversity is needed I would say something like Pacific Islands would be a better option, though I still wouldn't support it. However, it was merged earlier this year (I had previously proposed it at VA4 (here)). Happy Festivities! // J947 (c) 22:26, 30 December 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.

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.

Biology / Physical Sciences Split? Can we better align Levels 3 and 4?

Hi there! Noticed that in Vital Pages, Level 3 (this page!), Biology is lumped in with the Physical Sciences (chemistry, physics, etc). However, in the Level 4 page, Biology is lumped in with Biological/Health Sciences (including medicine, etc).

Willing to do the leg work here to move things around and make the classifications consistent amongst Levels if the community is okay with it.

However, before doing so, I was wondering what people's thoughts were regarding these potential changes: Should Biology be aligned with physical sciences as is on Level 3? Or should it be aligned with health sciences, as it is on Level 4?

Thank you all for being so awesome! --MatthewAwesome (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

That does seem strange. I don't have a strong opinion here, but I see four options:
  • Keep status quo, where biology is in different categories at level 3 and level 4.
  • Abolish "Health, medicine and disease" as a separate category at level 3, moving those articles into science.
  • Move biology to the "Health, medicine and disease" at level 3 (possibly re-naming the category).
  • Move biology to "physical sciences" at level 4 (possibly re-naming the category). Orser67 (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The newer idea of "Life sciences" probably motivated the change in lower and newer levels. We should align level 3 with the lower levels and call the section "Life sciences". --Spaced about (talk) 08:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think reorganizing Level 3 is a good idea. The difference between Level 1-3 and Levels 4-5 is that all of the articles on the Levels 1-3 are organized on a single page, whereas Levels 4-5 are split up among various subpages. Level 2 is also not aligned with the other levels, as all of the science and medicine articles are combined into a single section there. Consistency across levels is a good goal, but sometimes it will make sense to organize Levels 1-3 differently than Levels 4-5. I think having Biology in with the other science topics works well here. I think it was originally broken out at level 4 as a matter of convenience in order to not have so many articles listed on a single page there, but that's not really a concern at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED/NO CONSENSUS
3-3, not swapped. --Thi (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

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.

Swap: remove Richard Wagner, add Saladin

We list 4 German composers in a row; not to mention most of the modern artists being modern figures. Saladin is the "first sultan of Egypt and Syria and the founder of the Ayyubid dynasty" and "Saladin led the Muslim military campaign against the Crusader states in the Levant. At the height of his power, his sultanate included Egypt, Syria, Upper Mesopotamia, the Hejaz, Yemen and other parts of North Africa.". He's also the "he has often been described as being the most famous Kurd in history". Defeating the crusaders is more important to world history than changing Opera and should be more important to list than 4 German composers.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Wagner is rather popular, yet plays a minor role in the (international) cultural historical context. All the best Wikirictor 20:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support I'm not 100% convinced that Saladin is a better choice than a few other political leaders, but I certainly think he belongs here more than Wagner. Orser67 (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Wagner is extremely important German composer. Picking him out seems a politically or ideologically motivated proposal. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. I think en-wiki should prefer key figures of Western civilization. Featured Article about Wagner compared to the B-class article about Saladin (already a level4 vital article) speaks to our readers' revealed preference. One should only read about Saladin they way one reads about Tamerlane: to be horrified by them. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
    I have no view yet on this proposal, but the whole point of this project is to identify articles that ought to become featured, so using which articles are currently featured as a criterion for which articles ought to be made featured seems like a circular methodology. Sdkb (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
    The article about Richard Wagner ought to be an FA, and it is; job done. Saladin is not so important in the Western world and so, isn't vital. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I would keep Bach, Mozart and Beethoven in list of 500 article. From wider list I would expect something more. Wagner is the most botable opera composer after Mozart. Other three musicians are all from 20th centyry. --Thi (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

Considering most 19/20th century century celebrity artists are up for removal; surely there's no ideological nomination and frankly a insulting snide little insinuation, that tends to show one's own ideological battle. All because the classical music editors regularly write featured articles, doesn't show reader interest, the fact that Saladin gets more pageviews than Wagner does [14] and [15]; the fact that only the votes supporting Eastern additions were the ones opposed; seems to show more of a idealogical basis than nothing. How important are you to "Western civilization" if you're a 19th century pop culture celebrity artist and you get beat in pageviews in English AND worldwide total by a 12th century sultan/military figure. GuzzyG (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, just seen the edit summaries; to clarify i am Australian - white too; from a Bogan background; so the opposite of a Saladin fan's background; infact my grandpa quite likes the Ring and recommends a listen everytime i see him; so no - no ideological basis for any of these votes. I think the fact that you refer a opera creator to someone who defeated and pushed out the crusaders as someone who had more of a impact on "western civilization" says enough but you calling your support vote "Jingoism" and than mentioning Affirmative action despite the fact that the Crusades is a infinitely more vital event to the world than the Ring speaks for itself. Since you qualify Wagner by his pop culture popular status; because you know by impact on actual civilization he can't compare; when his pageviews don't even show him to be more popular than Saladin speaks for itself. But you continue that Western Jingoism, according to your own edit summaries. GuzzyG (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd expect something more too; but not Wagner. Johannes Brahms and Franz Schubert are better to represent than two opera composers. Or composers from a different time period like Claudio Monteverdi, Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina, or Guillaume Du Fay. Or more modern like readding Igor Stravinsky or adding Claude Debussy or Arnold Schoenberg, even god forbid John Cage. Even pop culture names like Franz Liszt, Frédéric Chopin or Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky would be better; what makes two German opera composers within a century more important to list than a more complete coverage of the history of classical music? Geoffrey Chaucer is vital to English literature just like Wagner might be to opera not every important person should be listed. At the very least it's not two B's and W. GuzzyG (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

There has been no consensus about which composeers to list after Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. Debussy, Stravinsky and other were removed. We should list all of those names or general articles about history of music to be fair. Wagner is at least from different field than the others (if we assume that Mozart is not primarly opera composer). --Thi (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2020 (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.

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.

COVID-19 Self made masks - Tissue paper quality characteristics; request support to increase it's current level 5 status

University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital Experts released a youtube video about making self made masks by sandwiching a facial tissue between 2 kitchen paper towels. I have a lot of experience with other self-made projects - actually the wikipedia is one as well - that make a LOT of difference and have a HUGE positive impact. Of course people who are in a hospital, in a room treating covid-19 patients need professional gear, but for people going into the supermarket, these self made masks are making a huge difference in delaying the surge in contaminations. I'd like to get support to increase the level of the article on facial tissue - which is now a level 5 - so we can get to people who work in that industry and can add info on a norm for facial tissue to get an idea of how efficient such a mask would be against dust/microbes and the covid-19. Thy --SvenAERTS (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3, not added. --Thi (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

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.

Add Chinese philosophy and Indian philosophy

Western philosophy is represented by Greek philosophy and we have also Western esotericism. In that case I do not see how Chinese philisophy and Indian philosophy can not be vital on this level (and I also remind that we even had nominations for other less important cultural things like Greek mythology or Ganges). Indian philosophy it is wide topic which cover e g Buddism and Hinduism etc. meanwhile Chinese philosophy cover Confutianism (Confucian civilization) and Taoism etc. (in the archives on the level 4 we can found relevant discussions about that topics). I belive we need these two wide topics if we can quite overlap /Socrates/Plato or Luther/Reformation etc. While I supprort tailoring towards to English-speaking world on this level I also do not understand why we list 6 English writers ahead of influential non indoeuropean languages or Eastern philosophies.

Support
  1. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose: both are definitely important and are rightly included at level 4, but I think that Eastern philosophy is sufficient at this level for the English-language Wikipedia. Orser67 (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Eastern philosophy covers these at this level. --Thi (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. I agree with the above comments. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

Previous discussions at Level 4: 1 2 3. The addition of Indian philosophy was proposed here in 2018. J947 (c), at 22:07, 16 January 2020 (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.
NO CONSENSUS
2-2, no consensus. --Thi (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

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.

Add Social media

Vital aspect of communication in the contemporary world, with billions of users dedicating large amounts of attention to it. Has influenced politics, culture, and society worldwide. Would be a good complement to mass media, and seems about as important as broadcasting, telecommunication, etc., all of which are listed. Sdkb (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Sdkb (talk)
  2. Support Influential in modern world, recently article digital media use and mental health just has been featured. I would also compare it with journalism, because of telecommunication is wide topic and more technical than sociological. Digital revolution is an article which we probably need on the level 4 in history section. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Social media is an internet-based tool, often used to share journalism and news. I think that these basic articles about communication are enough at the moment. --Thi (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, though I might support a swap with either Journalism or News, as we probably don't need to list both at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3, not swapped. --Thi (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

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.

Swap: remove Charles Dickens, add William the Conqueror

We have a 400 year gap between Charlemagne and Genghis Khan in politicians and this would ease it; i don't have to go in detail about who has had and will continue to have had the more impact on the British isles. We need to de-modernise this list, artists are severely bloated. Modern UK wouldn't exist without William; it would Dickens. Without William; world history and trajectory is changed. Without Dickens; William Makepeace Thackeray would have taken his place. Why list a victorian before Queen Victoria? We already list a English novelist on this level; with this compact a list; we really need to be strict; there's way too many vital world leaders missing too list fo us too list two modern English novelists; if we needed two modern English writers we should list Byron or Keats or any romantic poet or Chaucer or John Milton; which would make our English writers coverage a playwright, poet and novelist - it's essential this list is spread out rather than clutter like two English novelists; no matter the fame of someone like Dickens.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Better representative of British culture, literature and history from worldwide perspective. --Thi (talk) 11:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - I can see addding William, but Dickens is a giant figure who is to me clearly vital at Level 3, on a par with the others listed here. Jusdafax (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose removal He's too important to English literature to remove him. And this list is meant to be tailored to the English Wikipedia after all. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

I doubt a Norman permanently changing British culture and permanently replacing the Anglo-Saxons would be less important to the world landscape and whole of British culture and history than a serial writer from the 19th century. I would bet on the Domesday Book being a more important and longer lasting world document than any Dickens serial. Would we see a serious encyclopedia creator or historian in any country cover A Christmas Carol and Bah! Humbug! before they cover the Norman conquest of England? If a encyclopedia was to focus on major events and create a chronological list of them by time; would they list the Norman conquest or the launch of a book? Since the "this is a English encyclopedia" reason gets brought up regularly, why does a world view even matter here anyway? When one figure's whole culture and way of life wouldn't exist without the other's actions; that's as clear as day that one is more vital than the other. GuzzyG (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I accidentally wrote worldview instead of worldwide. I think both history and art (as a perspective for history, for example) are important. --Thi (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Removal 2-2, addition 1-3, not swapped. --Thi (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

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.

Swap: remove Paul the Apostle, add Ali

So this one might be the most controversial; but 3 list 3 christianity figures Jesus, Paul and Martin Luther; but only one islamic figure; i think listing two of each would be better. Paul spread Jesus's teachings; which makes it more closer to being having two people for the same thing. Ali is the central Shia figure; one of the two major denominations of Islam; i think Ali's achievements are more individal than Paul's. Also Paul is not listed on the Wikimedia worldwide list [16]. Ali would be a better add for religion than Madonna; which is being discussed above.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support removal Thomas Aquinas and others are also Christian figures and maybe something needs to be cut. --Thi (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Ali achieved nothing except being murdered; that others created a sect matters not. Pauline Christianity exists because of St. Paul. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose addition without a swap with some other figure. --Thi (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Paul is credited with writing about half of the books of the New Testament upon which modern Christianity is largely based. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

Jesus is an important figure in Islam as well. Judaism would also have to be taken into consideration. The two Jewish representatives listed, Moses and Abraham, are not specific to Judaism. Maimonides might have a case. --Spaced about (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I've long offered support for Maimonides, i agree with him aswell, religion wouldn't be out of place at 10 reps; but Ali is important too as a politician in a span of over a hundred years of politics we're missing; it's a two bird one stone nomination; Paul doesn't represent that and it would not be a big loss losing his biography, but we'd gain with Ali. GuzzyG (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to keep Paul the Apostle, but I'd favor swapping in Ali for someone like Wagner or Monet. Orser67 (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2020 (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.
PARTIAL PASS
5–0, added; 1–7, not removed. --Rreagan007 (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

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.

Swap: remove Great Lakes, add Ganges

Why North America has so plenty articles ahead of California and Central America when SA, Europe, Asia and Africa hev so few related to physical geography? I suggest to swap Great Lakes for Ganges (which is not less vital than Missisipi). Civilisational rivers generally are more important than lakes. There are a lot of civilisational Asian rivers with cultural significance but nowdays Ganges still is promient in cultural context.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 06:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support addition The list needs more rivers, the only South Asian physical geography article we currently have is Himalayas, and there are only a handful of rivers in the world whose cultural significance can match that of the Ganges. Cobblet (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support addition rivers are indeed underrepresented. Gizza (t)(c) 21:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support addition --Spaced about (talk) 11:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support addition huge cultural importance to one of the most important countries with a huge population GuzzyG (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal. It's the largest freshwater lake system on the planet, situated between 2 predominately English-speaking countries. It's absolutely vital for the English Wikipedia at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removal The removal of Lake Baikal was a mistake; this would be just as much of a mistake. Cobblet (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose removal the Great Lakes should be in before California. Gizza (t)(c) 21:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose removal per all of the above. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose removal Per Rreagan007. Suggest close. Jusdafax (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  6. Oppose removal --Spaced about (talk) 11:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  7. Oppose removal per all of the above. GuzzyG (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

Great Lakes was previously nominated for removal here. J947 (c), at 21:42, 16 January 2020 (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.
REMOVAL PASSED
Swap 4-1, removal 6-1, addition 4-3. --Thi (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

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.

Swap: remove Rumi, add Zoroaster

Either of Rumi and Zoroaster are famous names for people who are interested in philosophy but Zoroaster IMO is more needed as we list only 9 religious figures and 20 writers. Generally I would rather pick Zoroaster ahead of Zorroastrianism. Especially due to fact that Zoroaster is often considered as one of the of the greatest religous leader (or the greatest) of all time meanwhile Zorroastrianism is often considered as historically important and influential but certainly not the most important religion.

Zorroastrianism thank to historiacl relationship with many other cultures often revolve around other important religions and even various native faiths (New religious movements). We can find really plenty what links here (for example Zorroatriansim is mentioned in the article Asian feminist theology) what show why actually. this relgion is important. Also, fact that it is often considered as the first monotheist religons stete this belief as something important for historians from perspective of sociocultural evolution. Beyond that wwn Wikipedia's statistic of this religion are incredible. Zoroastrianism is a page with +1300 paewatchers on English Wikipedia what can overweight Christmas (1156, Easter (1216) and even soccer soccer (1117 - trully global sport !). Zoroaster as biography gets also more pagewatchers than Yuri Gagarin (513 vs 402

Article about Zorroaster cover influence of Zorroaster/Zorroastrianism for scholars associated with Philosophy of history. Meanwhile detals included and described in article Zorroastrianism seems be more focussed on acedemic topics associated with religion/mythology/demonology etc. What do You think?

Support
  1. Support As nom. But if we compare Zoroaster to Zorroastrianism we could also sompare Sufism to Rumi Dawid2009 (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  2. Weak support I tend to agree that as a founder of a once major religion (albeit now in decline) he should be ranked above Rumi. I disagree with User:Dawid2009: Rumi is not to Sufism as Zoroaster is to Zoroastrianism. But it may come down to a question of whether the criterion is current importance or historical importance, as I would guess that Rumi is more significant for more people now alive. Eteb3 (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  3. Weak support removal because other poets as Abu Nuwas are listed. --Thi (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support addition; either Zoroaster or Zoroastrianism belongs in level 3 because it was an historically important religion Orser67 (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support removal Rreagan007 (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom.   // Timothy :: talk  16:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Persian literature is too important to not cover, we cover heaps of religious founders that actually have current impact on the world; so Persian literature comes first. This just makes the list more bias and less diverse in favor of English writers. Dickens, Dostoevsky and Hemingway are the only writers that should ever be removed, the rest should be set in stone. GuzzyG (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose addition In my view Zoroastrianism is in the same level as many other topics, which should also be added. --Thi (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose addition I don't think we need either Zoroastrianism and Zoroaster at this level, but if we had to list one, listing the religion would be preferable. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2020 (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.
NO CONSENSUS
Swap 1-1, removal 1-2, addition 2-1. --Thi (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

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.

Swap: remove Fyodor Dostoevsky, add Rabindranath Tagore

We already list two Russian writers; which service less population than Tagore; who is not only known for both literature and visual art; the first "first non-European to win the Nobel Prize in Literature" and who has composed the Indian/Bangladesh national anthems. We don't list any artists from India. Either way Alexander Pushkin and Anton Chekhov are just as vital as Dostoevsky; Tolstoy is the central and only vital Russian writer at this level. On Pushkins lede it says "who is considered by many to be the greatest Russian poet and the founder of modern Russian literature." Why list two Russian novelists and not include a poet, especially if he's the founder of Russian literature? To be fair; we do the same with English literature by listing Dickens/Austen and not Geoffrey Chaucer but that's why i nominated Dickens for removal two; we really need to be very strict on this level. People like to cite "we should represent english speakers" to include people like Dickens; but there's more English speakers in India than the population in the UK [17]; which means Tagore should qualify under that same rule.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support addition best choice of an Indian writer. --Spaced about (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Dostoevsky and Kafka are examples of writers whose influence is known all over the general culture. Dostoevsky is one of the symbols of world literature. --Thi (talk) 11:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removal Well put, Thi. --Spaced about (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2020 (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.

Should we avoid linking to active VA discussions from elsewhere in Wikipedia?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Vital_Articles#Linking_to_VA_discussions_from_elsewhere_in_Wikipedia. Sdkb (talk) 06:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

FAILED
3-4, not added. --Thi (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

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.

Add Bill Gates

I think he should be upgraded as Henry Ford is on the list. Henry Ford revolutionised the car industry just like Bill Gates did to the computing industry. — RealFakeKimT 13:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. — RealFakeKimT 13:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support He co-founded/led the company and had a significant role in creating the computing environment that changed the way the entire world works.   // Timothy :: talk  16:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support purely to cancel out the patently ridiculous #3 oppose. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
    @The ed17: That's not really in the spirit of how this process is supposed to work. You should be stating your reasons why you think article should be included, not purely voting to cancel out someone else's vote. Perhaps if you could at least explain why it's ridiculous for those of us to whom it's not patently obvious it might be helpful. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
    I'm quite aware of how this process is supposed to work. :-) In response to your question, it's one thing to argue that Bill Gates shouldn't be on this list. It's another to argue that Elon Musk should fall higher on the priority list for things he may or may not do in the future. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
    Perhaps that's how you read my comment, but it's not how I intended it to be read. I believe that he is higher priority than Bill Gates based on what he has already accomplished. Regardless, if the sole reason you are supporting this nomination is to cancel out my vote, then I think your support is invalid and should be ignored. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Bill Gates isn't that high above Steve Jobs, who revolutionized multiple industries - yet alone John D. Rockefeller and J. P. Morgan, two initiators of American capitalism. We already list Alan Turing for computer science. We have a general rule too of no people that are alive are listed here, (Beatles is the only exception, for obvious reasons). That's not going into any other countries businessmen. I'd prefer Musa I of Mali instead for another wealthy person, in which Africa in general is the most underrepresented area, yet alone pre modern Africa - he'd be a much better fit. GuzzyG (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Living persons are not the best choices for this level. --Thi (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. In terms of living people, I'd put Elon Musk ahead of Bill Gates, as he has (or is in the process of) revolutionizing multiple different industries, from banking, to automobiles/transportation, to electric/solar power, to rocketry/space travel. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per GuzzyG. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5–0, removed. --Rreagan007 (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

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.

Remove Tower

I searched through the archives to see if there had ever been a discussion on this article, but I couldn't find one. I did, however, find several people commenting that Tower seemed like a particularly weak article to include at this level, and I tend to agree with that assessment. Building and Tunnel, which aren't listed at this level, seem more vital to me than Tower, though I think both are adequately covered by other articles we currently list like Architecture and Construction. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support More like a portal to other articles than a topic that should have a featured article first. --Thi (talk) 11:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  14:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Not a terrible article but been on my mind for ages. Difficult to scope in on what it actually should cover, and probably just outside the 1000 article scope. Interesting, but is a collection of different kinds of "tall" structures built from a variety of different things in a variety of ways at different times and places for a variety of different reasons, defense, visibility, Telecommunications, high land cost, folly etc. All they have in common is that they are tall and are referred to by the word tower. Is there even a specific agreed upon definition of the word an encyclopedia would be able to cover as a vital article, from an architecture POV not a linguistic POV?  Carlwev  14:36, 18 April 2020 (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.

Proposal to abolish this project

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 167. (edit | history)
Per WP:SNOW. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

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 the vital articles project should be abolished. Firstly, the project is not very active so there aren't many people watching over it. Secondly, we already have a list of articles tailored to all languages: meta:List of articles every Wikipedia should have. I don't think it makes much sense to have articles important in each particular language anymore. I think we should just rely on one list going forward. Interstellarity (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Transcluded to Wikipedia talk:Vital articles and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles * Pppery * it has begun... 20:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose on this sole reasoning as the basis. I've just gone through Wikipedia:WikiProject Vital Articles/Right/Participants, and more than 20 of the users there have recently (within the last few months, many of them within the last week) contributed to Wikipedia, so the editors making up the project are fairly active. I can understand the consternation over the perceived duplication of effort at meta:List of articles every Wikipedia should have, but I'd raise several points in regards to that: a) articles that are considered vital on the English Wikipedia may not be considered vital elsewhere, and vice versa - especially true for wikis with much lower activity - and b) some articles may, in fact, be significantly more vital in different linguistic contexts. For instance, under WP:VA#Language (28 articles), we can see that the vital articles project has made the determination that Indo-European languages are a focal point at level 3 of vital importance, with only 3 non-Indo-European languages appearing - whereas this clearly would not be the case on, for instance, Chinese, Japanese or Arabic Wikipedia; for good reason, as on those wikis Indo-European languages are not likely to be as important a research interest as they are on Indo-European language wikis. In short, I'm not sure the project is inactive enough to merit its killing off, and as languages are inherently a point of cultural difference, what's "vital" will vary across the different wikis, so I'm not sure replacing it with a metawiki alternative is the right approach even were there to be insufficient numbers of people. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The English Wikipedia's Vital Articles list/project is actually much more active than the Meta-Wiki list is, so that seems like a rather silly reason to abolish it. And the two lists serve different purposes. The Meta list is a list of articles that every language version of Wikipedia should have, while the English list is a list of the articles that are the most vital for the English Wikipedia to improve the quality of. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As a member of WP:VA, I can give moral support to the idea that we should be consolidating "top articles"-type lists and better collaborating between them and integrating with things like importance ratings. (This proposal calls to mind the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies#RFC: Subpage of Vital Article project?, which it looks like everyone just forgot about.) But my sense is that WP:VA is the most active such list, so it should be the one leading the others, not abolished. I also have some qualms about how useful it is for Wikipedia as a project to debate whether we ought to consider society, culture, or language more important, and discussions like that seem to be a lot of what happens there. But there are moments when the project shows its usefulness (for instance, going through the list recently allowed me to make several nominations at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations). Much of that usefulness is conditional on bots working properly to add talk page boxes, update article ratings, etc., and although there's been some activity on that lately, I think some features may still be broken. There are also ways we could make better use of the lists, such as by improving the random page tool to have an option to link to Vital Articles at a given level (currently stalled here), and automated tools we could develop to help us catch missing articles. Overall, what I think is needed is just a bit of innovation and a little less focus on the debates, but we don't need to get rid of it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Outlines of core knowledge are useful for readers and editors. Language-specific lists are needed especially outside the natural sciences and mathematics. The project is not inactive. --Thi (talk) 07:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Moral Support playground for non academic sorting of articles.----Moxy 🍁 13:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose pointless closure of an active project, which (for editors) helps identify Wikipedia-wide articles that need attention and (for readers) which articles one ought to read to gain knowledge about the world and specific topics. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it is a useful (and long term) project. Maybe in the future Vital Articles, WP 1.0 and WikiProject importance assessment are all superseded by a superior alternative. Until then, I see no reason to kill Vital Articles. --MarioGom (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Moral support I think that VA tries really hard but in the end I've found it to be a pointless and subjective criterion. buidhe 22:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The project is a useful device for establishing a hierarchy of subjects. BD2412 T 18:06, 28 April 2020 (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.

Move Mesopotamia and Sumer from Prehistory to Ancient history

The articles Mesopotamia and Sumer are now listed under "Prehistory". But since the line between prehistory and ancient history is normally defined by the invention of writing systems, both articles should be listed under "Ancient history". Don't know if this needs a discussion, since it is not about adding or removing. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be correct based on what our articles say. I have moved the articles to the proper section. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

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.

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. We should probably move it here soon as this should be the main page for stuff like this. J947 (c), at 22:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't the centralized forum be Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Vital_Articles, whereas this is basically VA3? Anyways, I like the sound of the proposal; I'll offer my tentative support and would like to hear more. Sdkb (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
The WikiProject is very inactive; I feel like this is the place it would the get the most input. That said, the idea is still in a workshop stage and there's a while to go yet before it becomes a fully-fledged proposal. J947 (c), at 03:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
The WikiProject talk page being inactive sounds like a problem, since that seems to be the official designated forum. Personally, I think I'm much more likely to see something there, whereas here it was to compete with the torrent of edits that are proposal votes. Participating in this project has really made me badly want the ability to follow sections or only talk pages rather than full pages. Sdkb (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2020 (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.

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.

Solve the topic problem

There is a discussion in Template talk:Vital article#Allow `link` parameter. It seems that we often ask to add/modify topic parameters. Are there any good ideas to solve the problem? Maybe we can create a table to list up the correspondences, or adding a topic mark in every subpage, so bots may read it and understand what topic a subpage is? Any comments are welcome. --Kanashimi (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removal passed 5-0. --Thi (talk) 08:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

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.

Swap: remove Malnutrition, add Sleep

Sleep has come to be recognized as one of the three equally important pillars of human health by the research community. The other two are Nutrition and Exercise. Whereas Sleep is a fundamental health concept, Malnutrition is more of a derived concept from Nutrition, and can be relegated to the next level. I think we should give more weight to distinctly important but missing concepts (such as Sleep) than derived but important concepts (such as Malnutrition) in this list. --Zaheen (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support As nom. --Zaheen (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support removal per nomination. --Thi (talk) 08:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support removal. Listing both Nutrition and Malnutrition seems redundant. We only really need one, and malnutrition seems the more derivative concept. We also list Famine at this level, which has some overlap with malnutrition as well. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support removal per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support removal as redundant. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Sleep is already listed in Biology section. --Thi (talk) 08:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Thi: Oh! I missed it. In that case, I withdraw my proposal to add Sleep. I am ambivalent about the removal of Malnutrition at this point. --Zaheen (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2020 (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.

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.

Propose adding section for those wanting to print / read all the

I personally have goals to read the entire of Vital 4 and trying to do this as efficiently as possible

  • How to print out copies of Vital articles
  • Approx costs
  • How to print out to PDF for e-readers or write scripts to do this
  • How to save just vital articles for reading / tracking in Wikipedia app
  • Speed reading and text to speech apps
  • Possible AI text to quiz generators to test depth of knowledge
  • https://www.quillionz.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaybest (talk • contribs) 03:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
@Jaybest: See Help:Printing. — J947 [cont] 03:44, 4 May 2020 (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.

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.

Proposal: two-month moratorium on proposals/!voting for levels 1-4

This is a somewhat radical idea, but just throwing it out here to see what folks think. I start with three observations:

  1. A huge amount of energy at this project goes into debates about items to add or remove from the established lists. These debates, while often interesting, have only marginal benefit for readers.
  2. At the same time, there is a significant amount of work to be done for this project in other areas. This includes finishing building out level 5, but also tasks like getting all the maintenance bots fully functional again, making it easier for readers to access the list, and creating new applications for it (e.g. a random button that goes to a VA). There's also a lot of collaboration to be done with other WikiProjects to focus attention on poor-quality high-level articles (see the two research reports at our project page).
  3. The discussions on which articles to include are by design almost never time-sensitive (COVID-19 pandemic was a very rare exception).

Put together, I think it would benefit us to put aside inclusion/exclusion debates for two months or so as a way of focusing our attention on the more neglected aspects of this project. During that time, the talk pages would have a closed discussion box placed over them, which would then be removed at the end, allowing us to pick up right where we left off. Exceptions would be allowed for know-it-when-you-see-it-type time sensitive items. What do you all think? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Some more examples of tasks to be done: better integrating with the project-specific importance lists, developing tools for automatically identifying VA candidates, finally fixing the page title tree so that level 3 isn't above all the others, etc. Feel free to agree or disagree about whether those specifically are good ideas, but the general point is that there's a lot of work. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: I don't think a moratorium is the way to go. I feel restructuring the way proposals are to add, remove, or swap articles to be more time-sensitive so we can get a better selection of articles in each level. I do think we should rename this page to WP:Vital articles/Level/3 while WP:Vital articles is an overview page describing what this project is about. Interstellarity (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Interesting idea; I'm not opposed to it but I imagine most people will be. — J947 [cont] 21:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not really sure I see the point in this. There really isn't that much activity on add/remove discussions on level 1-4, as those lists are fairly stable (particularly levels 1-3). Most nominations already move at a snail's pace and this proposal would only slow them down further. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess that moratorium would only cause editors to forget this project. Collaboration with other wikiprojects is needed with bots and applications. --Thi (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2020 (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.

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.

Articles that belong in multiple sections

For example, steel is currently listed only in Chemistry -> Metal -> Alloy, but no doubt it is also a vitally important member of Technology -> Materials. Do we want to have some kind of "see also" type link to allow mentioning steel in the materials section too? Has this issue already been discussed? —Keenan Pepper 19:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

At Levels 4 and 5 there are some "see also" links that will direct you to other pages, but since the Level 3 articles are all listed on a single page I don't think that's necessary. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Swap 3-3, addition of Mary 4-4, addition of Imhotep 3-4, removal of Monet 2-5, swap Monet for Impressionism 1-5. --Thi (talk) 09:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

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.

Swap: remove Claude Monet, add Imhotep, Mary of Nazareth

Religious figures are underrepresente meanwhile artists are still overrepresented on this list. I explained it already in the setion just above: "remove Richard Wagner, add Folk art, Folk religion", especially at discussion. On that basics I think Monet easy can go. Monet also had not better impact in France than Chopin who.consensually got removed months ago. Category:Claude Monet is more poor than Category:Frédéric Chopin.

Imhotep gets the same GoogleNagrams what Monet despite fact he is an acient figure. He is vital not only as remarkable polymath and as medical figure but also as the first notable scientific. He wsa conisedered as deity for centuries (if not formilleniums). On that basic I belive can list him even if we have Hippocrates, Aviencca, History of medicine and we removed some examples of individual buildings.

Listing Remofrmation AND Luther apparently is systemis bias (IMO) but listing Frida Kahlo or Marie Curie ahead of Our Lady of Mexico, The Queen of Poland, The Our Lady of China etc.. (this list would be authentically endless..) is incompetent and typical example of imbroglio at diversity in that project. It is impossible to find how Her ultimate archetypical influence is not perfectly rampant nearly very worldwide. Missing Krishna (after removing important religious text which was added to cover just Krishna) also is not understandable because of we have here odd and unculmitative methotology where bios like Adi Shankara, Martin Luther, Thomas Aquinas etc. are more picked and favourised. Mary is definietly the one religious woman figure to have on this list (even if ALL women cover marginal fraction in Abrahamic Religion in religious texts) and I did not found how Mary is less vital than Jesus in Islam . She deserves priority for featured article. Her category has 64 lenguage versions and its views in various languages overweigh Category:Reformation and get comparable results to Category:Muhammad, if we properly take into fact fact Mary has many common names and redirects in various languages (which why, for example, Category:Mary, mother of Jesus is less viewed on the English Wikipedia than category about Mary on the Japanese Wikipedia ([18]/[[19]).

Support
  1. Strong Support for all changes Dawid2009 (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  2. Strong support for adding Mary, Support for removing Monet. Mary constitutes a central figure in multiple branches of Christianity, is venerated as a saint and quasi-divine being, and would be the first and only female figure in the religion section. Religion, spirituality, and mythology are broadly two-gendered activities and the absence of any female figure is a bit mind-boggling. With respect to painting, we have seven painters (some with other skills) in the artistic figures section, six of them European, including both an impressionist and a post-impressionist (Van Gogh) from the 19th century. I think we can spare one of them.--Carwil (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  3. Strong support for adding Mary, weak support for Imhotep, no opinion on removal of CM. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support addition of Mary, Swap Monet for Impressionism and Add Ancient egyptian religion instead of Imhotep. To stay neutral on quota, remove chemical scientist Antoine Lavoisier, because at this level his work is represented by the Periodic table of elements for which he laid the groundwork. -- Spaced about (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Monet is too influential to a major branch of human activity throughout history (painting). Imhotep should be added as a representative of Ancient Egyptian culture. Marys titles are religious and don't have any hard impact on the world (unless you're saying she's more influential to China than Xi Jinping) and if she is vital for giving birth than Adam and Eve would be listed aswell. Marie Curie will forever be more important to history than Mary; she did more for history, too. GuzzyG (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per above. If we list modern art topics, Monet or Impressionism are too vital topics to miss. --Thi (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose removal per GuzzyG. Sdkb (talk) 07:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose removal - He’s vital at Level 3, as I see it. Neutral on the proposed additions. Jusdafax (talk) 08:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose addition Mary is personally / spiritually important for many Catholic and Orthodox Christians in many regions of the world (e.g. Poland, Spanish-speaking countries, less in the English-speaking world). But she is not important in history, not even in Christian theology. Imhotep may have been important, but we don't know enough about him and his time to judge how much is history and how much is legend. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Not sure why Monet keeps on being suggested to be removed, he is far too influential. Aza24 (talk) 09:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
  • Mary of Nazareth redirects to Mary, Mother of Jesus. Also, I find it strange that Mary the mother of Jesus is nominated for inclusion at this level at the same time Reformation is nominated for removal. Surely Mary is as redundant to Jesus as the Reformation is to Luther? pbp 19:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I intentionally „suggested”/nominated Luther ahead of Reformation (and nominated „history of religion” for some ballance) given fact participants of the project are OK with number of „125?” people on this list meanwhile we do not list something like Roman Empire on the level 3 or Digital revolution on the level 4. Saying that Mary is redundant to another central figure in Christianity (regardless of gender) is undue at least as long as we stand "125+ biographies for the diversity reasons" in that project, in a way we include bios which arguably are much less vital than "rather average than top religious figures", for examples Saint Peter or John Paul II [20] – Here is also quote from last nomination removal of the Abraham „The significance of religious figures is derived from their followers” considering that all, I think Mary is strong candidate when we have so many man religious figures. You will never find other "woman biography" where "category from name of biography" get about the same number of language versions what combinetly go: Category:Abraham+Category:Krishna+Category:Great Wall of China and you will not find any "ancient biography" which has dedicated portals on the Wikipedias: d:Q20820647). Beyond that, FWIHW: article (C-class) on Mary is not similar to article on Jesus, they were never considered as two the same people just as Plato/Socrates (whose we list) and article on Protestantism include long dedicated subsection to "Reformation", meanwhile article on Jesus does not include dedicated section for Mary (and you probably could find more serious overlaps than Protestantism vs Reformation on this list, in non-religious articles). Dawid2009 (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I also find interesing thing that articles like Trinity or Allah, generally in all language versions do not get the same google views in forgein languaes what specifically focussed articles like Krishna and Mary, see e g:[21]/[22]. Given discussion in the archives about Amazon Rainforest beetwen Cobblet and Rreagan007 (see [23]), my comment just above and and comprasions to other articles (for example History of literature vs literature or Protestantism vs Reformation), Mary does not any overlap with Jesus. I would like also to see opinion someone who till often write fetured articles where is overlap here and why? Dawid2009 (talk) 22:56, 20 November 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.
NO CONSENSUS
Swap 2-2, removal 2-3, addition 3-2. --Thi (talk) 09:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

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.

Swap: remove Claude Monet, add Cicero

I know i supported Monet in the above vote; but i didn't know Impressionism wasn't listed. Monet founded a modern art movement; Here's some things listed on Cicero's lede

"is considered one of Rome's greatest orators and prose stylists"

"Petrarch's rediscovery of Cicero's letters is often credited for initiating the 14th-century Renaissance in public affairs, humanism, and classical Roman culture. According to Polish historian Tadeusz Zieliński, "the Renaissance was above all things a revival of Cicero, and only after him and through him of the rest of Classical antiquity." The peak of Cicero's authority and prestige came during the 18th-century Enlightenment, and his impact on leading Enlightenment thinkers and political theorists such as John Locke, David Hume, Montesquieu and Edmund Burke was substantial. His works rank among the most influential in European culture, and today still constitute one of the most important bodies of primary material for the writing and revision of Roman history, especially the last days of the Roman Republic."

"His influence on the Latin language was immense: it has been said that subsequent prose was either a reaction against or a return to his style, not only in Latin but in European languages up to the 19th century. Cicero introduced the Romans to the chief schools of Greek philosophy and created a Latin philosophical vocabulary"

all of that should add up to more worthy of a placement than another modern painter when we list Van Gogh/Picasso and Kahlo and we list no Roman intellectual.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support addition Currently not the most popular author, but his fame has lasted centuries. Swap with some other biography is possible. --Thi (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal Impressionism was important modern art movement and we lack art topics of similar status. --Thi (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Monet is too important to art history to be removed. Aza24 (talk) 07:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Cicero's influence has waned since the 19th century (as we got a clearer picture of the intellectual landscape of his time). Monet is more present in popular and academic culture, in addition of having founded a major art movement. Alexander Doria (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2020 (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.
NO CONSENSUS
1-2, no consensus. --Thi (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

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.

Swap: Remove Space station, add International Space Station

Per the lead of space station, the ISS is the only "fully operational and permanently inhabited space station" in orbit. While there have been others in the past and may be others in the future, the ISS is undoubtedly the main one. Just as we list the most prominent example of a pyramid, the Great Pyramid of Giza, above Pyramid, I think we should list the ISS above the general concept of a space station.

Support
  1. As nom. - {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose based on my same reasoning in the previous nomination where the ISS was removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per above. Usually more general article is preferable at this level. Moon landing was changed with Space race. --Thi (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

Is there any objection to this section being added and developed? Parts of these questions I am not as familiar with the answers for. It would be helpful to include the prices I have but I'm not sure how that will date? Do we like to product listings for pricing?

The Help:Printing section doesn't list easy ways to batch print or PDF print sections.

Is this the best place to ask questions about the Wikipedia app functionality also? Jaybest (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-4 after 15 days, closed per Wikipedia:Snowball clause. --Thi (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

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.

Add Martin Luther King, Jr.

There are no activists at level 3. I think he is the most notable of them all. No opinion on what to swap with it.

Support
  1. Support Interstellarity (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Well, we do list Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi, and they were both also activists. But if we were going to add another activist in this area, I'd prefer someone more historical like Frederick Douglass or a women's rights activist like Susan B. Anthony. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose The ideals of King are represented by Gandhi and Mandela. --Thi (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above, Gandhi/Mandela cover this area; the only type of activism we lack is women's rights - of which i woould support Emmeline Pankhurst. GuzzyG (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
    1. @GuzzyG:Currently the level 3 list does contain an advocate of women's rights - Mary Wollstonecraft, yet unlike the level 4 list the former does not have a sub-section called "Rebels, revolutionaries and activists".--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  4. Oppose As much as I respect MLK, Gandhi set the foundation for his ideals. (He did after all study his teachings, and cite him as a major influence) Aza24 (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
3-4, not added. --Thi (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

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.

add Biome

More important than Great Barrier Reef in context of Biosphere

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Basic topic, not only in ecology but geography. More modern term than Life zone. Related to such concepts as Biogeographic realm, Geographical zone and Climate classification. --Thi (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support, good find Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 09:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose There is no scientific consensus I'm aware of on how best to sort out the hierarchy of intermediate biogeographic units between biogeographic realm at the top and habitat at the bottom. As far as I can tell, the only difference between a biome and an ecosystem, which we already list, is that biomes are bigger and contain multiple ecosystems, just like how states and provinces are usually bigger and contain multiple municipalities. It looks like two of the schemes listed under Biome#Classifications call their component units ecosystems. Cobblet (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose As I understand it, biome is the living part of an ecosystem. While ecosystem contains the non-living aspects (like geological formations), biome is used by biologists to classify and describe the interwoven system of living organisms in a habitat. At this level, we only need ecosystem. --Spaced about (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. As Spaced about says, a biome is just the living component of an ecosystem, which is already listed at this level. I think that's enough for this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Per everyone. GuzzyG (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

It's surprising that biosphere is not Level 5 vital right now. It could even be Level 4 vital. Gizza (t)(c) 04:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@DaGizza:I've added biosphere to Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Biological_and_health_sciences/Biology.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:32, 14 June 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.
NO CONSENSUS
4-4, no consensus. --Thi (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

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.

Add Craft and Machine

In my opinion craft and machine are maybe vital at least just as manufacturing and simple machine (wchich are already listed). Craft dye to historical aspects and machine due to fact we list robotics.

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support. Simple machine is not enough. I have proposed addition of Handicraft, but less general article Jewellery was added instead. --Thi (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support even if it puts us over quota. The list is lacking business and economics topics (or "work" topics as someone put it somewhere on these pages). Swap in machine for simple machine. Craft should be on a much higher level. I guess it was missed because people think it is represented by trade - which has a double meaning as handicraft and as exchange of goods. -- Spaced about (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support Machine only  Carlwev  10:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per my comments in Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 10#Replace simple machine by machine, and the fact that there remains no consensus to add craft to level 4. Cobblet (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I agree with Cobblet's comment above. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Craft is too obscure to warrant addition. Regarding machine, Cobblet's suggestion is preferable. EsEinsteinium (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Per everyone. GuzzyG (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

Comprasion jewellery to handicraft is like comprasion clothing to sewing. IMO also craft is more vital than handicraft just like economy is more broad and vital than business. We list things like agriculture on level 3 but we also have film ahead of popular culture so craft should be added if we decide keep popular culture. Natural satelite also very is generic article and Mount Everest gets more than 50% more hits than Moon (Yes, Moon is very important article but Natural satelire is utterly redudant to planet, Moon, Earth and Solar System). Dawid2009 (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2019‎ (UTC)

There are many articles that cover similar ground as craft: handicraft, applied arts and decorative arts, for instance. My suggestion would be to add folk art, which again covers essentially the same subject; but as a component of folklore, it also clearly complements the already listed oral tradition and folk music. Cobblet (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Thi, GuzzyG, and Cobblet: Craft is not level 4 yet and I slso started nomination there. Same with "birth" which was closed as failed on the level 3 Dawid2009 (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy link; now closed as no consensus. J947 (c), at 21:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Other discussions around Craft and Machine:

—J947 (c), at 21:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Savanna 4-3, Habitat 2-4, not added. --Thi (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

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.

Add Savanna and Habitat

These articles are listed on some other vital article list (for eample Italian wiki has Savanna). It is good choice when we have so plenty countries.

Support
  1. Another good alternatives related to animals are: pet (not less vital than cat or coe if we have meat and milk) and animal behaviour.Dawid2009 (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support savannah because of its special meaning in the context of human evolution: About 10 mio years ago there was a climate change in East Africa, changing the climate from rainforest to savannah. The new environment is considered to have been the major driving force behind the evolution form primates to humans. Also, savannahs are carbon sinks. Here you have your rationale, @J947:. --Spaced about (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support both pbp 14:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support savannah Important concept along with rainforest and steppe (currently not listed), espedially when biome or other similar concept is not present at this level. --Thi (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose No rationale for either proposal. Why savannas over any other type of ecosystem? Cobblet (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Savanna unless a good rationale is given; I see no reason why it should be listed over other ecosystems. No opinion on the addition of Habitat. J947 (c), at 22:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose habitat, seems too much of an extended dictionary definition for this level. --Spaced about (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  4. Oppose habitat, because such concepts as biodiversity and ecosystem are already listed. --Thi (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Per Cobblet. GuzzyG (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

I am also not wholly convinced we have too few countries. The biggest missed contry on this list by either of surface and population is Algeria. This country get worse Wikipedia's own statistics than Vatican City (although interesing fact is wthat we removed technical article Pope years ago). Moreover we also removed aticles like Baha'i Faith years ago for missed countries like Veitnam. Nowdays proposal for removing Baha'i Faith (currently not listed) probably would not be passed if take into fact that this religion historically has larger population than Dubai/New Zealand/Singapore etc. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Cobblet (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I try to suggest that physical eography (outside North America) is generally littly underrepresented and that maybe covering that area would be better choice than adding more countries as you pointed here. In the past also some religons topics have been removed for countries like Veitnam. Now we list more countries and cities, such as even small and young populated like Dubai or New Zealand have been nominated to inclusion. Dawid2009 (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Habitat was added to level 4 in 2018. J947 (c), at 22:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3, not swapped. --Thi (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

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.

Swap: Remove Richard Wagner, add Frederic Chopin

Who is more vital? Richard Wagner or Frederic Chopin? I'm leaning towards Chopin, but I could be wrong.

Support
  1. Support Interstellarity (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Strong Oppose although I admire and respect Chopin, I am very confident that Wagner is by far more influential and vital. He fundamentally changed Opera, music, conducting, stagecraft and presented some remarkable philosophical ideas in the Ring and in his writings. Chopin was very influential in piano composition and performance making him a fitting person for Vital level 4, not level 3. - Aza24 (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose It's not a bad choice considering Chopin, Tchaikovsky, Verdi and Stravinsky have all been listed here before and for timespan i disagree with Stravinsky's and maybe Chopin's removal (now all the composers we list are from one area.. Germany/Austria). I still believe for timespan and geographic diversity Claudio Monteverdi should be listed aswell. But it's clear Wagner won't be removed from this list. GuzzyG (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2020 (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.
PARTIAL PASS
Swap 4-1, removal 6-1, addition 4-3, Werner Heisenberg removed. --Thi (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

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.

Swap: remove Werner Heisenberg, add Francis Bacon

When we have 4 physcists in a row; why not list Bacon instead; who is "credited with developing the scientific method" and dscribed as the "father of empiricism"; it wouldn't hurt to have more pre modern science and less 20th century figures.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support as nom. All the best Wikirictor 20:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support removal. Heisenberg is important, but he is part of bigger picture and some other articles may be more vital. On the other hand, it makes sense to include him along with Niels Bohr. --Thi (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support removal Bohr is enough to represent quantum physics at this level. Cobblet (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  6. Support swap Heisenberg is Level 4 material; Bacon is probably the great figure of the English Scientific Revolution behind Newton, but if he doesn't get in at least Heisenberg should be demoted. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition Bacon wrote about general agenda, his methods did not have a long-lasting influence. I think that David Hume is more important figure in empiricism. Bacon is now one chapter in history of science, but Hume's ideas are still relevant in modern philosophy. [24] --Thi (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per above and the fact that the scientific revolution is already in the list. Bacon's contributions are too closely related to the scientific revolution to have him as well. Aza24 (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose addition Even without Bacon, the intellectual side of the Scientific Revolution is already better represented than the experimental side. In that respect somebody like William Harvey would be a better choice. Cobblet (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2020 (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.
PARTIAL PASS
Swap 2-0, removal 5-0, addition 2-2, Ernest Hemingway removed. --Thi (talk) 09:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

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.

Swap: remove Ernest Hemingway, add Constantine the Great

Why list Hemingway when we list Twain? How many 20th century artists do we need? or even 20th century figures in total when we list so many world changing figures. Without Constantine; history would be different while Hemingway's place would be taken by John Steinbeck or F. Scott Fitzgerald. No serious encyclopedia would list Hemingway before Constantine. Hemingway isn't even listed in Wikimedias list [25]; which shows how much of an extreme American bias his listing is, two modern American novelists is absurd. I simply cannot describe Constantine's effect on the world. There's a 750 year gap in politicians between Augustus and Charlemagne; which this would fill; meanwhile we list 3 20th century writers and 2 modern American writers; we need to balance this list; there should be no nearly 800 year gap in politicians to list 2 American novelists.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support removal Hemingway is not so vital when Mark Twain is listed. --Thi (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support EsEinsteinium (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support removal I can't help but agree with Thi on this, Hemingway is definetly not needed, but I don't think Constantine's influence stands up to the others on this list. Aza24 (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support removal Now that we've added Twain and Dickens, we've got too many English writers. Cobblet (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition Many proposed additions would better fit for list of 200 biographies. --Thi (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose addition Per my reasoning above. Aza24 (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

If we're going to fill the 750-year gap in history between Augustus and Charlemagne, why don't we also fill in the 2100-year gap in Chinese history between Qin Shi Huang and Mao while we're at it? I'd suggest Emperor Taizong of Tang. Cobblet (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Swap 2-1, removal 3-2, addition 2-4. --Thi (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

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.

Swap: remove Ernest Hemingway, add Claudio Monteverdi

Effectively the Beethoven of his time (he had the same transitional effect from the Renaissance to Baroque eras and Beethoven did from the Classical to Romantic) Monteverdi easily stands next to the composers already on this list. Hemingway's removal is based on above where he seems to have a lot of support for removal since Mark Twain is already on the list. Aza24 (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Aza24 (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support removal --Thi (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Marilyn Monroe and Cleopatra got denied by the fact they're just famous, but now we're requiring super influential composers to be famous? By influence Monteverdi should be on this list and that's what matters - if influence doesn't than add Marilyn. We need more women in the arts anyway or Sarah Bernhardt. Tchaikovsky is nowhere near as influential, Monteverdi is miles above his threshold. He's just pop culture famous. Michael Jackson is more famous than Elvis Presley, so why do we list MJ if not for Elvis and his influence? We need to be more consistent on these lists, some people get to be just famous, some influential but it's rarely consistent. GuzzyG (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition - I don't think this composer meets the threshold to have composers like Tchaikovsky back in the list. Interstellarity (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose addition Monteverdi is not as well known among general public than other composers on the list. If we list more composers such as Debussy and Stravinsky, Monteverdi would fit. --Thi (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose We do not need more Western composers. Cobblet (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  4. Oppose addition, weak oppose removal I might be biased in this respect, but Hemingway seems a giant in American literature. Monteverdi is a non-starter for me per the others, sorry. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

@Interstellarity: I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, could you elaborate? Aza24 (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Aza24: What Thi said. Interstellarity (talk) 10:41, 5 June 2020 (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.
WITHDRAWN
This clearly is not going to pass. Interstellarity (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

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.

Proposal: Keep Elizabeth I, Add Henry VIII

Because there has been opposition to removing Elizabeth I, but some support for adding Henry VIII, I have made this proposal to see what people think of it. I am neutral on this. Interstellarity (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
  1. No way. Two English monarchs, both Tudor? Not an option. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 06:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Obviously absurd. Cobblet (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Sorry, but I don't think there is room for both of them, and I think Henry VIII is more vital. Even if we were going to have two English/British monarchs, I think George III might actually be more vital than Elizabeth I. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2020 (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.

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.

RfC / Proposal: More anthropological take on economics schema

Hi there, I'm a very sporadic wiki-editor that normally sticks to technical or non-vital articles. I thought working on a couple low-hanging (start-rated) vital articles might be a good way to spend some of my time hunkering-down at home.

So I went through the Level 2 list & happened to settle on Industry, but when I looked over the article & talk-page, it seems like there's a real confusion of purpose there. The first sentences of the lede (and its place in the Level 3 vital article list) suggest it's meant in the technical sense of categorizing industries. The article immediately pivots to the contemporary sense of industrial production though, but then as some people already pointed out, doesn't the Manufacturing article already cover that more coherently? On top of that, the history section has stub sections for slavery & guilds, suggesting at one point some editors were thinking of the article as more widely about systems of production, or at least their history in Europe.

After link-hopping and trying to get an idea of where to start though, I realized that maybe the lack of direction stems from trying to fill too big a space within the encyclopedia. In particular, it turns out that there actually isn't any article for the general concept of work across cultures & systems. Both Work and Labor are implicit disambiguation pages, and both link almost exclusively to articles related to wage labor. Kind of surprising, right?

With that in mind, I think adding a bit more of a historical / anthropological view to how the articles are organized & prioritized could help. Not only would it encourage links to topics like hunting and gathering, pollution, or domestic work, but might focus even the topics specific to contemporary, industrialized economies. Off the top of my head, what if we follow something similar to Karl Polanyi's three-way schema from The Great Transformation: land / nature, labor / work, money / credit / means of exchange?

Specific suggestions:

  1. Keep Trade at Level 2 but possibly place Bank & Money under it at Level 3
    1. Finance could be demoted from Level 3 as a relatively narrow article
  2. Swap Natural Resource (currently Level 4) with Industry
    1. The specific primary industries in the Level 3 listing can be grouped under it
  3. In the Level 3 listing, make Manufacturing a group header for any secondary industries
  4. Make Work a Level 2 page & begin on the article
    1. Shunt the current links into an explicit disambiguation page
    2. Redirect Labor / Labour to the page by default too
    3. The article can encompass all kinds of productive activity
    4. It can also include a history section discussing various labor systems
  5. Demote Business from Level 2 to 3 as something specific to market-economies
  6. If not Finance, demote at least 1 other narrow Level 3 article so Work can propagate down
    1. Perhaps the ones specific to contemporary service economies?
    2. Or the technical ones (Macroeconomics and Microeconomics)?

Beyond that, I'll float an additional option: we also demote Agriculture from Level 2 to 3. Yes, it sounds like heresy as I write it. Agriculture is central to history & civilization, but besides leaving out other forms of food production, that brings a specific industry into level 2 of the taxonomy. Actual content could still be introduced at Level 2 some too by expanding the Extraction section within Natural Resource. And as a bonus, it would free up a slot at Level 2 for another topic, in economics (maybe Manufacturing?) or not.

Of course, balancing things at Level 4 would need further shuffling, and it is still somewhat subjective, but I think these changes or similar ones could help resolve the issues above & focus work on some current gaps. Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry BTW if brainstorming is discouraged here; I went back through the archives more & saw I'm not the first to bring some of this up. I can work on specific articles for now & come back later to nominate swaps one at a time. Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2020 (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.
NO CONSENSUS
1-2, no consensus. --Thi (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

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.

Add Humanities

I think this topic is as vital as Culture. It is a discipline. Interstellarity (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The humanities are the study of culture and society, which are already listed. Cobblet (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Other topics such as History and Anthropology represent this area. --Thi (talk) 09:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Swap 3-5, addition 4-5. --Thi (talk) 08:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

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.

Swap: Remove Elizabeth I, Add Henry VIII

Henry VIII is perhaps the most famous monarch in all of English history. He initiated the English Reformation which led to breaking England away from the Catholic Church. While Elizabeth I was famous in her own ways, Henry VIII is much more notable than Elizabeth I. Interstellarity (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support. If we are going to have one English/British monarch at Level 3, it probably should be Henry VIII. Breaking England away from the Catholic Church and starting the Church of England is certainly more important historically than anything Elizabeth I ever did as monarch. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support adding Henry VIII; neutral on Elizabeth per Rreagan007. He is probably the most consequential British monarch. I would personally be open to putting Queen Victoria at Level 3 as well, but that might just be me (and a bit much for Britain). Sorry, given that fewer than 30 leaders are in this level, Henry VIII should most definitely be up there if any British monarch. I'd certainly support putting Elizabeth at Level 4, though. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support To be honest, I'm not really sure how a comparison can even be made. If there is going to be a single English monarch, it should be Henry VIII – Elizabeth's influence just doesn't stand up against his. Using her gender to justify her inclusion seems pointless, it is remarkable, but that alone doesn't increase her actual impact to be beyond Henry VIII's. Aza24 (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Both figures are important. Ideally one would list both, but that cannot be justified when less than 30 political leaders are listed altogether. Given the list contains 118 men and 10 women, and given that we already do not list the other queen who reigned during England's other golden age, I prefer keeping the status quo. Cobblet (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose As Cobblet said, both are important, I support keeping Elizabeth I while opening another discussion to add Henry VIII.Geekpotato24 (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose The project has paid attention for inclusion of female figures. If someone creates a list of 500 articles from this list, Elizabeth I would be iuncluded as representative of female rulers and as one of the most famous rulers in British and world history. --Thi (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  4. Oppose William the Conqueror is the only other English monarch i'd support. We absolutely need women and it's why we list Elizabeth over Henry and Catherine the Great over Peter the Great, while it's arguable that both Peter and Henry are more important, that doesn't mean we should list them. We have to make choices on what we need to cover first. There's a huge barrier for women already for this list, with most of the important women like Cleopatra, Marilyn Monroe, Nefertiti being seen as just famous figures with no actual influence or the top figures of fields women dominate seen as not worthy to have a representative Coco Chanel (fashion, which we dont list itself) or Isadora Duncan for dance or not even on the level 4 list like Enheduanna. Eleanor of Aquitaine and Catherine de' Medici would be more important for France than Antoinette. Most women leaders don't have high recognition, which hurts their chances, any of Maria Theresa, Nzinga of Ndongo and Matamba, Isabella I of Castile, Aisha, Fatimah or Margaret I of Denmark would've also been good additions if they had the high name recognition. But that opens up arguments on why we don't list very vital political leaders from civilizations that are important that we miss like Japan Oda Nobunaga or Emperor Meiji, pre 20th century Africa like Shaka or Mansa Musa, Arab states like Saladin or Ali and another Chinese or Indian leader like Emperor Taizong of Tang or Akbar and even being fair diversity wise someone like Kamehameha I. This means that two English monarchs is too much, but we need women so Elizabeth is fine. Antoinette is a complete no-go. Moving beyond politics, we only have 4 black people on this list (Hatshepsut, Ramesses II, Nelson Mandela and Louis Armstrong), so two English monarchs is excessive when you consider that and the fact Fela Kuti was removed, Chinua Achebe was suggested but shot down, Ousmane Sembène's vote for the level 4 list has been up for 8 months with no enthusiasm and despite having no black visual artists on the level 4 list - Ben Enwonwu would have no chance. The most important Ancient Egyptian intellectual Imhotep didn't pass either. Not to mention listing two modern Russian novelists in a row but not listing the Black founder of modern Russian lit (and a poet, so unique) Alexander Pushkin or the fact two of the most important non-western literature languages like Persian or Sanskrit are not covered (Rumi got removed and Kālidāsa probably wouldn't pass), i mention this because if we can't get more than 4 black people and 11 women on the list than i don't see how we should contribute to adding more white men at the expense of women/non white people. we're bad enough as it stands, there's just way too many other choices possible that would be better for this list. GuzzyG (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  5. Oppose I think at this point, if you wanted to add another English name, I would look to drop Winston Churchill in favor of Henry. I certainly understand arguments for Churchill, including that there is not a lot of recent history on the list. It seems though that Henry VIII would certainly be more consequential in the history of the UK than Churchill. While Elizabeth's accomplishments may be lighter than Henry, I would view being able to stay in power for that long as a woman is a significant accomplishment in itself, given the religious conflicts of the day and multiple attempts to depose her. TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 17:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

@Rreagan007 and Cobblet: Do you think we should have a set number of individuals we should have in each category? Do you think a set number of males and females for each group would be OK? Interstellarity (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

We haven't been able to agree on the total number of individuals this list should have, despite long discussion. Given that, it doesn't seem meaningful to set numbers for particular subgroups. Cobblet (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Geekpotato24 and Cobblet: "Both figures are important" seems like a misleading comparison, Henry's influence was extremely consequential for England and Europe as a whole, Elizabeth's influence doesn't really stand out far from other important English monarchs. The peace, stability and flourishing of the arts under her reign was notable, yes, but no Tang Dynasty rulers are listed to represent that golden age and no Islamic rulers to represent their monumental golden age. Additionally, the Elizabethan era is extremely short in comparison to these other eras – especially considering how it failed to sustain long lasting peace and prosperity. Either way, there are already people on the list like Li Bai (Tang Dynasty) Abu Nuwas, Avicenna, Ibn Khaldun and Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi (Islamic Golden Age) and likewise, Shakespeare for the Elizabethan Era. - Aza24 (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

"Both figures are important" in the sense that Wikipedia's readers find both figures to be important: both pages have received about the same number of page views over the last five years, with Elizabeth I actually being slightly ahead even if you exclude the 733,000 spike in page views for Elizabeth I on August 31, 2016. Henry VIII was a destabilizing figure, Elizabeth I was a stabilizing figure – I don't see one being more "consequential" than the other. I agree that historical figures outside of Europe are underrepresented, but that doesn't really affect whether we choose Henry VIII or Elizabeth I – at most it's an argument to list neither English monarch. Cobblet (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rreagan007, John M Wolfson, Aza24, Cobblet, and Thi: I noticed we have some discussion on adding more female rulers. I have found some videos that will can give us some ideas on who to add. While I don't think that every female on the list especially the ones still alive like Elizabeth II and Angela Merkel or the onces the recently died like Benazir Bhutto should be added, one person I would be open to adding is Marie Antoinette to the list. Please let me know what your thoughts are.

Interstellarity (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It ain't happening when we already have Charlemagne and Joan of Arc. Cobblet (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
The simple reality is that most rulers (especially the most important/influential ones) throughout most of human history have been men until relatively recently. So it's only logical that our vital articles list of the rulers will be disproportionately male. I'm glad there are at least some women on the list. But I don't think it's a good idea to add more just for the sake of it if they aren't as vital as the ones we already list, since we have such limited space at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2020 (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.

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.

Countries

I’m an occasional and unregistered cafe editor, so I hesitate to raise a hand here but I’m puzzled to see so many countries among such essential topics. Can someone explain why, instead of a better sampling of geographic features or great leaders, especially non-Western ones (where are the great Pharaohs, Chinese emperors, and Peter the Great, for example?), we have countries of limited international impact (Thailand, Bangladesh), small scale and short history (modern Israel), and one not even fully recognized (Taiwan), and so on. Surely by default all 193 countries should be at one level, with a tiny sampling of those with very major current or past impact (China, the USA, UK, France, Germany, Russia, Spain, *maybe* Italy and Brazil) are raised to this exclusive space? The list clearly displays a number of biases, notably around women too, even if this partly reflects historical situations, but Countries is perhaps the most egregious. 79.134.212.134 (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I’ve read the instructions and looked at 3 past pages, and I see that 1-for-1 votes tend to do better, but I really think that someone needs to be brave and cut Countries right back, rather than engaging in discussions about relativities. I could argue for more Africa, some Eastern Europe, and more, but I really think this list just needs culling, and allocation of X new slots to other categories. From one argument above, for example, where indeed are Pushkin, “the father of modern Russian”, and Constantine, who did more to spread Christianity than any disciple, and almost all leaders of the many millennia-plus enduring empires? 79.134.212.134 (talk) 09:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea. My personal list by continent would be as follows:

Africa
  • Egypt
  • Ethiopia
  • Nigeria
  • South Africa
Europe
  • France
  • Germany
  • Russia
  • Spain
  • United Kingdom
North America
  • United States
South America
  • Brazil
Asia
  • China
  • India
  • Indonesia
  • Japan

With maybe Australia and Pakistan, for a total of 15 to 17 countries, compared to the current list of 38. Perhaps I'm a bit too trim-happy, though I think all the other countries should be by default Level 4. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  • I'd ask the opposite question: why should articles on individual people be more essential than articles on entire countries? If I were forced to choose between having no countries at level 3 or no biographies at level 3, I'd pick no biographies without hesitation. However, the long-standing consensus is to have both types of articles at level 3. The challenge is then to create lists of both that offer some degree of representative diversity. The list of countries has gradually grown to the size it is today (a trend which started in this discussion) because it was felt that shorter lists do not fairly represent the world's diversity. For the time being, we seem to have arrived at a list of countries that most people can live with. Cobblet (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Articles on countries are some of the most important articles that an encyclopedia can have. Looking over the list of countries we currently list at this level, there are a few that I don't really think belong on this list, but I think most of them deserve to be listed here. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:07, 11 July 2020 (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.

(Withdrawn) Add California

After realizing that both Grand Canyon and Rocky Mountains are also on here, there is less impetus and more reason to oppose this. As such, I'm withdrawing this, although someone else may propose it if so inclined. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

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 know this might be a tough sell, given that we'll be at exactly geography quota with Grassland and that the US already has 4 geography articles (including itself) at this level, but I think this bears discussion. California has one of the world's top 10 economies and is the home of both Hollywood and Silicon Valley, being thereby the pop culture and arguable technological capital of the world. Also, while I'm not personally impressed with "diversity for the sake of diversity" arguments, this is something for the Western United States while the 3 sub-US vital articles (New York City, Great Lakes, and Mississippi River) are concentrated in the east. Overall, while I understand why this might be rejected I think it should at least be considered. I'd be open to discussing what would be removed to make way for this if this passes. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. As proposer. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
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.
Added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

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.

Add Grassland

The only basic type of biome not covered in some way by the list. Grasslands cover between 20 and 40 percent of Earth's land area depending on how they're defined,[26] and much of the world's most agriculturally productive lands are former grasslands.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. Includes such stuff as prairies and savannas. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 09:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Article about savannas and steppes is needed at this level. --Thi (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 06:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  6. Support I agree with all the above. I also agree with nom about agriculture becasue of grassland are very wiedly mentioned in articles like pasture or grazing. Dawid2009 (talk) 10:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

The simplest classification of Earth's biomes divides them into six types: freshwater, marine, desert, grassland, forest, tundra.([27],[28]) Freshwater is covered on the list by river and lake, while tundra is covered by Arctic and mountain. Cobblet (talk) 08:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
6-3, added. --Thi (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

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.

Add Design

I think that Design is as vital as Architecture. In most general sense, architecture is design discipline, just as fashion design, product design, graphic design and so on. Design is part of everyday life and I see as kind of interface, a point of interaction between human, art and technology. The concept of design is a tool to talk about technology, for example what materials and features to choose as makers or customers. I think that concept is useful in educational sense. There are design critics just as there are architecture critics, art critics, and literature critics. Design#Philosophies_and_studies_of_design.

Applied arts is part of design. "The applied arts are all the arts that apply design and decoration to everyday and essentially practical objects in order to make them aesthetically pleasing." Design is more useful term at this level, because in modern world it deals not only with aesthetics (Ornament (art)) but also functionality. "Applied arts largely overlaps with decorative arts, and the modern making of applied art is usually called design."

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Design is also the entire process, not just the outcome. --Spaced about (talk) 10:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Design is a vital parent topic imo for various professions. GuzzyG (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  6. Support, brings together a lot of things, including problem-solving, and the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Also agree the Arts articles are currently under-weighted. The oppose !votes make great points, and I see them in the current article (e.g. it is ahistorical), but not the topic itself. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose In my opinion, "design" is just a fancier word for problem solving that people who call themselves "designers" use to describe what they do. Moreover, to suggest that "design" differs from applied arts/decorative arts in that it involves both form and function is to suggest that those who practiced the decorative arts before the word "design" came along failed to consider both form and function, which is simply ridiculous. I find concepts such as problem solving or creativity more meaningful. Cobblet (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. "Design" seems more like a dictionary word than an encyclopedia article topic. I don't think it's a very good article to include at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose  Carlwev  11:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
  • Neutral. We only have three articles in the "architecture" section, two of which are examples of buildings, so I think we could use another one in this space. (compare to 8 articles for music or literature) I'm hesitant, though, because "design" is such a broad concept that I'm not sure it's focused enough to be a good fit for this level. Sdkb (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2020 (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.

Vital Articles and WikiProject Importance coordination

The Vital articles project is a bit hidden in what are nominated and removed related to a WikiProject. Until this week WikiProject Lakes didn't have JL-Bot configured that would even show viatal articles related to the project existed thus no priority has been given to improve the articles in assessment, development, etc. What outreach is being maintained with WikiProjects for knowledge of JL-Bot configuration and the vital articles? A yearly message on vital article progress might be worth considered for posting to each WikiProject that has an associated vital article. Second as one of the people overhauling WikiProject Lakes it might be worth looking into proposing a bot that would rate and maintain an importance rank per WikiProject preference for vital articles. For example a project may deem lvl1-3 Top priority while lvl 4-5 to be high priority and thus any articles added could automatically have their priority escalated if below that threshold. It would also help in making vital articles more visible and encourage projects to vote on new vital articles based on their contextual understanding. Looking forward to comments on these ideas. Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing the Bat/Primate proposal and will re-propose adding just Arthropod below. Please do not archive this until the newer discussion is complete, thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

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.

Organisms

This is a two-prong proposal about changing our list of organisms at Level 3, to better reflect their relative importances in ecology and the tree of life. If these are better as two separate sections feel free to split them as such. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Arthropods

Insects are the vast majority of animal species (at least terrestrially), so it doesn't seem to make sense that only Insect is at Level 3 while there are several mammalian articles, even accounting for anthropocentric bias. I'd promote the following articles:

Although I'm open to proposed modifications to this list. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
Comment
  • Ants and Beetles are both insects, which we already list the article on insects, so we probably don't need to list them separately. Spiders are Arachnids, so it might be worth it to add the Arachnid article to this list. Both Arachnids and Insects are Arthropods. Perhaps there is room for the Arthropod article as well, but if we list the two main arthropod articles separately (insects and arachnids) then we probably don't need to list arthropod at this level too. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, but we have Mammal at this level as well as several mammalian orders and species. I understand that we are naturally anthropocentric and don't wish to completely counteract such bias (even with all of these additions, mammals would still overall have more representation), but ants are presumed to constitute around a fifth of all terrestrial animals' biomass, and beetles about a quarter of all described animal species, so these are not arbitrary choices. With the exception of Arthropod, none of these articles are particularly arcane for a human audience IMO. I just feel overall that given Arthropods' dominance in the animal kingdom it's a disservice to have only one article at Level 3. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
      • I'm well aware that a reductio ad absurdum of this argument would be that since prokaryotes (bacteria and archaea, each of which are on this level) are the predominant life form overall, each notable species of either would crowd out both mammals and arthropods on this list. I think that the commonly-known arthropods are in the happy medium between human awareness and actual biological prevalence to have multiple articles on this list. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I could support adding arthropod but that would be it. Cobblet (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Arthropod is ok for me. --Thi (talk) 11:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with adding just "Arthropod" if that's where consensus is headed. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Rreagan007 and Cobblet: There appears to be support for adding just "Arthropod", would that be okay with you? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
    Start a new subsection for a proposal to just add Arthropod. It looks like there may be four !votes in favour but a fifth is still needed. Cobblet (talk) 04:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Primate, Add Bat

Human is already at Level 1, and the non-human primates aren't as important as bats (the second-largest order of mammals) when it comes to mammals, IMO. (I'm fine with Primate at Level 4, which is where I believe it'd end up if this passes.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. As proposer. (At the very least I support removal.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal I think that if we have naturally anthropocentric view to the world, Primate article would give us larger view, not vice versa. --Thi (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - primates are very vital from an anthropocentric evolutionary perspective. The one bias on the list is being significant to humans and humanity. It's why there are eight planets of the solar system and zero exoplanets. Bats are not comparable to primates in this regard. Gizza (t)(c) 06:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Failed, 2-3. HeartGlow (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

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.

Add 1

1 is the multiplicative identity and thereby one of the most important numbers in mathematics, arguably more important and widespread than 0, which is at this level. With this addition we'd arguably have all of the Euler's identity numbers if we count Complex number as representing i. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. As proposer. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. Per nom Dawid2009 (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I'd like to see said arguments. The foundational importance of the invention of zero in the development of mathematics is extremely well documented (see also [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]). Cobblet (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Cobblet: 1 has implications across all fields of mathematics, including for the definition of a prime number (see [34] and [35]), having properties relating algebra and geometry, and the definitions of algebraic structures, not to mention all of the multiplication stuff such as the edge cases of exponentials and factorials. Indeed, its importance is such that it has been called one of only 8 numbers you need to do math (some of the others, such as -1 and i, are derived from 1 as well), and it has a special name in mathematics, "unity", that most numbers just don't get. Just because it might seem mundane to an outsider, does not mean that it is not one of the most important numbers within mathematics, right on the level of 0, e, and pi, and any Level 3 that has those numbers and not 1 is at best inconsistent and/or incomplete. Even if you absolutely must insist on some connection to the outside world, 1 is fundamental to counting ([36]) and as tally marks appears on the Ishango bone that dates back more than 25,000 years (see here, although a better source can probably be found), and from a purely Wikimedia perspective has more interwikis (169) than 0 (137), e (84), and pi (146). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    All this is missing the point. The point is not so much whether 0 or 1 is the more "interesting" number in terms of its properties: in a way, all numbers are interesting. The point is rather that all the interesting properties of 1 derive from the fact that it is the first natural number, a topic which is already listed. At this level, it's needlessly redundant to list both. However, the extension of the natural numbers to 0 historically represents a huge leap in abstract mathematical thinking: the realization that 0 could be treated as a number and given its own numeral was key to the development of positional notation and algebra. That is why the invention of 0 has received significant attention – I've already cited two entire books on this topic. 0 marks a significant milestone in our intellectual history: 1 does not. Cobblet (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    I think you misunderstand my position (EDIT: although looking back I might not have explained it well). I'm not saying that 1 has "interesting" properties (I concede that all numbers do in some sense), but that its properties are fundamental to many branches of mathematics much in the same way as 0 is (and 2, 3, etc. are not), and independently of 0. Furthermore, you are incorrect in saying that the salient stuff of 1 is because it's the first (nonzero) natural number; the salient stuff of 1 is because it's the multiplicative identity much like 0 is the additive identity. (All things considered, though, I thank you for having a better discussion than last time this was considered). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    I'm not: 1 is the multiplicative identity because we count in units of 1, because 1 is the first counting number. Which goes back to my point: the significance of 1 is dependent on its position in the natural numbers, a topic we already include. 0 has independent significance. Cobblet (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    Fair enough, we appear to be at an impasse. Let's see what others say. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose 0 is more interesting historically. --Thi (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Less vital than 0, and I'd be for removing 0 from the list. I just don't see articles on the number 1 or 0 vital enough to be considered the 1,000 most vital articles on Wikipedia. Who really looks for an encyclopedia article on the number 1? Rreagan007 (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Discussion

FWIW there was a previous discussion on this, but it wasn't very fruitful. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 03:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd rather subtract 0 from this list than add 1. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2020 (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.
Added 5-2 Cobblet (talk) 02:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

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.

Add Rabindranath Tagore

It's been frequently pointed out that Tagore is a notable omission from the list and adding him was even proposed recently, but there he had the misfortune of being compared against Dostoevsky. Since we are below the limit of 1000 articles, I'd like to recast that proposal as a straight addition. The list of 126 people includes only four from South Asia (Ashoka, Gandhi, Buddha, Shankara) in general, and nobody in particular to represent the richness of South Asian literature, music and art. The polymath Tagore was active in all these areas. He is "generally regarded as the outstanding creative artist of early 20th-century India", and "was highly influential in introducing Indian culture to the West and vice versa" (Britannica). He transformed the Bengali language through his poetry and prose, wrote the national anthems of India and Bangladesh, and was the first non-European to win the Nobel Prize for Literature. Ravi Shankar argues that had he "been born in the West he would now be [as] revered as Shakespeare and Goethe."

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support admittedly I'd never heard of him, but that's expected for me. Perhaps we can add Nehru and/or Jinnah to the list as well at some point. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 09:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support With Rumi's bad removal, we definitely need another writer that's not from the west (+Chinua Achebe). One of Tagore or Kālidāsa is absolutely needed, India is one of the most important regions in world history, it's unfathomable it does not have a representative from the arts. I'm a big advocate for Chaucer and he needs it, but everyone chose Dickens over him, because Dickens is a bigger celeb. There's more English speakers in India than many of the English speaking countries. Just to clarify, Tagore and Kālidāsa are listed on that 1,000 most important WikiMedia list too. Also we are severely lacking in poets, out last writer primarily known for poetry is Dante Alighieri (ignoring the Sonnets, which are not Shakespeare's primary importance). Tagore will atleast give us a bit more balance. GuzzyG (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support per above and previous discussion. I wouldn't add Nehru or Jinnah because there is too much overlap between them and Gandhi. Gizza (t)(c) 06:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support per the above and below discussions. Tagore's influence on Bengali language and culture (5th largest language by the number of native speakers ~ 230 million L1 speakers) is immense. He played a wide role in influencing greater Indian language and culture, played prominent role in Indian freedom movement, influenced vast number of important people both within and outside India. Just to give an anecdote, he conferred the honorific title of Mahatama (meaning great soul) to Gandhi. Gandhi didn't like to be called by it and persisted on it non-usage. However due to the stature of Tagore, the title stuck to such an extent that most people within and outside think Mahatma to be Gandhi's first name. Roller26 (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Not vital for the English Wikipedia at this level as translations of his works are not widely read by English speakers nor have his works had a major impact on English literature. We should be adding writers to this list like Chaucer that had a major impact on English literature. It's almost a sin that Chaucer is listed in the 1,000 articles vital for all language Wikipedias but not listed on the English Wikipedia's 1,000 list. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Without specific swap. Honestly this is would not be an improvement. After removing Weiner Heisenberg and this addition without swap, now we would have debatedly more writers than scientifists at all (if we count Mary Wollstonecraft which could be listed as writer just as Voltaire represent philosophy on the level 4 but French literature on the level 3) and I do not see reason why writers deserve even the same number what scientifists. I am on the point that writers currently are more overrepresented than underrepresented if we look what we actually cover among 1000 topics from diverse perspecitve. Rumi recently was removed by 6-1, yes, but we currently also even do not list Persian language and before I would choose another indoeuropean language (or overrepresentation for indoeuropean language by writer) I would choose few non-indoeuropedn languages like Swahili or Malay, to represent worldwide wdiversity. In general I am oppose addition without swap because of I belive there is space for more important topics which we could add than another biogaphy. I also never heard about Tagore before VA but I would be probably neutral (not oppose) for swap with another English writer because of we clearly have strong overlap beetwen English literature and some English writers, especially from last two centuries whose are comparable to Poe (who was recently removed but is more popular for ENwiki's readers than Tagore). Dawid2009 (talk) 10:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

The appearance of the poems of Rabindranath Tagore, translated by himself from Bengali into English, is an event in the history of English poetry and of world poetry. I do not use these terms with the looseness of contemporary journalism. Questions of poetic art are serious, not to be touched upon lightly or in a spirit of bravura. – Ezra Pound, writing in 1912. The influence of Tagore on other English poets like Yeats and Wilfred Owen is also well known. So not only is it absurd in the first place to exclude writers because they're underappreciated by an Anglophone audience, but the criticism of Tagore in this regard makes no sense at all.

Even today, Tagore gets triple the number of page views on the English Wikipedia compared to Chaucer. He also gets more page views than Jane Austen, Mark Twain, and James Joyce, who are all on our current list. Tagore's continued relevance to the readers of the English Wikipedia is obvious. Cobblet (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

To go off topic, this made me realize we have no modern poets? Novelists get bigger celebrity, but are they automatically more important? The removal of Rumi was certainly a mistake considering Persian literature, one of the most important is not covered on this list, but i now think the Poe for Twain swap was bad and i'd still support a Dostoevsky swap for Alexander Pushkin and a swap with Geoffrey Chaucer and Dickens, with the addition of Matsuo Bashō and Pablo Neruda and a swap with Kafka for Henrik Ibsen, would probably be the perfect balance for this list, covering modern playwrights, poets and not overcovering novelists. If we have modern music balanced with classical, despite the overwhelming dominance of classical for centuries, we should balance the novelists with the other forms off literature. GuzzyG (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

We used to have a modern poet in Kahlil Gibran – I suppose we are in a sense swapping him for Tagore. Comparing the novel and classical music is comparing apples and oranges – one is a literary form (a reasonable classical music analogue would be a symphony), the other is a collection of genres in the history of Western music (a literary analogue, borrowing from Bloom's take on the Western canon, could be the Aristocratic and Democratic Ages combined). Cobblet (talk) 04:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Consensus was clearly against removing Hunting (1-4); adding Natural resource had a little more support, but not as an economic article, and even then failed to gain a clear majority (3-3). --Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

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.

Swap: Remove Hunting, Add Natural resource (from Earth science)

Currently, the Natural resource article is level 4 (and under Physical sciences -> Earth science), but since the whole context for something being a natural resource (not merely natural) is human use, wouldn't listing it under Economics fit better? On top of that, it encapsulates what the whole primary sector is about, from food production to forestry and oil-drilling, plus the topic naturally leads to things like Land (economics) and complements topics in other subjects like Environmentalism. Bumping it up to level 3 would also help cover the primary sector without needing a patchwork of activities. For example, level 3 currently includes mining and fishing but omits forestry.

To balance the promotion, I'd suggest demoting Hunting. While it's important in human evolution and still a common activity, is it really that central to cultures that practice Animal husbandry? Plus the current list already includes fishing, an alternative to agriculture that seems to have had more staying power as a major industry.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support addition under Earth sciences, which looking at the current list it seems to fit better under than Economics. Hunting has importance in agricultural societies (medieval aristocrats, big game, etc.), so I would oppose a swap, although I would support adding Foraging were it proposed. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support addition Dawid2009 (talk) 10:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Hunting is important as historical and prehistoric phenomenon. --Thi (talk) 07:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC) Oppose addition per Rreagan007. --Thi (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removal Hunting was the only means of survival for humans for 90% of their history. Agriculture, food and prehistory are in the 100 list, I think hunting belongs in the vital 1000. I would rather keep this than several modern artists and musicians.  Carlwev  16:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. This addition seems to have too much overlap with currently listed articles, as we already list most of the major natural resources (or the methods of extracting those resources) separately at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Economy ought to cover how we classify economic activities. I don't think we need natural resource to cover the primary sector any more than we need service (economics) to cover the tertiary sector. As for forestry being missing, I'll point out that we list wood and paper, not to mention forest. In fact I would prioritize listing rainforest over forestry. Cobblet (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

I know it's early but don't mind keeping Hunting if there's still room for the addition. If addressing prehistory is the primary reason, I think there is some asymmetry if foraging isn't accounted for (maybe hunter-gatherer belongs somewhere with anthropology), but that's a whole new proposal. Any opinions on the addition of Natural resource? --Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I could support a swap of hunting with hunter-gatherer. Foraging isn't any less important to prehistorical societies. Gizza (t)(c) 22:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I think article on natural resource could be wieder on English Wikipedia. [37] - Here is link to recent discussion when this was proposed to the level 4 while ago. Dawid2009 (talk) 10:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Failed removal, successful pass. HeartGlow (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

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.

Swap Economy with Trade Union?

What do you think about such swap? Earlier I supported addition of Trade Union when we were about ten under quota but now I changed my mind as I think this is too specific. [1] - Here is link to recent discussion where proposal of additoon Economy was failed. For outline of human's knowlage IMO economy is far too foundamenal to be not listed, because of befere if we are studying about for ample great depression (currently listed) we should understand definition of economy which is about country works. We cover a lot of another articles in that area like microeconomics or macroeconomics and at previous discussion by its importance it was compared to articles which are currently on the level 2 like mind or psychology. What do you all think? Dawid2009 (talk) 10:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Nom.
  2. Support addition, would need to swap with something else per Zargar. Economics is Level 2, but "Economy" is enough to be at Level 3, IMO, but so is Trade Union. Industry as it currently exists (a glorified stub that refers to the word as in, i.e., "lumber industry", etc.) should likewise be dropped from Level 2, but that's for another discussion. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support addition, I support Trade union as an example of non-governmental organization and social movement. --Thi (talk) 06:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support addition, not only is a field currently two levels above its object of study, but an economy is arguably both more general historically and more concrete than what's discussed in the economics article. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support addition I can support Economy as basically a swap for Industry. Cobblet (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  6. Support addition as a swap with Industry. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I personally like Trade Union at level 3 and think there might be better candidates for demoting to level 4. Actually, I'd suggest dropping Industry straight from level 2 to 4; I recently did a concept split there and it's now a small article focused on the narrow term-of-art for categorizing economic activity. I discussed the split before-hand, and it's been a couple weeks now without anyone contesting it. The level 3 articles on specific industries could be regrouped under Agriculture (primary) and Manufacturing (secondary) even if that's not 100% accurate.

I do support the addition myself, but before voting, I'd like to get a sense of how everyone sees the scope of the VA economics section. For example, if this discussion was the one you had in mind, I noticed nobody pointed out that you can arguably talk about economies (e.g. gift economies) that mainstream economics excludes. If OTOH the consensus is the section is just for topics related to market-oriented economics, adding Economy also might be redundant. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2020 (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.

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.

Humanities

(Forgive me if this has already been discussed, or if this isn't the right place to do so.)

I was really surprised to see that Humanities was listed as a level 4 vital article. The concept of Humanities is, I would say, just as vital as Epistemology or Sport (both level two). For better or worse, it is a fundamental way of evaluating different fields of study: When one examines a given academic discipline, whether it is humanities or not is the first attribute one might like to know. I'd say it should be at least level 3, placing it alongside Gambling and Cyrillic script. Isn't "Humanities" more vital than level 4?

CampWood (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It has indeed been discussed, most recently here. Cobblet (talk) 04:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I see. I guess I'll leave this kind of thing to Wikipedians far wiser than I. CampWood (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2020 (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.

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.

Swap International Monetary Fund with Currency?

How would you feel with such swap? Dawid2009 (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

We don't need both currency and money. Cobblet (talk) 13:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree, plus I think the IMF is pretty important to current economies, for better or worse. On a related note though, I would support swapping out Finance as a relatively narrow article for something related to Credit (or Debt, Loan, even Interest, etc.) --Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

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.

Remove Tank

I don't think this article deserves to be listed at this level. Tanks are no more vital than other types of military equipment such as Aircraft carriers, Bombers, or Submarines; and probably less so, as tanks aren't really used that much in modern warfare anymore, while the others still are used a good bit. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. Too close to Armour, and trenches are arguably more historically significant. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support Submarines are arguably more vital, and I can also think of at least a couple of non-military technologies (electricity generation, concrete) that would be even better choices for the list. Cobblet (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I didn't mention it in my !vote because I'm not that invested in a specific replacement, and I would probably prefer a non-military technology for one. However, if someone else is interested, artillery is another one with very old roots (especially if you include pre-gunpowder heavy projectiles), and it's still central today, even in less conventional wars. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Artillery was swapped for military history. Cobblet (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Passed 6-0. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

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.

Add Arthropod

There was talk in the earlier "Organisms" section about adding various species and families to this list to better diversify our coverage of the Tree of Life, but I think the original discussion lost track. There was some support for adding Arthropod, however, and I think it bears being proposed on its own. Even excluding Insects (which are already on the list), Arthropods are still the large majority of animals (both species and individuals) and include such important animals as Spiders (and other arachnids), Crustaceans, Myriapods (centipedes and millipedes), and Trilobites. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 07:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support The most important phylum of invertebrates. Cobblet (talk) 11:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 14:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support, being able to sublist Insect under it would also be a nice little bonus (immediately clarifies the common notion of "bugs"). --Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  6. Support. It's an ancient and important branch of life. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5–0, removed. --Rreagan007 (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

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.

Remove: Industry

This is a continuation of a proposal that was partially resolved at level 2; the consensus was to swap Industry for Manufacturing at level 2, but we never settled whether Industry should drop again to level 4.

Long-story short, there was a concept split, content related to industrial-scale production will be living at Manufacturing indefinitely, and the current Industry article focuses on the narrow term-of-art for categorizing activity. As for the structure of the current list, even if not 100% accurate, my suggestion is to group any primary industries under Agriculture & secondary industries under Manufacturing.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support I suggest putting Economy exactly where Industry is currently located, to maintain the structure of the list. Cobblet (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
    Huh, I didn't think of that... but I like it. It's simpler and it also grounds Economy's place in the list more. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. Per all (wouldn't even oppose a kick down to Level 5, but that's another matter). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support as a swap with Economy. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support because of content split. --Thi (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

As Industry is now a disambiguation page, which page should we replace it with in the level 4/5? Industry (economics)? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 08:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I have initiated the proposal to remove Industry at the Level 4 talk page. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_16&oldid=1045696775"