Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 60

Archive 55

←

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

→

Archive 65

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 the Marquis de Sade

Donatien Alphonse François, Marquis de Sade was perhaps the most infamous Frenchman to ever live. He was well known for his erotic novels and libertine sexuality. These novels combined eroticism with discussions of his philosophical views. De Sade committed various sexual crimes, and spent 32 years in several different prisons. His philosophy and writings continue to interest scholars, and his very name has become a term that describes someone who obtains sexual pleasure from pain.

Support

1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
2. Support Yes absolutely, for a year i've been waiting to nominate him and i was going to soon after some removals had passed. One of our blatant missing articles. GuzzyG (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
3. Support Very surprised to find out he wasn't there already. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
4. Weak support --Thi (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 10:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
6. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
7. Support Pioneering philosopher. "Geoffrey Gorer, an English anthropologist and author (1905–1985), wrote one of the earliest books on Sade entitled The Revolutionary Ideas of the Marquis de Sade in 1935. He pointed out that Sade was in complete opposition to contemporary philosophers for both his "complete and continual denial of the right to property" and for viewing the struggle in late 18th century French society as being not between "the Crown, the bourgeoisie, the aristocracy or the clergy, or sectional interests of any of these against one another", but rather all of these "more or less united against the proletariat." By holding these views, he cut himself off entirely from the revolutionary thinkers of his time to join those of the mid-nineteenth century. Thus, Gorer argued, "he can with some justice be called the first reasoned socialist." ... "Simone de Beauvoir (in her essay Must we burn Sade?, published in Les Temps modernes, December 1951 and January 1952) and other writers have attempted to locate traces of a radical philosophy of freedom in Sade's writings, preceding modern existentialism by some 150 years. He has also been seen as a precursor of Sigmund Freud's psychoanalysis in his focus on sexuality as a motive force. The surrealists admired him as one of their forerunners, and Guillaume Apollinaire famously called him "the freest spirit that has yet existed". " Dimadick (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2018 (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.

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 Charles Perrault

Creator of the best known versions of a majority of the popular fairy tales, still has a high amount of pageviews; also not a modern biography which always helps.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 06:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Support He was one of the most influential figures in the creation of the fairy tale. Many of his stories have been adapted to other forms of media, and are still read today. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
4. pbp 18:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
5. Support His fairy tales derive from older folk tales, but he is the literary father of (among others) Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella, Puss in Boots, Sleeping Beauty, and Bluebeard. Variations of Perrault's tales also appeared in the works of the Brothers Grimm, and he is a considered a major influence on both of them. Dimadick (talk) 08:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• Should we also consider Perrault's literary predecessor, Madame d'Aulnoy. She is the one who coined the term fairy tale (as "contes de fées") and created some of the earliest-recorded ones. We could also consider Gabrielle-Suzanne de Villeneuve, the creator of Beauty and the Beast. Dimadick (talk) 08:29, 2 September 2018 (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.

---

Remove Theophany

The quota is over (439/425) and this is possibly too specific topic at this level.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Support This article has an overly specific topic. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

While I support the removal, the quota is over because of the recent bulk move of articles into philosophy and religion. Normally when bulk moves are done (e.g. 10 articles or more are moved to a new section), there is a discussion about whether the quota should be adjusted too and by how much. There wasn't a discussion in this case which is problematic. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The quota discussion can be at any time. The Arts and Society are also over the quota by 10 or 11. Nowadays changes at this level possibly affects also the level 5. Five or six topics at the current Philosophy and religion list seems to be weaker entries in any case. Then there is 435 topics, but it is possible to find 5–15 potential candidates from the level 5. I don't know if the quota should be 425 or 450. --Thi (talk) 07:49, 4 September 2018 (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.

---

Remove Sacred tradition

"...a theological term used in some Christian traditions, primarily those claiming apostolic succession..." Too specific at this level?

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Support I agree that it is too specialized of a topic for this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Support per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Support This topic is overly specific for this list. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
5. Support T8612 (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
6. Support Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:32, 19 September 2018 (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.

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 Troy weight

Only used in an extremely narrow subfield, not vital at this level. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. Support 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
3. Support. After thinking about it, I don't think we really need this or Avoirdupois system, which I have proposed for removal below. There is too much overlap with ounce and pound, which are also listed at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
5. feminist (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose pbp 15:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. It's common enough that I think it should remain listed. Precious metals and bullion are usually measured in troy ounces. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2018 (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.

---

Swap Bag for Container

Bag is redundant to Handbag, while Container includes intermodal containers, packaging, labelling, barrels, cartons, boxes, buckets, bottles, jars, cages, cases, tin cans, envelopes, plastic bags, etc.

Support

1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 18:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Support. Container is the broader article, as a bag is just a type of container. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Support The articles on jars and boxes are on the Level 5 list, and the article on cages is not even listed at all; I simply do not see how bags are more vital than any of those three subjects. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 00:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Support--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 05:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
5. Support --Thi (talk) 08:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 10:23, 13 September 2018 (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.

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: Add Cargo ship; Remove Container ship

A container ship is a specific type of cargo ship. The more general article should be the one listed at this level.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
2. Support This is the more general article on the subject of boats that are used to transport cargo. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
4. feminist (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  16:07, 17 September 2018 (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.

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 Gustave Courbet

A leader of the new school of Realism. "His work exerted much influence on the modern movements that followed him. He offered succeeding generations of painters not so much a new technique as a whole new philosophy. The aim of his painting was not, as previous schools had maintained, to embellish or idealize reality but to reproduce it accurately. Courbet succeeded in ridding his painting of artistic clichés, contrived idealism, and timeworn models." (Britannica)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Support I prefer our article to Britannica's rather vague descriptions. (Personally, I never trust its articles.): "Courbet was admired by many younger artists. Claude Monet included a portrait of Courbet in his own version of Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe from 1865–1866 (Musée d'Orsay, Paris). Courbet's particular kind of realism influenced many artists to follow, notably among them the German painters of the Leibl circle, James McNeill Whistler, and Paul Cézanne. Courbet's influence can also be seen in the work of Edward Hopper, whose Bridge in Paris (1906) and Approaching a City (1946) have been described as Freudian echoes of Courbet's The Source of the Loue and The Origin of the World. His pupils included Henri Fantin-Latour, Hector Hanoteau and Olaf Isaachsen. ... "Two 19th-century artists prepared the way for the emergence of Cubism in the 20th century: Courbet and Cézanne. Cézanne’s contributions are well-known. Courbet’s importance was announced by Guillaume Apollinaire, poet-spokesperson for the Cubists. Writing in Les Peintres Cubistes, Méditations Esthétiques (1913) he declared, "Courbet is the father of the new painters." Jean Metzinger and Albert Gleizes often portrayed Courbet as the father of all modern art." Dimadick (talk) 05:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
3. Support Removed my oppose; Courbet should be on the list on my reading of his statistics in my personal list. Also; see my Pissaro comment. GuzzyG (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
4. Support He was one of the leaders of the Realism movement. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 19:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:21, 29 September 2018 (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.

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 Pyotr Chaadayev

This article on the Russian philosopher is no doubt vital due to the fact that he initiated the Westernizer-Slavophile controversy in the Russian Empire - and the first to be declared legally insane by the Russian government.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose How is this person vital? ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose not even mentioned on the Slavophilia page which is supposedly his claim to notability. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
   1. But the article on Chaadayev claims that he initiated the Westernizer-Slavophile controversy.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
4. Oppose Absolutely not, we miss so many actually important people. GuzzyG (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Discuss

• I have searched for this person on Google and JSTOR. There were only only 38,900 results on Google, and only 36 results on JSTOR. [1] [2] Chaadayev was clearly not vital in any reasonable definition of the word. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 15:29, 19 August 2018 (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.

---

Remove Gary Player

In light of our recent sport removals, i think he is still the odd man out. 4 golfers (5 including Babe Didrikson Zaharias) is way too many on this level. He's not in the top 5 of golf, he should've been removed when Arnold Palmer was. Early this year in February he was up for removal but it went 2-0, now with more editors watching this, let's try again.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Support He is only the eighth best golf player, according to the Professional Golfers' Association of America. [3] ―Susmuffin ^Talk 03:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 06:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Support T8612 (talk) 09:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
5. Support Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The previous discussion was closed after being stale for THREE MONTHS, it actually ran Feb-May. I closed it, but did not vote in it, and will not vote this time. While I agree that there are too many golfers on this list, Gary Player is the most successful non-American golfer in history. This proposal would leave us with all the male golfers, and all but one of all the golfers, as American. Also, I think assessing him as the #8 golf player of all time is too low. pbp 14:56, 1 September 2018 (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.

---

Remove Strasbourg

Low population compared to most cities at this level.

Support

1. As nom. feminist (talk) 07:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Can't support this. Seat of European Union, host of a plethora of EU organizations, UNESCO heritage site, with a huge historical and cultural influence legacy... It ain't London or Paris, but it's damn close. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose While Strasbourg has a relatively small population, it has been a highly important city for centuries. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose per both of the above comments. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2018 (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.

---

Swap: Remove Veneration, add Saint

It seems to me that Saint is more important article than the Veneration of saints.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Support Saints are a vital aspect of many different religions; however, the veneration of saints is an overly specific concept that is clearly not vital. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Support good swap Gizza ^(t)(c) 21:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
6. Support Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:37, 1 October 2018 (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.

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 Aswan

Low population compared to most cities at this level.

Support

1. As nom. feminist (talk) 07:50, 19 September 2018 (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.

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 Crane (machine)

Not vital.

Support

1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 17:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose strongly disagree. Cranes have been used for thousands of years to lift and move materials around, and thereby help build structures, cities and civilisations throughout the world. It is precisely the type of topic that people should know more about. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I think it's vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 05:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
5. Oppose Cranes have had an important role in construction for millennia. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 07:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
6. Oppose Commonly-used piece of construction equipment for centuries. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:43, 29 September 2018 (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.

---

Remove Inverse trigonometric functions

Not vital. It's just Trigonometric functions but reversed. Not to mention that it is covered at the other article. And most of it is really not significant enough for this level.

Support

1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 16:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 17:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
5. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:56, 4 October 2018 (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.

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 Charles and Ray Eames

Less notable then Breuer. Furniture design may be too niche to have an example of but either way this article seriously lacks an explanation how this couple if among the 2000 most important people in history.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
2. Support This couple is better suited to the Level 5 list; they were only important to a highly specific field. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
3. Support Their most famous design was Eames Lounge Chair, which is not vital at this level. --Thi (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  07:37, 13 October 2018 (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.

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 John Millington Synge and V. S. Naipaul

Synge does not seem to be relevant to literature outside of Ireland. Meanwhile, Sir V. S. Naipaul is the least important of the modern British writers that are presently on this list. Both of them are Less vital than J. K. Rowling, who is not on this list. We have 40 modern British and Irish writers, and 43 Asian writers in this section. How can the modern writers of two islands have comparable representation to the writers of an entire continent? This section needs a heavy trim.

Support

1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
2. Support Synge. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
3. Support Synge. Forgot about the other Irish writers, Synge is only really known for one work anyway. GuzzyG (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
4. Weak support Synge. --Thi (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
5. Support Synge.  Carlwev  07:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Naipaul. GuzzyG (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose Naipaul. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Discuss

A Nobel prize laureate from the underrepresented Caribbean is less vital then a modern British genre writer? Especially considering we list Harry Potter itself..... this is overboard...GuzzyG (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

There are many Nobel Prize laureates that are not on this list. This is a list of the 2,000 most influential people to ever live. Having a Nobel Prize does not make a person vital to know about. If you wish to have more writers from the Caribbean on this list, then you should suggest ones that were born without British citizenship. If Naipaul is to remain on this list, he would be in the modern British writers section, as he does not appear to be a citizen of any countries outside of the United Kingdom. Also, Rowling spawned an absurdly popular franchise that has influenced the entire anglophone world. I doubt either of the two authors that I proposed for removal can say the same. No, I am not suggesting that Rowling should be added to the list; I am merely comparing a British author and a Irish author to a British author that is more influential than either of them. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 16:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

So because his country was still colonized by the UK at the time of his birth, that negates his status as a Caribbean writer?? So to suggest a over-bloat of "British" writers - we remove a Irish! (one of only two) and a person born in a British colony - meanwhile they are suggested to be less vital then a actually born British person who is someone only known for a franchise (When the franchise itself is listed - the list has established that James Bond, Dracula, Harry Potter and other franchises are listed but the authors are not). Robert E. Howard, J. M. Barrie, L. Frank Baum, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Bram Stoker, George R. R. Martin, Mario Puzo, Stephenie Meyer and Ian Fleming would all have a place if Rowling is in. Either way i know that Rowling is not up for nomination (in fact i was the one who had her removed...) [4]. Just the argument that removing these two would solve the diversity problem when in fact removing them would increase it. Although i'd argue 40 is easily good representation for an English encyclopedia. In any case Harold Pinter and Anthony Burgess are the actual weakest claims. GuzzyG (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with GuzzyG regarding Naipaul. His novels about his upbringing in Trinidad and Tobago and is influenced by Caribbean culture and history. His citizenship doesn't really affect what his literature represents, which is not mainstream British/Irish like nearly every other writer in the section.

In terms of Irish writers, by my count there are at least 5 Irish writers out of the 40 which is quite a lot for its size. There's Synge, Samuel Beckett, George Bernard Shaw, James Joyce and W.B. Yeats. And from what I can see, there are no pre-modern Irish writers on the list despite Ireland having a long literary tradition. Colmán of Cloyne, Dáibhí Ó Bruadair, Aogán Ó Rathaille and Aogán Ó Rathaille are all potential additions. Even Saint Patrick was a writer and to be fair, is more famous and influential than many of the other Irish people (and for that matter Christian figures) on the list. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• "How can the modern writers of two islands have comparable representation to the writers of an entire continent?" See the main articles British literature and Irish literature. "Because Britain was a colonial power the use of English spread through the world, and from the nineteenth-century in the United States, and later in other former colonies, major writers in English, including Nobel laureates, began to appear beyond the boundaries of Britain and Ireland." ... "The Anglo-Irish literary tradition found its first great exponent in Jonathan Swift. Writers such as Laurence Sterne, Oliver Goldsmith and Richard Brinsley Sheridan are often claimed for Ireland, though their lives and their works were essentially English. The same can be said of Oscar Wilde, Bram Stoker and C.S. Lewis, prominent writers who left Ireland to make a life in England. More recognisably "Irish" writers included Louis MacNeice, George Bernard Shaw (though he spent most of his life in England) and W. B. Yeats."
  • Many high-impact writers were from the British Isles and their works can be found in translation around the globe. Our List of best-selling fiction authors is actually dominated by people from the Isles: (in order of sales, from greater to smaller): Agatha Christie, William Shakespeare, Barbara Cartland, Enid Blyton, J. K. Rowling, Jackie Collins, Edgar Wallace, Jeffrey Archer, Roald Dahl, J. R. R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Arthur Hailey, Beatrix Potter, Alistair MacLean, Ken Follett, E. L. James, Catherine Cookson, Roger Hargreaves, Wilbur Smith, Eleanor Hibbert, Lewis Carroll, Denise Robins, Ian Fleming, John Creasey, and Penny Jordan. Dimadick (talk) 07:04, 7 August 2018 (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.

---

Remove Harold Pinter

Harold Pinter was clearly less influential than Anthony Burgess, who is likely to be removed shortly.

Support

1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
2. Support He has the nobel prize yes, but so does Eugene O'Neill who is more important to drama and who is not listed. Tennessee Williams, Edward Albee and Sam Shepard are more important playwrights too that are not listed. His vitality should not rest on a single prize when many others with the same prize are not listed themselves, the fact is modern British theatre is just not that influential now. GuzzyG (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
3. Support fairly notable and definitely suitable at Level 5 but not quite here. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 06:03, 16 August 2018 (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.

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 Orlande de Lassus

Orlando di Lasso was the major Renaissance composer along with Palestrina. According to my encyclopedia, his works were always perfect. "Lasso was a master in the field of sacred music and was equally at home in secular composition. In the latter field his internationalism is striking, encompassing Italian, French, and German genres. His religious works have a particular emotional intensity." [5] 48 interwikis.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
2. Support Apparently Lassus was the most significant composer of a then-new style: Musica reservata. "Composers in the style of musica reservata included ... and above all, Orlande de Lassus, the renowned and versatile composer working in Munich whose Prophetiae Sibyllarum, probably written in the 1560s, may represent the peak of development of the style." Dimadick (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
3. Support Victoria would be the other Renaissance composer who might warrant inclusion. Neljack (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
4. Support Again i change my mind. GuzzyG (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 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.

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: Add Ennio Morricone, remove ...Cole Porter?

I have to say I was very surprised not to see Ennio Morricone on this list. Per his article:"Since 1946 Morricone has composed over 500 scores for cinema and television, as well as over 100 classical works. His filmography includes over 70 award-winning films.... As of 2013, Ennio Morricone has sold over 70 million records worldwide. ... In 2007, he received the Academy Honorary Award "for his magnificent and multifaceted contributions to the art of film music." He has been nominated for a further six Oscars. In 2016, Morricone received his first Academy Award for his score to Quentin Tarantino's film The Hateful Eight (2015), at the time becoming the oldest person ever to win a competitive Oscar. His other achievements include three Grammy Awards, three Golden Globes, six BAFTAs, ten David di Donatello, eleven Nastro d'Argento, two European Film Awards, the Golden Lion Honorary Award and the Polar Music Prize in 2010."

I'm not exactly sure who to swap from him, but Cole Porter, as important as he may have been to Broadway musical, just doesn't hold a candle to Morricone. Open to other candidates for a swap. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. As proposer. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
2. Support We have many musical composers and none for films or other entertainment mediums. Morricone or John Williams are the top two contenders. This list is lacking in that area, just like the fact we have no music producers when we should have Phil Spector, Quincy Jones and George Martin GuzzyG (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
3. Support removal Five other musical composers or lyricists are listed. --Thi (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
4. Support Morricone has created some of the most famous film scores of the 20th century, several of them still being played 50 years following their original release. Cole Porter was also a film composer from the 1930s to the 1950s, with some great hits before his retirement in 1956. But he went through several years of commercial failures and harsh criticism, and his reputation suffered even in his heyday: "These shows, too, are short of Porter standards. The critics did not pull their punches; they complained about the lack of hit tunes and the generally low standard of Porter's scores. ... "The success of the biopic contrasted severely with the failure of Vincente Minnelli's film The Pirate (1948), with Judy Garland and Gene Kelly, in which five new Porter songs received little attention." Dimadick (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
5. Support removal Porter is the least influential of the musical composers. Morricone is an influential film composer, but I think John Williams would be the more appropriate cinematic choice. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
6. Support CamHat000099 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CamHat000099 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
7. Support removal I do not understand why Cole Porter was added to this list to begin with. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 15:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
8. Support removal While I do agree we need a film composer, I'm not 100% sure about Morricone as replacement. I might rather add John Williams or even Bernard Herrmann.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
9. Support removal per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
10. Support removal There are a few potential candidates here (Morricone, Williams and of course John Barry) but I agree with LaukkuTheGreit that Bernard Herrmann is the obvious choice here if you are only going to have one. His work on Citizen Kane and his Hitchcock collaborations are iconic. Betty Logan (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
11. Support swap T8612 (talk) 09:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

1. Funnily enough Cole Porter is in 51 different language wikipedias only second to Webber with 59 out of musical theatre composers. So it seems he's actually the second most important!. GuzzyG (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

   Second most famous maybe. That correlates with, but is not equal to, importance. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

You argued influence meant nothing for Lenny Bruce, so what is vital then? If not worldwide importance or pioneering something, what? Who's popular in America? How exactly is Kern or Sondheim more important then Porter? GuzzyG (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

1. Again just like Lenny Bruce did, Porter beats Kern and Sondheim in Google scholar [6], [7], [8] and [9], [10], [11] WorldCat hits. So more famous, more written about and more studied but somehow still less vital, i wish my actions never led to the level 5 list because this list is getting dismantled willy nilly and being made uneven with blatant disregard because of it. Best example, Richard Petty removed for "diversity" reasons but in effect that's left the list with majority formula one drivers, so less diverse technically and that's only because the Foyt removal does not seem to be passing. GuzzyG (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe this now has sufficient support to pass. Might be some debate about who to put up instead of Cole Porter, but Morriconne has the 5 supports needed with no oppose (lots of neutral though). Further additions or a swap can be made at a later time if need be. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:23, 16 September 2018 (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.

---

Add Auguste and Louis Lumière

Highly important early pioneer filmmakers, without them modern cinema wouldn't be the same. We have alot of modern filmmakers so adding a pioneer would be good.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 06:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Support They were vital to the development of cinema as a commercial industry. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Support "They patented an improved cinematograph, which in contrast to Thomas Edison's "peepshow" kinetoscope allowed simultaneous viewing by multiple parties." ... "Although the Lumière brothers were not the first inventors to develop techniques to create motion pictures, they are often credited as among the first inventors of the technology for cinema as a mass medium, and are among the first who understood how to use it. " Dimadick (talk) 08:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
5. Support T8612 (talk) 09:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
6. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
7. Support They are more vital than some film directors at the level 3 Dawid2009 (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose

Discuss

• Other credited pioneers of film include Eadweard Muybridge, Étienne-Jules Marey, Ottomar Anschütz, William Friese-Greene, Thomas Edison, William Kennedy Dickson, Charles-Émile Reynaud (the inventor of the animated films), Louis Le Prince, Kazimierz Prószyński, and Max Skladanowsky. Should we add some of them? Dimadick (talk) 08:52, 2 September 2018 (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.

---

Add Estée Lauder

There's 15 main categories for people on this list, all of them have a woman represented except for the business section. "the only woman on Time magazine's 1998 list of the 20 most influential business geniuses of the 20th century" from the lede of her article says it all. Even without all of that - cosmetics is a huge and vital industry in the lives of many people and in a list of 30 business people; i think it's fair that there's some representation.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
2. Support Lauder's influence goes beyond cosmetics. Perceptions of beauty in Western society and the rest of the world changed. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
3. Support Dimadick (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose

Discuss

We list Coco Chanel, in visual artists, she was also a businesswoman who wa involved with cosmetics. Oprah Winfrey was listed under businesses people, being the first black female billionaire if I recall. She was moved to entertainers, hosts though.  Carlwev  03:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Chanel is clearly a designer foremost (and we lack fashion people) and Oprah would not be anywhere without being a television host. They are not vital business people at all. We clearly need a proper woman business biography and cosmetics and beauty is a major industry. But this list is already predominantly male interest oriented so i can't be surprised. We list the same amount of video gamer designers and organized crime bosses as we do fashion designers (1!) and no cosmetics people. GuzzyG (talk) 06:26, 20 August 2018 (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 Juan Ponce de León for Samuel de Champlain

Surely the founder of the first European settlement in Canada is more important than someone who merely "discovered" Florida, a single U.S. state, and didn't even found its oldest European settlement.

Support

1. as nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
2. Support addition Rreagan007 (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal. If we have to remove someone from this category, I would choose Willem Barentsz. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose Ponce de León was a key figure in the exploration and settlement of Puerto Rico: "He was authorized to explore the neighboring island of Puerto Rico in 1508 and was named the first Governor of Puerto Rico by appointment of the Spanish crown in 1509. While Ponce de León grew quite wealthy from his plantations and mines, he faced an ongoing legal conflict with Diego Columbus, the late Christopher Columbus's son, over the right to govern Puerto Rico. After a long court battle, Columbus replaced Ponce de León as governor in 1511. Ponce de León decided to follow the advice of the sympathetic King Ferdinand and explore more of the Caribbean Sea." Dimadick (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose - agree with both of the above. Neutrality^talk 16:26, 28 July 2018 (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.

---

Remove Al-Nawawi

Probably not particularly vital at this level.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 07:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
2. Support The article on al-Nawawi does little to convince me of his importance. Also, I could not find anything else that disagreed with that assessment. To be perfectly honest, I have no idea why he is on this list. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 19:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
3. Support --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Since Al-Nawari is respected by all madhabs, despite of belonging to the Shafi'i jurisprudence, and nowadays fiqh is still vital in the Islamic world, he should still be kept.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose We need more Islamic figures, not less. GuzzyG (talk) 08:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose per GuzzyG and the fact that we need more pre-modern figures to redress the recentist trend that has emerged in the biography section lately. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:05, 26 July 2018 (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.

---

Swap William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield with William Blackstone

If we are going to include English legal professionals of the 18th century, Blackstone is far more vital. His Commentaries on the Laws of England provided a major source to the U.S. Founding Fathers and remain influential in determining common law precedents today.

Support

1. as nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
2. Support addition. His writings were certainly highly influential. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
3. Support law students among the common law jurisidictions will be far more familiar with Blackstone than Mansfield. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
4. Support Sir William Blackstone's influence on common law simply cannot be overstated; his Commentaries on the Laws of England served as the basis upon which the entire American legal system was built. This book is still cited in Supreme Court decisions. One could reasonably argue that Blackstone was the most important American jurist, even though he never actually set foot in the Americas. His Commentaries also made the field of law far more accessible to people who were not legal scholars. Any basic class on the history of common law would include a discussion of Blackstone, and his Commentaries as well. While Lord Mansfield's decision in the Somerset v Stewart case significantly influenced the British abolitionist movement, the case seems to have been more important than the man who made the decision. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 05:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
5. Support addition I opposed the removal but forgot to add my support aswell - i do believe the legal profession needs more representatives. GuzzyG (talk) 10:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal. I think Lord Mansfield is on par with Blackstone. Both were extremely influential in their own way. I think both are vital. It was also just added to the list 7 months ago. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose A 1772 legal decision by Murray declared slavery illegal in England and Wales, while it remained legal in the rest of the British Empire. "As a result of Mansfield's decision, between 14,000 and 15,000 slaves were immediately freed in England, some of whom remained with their masters as paid employees. ... Although slavery was not completely abolished in the British Empire until 1834, Mansfield's decision is considered to have been a significant step in recognising the illegality of slavery." Blackstone was an incompetent judge of minor impact: "He [Blackstone] was, however, considered a poor trial judge, being reversed on appeal more frequently than any of his peers." Dimadick (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose addition --Thi (talk) 10:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
4. Oppose removal GuzzyG (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2018 (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.

---

Remove Elizabeth II

While Elizabeth II's reign has been rather long, she has not had any real political influence. All of the political decisions that were made during her reign were made by various political officials. She is also not the cultural symbol that Queen Victoria was. Furthermore, I do not see why we should include her over a variety of other prominent British historical figures. For example, this list does not include Richard III, Lord Palmerston or Lord Grey. Elizabeth II is approximately as important as her immediate predecessors, who are also not on this list. In finality, we are nearly ten articles over the quota in this section, and some removals must be made.

Support

1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
3. Support Per her article, she has had a limited political influence: "Since Elizabeth rarely gives interviews, little is known of her personal feelings. As a constitutional monarch, she has not expressed her own political opinions in a public forum. She does have a deep sense of religious and civic duty, and takes her coronation oath seriously." Her father George VI had a more clear impact on British history, because he is credited with restoring popular support for the throne: "In the words of Labour Member of Parliament George Hardie, the abdication crisis of 1936 did "more for republicanism than fifty years of propaganda". George VI wrote to his brother Edward that in the aftermath of the abdication he had reluctantly assumed "a rocking throne" and tried "to make it steady again". He became king at a point when public faith in the monarchy was at a low ebb. During his reign his people endured the hardships of war, and imperial power was eroded. However, as a dutiful family man and by showing personal courage, he succeeded in restoring the popularity of the monarchy." Dimadick (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
4. Support User:CamHat000099
5. Support T8612 (talk) 08:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose  Carlwev  14:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
2. pbp 16:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose - An enduring symbol of the UK, and clearly vital. Jusdafax (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
4. Oppose No. Not before Barack, certainly. GuzzyG (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
5. Oppose Perhaps not politically as influential as some but she has had a wide degree of cultural influence. Thus, I don't agree with the nom's assertion that Victoria had more influence. IMO, they are both relatively equal. And, as some have pointed out, removal would aggrandize the gender imbalance. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Discuss

• @Dimadick: I proposed George VI for addition in April 2017 and it failed; the discussion may be found at Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_51#Add_George_VI. @Susmuffin: Surely there are 10 people on that vast list less notable than QE2? There certainly are if you look at the whole people list, which includes actors and athletes. We're talking about a woman who's nominally head of state of several countries and has been for SIXTY-SIX years. And the politicians list in particular has a bit of sex problem that would only be exacerbated by the removal of QE2 from the list. pbp 16:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

1. Neutral for now. I need to think about this, but I do agree that she is merely a figurehead that really hasn't done anything significantly notable in her reign; however, she is the longest reigning British monarch. Whether that's enough to keep her listed at this level I'm not sure. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2018 (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.

---

Remove Bodawpaya

Four Burmese early-modern kings is way too many, despite the timeframe. We even list three? modern Burmese politicians for a total of seven?, way too much for such a country. This king has no distinguishable vitality unlike the others and is the weakest out of them all; other then invading countries Siam and losing (twice!). I think a limit of 500 politicians is a good target and we are at 507.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
3. Support T8612 (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Support We should not list obscure figures with little real influence. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose

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.

---

Add Ralph H. Baer

We have a video game designer but not the inventor and major pioneer of video games - seems like we should add Baer or remove Miyamoto. A designer never compares to the actual inventor.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Support "Through several jobs in the electronics industry, he was working as an engineer at Sanders Associates when he conceived of the idea of playing games on a television screen around 1966. With support of his employers, he worked through several prototypes until he arrived at a "Brown Box" that became the blueprint for the first home video game console, the Magnavox Odyssey. Baer continued to design several other consoles and computer game units, including contributing to design of the Simon electronic game. Baer continued to work in electronics until his death in 2014, with over 150 patents to his name." Dimadick (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Support T8612 (talk) 09:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Support Ralph H. Baer was the most prominent of the various video game pioneers. He invented a vast variety of electronic devices and created the first home video game console. Also, he is widely regarded as the father of video games. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 10:35, 2 September 2018 (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.

---

Add Montgolfier brothers

From Britannica "pioneer developers of the hot-air balloon and who conducted the first untethered flights. Modifications and improvements of the basic Montgolfier design were incorporated in the construction of larger balloons that, in later years, opened the way to exploration of the upper atmosphere." without them airborne flight wouldn't have happened the way it did. A good contrast to our modern bias and a area in which we lack.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Support Aviation pioneers. "best known as inventors of the Montgolfière-style hot air balloon, globe aérostatique. They launched the first piloted ascent, carrying Étienne." ... "On 21 November 1783, the first free flight by humans was made by Pilâtre de Rozier, together with an army officer, the marquis d'Arlandes.The flight began from the grounds of the Château de la Muette close to the Bois de Boulogne park in the western outskirts of Paris. They flew about 3,000 feet (910 m) above Paris for a distance of nine kilometers. After 25 minutes, the balloon landed between the windmills, outside the city ramparts, on the Butte-aux-Cailles." Our List of firsts in aviation also credits the hot-air balloon which they designed with the "First recorded manned flight". Dimadick (talk) 09:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Support T8612 (talk) 09:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Support They were vital to the field of aviation in general, and the development of hot air balloons in particular. The Montgolfier brothers also had a role in the development of translucent paper, and Joseph-Michel invented the first self-acting hydraulic ram. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
5. Support the Montgolfier brothers were on my mind for a long time. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:25, 2 September 2018 (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.

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 Mark Spitz for Johnny Weissmuller

Mark Spitz has accomplished about the same as Weissmuller, although Spitz defining claim to fame (most medals won in a single olympics) is now gone - which means his historical stock value and vitality is gone. We shouldn't list people whose only claim to being vital is no longer - such is the nature of sports. Weissmuller represents an underrepresented sporting age who not only popularized swimming but was also well known as the most famous Tarzan. They have the same amount of Wikidata language articles too. To sum it up - relatively same accomplishments but a underrepresented era and pop culture fame nudge him over Spitz in my opinion. Some people might vote to remove just Spitz but swimming should have two, whether it's Phelps and Weissmuller / Duke Kahanamoku or a woman. We are over the limit generally but sports should have a fixed limit of 100 and this would fit.GuzzyG (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
2. Support removal --Thi (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
3. Support User:CamHat000099 CamHat000099 (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
4. Support addition Neljack (talk) 09:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
5. Support addition Dimadick (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
6. Support addition Dawid2009 (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
7. Support addition Neutral on removal. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal Neljack (talk) 09:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal Dawid2009 (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose addition --Thi (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Discuss

• If Duke Kahanamoku were to be added to the Swimming section, then the section should be renamed. Although Kahanamoku was a swimmer, he also had a significant role in the popularisation of surfing. "Water sports" would be a more appropriate name for a section with him in it. However, this would force the Multiple sports section to be renamed as well. I am unsure of what that name should be. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Not really, but even if so in that situation just put Babe in Golf and Jim in athletics. GuzzyG (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2018 (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.

---

Add Steve Redgrave

Highly accomplished athlete in a under-covered section. The Olympics are highly important worldwide events, we need more athletes spread out in Olympic sports then cluttered together strictly American/British team sports. We are over the limit generally but sports should have a fixed limit of 100 and this would fit.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 09:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
3. Support outside swimming, probably the most successful Olympian ever, certainly over such a period. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
5. Support Sir Steve Redgrave is one of the most successful modern Olympians. He is the only man who has won gold medals at five different Olympic Games in an endurance sport. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Certainly he is famous British athlete but I am not sure he is enaugh vital for the level 4. Matti Nykänen and Irena Szewińska have more entires in wikidata and they are not even listed at the level 5 Dawid2009 (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Matti is and i understand you're Polish and Irena is an icon there; but neither have won gold medals at FIVE consecutive Olympic Games; vitality is not entirely based on wikidata or Corbin Bleu would be on the level 3 list, it's just a way of measurement; you keep listing google results; which mean absolutely nothing here. GuzzyG (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Also i just added Irena to the level 5 list; it's not hard; but here's a hint - unlike any other field sports vitality is easy to measure by achievement not by google results or wikidata. GuzzyG (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I have mentioned Irena just not due to I compare some athlets based on wikidata/google results. I have mentioned nothing about google results/wikidata now. I was not sure difference in two levels would be right if she is not listed on the level5 Dawid2009 (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2018 (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.

---

Add Valentina Vezzali

Highly accomplished athlete in a under-covered section. The Olympics are highly important worldwide events, we need more athletes spread out in Olympic sports then cluttered together in strictly American/British team sports. We are over the limit generally but sports should have a fixed limit of 100 and this would fit.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
3. Support We need more women athletics. Currently we have 4 women athletics and 13 men soccer players so she should be definetly added. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2018 (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.

---

Remove Hicham El Guerrouj

14 is way too many people for athletics (should be around 10 - only soccer should be above 10; tennis should be 5/6). Either way we have five people for middle/long distance running (Roger Bannister, Emil Zátopek, Paavo Nurmi, Haile Gebrselassie and El Guerrouj; which is way too many. No matter how puffed up his lede is, he's the weakest in accomplishments on the list.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Support T8612 (talk) 09:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose Bannister first if anyone. I don't buy the "way too many people" either considering athletics is thousands of years old and has literally hundreds of millions of participants. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose Hicham El Guerrouj is frequently considered to be the best middle-distance runner of all time. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Discuss

Athletics should probably have the second-highest quota. It's the oldest sport. It's the sport with the most Olympic events. People compete in it on all six populated continents. pbp 15:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Surely, for all Bannister's fame, El Guerrouj's accomplishments are more extensive and greater than Bannister's? Neljack (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Tend to agree that Bannister should go before El Guerrouj, who is still the world record holder in many middle distances. They have stood the test of time for nearly 20 years which is impressive in a world of increasing sports science, technology other forms of assistance given to modern-day athletes. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

So let's break it down then.

1. 6 sprinters
2. 5 distance runners
3. 1 pole vaulter
4. 1 heptathlete
5. 1 hurdler

No way distance running has that much impact to override everything else. Decathlon should certainly have a representative. Now let's speak of world records since they are apparently so important for this list; let's mention some people in events NOT COVERED:

1. Mike Powell Long jump - has held record longer then El Guerrouj (There's some long jumpers in with sprinters though)
2. Jonathan Edwards Triple jump - has held record longer then El Guerrouj
3. Jürgen Schult Discus - has held record longer then El Guerrouj
4. Yuriy Sedykh Hammer throw - has held record longer then El Guerrouj
5. Jan Železný Javelin - has held record longer then El Guerrouj
6. Randy Barnes Shotput - has held record longer then El Guerrouj
7. Javier Sotomayor High jump - has held record longer then El Guerrouj (if a world record isn't enough, then below is influence)
8. Dick Fosbury High jump

So it seems world records really do not matter for this list. Now "1000s" of years, i agree - so why do we not list figures like Leonidas of Rhodes? Last time i brought the idea up of adding a ancient athlete it was dismissed; certainly "1000s" of years does not mean covering 5 distance runners from a 50 year period and calling it a day. GuzzyG (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Jim Thorpe could be considered a decathlete in addition to a football player. He is listed under "multiple sports" pbp 00:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone mentioned "calling it a day". Your list is a good one, probably worth consideration for inclusion. But it looks like Bannister should go first. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Milo of Croton would be a decent addition, although I do understand Cobblet's concerns. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:47, 21 September 2018 (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: Remove Thrace, add Odrysian kingdom

Thrace was just the geographical name of the area, like "Mesopotamia", whereas the Odrysian kingdom was the main state in Thrace for more than 500 years. There are also sections on medieval and modern history in the Thrace article; it's clearly out of place.

Support

1. Support as nom. T8612 (talk) 09:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 06:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
4. Support SpartaN (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
5. Support The Odrysian Kingdom was the most important state in Thrace for centuries. Thrace itself is the name of a geographical area. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 16:53, 14 September 2018 (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.

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 Delian League, add Bosporan Kingdom

The Delian League is already covered in three other articles in the level-4 list (Classical Athens, Greco-Persian Wars, Peloponnesian War). I think the Bosporan Kingdom is more important as it lasted for more than eight centuries (it is already level-5). Its neighbours the Sarmatians and Scythians are also already in the list.

Support

1. Support as nom.T8612 (talk) 10:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 06:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2018 (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.

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 Bactria, add Greco-Bactrian Kingdom

As above, Bactria is only the name of the area; you can see this in the article, which deals with several civilizations from the Bronze Age to Islam. The Greco-Bactrian Kingdom was the most important independent civilization of ancient Afghanistan. Its successor in Pakistan and India, the Indo-Greek Kingdom is also in the list.

Support

1. Support as nom. T8612 (talk) 09:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 10:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Support The Greco-Bactrian Kingdom had a massive influence on the cultures of the region. Bactria itself is the name of a historical region. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 16:53, 14 September 2018 (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.

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 Crisis of the Roman Republic

I suppose that the article Crisis of the Roman Republic was added to the list as an equivalent to the Crisis of the Third Century and the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, but it's really not. First it's a bit weird to speak of a crisis while the Republic doubled its territory during this period. Secondly the Crisis of the Roman Republic is a minor academic debate and not a well defined phenomenon. It is obvious in the article, which is disjointed with several summaries of important political figures (the Gracchi, Marius, Sulla, Pompey) but no unity. As a result, it was even proposed for deletion.

I suggest to replace it with the First Triumvirate (when Caesar, Pompey and Crassus "shared" the Republic), which is one of the most famous events of the final decades of the Republic, and is quite well written. Alternatively, if the social aspect of the "crisis" is deemed more important, then we could add instead the article on the Gracchi (and we could then remove the article on Tiberius Gracchus in the "people" list). The Servile Wars would also be a good match, although Spartacus is already in the people list. I'm open to other suggestions for this swap though.

Support

1. Support as nom.T8612 (talk) 10:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 10:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
4. Support Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
5. Support This is an ill-defined subject with an overly dramatic name. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 02:02, 10 October 2018 (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.

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 Honolulu

The most important city in Hawaii. We have on the list smaller non-Englishlanguage cities by population such like Valparaíso, Katowice, Geneva, etc.

Support

1. Support as nom Dawid2009 (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Support It is listed in the List of United States cities by population as the 56th most populous city in the country, with an estimated population of 350,395 people. Slightly smaller than Anaheim, California. Dimadick (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Weak support Quite important tourist destination. [12] --Thi (talk) 10:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Weak support significant in the context of Oceania, though maybe not the US as a whole. feminist (talk) 07:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
5. Support We already list several U.S. cities which are less important IMO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:21, 7 October 2018 (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.

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 Xiamen

One of the largest cities in southeast China. Historically significant as one of the first port cities in China to be opened to international trade. feminist (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. As proposer. feminist (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  16:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
4. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
5. Support With a total population of 3,531,347 people, Xiamen is the 70th most populated city on planet Earth according to List of cities proper by population. It is only surpassed by (in order): Chongqing (1st), Shanghai (2nd), Beijing (3rd), Lagos (4th), Istanbul (5th), Karachi (6th), Guangzhou (7th), Shenzhen (8th), Mumbai (9th), Moscow (10th), São Paulo (11th), Kinshasa (12th), Tianjin (13th), Lahore (14th), Delhi (15th), Jakarta (16th), Dongguan (17th), Seoul (18th), Foshan (19th), Tokyo (20th), Chengdu (21st), Lima (22nd), Mexico City (23rd), London (24th), Tehran (25th), New York City (26th), Bangalore (27th), Shenyang (28th), Dhaka (29th), Wuhan (30th), Bogotá (31st), Cairo (32nd), Ningbo (33rd), Ho Chi Minh City (34th), Nanjing (35th), Hong Kong (36th), Hanoi (37th), Changsha (38th), Hangzhou (39th), Ahmedabad (40th), Hyderabad (41st), Baghdad (42nd), Chennai (43rd), Riyadh (44th), Rio de Janeiro (45th), Xi'an (46th), Suzhou (47th), Surat (48th), Bangkok (49th), Santiago (50th), Singapore (51st), Shantou (52nd), Harbin (53rd), Dar es Salaam (54th), Yangon (55th), Saint Petersburg (56th), Johannesburg (57th), Abidjan (58th), Alexandria (59th), Kolkata (60th), Ankara (61st), Giza (62nd), Zhengzhou (63rd), Los Angeles (64th), New Taipei City (65th), Cape Town (66th), Yokohama (67th), Berlin (68th), and Busan (69th). It is slightly most populous than Jeddah. Dimadick (talk) 08:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

I consider cities more important than music albums and books, according to the article the city has a population of anywhere between 1.8 million to 5 million depending on how one measures it, it appears to have significant economy, industry and history.  Carlwev  16:30, 26 July 2018 (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.

---

Add Kaohsiung

Historically the second largest city in Taiwan, with a population over 2.5 million. We list smaller cities from developing countries that are likely of much less interest to the average reader of the English Wikipedia. feminist (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. We are still under quota in the Geography section and can comfortably add more cities. feminist (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
2. Support I thought about proposing Kaohsiung for a long time. The industrial hub of Taiwan. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
4. Support Dimadick (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  03:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
6. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:31, 29 September 2018 (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.

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 Baba Yaga from arts (fictional characters) at the level 4, add Bogeyman to philosophy and religion (mythological creatures) at the level 5

I have started discussion here because of I do not have idea where I could start it. In my opinion we should removed Baba Yaga from arts at the level 4 and add Bogeyman to philosophy and religion at the level 5. Eventually moved Baba Yaga to arts at the level 5. Baba Yaga is evoluated form from Bogeyman and has something common with other creatures described in article Bogeyman. Baba Yaga is vital among Slavs but actually it has quite vague of a concept. For example Mother Trudy is translated to Polish just as Baba Yaga (see: d:Q541282). Even villain from Hansel and Gretel is well known in my country as Baba Yaga. English Wikipedia also does not has important article :d:Q1616828 (now it is redirect to Witchcraft) which would be definitely better option for level 4 than Baba Yaga. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Support

Per nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Due to this discuss is related to fictional characters and mythological characters I also have suggestions for the level 5. I also suggest move Wandering Jew, from fictional creatures in arts, to mythical creatures is philosophy and religion. Because of it is probably more mythological character exactly such like Tooth fairy. If we have fewer creatures is arts, in this way we also could add more fictional vital characters such like: Christmas elf, Scooby Doo, Slender Man etc. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• The Slender Man will never be on this list. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the Slender Man is vital even at Level 5. The other suggestions are reasonable for Level 5 and if space is made here, some of could be added on Level 4. But not until Arts is cut elsewhere or we agree to increase quota. Gizza ^(t)(c) 21:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

When I have mentioned Christmas Elf, Scooby and Slender Man I clearly though about level 5 not level but it is still relevant to this disscussion. The Slender Man is much more vital Internet phenomena than Polandball which is currently listed. Slender Man and Crazy Frog clearly are vital creatures at least on the same level as listed Hatsune Miku is. We also need to remember that German Wikipedia which has very rigorous deletionism for fictional creatures does not have articles about listed characters such like Harry Potter (character), Darth Vader, the Scooby Doo but clearly has articles about Crazy Frog and Slender Man. We will not increasee limit for fictional creatures until the mess will be repaired. We currently even can not think about it. Each not title character/protagonist which does not have an article in German Wikipedia should be removed from the list (very clearly is not more vital than the slender man). All potentially historical characters should be removed from the list (Roland and Don Juan), All articles which are very clearly about media franchise, not about an character should be removed from the list (Flash, (Green Lantern). Sppecific creatures: Krampus and Befana describe also customs/tradidtions and they also could be problematic due to vague of the concepts. We have various vital fictional creatures such like Christmas elf, The Gingerbread Man, Yogi Bear, Doctor House, Tom thumb etc. and theese creatures should be swapped for not protogonistic characters wchich are not described on DEWiki, such like Norman Osborn etc. Vital fictional creatures which have significat influence to reality should be listed. Episode characters from quite not very vital comics/TVseries should be eventually potentially candidates after increase of limit. These creatures are mentioned in DEwiki in lists not as separate article. Most of my mentioned suggestions here, have separate article on DEWiki so these characters are more Notable (in various wiki) and more vital for this list. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Och... I now see that customs/traditions are not in every day life, there are in society. My omnission, sorry. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thinkink about it more Tooth fairy should has separate article about modern literature and prototipes from mythology. Disscussion for remove or move to the level 5 the Baba Jaga is still valuable. At mythology at religion also we could have section for specific mythological creatures such like UFO, Big foot, Wandering Jew. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2018 (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 James Bond for James Bond (character) at fictional characters, add the James Bond as media franchise elsewhere, swap Pokemon for Pokémon (video game series) at video games, add the Pokemon elsewhere

Currently Astro Boy separatly is included to arts as media franchise and as Astro Boy (character) to ficional characters. Pokemon and James Bond also should have this separaion and be included in the same secion because of they are on List of highest-grossing media franchises. Some media franchises have separate article for: #an media franchise, #comics, #TVSeries, #VideoGame #an relevant character/creature to this franchise (for example The Smurfs which are not listed yet) but some media franchises even don't have an article about the media franchise ( for example Dennis the Menace) or do not have articles about some TV/comic/video game (for example Naruto or Teletubbies). Currently relevant disscussion about vague of Media franchise's concept is also here Dawid2009 (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom Dawid2009 (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2018 (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.

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 Principle

The page lists some examples of principles. Physical law is listed as a vital article in the Physical sciences section. This kind of disambiguation page is probably not much needed at this level.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Shouldn't really be a priority, since it is a list that relies on more specialized terms. We have more important things to cover in this section. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  14:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
3. Support could be a vital definition in a dictionary but not an encyclopedia topic to be honest. Thi's point about "list some examples of principles" means it is more of a list than a content article and we don't add lists here. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose mostly because that's rather a core thing. Physical law is one type of principle (broadly speaking). There are many other kinds. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose The fact "The page lists some examples of principles" clearly means that principle is the core concept here. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:20, 5 July 2018 (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.

---

Swap: Remove Platonic realism, add Problem of universals

More general article.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 06:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
2. Support Better to go with the article about the philosophical issue, rather than one view about it. Neljack (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose you can't get far in reading philosophy without knowing what Platonic realism is.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:58, 25 May 2018 (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.

---

Add Apostasy

Most of the world religions have views and laws, some more extreme than others, regarding apostasy, and they have done for centuries. Religion is a level 2 vital article, at level 3 we have many religion articles like atheism, prayer, god and more, and many more again at level 4. I think the article on the deliberate abandonment or rejection of ones current religion/belief is important enough for this level. We list some concepts/laws/rules that are only relevant to one or two religions, but apostasy, although some religions address it more than others, is a concept relevant to most if not all religions, and is of interest to those with no religion, for ethical reasons too. Historically it was even more of an issue than it is today. But according to the article it is still illegal in over one quarter of the world's territories, and also punishable by death in 13 nations, at least officially, although the UN and human rights groups have pressured some of those nations to change.

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  14:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Support Apostasy is important to many different religious throughout the world. Reactions to it have had a massive influence on how religions react to their followers, and the followers of other religions as well. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
3. feminist (talk) 07:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
5. Support Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Discus

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.

---

Remove Jehovah

Yahweh is already listed.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Support We don't need to list both at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Up until recently, it was the usual way of referring to the Hebrew name of God in English. I would argue that it remains so in many cases, especially amongst older people who are probably more familiar with Jehovah than Yahweh. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:26, 3 September 2018 (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.

---

Remove Rosicrucianism

I think that the general article about the history of Western esotericism is enough at this level.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2018 (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.

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 the Ghost Dance

I have noticed that we only have two articles on Native American religions or religious movements. These two articles discussed religions that were native to what is now Mexico. It would be useful to have an article on a religious movement that was a bit farther north. The Ghost Dance movement influenced many different Native American religions in the western United States during the late 19^th century. Also, it is still practiced in the Caddo Nation.

Support

1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 19:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Support Highly influential Native American religious movement. Probably the only "religion", as opposed to "mythology," which could be said to be shared amongst tribes. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
4. Support Dimadick (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
5. Support Jusdafax (talk) 06:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
6. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Of little relevance to readers outside the US. Probably more suitable at Level 5. feminist (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 12:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Short-lived and American-only subject. T8612 (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Discuss

• Note: We also have three articles listed under "Native American mythology." - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• The three articles in that section discussed specific mythological characters or gods, rather than the religions that they originate from. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 15:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Aren't American topics overrepresented? feminist (talk) 10:56, 2 September 2018 (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.

---

Remove Chimera

Not as well-known as Pegasus or a centaur. --Thi (talk) 08:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.
2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
3. Support dawnleelynn^(talk) 03:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
4. Support less vital than the wizard archetype which is close to being removed. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose How well-known something is today does not necessarily determine its importance. Historically speaking, the chimera was very well-known and it has inspired many famous works of art, such as the Chimera of Arezzo, one of the most iconic classical sculptures. It has also inspired other monsters; for instance, the chimera's ability to breathe fire may be part of the reason why people eventually came to believe that dragons could breathe fire. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose Dimadick (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  06:16, 5 August 2018 (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.

---

Remove Ares

Ares played a rather limited role in Greek mythology; he was upstaged by Athena, and was repeatedly humiliated by the other gods. Also, we already list his more influential Roman counterpart.

Support

1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Support As I explained under Hermes. T8612 23:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Support per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 06:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
5. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 20:52, 18 September 2018 (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.

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 Female reproductive system and Male reproductive system

We list the much wider Reproductive system which is about not just both sexes but also other animals, plus plants and fungi as well. We also list the much narrower articles, those about individual organs/parts including ovaries, vagina, penis, testes, clitoris and more. While I don't necessarily think any of those need removing I do think these articles are very common biology topics and appear as stand alone articles in print biology encyclopias before articles on the individual organs/parts of these systems would.

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  15:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
   Support. We list Sexual dimorphism so let's list these two too. wumbolo ^^^ 15:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC) Strike as unconvinced. wumbolo ^^^ 18:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Support These are rather basic subjects in both biology and sexology. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 01:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
5. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 15:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. If the concern is that the general article on reproductive system doesn't cover humans enough, then it would be better if we added Human reproductive system. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Discus

We already have Reproductive system. wumbolo ^^^ 08:59, 15 September 2018 (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.

---

Remove Union of South American Nations

A relatively recent intergovernmental organization (treaty signed in 2008). Six (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Paraguay and Peru) of the twelve members have since suspended their membership. Probably better at Level 5. feminist (talk) 10:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator. feminist (talk) 10:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Support. I would swap it with MERCOSUR (which is surprisingly not even level 5).T8612 (talk) 10:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Support It is a recently-created, half-dead organisation that is less influential than Mercosur. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
5. Support MERCOSUR would indeed be a better choice. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:14, 3 October 2018 (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.

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 CERN

International research organization with major contributions to particle physics and computer science. feminist (talk) 10:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator. feminist (talk) 10:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 10:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  15:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose this is a level 5 thing, not level 4. There's a hundred similarly important organization, including ITER, Bell Labs, JINR, Fermilab, Los Alamos National Laboratory, etc. CERN happens to be the popular one now, because it's the most powerful in its class and found the Higgs, but particle discoveries and nobel prizes occurred in dozens of labs throughout the world. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Large Hadron Collider and Higgs boson are already level-4 vital articles. We don't need CERN. wumbolo ^^^ 15:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose. I agree with the above opposes. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Oppose While this organisation is rather popular, there are many other organisations that have a similar level of importance. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 07:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Discuss

The WikiProject ratings are not too convincing. wumbolo ^^^ 13:55, 12 September 2018 (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.

---

Remove Cloning

Redundant to Fertilization and Asexual reproduction.

Support

1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 16:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I think this is vital enough to retain. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose Artificial cloning is highly relevant to science fiction works, and actual science as well. We have listed several science fiction works that depict some form of cloning, and there are frequent discussions regarding the ethics of cloning of people and animals. This is a subject that has many different scientific, moral, and social implications. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. An article about cloning would be expected to exist and be of high quality in any modern encyclopedia. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
5. Oppose Don't see how it is redundant. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:40, 29 September 2018 (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.

---

"One-year rule"

I'd like to propose that if there is consensus to add an item, there can't be discussion to remove that item from the same level for at least a year. Likewise, if there is consensus to remove an item, they're can't be discussion to add that item from the same level for at least a year. pbp 23:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 23:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
2. Support - Good idea. Jusdafax (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
3. Support This proposal would resolve one of the main issues with this project. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Replace "consensus" with "over 2/3 support/opposed"

1. Support Perhaps this would be a reasonable compromise. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
2. I would prefer if exactly 2/3 was included as well, but I can support this. pbp 20:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
3. Support as per discussion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose This list should not be wrong for a year just because the right consensus did not emerge at the time. A shorter time period of a month or two come be better. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per Emir of Wikipedia. --Thi (talk) 08:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose, per Emir. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Emir. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
5. Consensus can change. feminist (talk) 07:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Discuss

1. A year should be replaced by three months.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

   It's more important to create a minimum time period for failed proposals than passed proposals, because it's more common for failed proposals to be renominated very soon after they failed if you gloss over the archives. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

   Something else that frequently comes up is soon after an add proposal passes, somebody finds another article in similar territory and suggests to swap the new article with the one just added, and they're often successful. Then again that's different to a straight removal after it was added. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

   @RekishiEJ: What's your rationale for three months? pbp 15:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

   Oh, just because when we used a software to clean disk, in general "deleted" date should be kept for at least three months so that if something necessary or important for the system was deleted it can be recovered.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Emir of Wikipedia: @Thi: I feel like your votes are based on a problem that doesn't really exist. We require discussions to be open for weeks and have solid supermajorities to be closed as passed. Can you name more than a couple of proposals that went down in the manner you envision? I also think you're ignoring the real problem: that if this proposal doesn't pass, there's nothing stopping us from having the same discussions over and over again. There was a time (2013) when that happened; this project was tied up for months debating having Harry Potter on this list over and over again. James Polk has been nominated for removal twice; the first failed and the second is going to fail. pbp 17:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Just because a problem does not exist now doesn't mean that we should create a policy that will increase the chances of such a problem. If there was something like a clause in this policy based on the percentages of oppose or support then I could get behind it, but this current suggestion would that we have to wait an entire year to fix an inaccurate consensus. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Would you support it if it only applied to proposals that are closed with 2/3rds or more support or 2/3rds or more oppose? Per our rules at the top of the page for closure, "consensus to add" means 2/3rds anyway. pbp 18:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I would support if it only applied to proposals with more than 2/3 support or oppose, but not just 2/3 as that means that an article is forced to be in the list or out of the list for a whole year. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, I'm still waiting for a concrete example of when a properly-closed discussion was undone so quickly. I really think it doesn't happen very often pbp 20:09, 5 July 2018 (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.

---

Move Acrobatics to every day life

Acrobatics should be listed in the same section what Gymnastics, Trampolining, Parkour, Freerunning etc. Acrobatics as acrobatic gymnastics has common details with gymnastics. Beside this acrobatics is more often do in trampoline parks as recreation/training, than in circus' or as street performance. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

I'm really not sure about this. It could probably go in either place, but acrobatics seems to belong more in the performance art section. One thing that makes it difficult is that the article is not very well-developed, so it could be written more as a performance arts article or as an athletics article. But acrobatic gymnastics is probably the athletic-focused article while acrobatics should probably be the more arts-focused article. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Urban gymnastics is redirect to Parkour which is in everyday life. Article Acrobatics is not good article but readers of its are people interested in training/their every day life, passion; not people who search information about arts, circus etc. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2018 (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.

---

Add spectral line

A fundamental concept and how we detect transitions. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
3. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
4. Support - Key to understanding the cosmos. Jusdafax (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, spectroscopy is the vital one (it's in a very poor state, but it trumps spectral lines in terms of vitality), if anything, not this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I agree with Headbomb, spectroscopy is enough at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
3. Weak oppose due to Headbomb's arguments in the discussion section, but frankly I think they are both vital at some level. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Discuss

1. Undecided Both sides have made good arguments here. And I think spectral lines have something to do with chemistry. I just don't know, sorry. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  06:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mr. Guye: Spectral lines are due to the chemical composition of whatever is either absorbing or emitting light. The science that studies this in general is spectroscopy (or spectrometry), which is larger than just spectral lines (and will cover things like black-body radiation). So basically you can think of spectroscopy as the study of the interaction between light and stuff, and spectral lines as one particular (if important) sub-phenomenon. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:55, 2 September 2018 (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.

---

Remove Password

Redundant to Authentication.

Support

1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 16:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Support. Not needed at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 10:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
5. Support We should not have overly specific articles at this level. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Passwords are an everyday thing. I would think than an encyclopedia of 10,000 articles, especially an online one, would have an article on them. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per Presidentman. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2018 (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.

---

Add Dock (maritime)

At least as vital as Pier.

Support

1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 17:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Support Docks are a rather basic part of maritime infrastructure. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
5. Support --Thi (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
6. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:41, 29 September 2018 (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.

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 Pitchfork

An encyclopedia needs a definition of pitchfork, but a featured article about it is hardly a priority.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
2. Support. Not really needed at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Support per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 21:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Support Quotidian subject are not vital. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
5. feminist (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2018 (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.

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.

---

Need more Level 4 pages as 3,000 or 5,000

As noted, the actual count for Level-4 already might exceed 2,000 pages, as "2,068". I think we need over 3,000 pages at level-4. In reviewing the computer scientists and tools, I have noticed extremely limited coverage in those areas at Level-4. For an easy example, among computer languages, the tradition minimal list of languages should mention: FORTRAN, COBOL, BASIC, and Ada 83, beyond the Java and C of recent decades, and mention them for crucial (vital) reasons: FORTRAN was, as named, the original major language for 20 years of computer optimization in "formula translation" as in TOTAL=2*X +23*Y + W/(Z-18); while COBOL was the major language for data record structures with long data names (variables) as 30-letter names beyond FORTRAN arrays named by just 6-letter (cryptic) names, and the vital 1964 BASIC language became an interactive system to allow students to quickly modify+run small programs online, replacing a line by simply re-typing the line number, without having to wait minutes (hours) for the compiler and linking loader to run in batch mode. Later, the reliable Ada 83 became the first extensively-validated compiler system. Already that means Level-4 computer languages should list 8, not 4 languages. It would be like adding mention of Ancient Egypt and Ancient Greece beyond just the Roman Empire. Or it would be like expanding between the American Revolution and World War I to mention the French and Indian War or U.S. Civil War as vital topics there.

Reverse engineer Level-4 as subset of Level-5: I am thinking to "un-expand" the 50,000 Level-5 pages to list perhaps a total of 3,000 or 5,000 Level-4 pages, as 1/15 or one-tenth of the Level-5 count. By using that reverse-engineered list, then users could more freely list all 50,000 vital topics which come to mind, but then extract the core 10% (more-vital) among those Level-5 pages to become the small Level-4 count. Ask more experts to further expand among the 50,000 Level-5 pages, and then extract 10% as the Level-4 from that Level-5 fuller coverage of topics. I think when we push Level-5 closer toward 51,000 selected pages, such as including 30 more world-famous actors and actresses, then the larger Level-4 cross section will seem more balanced above 3,000 pages. Any preference for 2,500 or 4,000 page counts? -Wikid77 (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I've tried to figure out where you're getting these numbers from, but I honestly have no idea. There are currently 9,995 articles listed at Level 4 according to the most recent count and the target number for Level 4 is 10,000. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2018 (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.

---

Remove Roman festivals

Probably not needed at this level.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Support, the article is mostly a list.T8612 (talk) 11:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Support We should not have lists on this list. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 00:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Support Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

If it stays, it should be placed with the other festivals in the Culture section instead of here. I tempted to say that an article on Roman festivals is vital though this article is quite listy. Saturnalia is the most well known festival from Roman times which could be the better choice. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:31, 3 September 2018 (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.

---

Remove people

This article is a bit like personal life which was removed recently. It may sound basic and vital but it's more of a dictionary term than an encyclopedic topic. Articles that discuss how people are related and grouped together like clan and kinship are already on the list.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
2. Support swap below. I completely agree. It is a terrible subject matter to write an encyclopedia article on, in some ways even worse than "personal life". Rreagan007 (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
3. Support We are not creating a list of the 10,000 most important words and terms that have a Wictionary entry; we should only have encyclopaedic topics on this list. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 03:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
4. Support. It's basically an article about a word, not the social group. Neutral on swap with Nation, as the level-3 article United Nations is called the United Nations. wumbolo ^^^ 18:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Swap

1. Swap with Nation. --Thi (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
2. Swap with Nation. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
3. Swap with Nation. feminist (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
4. Swap with Nation. T8612 08:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
5. Swap GuzzyG (talk) 08:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Discuss

I was thinking about suggesting a swap with nation or nationality but then I noticed we already include nation state. There is also Identity (social science) which would be a good fit in Level 5 in either sociology or psychology but may not quite be vital here. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:01, 5 August 2018 (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.

---

Remove Greek fire

Non-vital incendiary weapon.

Support

1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 18:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Support predominantly used by just one empire for around four centuries. A bit too niche at this level. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
4. Support This is a niche subject. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 00:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
5. Support niche, historical trivia.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:19, 9 November 2018 (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.

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 Parity (mathematics)

We're currently one under quota in mathematics, and this is a good candidate for that slot.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
3. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
4. Support article about odd and even numbers, which redirect here.  Carlwev  03:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
5. Support This is a rather basic mathematical concept. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 03:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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 Eadweard Muybridge

Hugely pioneering photographer in capturing motion. We lack photographers and he laid the early groundwork on a lot of important techniques.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Support He was a pioneer in the history of film and science. "Today, Muybridge is known for his pioneering work on animal locomotion in 1877 and 1878, which used multiple cameras to capture motion in stop-motion photographs, and his zoopraxiscope, a device for projecting motion pictures that pre-dated the flexible perforated film strip used in cinematography.... In the 1880s, he entered a very productive period at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, producing over 100,000 images of animals and humans in motion, capturing what the human eye could not distinguish as separate movements." His work has been cited as an influence on Étienne-Jules Marey, Thomas Eakins, William Kennedy Dickson, and Thomas Edison. Dimadick (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Support Eadweard Muybridge was a pioneering photographer and inventor. His work was vital in the studies of motion and early motion picture projections. He invented the zoopraxiscope, which was an early device that could project moving images. Also, he is well known for his studies of animal locomotion; his photographs proved that horses have a moment of "unsupported transit" while trotting and galloping. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 02:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Support Qono (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
6. Support--Dawid2009 (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2018 (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.

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 Ilya Repin

Alternative option to nomination above

support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose Perhaps the most important Russian artist ever. Neljack (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose He was one of the most influential Russian artists. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 01:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
4. Oppose Extremely influential Russian artist. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
5. I've read the lede of it and know that he brought Russian art to the mainstream of European culture, he can be considered the art equivalent of Leo Tolstoy, thus he is no doubt vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
6. Oppose All because we focus on English language cultures figures doesn't mean we do not need other languages figures especially one of great importance like Repin, who is far more important then Constable. GuzzyG (talk) 16:10, 6 January 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.

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 Bram Stoker

If Count Dracula is listed at this level, Bram Stoker also deserve to be listed here.

Support

1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Support Significant novelist. The Jewel of Seven Stars in particular has had an influence on the Mummy (monster) sub-genre. Dimadick (talk) 12:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Dracula is more influential than the man who wrote it. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Susmuffin.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose yes at Level 5, not at level 4. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
4. Oppose just not importance enough for this list, he would be out of place. GuzzyG (talk) 16:11, 6 January 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.

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 Alexander Pope

This is yet another person who should have been put on this list years ago. Alexander Pope was one of the most influential poets to ever live. His best known works are An Essay on Criticism, The Rape of the Lock, The Dunciad and An Essay on Man. These poems have had a massive influence over Western literature in general, and English literature in particular. Pope is also known for his translations of the Iliad and the Odyssey, which are among the most prominent English translations of Homer's works.

Support

1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
4. The fact that he is the second-most frequently quoted writer in The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations after Shakespeare means that he is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
5. Support yes, one of the most famous poets. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
6. Support Highly influential poet. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
7. Support obviously yes. GuzzyG (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
8. Support, easily. I was about to say what RekishiEJ said before I scrolled down. :) J947 ^(c), at 07:43, 9 January 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.

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 Jesse James and Billy the Kid

In my opinion if John Brown (abolitionist) is include to this list, Jesse James and Billy the Kid definietly deserve for inclusion to this level too. [13] - here they are described as: American outlaw heroes and they are compered to John Brown. In my opinion we should included them to the level 4 or removed John Brown too keep him at the level 5 too.

Support

1. I am the nominator Dawid2009 (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose They were less influential than many other criminals that we do not have on this list. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 05:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose out the USA, no one cares. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
4. Oppose Like i said, Jack the Ripper, Pablo Escobar, Lucky Luciano and MAYBECharles Manson or Bonnie and Clyde are the only criminals not on the list who would fit in, they're stature is international unlike these two. I think Escobar is an absolute must but people don't generally agree to have criminals on here. Also Luciano is more influential with Capone in organized crime. GuzzyG (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Too country specific i think Dick Turpin and Ned Kelly are just as important in English speaking countries. I would think the only three criminals we need not listed are Lucky Luciano or Pablo Escobar as his impact was international and Jack the Ripper as his impact is still ongoing. James and Billy are only relevant in niche true crime markets and do not have a current legacy. GuzzyG (talk) 04:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Honestly, if I had to list a Wild West figure, then it would be Buffalo Bill. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 19:18, 8 January 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.

---

Add Mount Kosciuszko

As mentioned in the above nomination, physical geography is underrepresented. I propose to add Mount Kosciuszko, Australia's highest mountain, as it is the only one of the Seven Summits which is not listed.

Support

1. As nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
5. Support though I note Puncak Jaya is already listed, if we have quota issues I might support removal in the future. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Until we add Mount Kosciuszko to the level 4 we should add Australia (continent) to the level3. While physical geography is underrepresented I intentionally missed Mount Kosciuszko in nomination because of I am going to add Central America/Australia (continent) to the level 3 as first and later Mount Pelée/Mount Kosciuszko to the level 4. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2018 (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.

---

Add Taichung

Another city in Taiwan with a population over 2.5 million. I think this one should be added as well. feminist (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. feminist (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
2. Support Taichung is almost as important as Kaohsiung but possibly a bit larger now, we should probably list them both or neither.  Carlwev  03:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
3. Support Dimadick (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
4. The second largest city by population in Taiwan.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
5. Support This is the second most populous city in Taiwan. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
6. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2018 (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.

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 Hansel and Gretel

How are they more important than Sleeping Beauty, Little Red Riding Hood or Rapunzel?

Support

1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 08:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
4. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
5. Support Brothers Grimm are listed, as is fairy tale. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:42, 10 December 2018 (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.

Quota

The recent swap of 12 articles has caused this section to go well over the quota. Should the quota be adjusted? ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

It probably does deserve a bit of a bump. I'm going to go ahead and boldly bump the religion quota up by 5 and probably take it away from biology, which has the most to spare. If someone disagrees they can revert and we can discuss it further. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2018 (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 Women's sports

There was some support for this add above pbp 00:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 00:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Support This is an entire category of sports. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
3. Support Incredibly important topic. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
4. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
5. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
6. feminist (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
7. Support per above Gizza ^(t)(c) 14:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
8. Weak support --Thi (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2018 (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.

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 The Coca-Cola Company

In my opinion we can add the coca cola company despite fact we have coca cola. The coca cola company popularised Santa Claus ahead other creatures such like Sinterklaas, Father Christmas etc.. Thank to this company we known Santa Claus (clothing) in current form. We also have Santa Claus at the same level what Saint Nicholas but we do not have Father Christmas etc.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. We already list Coca-Cola. I would support a swap. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 07:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose addition. wumbolo ^^^ 17:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
4. Oppose We already list their namesake product. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:31, 22 November 2018 (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.

---

Add North American Free Trade Agreement

If European Union is level 3, this has to be level 4.

Support

1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 18:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
2. Support good catch. Gizza ^(t)(c) 21:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
3. Support The North American Free Trade Agreement has had a massive effect on the economies of the United States, Canada and Mexico. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 02:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Would this still be on the list if it is fully replaced, as it looks like it will be? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2018 (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.

---

Remove Oort cloud

It likely exists, but is still purely hypothetical. In a list this small, there's just not room for it. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Support Covered in enough detail at Solar_System#Oort_cloud at this level. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
3. Support Not as vital as Kuiper belt. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Since it is part of the Solar System, it is more vital than other astronomical objects. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Discuss

@Presidentman: first this is a hypothetical thing (very likely to exist, but nothing observed yet). Second, lots of things are in the solar system. We don't need to mention every thing / every class of objects. We have centaurs, trojans, Kuiper belt, Scattered disc, heliosphere, detached objects, Planet Nine (also a hypothetical) ... At some point, there needs to be a cut-off. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I would rather remove some of those articles you list such as detached objects or Planet Nine before removing Oort cloud. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Presidentman: Of those, only the Kuiper belt is at level 4. Every other is level 5, or not listed at all (although a case could be made to include them at level 5). We've got plenty of KBOs discovered, they led to the redefinition of planets, and a great deal of research is done on them (e.g. the hunt for Planet Nine). What's the Oort cloud got going for it? It probably explains comets... and pretty much nothing else. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:25, 8 July 2018 (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.

---

Add cosmic dust

One of the main constituents of the interstellar medium, this is often what is actually detected and we infer the rest. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. As we're slightly under quota in this area, I'd expect Wikipedia at this level to discuss something as ubiquitous as space dust. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  22:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Not vital at level 4. This is a general encyclopedia, not an astronomy focused endeavor. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose. We list both interstellar medium and interplanetary medium at this level and I think that's enough. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Discuss

Just looking at similar territory, I was wondering about simply dust - we do have dust storm though.  Carlwev  22:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

That proposal may be more successful than this one. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:16, 30 July 2018 (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: remove enthalpy, add Gibbs free energy

Enthalpy has quite limited utility in physics. Gibbs free energy, on the other hand, has a huge number of uses in any sort of application and in chemistry. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Support adding Gibbs free energy - very important in chemistry; oppose removing enthalphy as there are quite a few important enthalpy changes and enthalpy is important for a few things in chemistry, such as in heat changes and in Hess's law. I'd also consider adding Helmholtz free energy. wumbolo ^^^ 18:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose physics students learn about the concept of enthalpy before they learn about Gibbs free energy, also known as free enthalpy. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose I'd consider a straight addition of Gibbs free energy once the maintenance tag is removed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Discuss

@Power~enwiki: What does the maintenance tag have to do with anything? Rreagan007 (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

If I understood the article better, I might be willing to nominate it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I must admit I'm not familiar enough with the subject to give an informed opinion either, and the article is rather dense. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2018 (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.

---

Add wave propagation

How waves actually travel is vital in my book. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Support good catch. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. oppose wave is sufficient. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Headbomb. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:20, 16 July 2018 (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.

Mythology

An editor has taken it upon himself to merge Mythology into Myth. I have had a bit of a discussion with him about it on the Myth talk page. "Mythology" was a Level 2 article, but "Myth" isn't even currently listed at Level 5. Should we simply swap out mythology for myth at all levels, or should we remove mythology from one or more levels? For some reason, "Myth" doesn't seem as worthy of an article for Level 2 to me as "Mythology" did. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

First, let's see if the merger holds. If it does, I would support the swap. pbp 14:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Article Count

For those users who use AutoWikiBrowser, please do update that count. I think the count has currently reached 2068 pages. I need verification from someone.Adithyak1997 (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2018 (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.

---

Remove La Grande Illusion

The list contains ten other drama films and something must be removed.

Support

1. As nom. --Thi (talk) 08:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Support GuzzyG (talk) 08:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
3. Support We list too many drama films. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Support agree with above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:19, 14 January 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.

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 Count Dracula or swap for Dracula

Definietly not vital at this level and even borderline at the level 5. This does not have separate article on DEwiki where is big deletionism for fictional characters and it is the onlty fictional character which does not have article on DEwiki. I doubt that fictional characters which does not have separate article on DEwiki deserve for the level 4 because of deletionism on DEwiki is not very rigorous: Slender Man and Crazy Frog deserve for separate article on DEwiki while Count Dracula does not.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
2. Support swapping the character for the novel. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 07:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
4. Support Swap GuzzyG (talk) 08:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
5. Support swap The original novel serves as the basis for all future appearances of the character. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
6. Support swap power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
7. Support swap (oppose straight removal without swap)  Carlwev  14:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
8. Support swap Rreagan007 (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Fictional characters which we list on the level 5 usually are redirects on DEwiki. Check it on Wikidata:

1. Echo and Narcissus --------> Echo (mythology)
2. Darth Vader ------------> List of Star Wars characters
3. Gandalf -------------> List of Middle-earth characters
4. Frodo Baggins --------------> List of Middle-earth characters
5. Ophelia -----------------> Hamlet
6. pinocchio -------------------> Does not have article on DEwiki (probably due to The Adventures of Pinocchio)
7. harry potter -----------------------------> List of Harry Potter characters
8. Charlie Brown -------------> Peanuts
9. Minnie Mouse ------------------> List of Donald Duck universe characters
10. Goku ----------------------> Dragon Ball Z
11. Kermit the Frog ---------------> The Muppet Show
12. James T. Kirk ----------------> List of Star Trek characters
13. Luke Skywalker -----------------> List of Star Wars characters
14. Princess Leia -------------------> List of Star Wars characters
15. Norman Osborn -------------------> List of Marvel Comics characters

This is the only fictional character at the level 4 which does not have separate article on DEwiki. Generally we have a lot of fictional characters at the level 4 which are not described on DEwiki and some of them have only redirects

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.

---

remove Merlin

We have King Arthur from that folclore and it is pretty enaugh in that case.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

oppose

1. Oppose the archetypical English wizard. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 21:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose A classic figure of Welsh mythology, possibly a fictionalized version of Myrddin Wyllt. Dimadick (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose He is the archetypal wizard. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 01:23, 12 January 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.

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 Supervillain

If we have Superhero we also should have supervillian on this list.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose – Villain would be the better candidate (and honestly superhero covers supervillain. Support adding Villain. J947 ^(c), at 20:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose There is no supervillain genre. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 01:25, 12 January 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.

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 Wargaming

According to H. J. R. Murray (in book: A History of Board Games other than Chess) the five main types of board games are: #Race Game #War game (List of abstract strategy games#Capture game/Board wargame) #hunt games (also described in completly butchered article: Fox games) #Alinement games (Go, Halma etc.), and #Mancala games. In my opinion it is silly to have wargaming before race game, speciffically in that haotical way for encyclopedia. And if it is signficant not due to board games but due to video games it should be swapped for Strategy video game (better choice for this level). Wargaming as representation of modern board games do not fit because of we do not have a lot of much more significant tabletop games (for example Yathzee on Playok.com is more popular than Backgammon or Monopoly but is not listed here; Nine Men's Morris is historically very important game but also is omnissed). Dawid2009 (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

1. Support As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
4. Support Wargaming is not worthy of being on this list. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 08:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Somewhat important since it trains commanding ability.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2018 (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.

---

Add FIFA Women's World Cup

Premier League is listed at the level 4 but Women's FIFA World Cup is not. Currently we have one woman woman soccer player (Mia Hamm) on the list despite fact that we have NONE player from Premier League (George Best, Bobby Charlton, Bobby Moore etc.). It structurally is not right and unaccetable. Mia Hamm should be removed or FIFA Women's World Cup added (evenrually one player from Premier League added). Dawid2009 (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Support Major international sporting event. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose the article on FIFA World Cup possibly should discuss it. It's not a prominent enough stand-alone event on its own to justify inclusion. For "inclusivity" reasons, Women's sports should be added first. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
2. I agree that Women's sports should be added first. feminist (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Not significant enough at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
5. Oppose Women's sports would be a better addition to this list. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:35, 17 November 2018 (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.

---

Add Feminine hygiene

Products that are used on a daily basis by a huge chunk of the world's population.

Support

1. As nom. feminist (talk) 06:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
2. Strong support. No less vital than Cosmetics and Perfume, which we list at level 4. wumbolo ^^^ 11:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
3. Support Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
4. Weak support I would prefer adding tampon instead as the most notable feminine hygiene product. It seems to be the article that people prefer reading (pageview comparison). But I agree that hygiene relating to half of the world's population (once they get old enough and if they have access to it) is vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

   Tampons may be the most common feminine hygiene product in the US, but that's not the case elsewhere. At least where I live (Hong Kong) pads are much more common. Plus aren't articles covering more general topics preferred? feminist (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

   Fair enough. I also agree with Thi that hygiene may be Level-3 vital. We have dental hygiene and even anal hygiene isn't a bad suggestion. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

5. Support General article Hygiene is possibly vital at level 3. --Thi (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Way too specific of a topic at this level, just like I wouldn't want to list anal hygiene at this level either. The general article on hygiene and menstrual cycle are sufficient at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2018 (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.

---

Add Alcohol intoxication

More common and recognized than many conditions, even if it is self induced, Alcoholism and Alcoholic Beverage are listed in the 1000 list. Intoxication and alcoholism cover similar but not the same ground, and if alcoholism is a 1000 article it's not unreasonable to expand on it here. We list 14 alcoholic drinks, I think the general medical, psychological, physical effect that alcohol has on the human body and mind is of interest to experts and general readers, more so than 14 kinds of booze. We have also recently added driving under the influence, which is only one, although an important one, aspect of being drunk. There are many additional aspects of being drunk worth studying and reading about that this article covers some of them and could cover more. Long and short term health effects, effects on judgement, social impact, psychological impact, inhibitions aggregation, violence, antisocial behavior, sex, promiscuity, consent and other aspects of law including driving and other things. Many religions and philosophies have their opinions on drunkenness too. I feel strange adding driving whilst being drunk, before the article on being drunk in general, which could cover the driving aspect and more ground too.  Carlwev  16:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  16:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Support I was about to suggest this myself. This subject has influenced nearly every single culture that has ever existed. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 16:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
3. Support indeed more vital than driving under the influence. Gizza ^(t)(c) 21:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
4. Support A risk factor in many activities: "Alcohol intoxication is a risk factor in some cases of catastrophic injury, in particular for unsupervised recreational activity. A study in the province of Ontario based on epidemiological data from 1986, 1989, 1992, and 1995 states that 79.2% of the 2,154 catastrophic injuries recorded for the study were preventable, of which 346 involved alcohol consumption. The activities most commonly associated with alcohol-related catastrophic injury were snowmobiling (124), fishing (41), diving (40), boating (31) and canoeing (7), swimming (31), riding an all-terrain vehicle (24), and cycling (23). These events are often associated with unsupervised young males, often inexperienced in the activity, and many result in drowning." Dimadick (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
6. Support - Clearly vital. Jusdafax (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
7. Support Esiymbro (talk) 08:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
8. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We also list Alcohol (drug) at this level (along with alcoholism, alcoholic drink, and ethanol), and I think there is way too much overlap to include both at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2018 (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.

---

Add Kazimir Malevich

"A Russian avant-garde artist and art theorist, whose pioneering work and writing had a profound influence on the development of non-objective, or abstract art, in the 20th century." "His use of purely abstract forms broke with centuries of artistic tradition." [14] "...often seen as the greatest Russian painter of the twentieth century". [15]

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 08:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
5. Support – "greatest Russian painter of the 20th century" cuts it for me. J947 ^(c), at 19:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
6. Support He was the founder of Suprematism. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:01, 11 January 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.

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 Artemisia Gentileschi

THE pre-eminent baroque woman painter; infinitely more notable then O'Keefe; an art encyclopedia today wouldn't miss her. (or put her before Remington/Eakins)

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
5. Support – "today considered one of the most accomplished painters in the generation following that of Caravaggio" cuts it for me. We're underrepresented on women as well. J947 ^(c), at 19:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
6. Support Her status as a feminist icon is just as important as her art. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
7. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

@GuzzyG: Is this a removal proposal or an addition one? ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Susmuffin: Thanks for the ping. In my copy and paste of the template i forgot to add "Add". GuzzyG (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2018 (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.

---

Add Yves Saint Laurent

"He is regarded as being among the foremost fashion designers in the twentieth century. In 1985, Caroline Rennolds Milbank wrote, "The most consistently celebrated and influential designer of the past twenty-five years, Yves Saint Laurent can be credited with both spurring the couture's rise from its 1960s ashes and with finally rendering ready-to-wear reputable." Hugely important designer who made high fashion mainstream and ready to wear. Fashion design needs more than one (Chanel) person on the list and he is the next important (then: Dior/Balenciaga/Charles Frederick Worth)

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
4. feminist (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
6. Support He was a highly influential fashion designer. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:58, 14 January 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.

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 John Constable

John Constable is more important for readers of English Wikipedia than Ilya Repin if we are going to favorize English-language topics.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Support More important than Gainsborough, who is on the list. Neljack (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
3. He inspired the Barbizon School.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Part of the Realist movement of his era. Dimadick (talk) 20:09, 10 January 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.

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 Joseph Campbell

His books and ideas had influence for creating Star Wars

Support

1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
3. Since Star Wars is a very popular media franchise.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. That's not a good enough reason for addition. pbp 13:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose We have more than enough American writers. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
4. Oppose Star Wars is George Lucas's, who is already listed here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
5. Oppose not important enough when you consider who is not on here. We do not need two people for Star Wars. GuzzyG (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
6. Oppose – Get a reasonable rationale then I'll consider this. Luke Skywalker would posit a better candidate of Star Wars for this list... and it would not pass. J947 ^(c), at 22:38, 11 January 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.

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 Jin Yong

Highly influential Chinese-language writer.

Support

1. As nom. feminist (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
3. Support He has been referred to as "China's Tolkien." ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Chinese genre literature can have a representative. GuzzyG (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
6. Support "His 15 works written between 1955 and 1972 earned him a reputation as one of the greatest and most popular wuxia writers ever. By the time of his death he was the best-selling Chinese author, and over 100 million copies of his works have been sold worldwide" Dimadick (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
7. Support per Susmuffin. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
8. Support – Best-selling Chinese author and we already have at least two Chinese writers of the modern era. J947 ^(c), at 22:33, 11 January 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.

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 Junko Tabei

She was the first woman to reach the summit of Mount Everest, and the first woman to ascend all Seven Summits by climbing the highest peak on every continent.

Support

1. Support As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Support I actually agree that Tabei is a decent addition and more women are needed in sports GuzzyG (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
4. Support the seven summits one does it for me. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
5. Support per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:23, 5 November 2018 (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.

---

Add Great Victoria Desert

Currently we are under quota at geography section and physical geography is underrepresented

support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Support Oceania is underrepresented as a whole. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
4. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
5. Support If I recall correctly, this was once swapped with outback. But I think one Australian desert is reasonable at this level. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
6. Support – A representative of Australian deserts would be welcome at this level. And this would certainly be the one. J947 ^(c), at 03:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

oppose

discuss

Regarding quota here, I think we will remove a few cities eventually (425 cities + the 16 urban planning articles should be enough); cities like Changchun, St. Louis, or Leeds might be the ones removed. Even without that, having one desert from Australia seems necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:38, 10 December 2018 (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.

---

remove Katowice

It is only part of Silesian agglomeration (in sense: nobody in Poland consider Katowice as "very big city" which is larger than Warsaw). Definietly not vital at this level. In Chicago (see: Poles in Chicago) live more pure Polish people than in Katowice (and maybe even in some other cities outside Poland). We also not list more vital Polish cities such like: Szczecin, Łódź.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Support relatively low population for this level, and there is nothing otherwise special about this city. feminist (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 10:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
4. Support This is one of the least important cities on this list. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 02:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
5. Support –J947 ^(c), at 22:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:03, 12 January 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.

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 Campinas

A suburb of São Paulo and the only Brazilian city on this list that is not a state capital. Probably better at Level 5.

Support

1. As nominator. feminist (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 07:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
3. I wouldn't call it a suburb, but I don't remember any reason it is important. –J947 ^(c), at 05:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
4. Support It is less important than Cancún. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 15:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
5. Support Santos, São Paulo gets more pageviews in forgein languages. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:01, 12 January 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.

Merge Lock (security device) and Key (lock)

Not the usual type of proposal. I'm considering a merge proposal for these articles (to Lock (security device)). The history sections are almost the same, and the discussions of different types of locks (and keys for those locks) are parallel. Material on Key duplication, Master key, and Locksmithing would need to be spun out to new articles. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't the merge proposal be discussed on one of the respective talk pages? Thanks for letting the vital project know though and obviously, if the proposal is successful, we would have to adjust. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'll start the formal discussion later tonight. Figured it was more likely to get a response here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The merge is done now. If nobody objects soon, I'll remove Key (lock) from this list (and L5). power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

References