Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Endemic issue

Until this "forum" is opened up then this kind of thing is pretty much hopeless. To determine who should be considered "vital" to Wikipedia needs more than a handful of editors at this tiny project which gets fewer pageviews than my user talk page. Right now all these hundreds of "proposals" are strongly indicative that the criteria for inclusion and the methodology being used is wrong. If this project is to survive and gain any kind of legitimacy, I suggest you focus on getting a much wider audience involvement, that you focus on the process of selection and that you stop launching hundreds and hundreds of inclusion/exclusion proposals. This is simply rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

This list is dead anyway, as the person who added everyone (me) has retired from it, it's better to just get rid of the thing then to leave a rotting corpse open. A good look to nominate heaps of removals while still under quota and with no replacements, this list is meant to be indicative of pop culture figures compared to the level 4 list which is meant to be historically important but apparently someone predicted to be the youngest billionaire (also a woman, which we lack) and a major pop culture figure is "going to be removed", yikes. Good luck with your feeling and opinion based list when i tried to make it based on pageviews/britannica listings/wikidata stats. If people are seriously arguing for this list to "only" have 200/1200 sports people be American then there's no point, it's done.GuzzyG (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
And I think making quotas by nationality is flawed and will simply cause argument in any case. First of all the very reason for the existence of this list needs to be re-examined, and it needs more than just two or three regular editors to do that. Suggest an RFC is opened to determine if this project should really continue, especially in its current form. Right now these pages just suggest an argumentative timesink with no benefit to our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Suggest an RFC is opened to determine if this project should really continue, especially in its current form. Please do that The Rambling Man . User talk:Purplebackpack89 it is pointless every time someone criticizes this "project" to respond "Don't be mean, I have worked hard on this and you are hurting my feelings". I don't imagine anyone is setting out to be mean and nasty to you personally, it is just this is a ridiculous and pointless exercise, the whole thing. I find it absurd and offensive, for instance that J S Bach gets a "level 3" and Handel and Monteverdi are "4"'s, that "Thais" makes it on to the list of "vital" operas but "Elektra" does not. Don't tell me to add stuff or move stuff around, I don't want to have anything to do with these silly lists except to try to get them to go away.Smeat75 (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
If you find a "ridiculous and pointless exercise" "absurd and offensive" then it's you going on about hurt feelings; so bothered by a template on a talk page. I guess the other editors have gave you a inch so you'll take the mile. All over some pointless template; "Hurt feelings" indeed. I do appreciate your gall in wanting to get rid of a project that's existed for 11 years because you had your feelings hurt over some silly opera talk page templates. GuzzyG (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I guess the other editors have gave you a inch so you'll take the mile. Such erudition, obviously an editor who can write a sentence like that is perfectly suited to sit in judgement on exactly who and what is "vital" in the entire history of the world.Smeat75 (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
No, i am open about my life; i am severely uneducated. I was expelled in Year Nine for physical violence and sent to a lower school for kids with disorders; but i don't need no pity; heck i didn't even go when i was a student and remember nothing from school. I am self educated; purely by mimicking what i see; it's why my grammar is garbage and why i do not edit articles and only stick to superficial projects like this/talk pages/creating redirects. Now let's get to the actual issue; i'll be bold and say i am more qualified for this then you give me credit for based on how i communicate. I do this as my one hobby: [1] I have hundreds of endeavors covered and a hundred more in the template (that i have yet to move to an individual excel sheet). I gave an example of the actors page to show you i track articles based on Wikipedia stats (edits, pageviews, article size, wikidata languages etc), their worldcat stats, whether they are listed in Britannica or other reference works and lots of other things i will not reveal here. This is to take out the subjective opinions of cliques of editors here who want to shoehorn their favorites in over what our readers need. (Monteverdi/Handel over Bach is such a opinion). Now, goodday. GuzzyG (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
@GuzzyG: While I don't always agree with your findings, I respect the time you've put into this. pbp 02:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, i appreciate that alot. Although that's why i am irked by this; i am doing this all based on statistics while people who have not done the research tell me i am wrong or that it's not possible for one person to do it. GuzzyG (talk) 07:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: will you please just stop commenting here if you want to be retired? Your continued complaining that the list isn't everything you want to add is beyond tired. We must operate based on consensus; if there's a consensus your additions are "vital" they will remain. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Let's be clear, i will NEVER stop commenting on the process ; i am retired from additions and regret i have added anything. I have a right to complain when you've added barely anything to biographies and yet roll over to the first non-contributor who criticizes the list, i've spent years on building a biographical dictionary and scouring forums/websites/talking to people based on who is the top people in the respective endeavor. The best thing is i use Wikipedia's OWN STATISTICS in deciding my additions to this list. If you can't grasp that i've dedicated my free time since 2014 in building my own project in which i stumbled upon our vital list itself, then fine. But you don't get to tell me to stop commenting on something i've done the majority of the leg work on and if you want me to stop commenting, then start the list from scratch. Yes, i have a problem with people like you who roll over to any criticism without ever doing research associated with the item listed; like when you let the editor remove Born to Die yet the lede says "As of January 2018, Born to Die is one of only three albums released by a female artist to have spent more than 300 weeks on the Billboard 200 chart." which while the other two albums are listed is a decent argument for it to be on; yet you dismissed it and let the guy replace it with a regular Hootie & the Blowfish album when the band itself isn't listed. It's not up to you to decide what's "gossip fodder", like the oft mentioned paintballer; you might think it's small time but we have a wikipedia project for paintball and we should have atleast a biography for as many wikiprojects be a FA as possible, especially on a list meant for IMPROVEMENT of articles; not a 100% accurate historical ranking; Wikipedia benefits from having these "gossip fodder" high reader interest articles featured. GuzzyG (talk) 04:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: without some specific proposal to discuss, I don't think that advertising at WP:CENT or on a bunch of WikiProject pages will do anything but waste editor time. If you have a suggestion you think won't do that, please make it. (I don't yet have any good idea to fully devolve sections; i.e. to have the cricket biographies discussed at WT:CRIC rather than here). power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

No, I disagree I'm afraid. This is practically a closed shop, with a quorum of half a dozen regulars and nothing more. At the very least, a centralised discussion will make others aware of the project, and I don't believe that will be a waste of anyone's time. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Well at least this post to Jimbo's page should wake a few people up to this project! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

A few thoughts on this:

  1. This isn't "closed" any more than any other talk page or noticeboard is closed. The claim that this isn't open could be said of AfD, ITN, article talk pages, pretty much anything.
  2. This is the wrong time to assess the project. Give it time for the lists to fill up and stabilize. There was vitriol and instability at VA4 in 2013 and it's remarkable stable and civil now. VA5 may eventually be that way too
  3. If we find that we can't build a 50,000 at this point, maybe we should build a 20,000 articles list instead. And then see if we want to build a 25,000 or a 30,000.
  4. I'd like to echo the above disappointment on how The Rambling Man is participating in this project. I think he would do well to participate in more of the existing proposals rather than primarily just complain about how closed this is and vague demands for deletion or reconstruction of this project. That's just not helping. pbp 02:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I have noticed that we have two misunderstandings in this project (I try writing with good faith in my forgein language, I hope my words will sound right):
  1. What excatly level5 list is:
    1. Is this generally more list TO DO? - in sense more list the articles than the people (for example more relevant various articles related with football instead list the best soccer players etc.) List the articles wchich would be valuable to correct per (most viewed articles, articles from popculture, articles wchich have little pageviews because of they are not good, popular articles on Wikipedia wchich are not described in some encyclopedias, not the most vital but pretty comprehensive articles etc.) . If it is more list TO DO we could agai try disscuss about change name of the project. I agree that aXXo would be very valuable to describe in Wikipedia (I generally belive that if we angage wikiprojects and suggestbot in future maybe article will be better for next years)
    2. Is this list generally the most or more vital people and things wchich have influence for, culture, history etc..?
  2. What excatly mean: favorize English language:
    1. Favorize English world?
    2. Favorize westeren-english world?
    3. Making encclopedia for readers of ENwiki? If we make encyclopedia besed on statistics of ENwiki, I prytty agree with GuzzyG that balance editors/viewers beetwen USA and UK is very high [2] , [3]....Compare various countries worldwide how often people edit and view English Wikipedia. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to echo the above disappointment on how The Rambling Man is participating in this project.? Where was that? I'm sure you are disappointed that I'm asking some serious questions about the viability of this mini-project and offering some critique of its current manifestation. Difficult questions can sometimes be challenging. But do try not to personalise everything, focus on the matter at hand, that of trying to open up this project to a much wider forum. If it truly is assembling what is considered to be vital, the more input the project receives, the better, and surely that's what our readers deserve, right? Broadening the input rather than offering up hundreds of proposals in which two or three people typically engage is a vital step to take right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

      • As a suggestion, to be eligible for the level 5 list an article should be rated as "high importance" on the talk page of the article. For example, an article I began called Fetterman Fight is rated as of high importance by the WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. Thus, I think the article should probably be a level V vital article. To the contrary, if nobody has seen fit to rate an article as of high importance, it can be disqualified from being on the vital article list. I realize that this policy could be abused -- but it would be a check on arbitrary additions to the vital article list. Smallchief (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I paid attention to the items I found interesting and/or particularly relevant. While Vital Articles is dominated by a tiny handful of regulars, it will be regarded as nothing more than an anachronism, and will continue to be derided and dismissed. I'm sure that's not what those who contribute here want, but that's the status quo. It's hard, I understand, to realise that this is currently a huge and misdirected waste of energy, but some of us here are offering invaluable insight to help prevent any further loss. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Three things, @The Rambling Man:
  1. You have a habit of inaccurately low-balling the number of active participants in the vital articles project
  2. I think singling out the Vital Articles project as something to complain about lack of participation in is unfair. There are plenty of other things that have the same problem.
  3. I'm not necessarily against more eyeballs on the project. What I'm against is that you've essentially given us the ultimatum of more eyeballs or shut it down. That's unfair. pbp 17:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  1. Um, I am extremely powerful, but not that powerful. If VA, by its very nature, is talking about what the encyclopedia as a whole should hold as "vital" then it's vital (geddit?!) that a much wider forum of participants is involved. Right now, the hundreds of open proposals typically have three or four votes. That's not adequate at all. It certainly looks like an RFC is in order, so we should think about how best to formulate that to get a wider opinion on what "VA" really means and whether it's current form is what the encyclopedia as a whole (and not half a dozen regular editors) is looking for. By the way, no need to ping me, this, among around 9000 pages, is on my watchlist! Cheers for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. P.S. this may provide some context! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Smallchief: The problem is that there are massive discrepancies in what constitutes a high-importance article. There are some projects that it would be reasonable to have all top-, all high- and maybe even some medium-importance articles, but other projects where it would only make sense to have top-importance articles. The projects that we assent to having auto-add of high-importance need their assessment scrutinized from time to time. (Note that I'm NOT weighing in on your specific example) pbp 15:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
@Smallchief: @Purplebackpack89: Smallchief's idea in my opinion could be reeasonable. But until we try use this policy we should describe in Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions#How are articles selected? ballance beetwen low culture and high culture at the level5 Dawid2009 (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I think everyone needs to just calm down and take a breath. The people section was always going to be the most contentious part of this, but just because it's contentious doesn't mean the whole project should be shut down. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
    That would obviously be a last resort, but it's an option. Who said it should be shut down though? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
    For somebody who doesn't want this shut down, you sure keep bringing that up as an option a lot. Too often if you ask me. pbp 02:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
    Well no, I didn't ask you and no, it's just one option on the spectrum. A little like the other accusation you continually level at me (that I "want you indeffed"), I think there's not much evidence to support your position. In any case, this is about finding a way forward, not about personalising the problems that exist here and trying to close down debate by attempting to shame others. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Misc section

Since Power and others seems to have a big problem with the people listed in the "other" section on the "misc" page (let's throw in case studies/medical literature people too), then what do we do if we remove the 10 or 20 "problematic" people? We're not missing out on scientists because of them so what do we do? add 10/20 to business, explorers or the other sections (where we're already scraping the barrel); what exactly? take 10 off misc to add to another page? Seems silly. Any other people do you have in mind for the "other" section or are we trying to fix a problem that does not exist? GuzzyG (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

  1. Same with the 3 explorers removal proposal; we're 90 under quota and already scraping the barrel, are we that afraid of being diverse in our coverage? Dumbfounded. GuzzyG (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The list will grow; there's no need to fill it immediately. The quota can simply be unallocated until it is necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

You reject the question because you know there's no actual reason. It's only a disservice to Wikipedia's viewers that what they view is just "gossip fodder". GuzzyG (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I am generally against removing explorers (speciffically Graham Hughes and Jessica Watson ). Currently we have only six explorers who were born after 1920's outside astronauts. It is clear that people such like Robin Knox-Johnston, Jessica Watson, Aleksander Doba will be quite known for next decades for their first achievement in history, while listed youtubers/pranksters/bloggers such like Vitaly Zdorovetskiy, Jessica Nigri or El Rubius will probably partly loss their fame for other younger youtubers and Internet celebrites. On that basis I would rather suggest add more explorers, for example adventurers awarded by National Geographic ([4]) to complete the list, instead removing them. But I also do not suggest removing Internet celebrites. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion we could add to "other section": Mehran Karimi Nasseri, Shoichi Yokoi and Harold Camping. Nasseri due to fact he has strong parent topic (Authentication is at the level 4), Yokoi due to fact he could be added if Robert Harrill is listed. I am also not sure Kaldi should be listed because of it is semi-legendary figure (not due to vitality). Roland, Don Juan, Solomon are lited in other sections but contrarily Harpagus is listedd among people. Also Ishikawa Goemon is vital at this level and it will need close to disscussion in future. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Analysis of politicians and leaders thus far

I developed a chart to parse the Lv. 4 and Lv 5. Politician/leader bios by country. I have it by both current country and former country. Anybody who wants the chart, e-mail me. Examples of pairing of former civilizations and current pairings:

  • Ancient Rome is current Italy
  • The Mongol Khans are mostly…Mongolia
  • Most pre-Habsburg Holy Roman Emperors are German (a few are under France, Italy or Czech Republic); Habsburg Holy Roman Emperors are under Austria
  • Popes are listed under their country of birth

We are currently at 290% buildout from VA4: the VA5 politicians list is 2.9 times the size of the VA4. With VA4 currently at 510 politicians/leaders and the VA5 target 2,300, we’re shooting for 450% buildout. Here are some of my findings:

  • N. America, which has 7.7% of the world’s population, has 232 articles (15.7% of the current list) and a 595% buildout vs. VA4
  • S. America, which has 5.6% of the world’s population, has 38 articles (2.6% of the current list) and a 271% buildout vs. VA4
  • Europe, which has 9.9% of the world’s population, has 654 articles (44.2% of the current list) and a 304% buildout vs. VA4
  • Africa, which has 16.4% of the world’s population, has 97 articles (6.5% of the current list) and a 211% buildout vs. VA4
  • Asia, which has 59% of the world’s population, has 394 articles (26.6% of the current list) and a 243% buildout vs. VA4
  • Oceania, which has 0.6% of the world’s population, has 66 articles (4.5% of the current list) and a 6600% buildout vs. VA4
    • In sum, this means that most of the remaining work needs to be done in Africa and Asia. Oceania is built out, probably overbuilt. N. America is about right, with the U.S. built out, the Caribbean overbuilt, and the rest of N. America underbuilt. S. America and Europe can use more leaders, but don’t need as much work as Asia and Africa. Europe is right-sized for the list at 1400-1500; when the list is expanded to 2,300, it needs to be larger. France and the UK are built out for 2,300; most of the rest of Europe is not.
  • Ancient has achieved 214% buildout, Post-classical 227% buildout, Early modern 268% buildout, and since 1815 achieved 376% buildout.
  • Two countries have more than 100 figures at Lv. 5: the UK (164) and the USA (150, which includes Native Americans native to the U.S. and colonial American figures)
    • Five countries have between 50 and 100: France (93), China (88), Italy (74, which includes 22 Ancient Roman emperors, 22 Italian-born popes, 4 Holy Roman Emperors, and 14 from various Medieval and Renaissance Italian city-states), India (53), and Russia (51, some of which are from the USSR)
      • Those same seven countries are the only countries to have more than 20 Lv. 4 bios (UK-30, France-28, China, India, Italy-27 each, Russia-26, US-25)
    • Countries with between 25 and 50 articles include Germany (50, includes many HREs and Prussia), Turkey (40, includes Byzantine and Ottoman Empires), Australia (37), Iran (30, includes Persia and several Caliphates), Egypt (27) and Spain (27)
      • The smallest country by population with 25 or more articles is Australia at 24.9 million
  • Excluding English-speaking countries, the top 10 are: France (93), China (88), Italy (74), Russia (51), Germany (50), Turkey (40), Iran (30), Egypt (27), Spain (27), and Poland (24). (Note: If we consider that, despite it being an official language, most Indians don’t speak English, India’s 53 would put it in the top 10)
  • Excluding English-speaking countries and European countries, the top 10 are: China (88), Turkey (40), Iran (30), Egypt (27), Japan (21), South Korea (20), Mexico (19), Iraq (18), Haiti (13) and Saudi Arabia (12) (India would again make the top 10 if you don’t count it as an English-speaking country, as would South Africa with 12)
  • The largest countries with fewer than 10 articles are: Pakistan (212 million, 8 articles), Brazil (209 million, 8 articles), Nigeria (193 million, 3), Bangladesh (164 million, 2) and Ethiopia (107 million, 9)
  • Largest with 4 or less Nigeria (193 million, 3 articles), Bangladesh (164 million, 2), the Philippines (106 million, 4), DRC Congo (84 million, 2) and Thailand (69 million, 4 articles)
  • There are 57 countries with 0 representatives, but they only represent about 5% of the world’s population
  • Largest with no representation at all are Mozambique (28 million), Ivory Coast (24.5 million), Cameroon (23.7 million), Niger (21.4 million) and Burkina Faso (20.2 million)
  • Countries with no representation and independence before 1945 include Andorra, Bhutan, Bosnia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Switzerland and Uruguay
  • Countries with at least 5 VA5 leaders, and more leaders than millions of people include: Monaco (5 articles, pop-38,300), Ireland (13 articles, pop: 4.8 million), Austria (23 articles, pop: 8.8 million, most of whom are Habsburg Holy Roman Emperors), the UK (164 articles, pop. 66 million), New Zealand (10 articles, pop. 4.9 million), Jamaica (5 articles, pop. 2.7 million), Greece (17 articles, pop. 10.7 million), Mongolia (5 articles, pop. 3.2 million), Australia (37 articles, pop 25 million), France (93 articles, pop. 67 million), Hungary (12 articles, pop. 9.8 million), Italy (74 articles, pop. 60 million), Haiti (13 articles, pop. 11 million), Bulgaria (8 articles, pop. 7 million), Norway (6 articles, pop 5.3 million), Portugal (11 articles, pop. 10.2 million), Denmark (6 leaders, pop. 5.8 million) and Israel (9 articles, pop. 8.8 million)
    • Jamaica is the only one of these with no leaders before 1815
    • In addition to Jamaica, Austria, Australia, New Zealand, and Haiti have more leaders than millions of people despite not having any leaders before 1400
    • Make it only post-classical leaders (or later) and you also add Monaco, Ireland, Mongolia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Norway, Portugal and Denmark
  • Countries with at least 5 post-1815 leaders, and more leaders than millions of people include: Ireland (10 leaders, pop: 4.8 million), New Zealand (9 leaders, pop. 4.9 million), Jamaica (5 articles, pop. 2.7 million), and Australia (34 leaders, pop 25 million). No non-English-speaking country holds this distinction.
  • Representatives of 5049 countries made the VA5 list without making the VA4 list: Algeria, Antigua, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Brunei, Colombia, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Dominica, East Timor, Eritrea, Fiji, French Polynesia, Grenada, Iceland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Monaco, Montenegro, Namibia, Nauru, New Zealand, Oman, Palau, Panama, Puerto Rico, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Singapore, Somalia, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan and Vanuatu
  • The following countries have at least two VA4 representatives, but have yet to achieve 300% build-out from VA4 (this means they either have not enough VA5 members, or too many VA4 members): Afghanistan, Albania, Armenia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Chile, Czech Republic (inc. fmr. Bohemia and Czechoslovakia), Egypt, Ethiopia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Iran (inc. Persian), Italy, Lithuania, Mali (inc. Songhai, Ancient Mali), Mongolia (inc. Mongol Horde), Myanmar/Burma, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Syria, Turkey (inc. Byzantine and Ottoman Empires), Ukraine, Uzbekistan.
  • Australia, Cuba, Haiti, Ireland, Jamaica and New Zealand all have greater than 600% buildout from VA4

pbp 03:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the deep analysis pbp. This confirms most of the biases I suspected were on the list. Singapore definitely has one leader at VA4 though (Lee Kuan Yew). Gizza (t)(c) 02:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Good catch, I've corrected it. pbp 02:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
The biggest surprises are Haiti being over-represented and Switzerland having no representatives at all, considering that Western Europe is usually well covered. Something else to note is that the historical populations of countries can be very different to modern times. In 1840, Ireland (the entire island) had 8 million people, more than its population in 2018. Relative to the rest of the world, Ireland was a bigger fish in a smaller ocean. At the time, England only had a population 2.5 times Ireland whereas now it is more than 11 times [5]. Unfortunately we don't know the populations of many parts of the world in older times, especially precolonial native and indigenous people. Even reliable sources give big ranges with a host of assumptions. But it's something to keep in mind. Gizza (t)(c) 01:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
@DaGizza: Due in part to some computer trouble, I'm doing an update/re-do of the list. I'm adding reign start, reign end and world population 1800. pbp 02:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Burkina Faso is represented by Thomas Sankara. Very surprising and disappointing that Mozambique, Ivory Coast and Cameroon aren't represented. Cobblet (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@Cobblet: If you'll shoot me an e-mail, I'll send you an updated list. pbp 18:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion: explicit consensus for adding/removing Biographies

As that is the most complete part of the list, perhaps it's time to require consensus on the talk page for changes. "Bundled" nominations encouraged. I'd recommend more light-weight rules; perhaps 7-days and 3 votes minimum for any changes. I'd also like to have the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/People, though I know other people have expressed opposition to that idea in the past. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how "complete" it is. Take politicians and leaders, for example. It's about 2/3 complete, with that completeness not evenly spread: North America, Oceania and Europe are complete, perhaps overrepresented, while Asia and Africa are half-finished, if that. pbp 16:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm thinking about what you suggest. I would also suggest, as anyone has added anyone with no voting as of yet, an article that gets questioned, discussed and voted on, it should be a "Do we want this? Yes or No?" and the side with the most votes wins. (Not sure about 50-50s though, would either be a straight include or straight not). We should probably not have a preference for already included articles vs not included articles. If user:example added the eleventh best tiddlywinks player in Canada last week, I see no reason we should be forced to keep said article next week if voting starts and we get 45% of people wanting it kept vs 55% of people wanting it removed, especially when only one single user added it to start with. (Compare with the opposite, we could list the 50th best Scrabble player in the world as user:Example added them 2 weeks ago, but when someone suggests to add the worlds top Scrabble player with a vote that gets 5 yes vs 4 no, should probably get in, considering everything in as of now was 1 yes vs ? no.)  Carlwev  16:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
It's too early I suggest. Are 90% of 'Writers and journalists#Sports journalists, commentators and sports announcers' really Americans. Sections like this one with a crazy US bias need someone to go through them who has a bit of sense. Nigej (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I am skeptical that we need to go from zero sports commentators in Level 4 to forty sports commentators in Level 5. Blemby (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Because your definition is off, there are no WORLDWIDE INFLUENTIAL sports commentators so none on the level 4 list. But there's heaps of SUPER FAMOUS/POPULAR sports commentators which fit onto the level 5 list, WE list one MIME on the level 4 list but none extra on level 5 because there's one super influential one and then the rest are not. GuzzyG (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
There are a lot of non-vital, junk bios (and non-bios like cornhole) at the moment as everyone has alluded to but I would still wait until the remaining parts of biographies are finished before starting a formal voting process. Apart from removing the Guinness World Records 15-minute-of-fame bios. I think there's clear consensus from the above discussions to remove most of them. Gizza (t)(c) 23:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Junk bios? Well do better. Must suck that a junk bio whos been dead for 20 years [6] does better then the ole so important nobel prize winning scientist![7] in our (FOREIGN AND ENGLISH) readers eyes. Which is who we're supposed to be improving our articles for; this isn't a purely academic factual ranking (like i am making for every bio now as my own project); this should be a WHICH ARTICLES BEING FEATURED WOULD HELP OUR READERS LIST. I get it though - bad stupid low culture should never be represented on a prestigious list like this. Dumb FIFTEEN MINUTES OF FAME (20 years after they're dead) junk bios will never be important. I just wonder how many people try to set Guinness world records (millions?) and would look to these people as vital in that area of pursuit. Same as how many competitive eaters, how many paintballers? It's all perception. What seems stupid to you because you've never heard of it actually means something to millions who do. If an encyclopedia should have 300 more scientists who our readers don't read over some mild fluff on which they do on a size of 15k then i want absolutely nothing to do with it and i regret i filled out this list. This is what i am saying - i am not just adding fluff - i go through the statistics and keep track of them FOR EVERY SINGLE BIO IN EVERY SINGLE FIELD (for example i have over 50 pre-internet dog fighters on which wikipedia has 0) in my excel sheet, as i am working on a system for a proper ranking in my own time. I guarantee, the reality television/esports/internet personalities get shuttled down too but they are the three UNIQUE things of this century and will be seen as that. You'd see Dan Bilzerian as fluff, but our readers [8] see him as one of the most viewed biographies (and no most youtubers are in the 500k to 1mil range); so as the top non-celebrity instagram user he should absolutely be on this list. GuzzyG (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  1. The junk bios hold their own up against a Nobel scientist; [9] [10] [11] in google scholar. People are treating the level 5 list like the level 4 list; here's how it should go level 3 list - supremely influential and a household name; level 4 list influential and based on accomplishment; level 5 list less on influence, supremely popular people like Britney Spears while also recognizing current culture, including a range of smaller things that still carry interest and mostly articles that catch our readers interest; it's impossible to make a 15k list based on the same requirements as the 4 list without it being completely laughable and unhelpful to our readers. GuzzyG (talk) 07:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Alternate proposal: Explicit consensus to add anybody from USA, UK, France, Australia and New Zealand

In most fields, the worthy people from these countries are already on the list, while people from the rest of the world are woefully underrepresented. pbp 19:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 19:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
This is the English Wikipedia, articles on this list should be tailored to the needs of English-language readers. Plus why should France be included in this grouping of countries, and not Canada, Ireland, India, etc.? feminist (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC) striking per PBP's explanation below. feminist (talk) 07:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  1. Oppose. This list is supposed to be tailored to the English language Wikipedia. If you want to build one that doesn't have that attribute, I suggest you propose starting a 50,000 list on Wikimedia similar to the 10,000 articles every Wikipedia should have list. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
As per my comment immediately below, it's very unclear what "tailored to the English language Wikipedia" actually means. Are we proposing (to rewrite slightly) "a systemic bias towards topics better known in the English speaking world". If so, I think we ought to honest about it and say so. eg "Sports commentators must be English speaking since this the English language Wikipedia." or "We're ignoring most of Korean culture since they don't speak English." Nigej (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually, yes I think we should have a discussion about this. That line about bias is buried in the FAQ section that most people will never see, but the fact that these lists are geared towards the English-language Wikipedia is prominently displayed on the main pages of the lists. I think that the English-language vital articles lists will have a certain level of bias towards the English-speaking world. If it didn't, then what would be the point of this list? We would be just duplicating the Wikimedia lists, and that would make no sense. If that's all we're doing here, then these lists should just be copied over from the lists of articles every Wikipedia should have and we should end this duplicative process (at least for Levels 1-4). Rreagan007 (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
@Rreagan007: a) This doesn't mean we can't add anyone from those five countries, b) The four English-speaking countries being constitute 30% or more of most biographical topics, which IMO is "tailored" enough pbp 16:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I think we certainly should have biography articles about people from non-English-speaking countries, to the extent they are more vital to the English-language Wikipedia than English speakers on the list. All articles within a section should be judged against each other for vitality. We shouldn't have quotas and set-asides for different nationalities. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I have suggestions in which way we could select ballance beetween "People from western world" and "people from east world". I will give two examples: 1Go is topic wchich is vital at the level 4 and paintball is topic vital at the level 5. Futhermore Go is topic which generally is represented only by people from east world and generally not represented by people from western world; On that basics we can accept that there are chanses that we will have more chinese go players than USA paintballers (read: If consensus will be that we need Go players and paintballers there are chances that we will have for instance three chinese go players and one paintballer from USA) 2Golf is topic vital at the level 4 and paintball is at the level 5 but Golf is sport known in various countries and in various cultures (western and east). On that basics there are chances that we will have the same number Korean golfers and paintballers from USA but we will never have more Korean golf players than USA paintballers (read If we we have several dozen all of Golf players, there are chances that we will have one Golf player from Korea and 1/1 paintballers from USA but we will never have more Korean Golf players than USA paintballers)

Thoughts? Dawid2009 (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
  1. Interesting idea. WT:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions#How are articles selected? says that there is "a systemic bias towards topics better known in the Western world." but then says the lists should be "Tailored to the English-language Wikipedia". I find the two statements somewhat contradictory. If the lists are "Tailored to the English-language Wikipedia" then there must be "a systemic bias towards topics better known in the Western world" since the majority of English speakers are in the Western World. Personally I would regard the English-language Wikipedia as worldwide in some sense and would tend not to tailor it to English-language topics. For instance, must all sports commentators be English speaking? Nigej (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
At the present time, 30% or more of most of the biographical lists are from the five countries I've listed. This despite those countries amounting to less than 10% of the global population. pbp 23:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  1. @Feminist: The reason why it's these five countries is because, in my estimation, they are the five countries that are the most "built out" or "complete" on VA. For example, France has more vital politician articles than any country other than the US and UK. There are more VA5 articles abut Frenchmen than there are about East Indians despite India being as old or older a civilization, and a country that's more than 10 times as populous. India is most certainly NOT built out. I could see argue for adding Ireland to this list, but not Canada. Canada is not as built out as the most comparable countries (Australia, US, UK) are. Also, I'd like you to define what percentage denotes "tailor-made to the English Wikipedia". How much a percentage of politicians or writers or military leaders should countries where English is predominant (US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland) yet? How much should countries where English is spoken but not predominant (India, Pakistan, South Africa) get? pbp 13:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Add Lapu-Lapu

Regarded as the first hero of the Philippines. The national police and fire protection agencies use his image on their seals. Rodrigo Duterte declared April 27 Lapu-Lapu Day last year. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Morgan Ginsberg: I thought I already added Lapu-Lapu but it turns out that I didn't. Thanks for the reminder. Lapu-Lapu might be a little bit less notable than José Rizal but he is close and I think even a good candidate for the 10,000 list. Gizza (t)(c) 23:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Where were quotas consensually agreed?

I'm curious because I see that sports figures in American football (played at a high level in ... one country) has a quota of 40 while sports figures in rugby union (played at a high level in at least a dozen countries) has a quota of 15. I also note that American football has a quota of 25 for "business people/referees etc" while Association football (a truly global sport) has a quota of 30. Could someone direct me to the relevant discussions where consensus was agreed upon for these figures? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_1#Proposal_for_new_sports_quotas. pbp 15:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Ah, so the quotas are still very much up for debate then. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Maybe, but it's worth noting that the linked proposal up above is a result of wrestling with the issue at VA4 and VA5 for quite awhile in a number of different proposals. VA4 is well-discussed and stable at this point, and most VA5 quotas are a 4-6fold increase from VA4. pbp 16:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
It would be interesting to have a split of the number of sports figures by country. Should each country have a quota (covering all 1200 sports figures)? Should each century or decade have a quota? Nigej (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow, do you mean a breakdown of the number of countries in which certain sports are played? I'm bemused although not surprised to see that American football has a higher quota than golf or cycling (which are global sports) yet mildly shocked to see figure skating (a really niche sport) with a quota the same as boxing, both codes of rugby combined, and ten more than swimming!! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
The tricky thing about golf and cycling is that, while they are played in many countries, they aren't the predominant sport in any one country. Golf has the additional problem of being played primarily by elites. pbp 16:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
When we check Vital page (translated by bot) on ZHwiki. The biggest section with red links (among sport business people) is section with American Football's sport buisiness people. Propably we have too many American's Football business people. Anyway it seems to me we have too few chess and tabletop players. In my opinion we should have on the list the same number of tabletop players and cue sport players. I would prefer if number of Go is the same what number of eSport players. Also it seems to me we could have vital chess players such like François-André Danican Philidor or Arpad Elo (if we have Chess tournament and League of Legends World Championship on the list). It is only my suggestion with good faith, not critism. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm simply saying that the USA (for instance) could have a quota of say 200 out of the 1200, Australia 50, Korea 20, or whatever. Why decide quota numbers based on the sports?
I'm still trying to understand how figure skating (packed with elitist individuals) should have the same quota as both codes of rugby combined (played around the world by millions) and boxing. Figure skating should be down from 30 to say 10. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
PASSED
Done, 7-1 pbp 14:00, 30 September 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.

Proposal: Reduce American football businesspeople quota to 15

Support
  1. pbp 18:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. support, but it seems to me that 5 might be better. The whole section shows the current obsession with Americans. Nigej (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support and it possibly can be reduced further in the future. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support and I agree that 15 seems too many to me.Smallchief (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support reduce to 15 Dawid2009 (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support even 15 is a little high for non-players representing a sport played in one country but this is an improvement. Gizza (t)(c) 22:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support reduce to five. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Strong oppose reduce to 5 I am strong oppose reduce American football bussiness people to five. ~~40%+ readers of ENWiki are people from USA. Also Vince Lombardi is American coach who is listed at the level 4. It is natural that we should have at least ~~15 American football bussiness people. Beside this it would be ridicouls if we have section with 5 American Football coaches and section with 10 figures at fandom section (I do not suggest remove people from fandom section, I only try explain why section with American Football bussiness people should be limited to 15, not 5)
Discussion
  1. Obsession with Americans yet the whole list was made by a non-american diversity advocate...... ok. Compared to other sports gridiron coaches are arguably as vital as players (there's a reason the only coach we list on level 4 is Lombardi) but whatever, we'll throw caution to the wind for MORE SOCCER, YEAH! Also it's relatively easier to pick 40 vital gridiron players then go dumpster diving for 40 cyclists (and then they'll be road cyclists and you lot will shut down the smaller sections of cycling like track/mountain biking/bmx) and golf.... It's not a surprise British people are clashing with American choices while ignoring the fact that the US nearly quadruples the population of the UK so obviously there should be more coverage but whatever. 50 vital Korean athletes? as someone who built this list via pure statistics of wikipedia views/edits/different language articles, not a chance in the world. Not surprising golf/cycling advocates pop up to argue how global they are and they need more but noone mentions if we go purely by that metric that table tennis and badminton should have 20 each, too - it's only fair right?? GuzzyG (talk) 20:30, 31 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.

Suggestions for what to do with the 10 spaces that open up if Quota reduction passes

  1. Let's be honest all the space will go to association football or whatever sport the new batch of people on this list like. Something like 20 more for golf (for diversity!) while removing the 1 of each coverage of the smaller sports or lowering the quota of them just to add to golf! or association football! in the name of diversity!GuzzyG (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
    The "sports business-people, coaches, and referees" has a quota of 150. American Football 25, Baseball 15, Basketball 25, Ice Hockey 13 seem way out of proportion to Athletics (Track and Field) 0, Cricket 1, Golf 3, Tennis 1. Maybe this reflects views/etc but the question is whether we should be having a popularity contest. eg there's a million dollar golf event in Korea, the Korean winner probably doesn't even have an article. Does that mean the man is unknown or is it that there's a huge bias in the English wikipedia towards US/UK sportspeople, since the event gets little or no coverage in the US/UK. Maybe he doesn't have an article in the Korean wikipedia either but that may be because of the status of wikipedia there. Nigej (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
    It's not just views, i track wikipedia, britannica, google scholar and worldcat results. It's not my fault gridiron is a playbook heavy sport where the coach is also a main focus; where as golf is primarily player focused. Winning one tournament does not make you vital and if you have no article you're nowhere near vital - bias or not. Also with sports like Athletics, Cricket, Golf or Tennis you'd be hard pressed to find that the coach is a household name unlike Gridiron; it's a sport i don't watch but this will remove people that our viewers actually read because of a problem that is not as bad as it seems at face value. GuzzyG (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Before we answer that; why is the only sport with a businessperson on the level 4 list the one specifically slated for a quota cut to reduce it on par with ones not on that list. Everyone cried foul when we did not increase exactly everything based on the level 4 list but then when it comes to this it's the opposite, either add an olympics and association football businessperson on the level 4 list (i support that) or don't but this list shouldn't be uneven because of that. It's odd to act like something covered on the level 4 list should have the same quotas as without. It's just a undeniable fact that out of all of the major sports, the coach is a primary figure more so in gridiron then any other team or individual sport. GuzzyG (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't think Football should be the only one with businesspeople/coaches on Lv 4. And I'm not sure it is...James Naismith wasn't a competitor of basketball. He formulated it, and coached it without renown, but he isn't notable for playing it. And it's not like we're deleting football entirely from the business and coaching of sport. Assuming the number of coaches and businesspeople remains constant, American football would still be left with 10% of the total coaches and businesspeople. pbp 23:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I actually agree mostly on all of this, i'm just making a point; it's high time we added some coaches/music producers (people behind the scenes) on the level 4 list. I've started a nomination on the founder of the Olympics, let's see how that does first. Bill Bowerman absolutely should be on this list, i forgot him; although i don't think many other track coaches would specifically make the bar. GuzzyG (talk) 02:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
We long time had three figure skating and two swimmers on LV4 list. What do you think about remove one figure skating again or add Johnny Weissmuller and Duke Kahanamoku instead swap Mark Spitz for Johnny Weissmuller? I also suggest to Go has the same number players on level5 what eSport. The go is sport which was playing not for ceuntries but for millenniums and it is still more popular than eSposrts. I also suggest to add Philidor and Arpad Elo. Philidor is first very good not Italian chess player who partly revolutionised chess theory in 18th century, he also has much more internal links than Ruy Lopez has, the player who is currently listed. Arpad Elo is important person in sport history. He is inventor of Elo rating system which is commonly used in varoius sports, for example in chess on swiss-system tournaments. It is also using among online video players rivalry, among team sports team rivarly, etc.. Thank to this invention we objectively can compare various players/teams from diffrent eras in various sport. BTW If we have Chess tournament and League of Legends World Championship in entertaiment, we also could have Elo rating system (but not as part of chess). Dawid2009 (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Another thing we may need more of is more representatives of multi-sport organizations like the IOC, AAU and AAA. pbp 18:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
What name of category for IOC, AAU and AAA do you suggest? Dawid2009 (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Multi-sport organizations, most likely pbp 01:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I have suggestgions for eight small changes (selectioon and increasing/reducing):

  1. climbing and mountanieering 10----->13 (Horace-Bénédict de Saussure, Junko Tabei and Gerlinde Kaltenbrunner should be added)
  2. chess 12 ----->16? 16 seems be littly too many for chess players if we have only 4 figures for Polo section but if we accepcet historical people for more popular sports, such like William Heffelfinger and Lucien Laurent, clearly we also should add: Gioachino Greco, François-André Danican Philidor, Arpad Elo and Adolf Anderssen to chess; because of they are important people in history of this sport (Elo generally is important SPORT figure, not only due to chess and computer chess) @[[Cobblet, you often edit pages related with chess, what do you think about my point?
  3. swimming 20----->25 (If we have various types of athletics figures we also could have long-distance swimmers: Lewis Pugh, Matthew Webb, Gertrude Ederle, Benoît Lecomte; readers are interested in that people so it would be usefull)
  4. olimpics bussiness people 3----->6 (for more multiple sports organisations, per @[[PBP suggestions?)
  5. Ancient sport 5----->6 First recorded Go player also should be added (Thinkink about it more, in my opinion if we do not have any Gomoku players we also do not need several go players but Go Seigen at normal section and Yi Qiu at ancient section could be staying; Go this is game played for milleniums, it would be good if we will have one representant from ancient era)
  6. Connect skiing section with snowboarding section and make new section titled: "International Ski Federation sports". Classification/selection should be based on FIS, not based on our original research. Alpine skiing it is very completly other sport than croos-country skiing such like alpine snowboard clearly it is not Alpine skiing. If a sport has in name "ski" in English language it not mean that is generally more similar to other sport which have "ski" in name (Football tennis clearly is not more similar to Table tennis, because of it has "tennis in name"). If we connect snowboarding and skiing to one section, we also could change quota from 11 to 12, in my opinion Jeremy Jones (freerider) should be added to this section, he has enaugh page views, he has been regarded as a pioneer of professional big mountain riding, and he also has been regarded as adventurer of the year by National Geographic ([12]). This man also would be representant of freeriding (this sport is related with freestyle skiing and freestyle snowboarding).
  7. Competitive card and table games split into several new sections: "niche competitive tabletop games" (due to fact that we have dedicated section for chess players and dedicated section for table tennis players in "not niche individual sports"), "niche competitive card games" (but Poker section should be moved to normal individual sports. As sport it is not very vital but it is very popular as casual game. On website gamedesire.com pokers are popular such like biliards and pokers also are more popular than chess on every Internet chess servers)), "Speedcubing" and "memoonists"
  8. Decrease Figure skating from 30 to 23?. Figure skaters as people are vital and have a lot of pageviews. But figure skating as sport is much fewer interesing for readers than handball and volleyball. Also Sonja Henie who is at the level4 is for sure fewer vital than some People in ancient sports section and soccer bussines people section

Thoughts? Dawid2009 (talk) 08:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Chess before Morphy and Steinitz is unrecognizable in the sense that nobody really has a clue as to how to play the game. Nobody who's seriously studied the game would add Ruy Lopez, Greco, Philidor and Anderssen ahead of Mikhail Tal. Elo was a mathematician and his contribution should be measured against that of other mathematicians. He seems less vital to me than someone like Bill James who I'm also not convinced is vital at this level, but has at least a better case to be made for him.
Alekhine and Tal are the two obvious additions to the ten players that I left on the list, but beyond that, I seriously doubt any other chess-related personality should be considered vital at this level. And to be frank, this list has been so absurdly butchered by people who confuse notoriety for vitality that I want nothing to do with this project. Whoever decided that the quota for sports figures should be higher than the quota for scientists, inventors and mathematicians (combined!), such that we include Sean Avery and two competitive eaters over literally hundreds of the latter types of people, has no understanding of what it means to actually contribute to human knowledge, and what an encyclopedia should prioritize in terms of documenting that knowledge. This list should encourage editors to think critically about those things and how their editing activity squares with those things. Is it more important to tell future generations about the people who made actual contributions to society, or the people who most frequently showed up in clickbait? If all we want is the latter, all we need to do is contact the guy who runs WP:5000 and asking him to provide a list of the top 15,000 viewed biography pages – he can probably even update it weekly. Cobblet (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
What the people who butchered the list (Me, just say it), have a problem with is the conservative orthodoxy of what should be in a encyclopedia. Where are the scientists, mathematicians etc going to come from? Should we list 300 mathematicians, who no one is going to read and there's no material to build the article; who are we pleasing with that? (Do you think this list should be made for specialists and not the common person?) I've created a diverse list and if those niche sports were not listed it'd be another 50 soccer players; and you'd whine about that too. Atleast with this set up people learn something about fields they wouldn't know otherwise. Go find the missing mythical "very important" hundreds of scientists and come back; actually do some leg work for once. I stand for building an encyclopedia that the average person on your local street would be interested in and find unique; not the purely specialist 300 views a year mathematician based encyclopedia that noone really cares about but you feel good about by having those really "important" people on and none of that low culture trash. GuzzyG (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't intending to single you out. But if you're going to take this personally and claim ownership of the list, even though this is on the Wikipedia namespace and not your user page, and should therefore be the product of collaborative editing and consensus, that's your problem.
  • "Where are the scientists and mathematicians going to come from?" Uh, ever heard of the Nobel Prize or the Fields Medal? Or cared to look at the numerous other awards recognizing exceptional people in those areas? Who are you to say that "no one really cares about" them?
  • "Do you think this list should be made for specialists and not the common person?" The common person is a specialist. Nobody knows everything about everything. Why do we have to accept your assumption that something is vital if and only if (excuse my specialist phrasing) it's interesting to the common person? Who appointed you to represent the "common person", deciding both who they are and what it is they find "interesting"? If anyone is "mythical" it's not the scientists, it's this "common person" you claim to stand for.
  • "I've created a diverse list." Frankly, it looks to me like what you've actually done is create a list of things that interest you personally, and then ascribe those biases to the "average person", while disparaging everything else as stuff that "no one really cares about." For example, you see a problem with listing "300 mathematicians, who no one is going to read." (Translation: you're not going to read them, even though math is a level 1 vital article, which logically would suggest that mathematicians might be important to somebody else.) But then your justification for listing niche sportspeople is to let people "learn something about fields they wouldn't know otherwise." (Translation: nobody's going to read about them either, but you want them to, because you find them interesting.)
  • "Actually do some leg work for once." You're one to talk, I'm sure. I was asked for opinions on chess people; I gave opinions on chess people. The "leg work" I did was only a lifetime spent playing, studying, teaching, and writing about chess. Does that makes me a "specialist"? Does competence with a field of knowledge make my opinion irrelevant? What does your "leg work" look like? Cobblet (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with most of what Cobblet has said. In general these themes apply to this whole project, that literally a handful of people are attempting to decide what is and what is not considered "vital" (whatever that really means) to Wikipedia. There certainly appears to be very strong ownership issues around these parts, daring to even question anything here is not worth the resulting indignation. I think we should seriously formulate an RFC to understand the purpose of this project and how it should really be taken forward, if at all, if it is self-declaring as Wikipedia's "vital article" selection board. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not claiming ownership, just being realistic - i'm probably the biggest contributor. I'm not even going to bother refuting your points if you are just gonna suggest i am adding what i am personally interested in; having one person from every sport that exists does not make me a fan of every sport and the one main sport i competed in when i was young and enjoy watching (rugby league) is the one sport that people here say is underrepresented and i've never attempted to add someone to the level 4 list to represent that; if anything i would be actively against adding more to the fields i have a interest in. I've already shown my leg work before; [13] i've spent years editing excel sheet lists ranked by wikipedias own statistics and doing biographical dictionary esque research on every field in existence; from serious subject matter like the aforementioned mathematics to fancruft like big brother contestants and subjects that are nonexistent on wikipedia like 19th century dogfighting people (and no, not a fan). I do this 24/7 like a job, wake up and sleep; i'm building my own massive biographical dictionary now. I base my additions based on the top performing subjects in each field and i account for gender, race and nationality bias; i also try to include one sub-genre representation in the field too (as you can see by my acting excel sheet). So yes, tell me more how i am unqualified and just adding willy nilly my favourites; at the very least you can't disagree that the people i add ARE THE TOP OF THEIR RESPECTIVE FIELD, the disagree is whether the topic deserves representation. I just have a communist esque view on vitality; for example on the level 4 list i think there should be (Jack The Ripper/one porn person (lovelace)/one health and fitness person (Schwarzenegger)) as murder/pornography/health and fitness heavily impact modern culture but because they are seen as low culture trash and not given high academic attention they're dismissed; i disagree with that. I'm open to disagreement but i am not convinced we cannot specify 100 spaces on a 15k list to niche subjects as to make our encyclopedia unique and to have one FA in every field, i truly believe elitism is not needed here. My communication skills may be poor as my life is chaotic at the moment and i may or may not be suffering a mental breakdown but if you can forgive me for my aggressive tone, i just want people to know i am not adding my favourites and i do actually have a process. GuzzyG (talk) 08:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
You're the one trying to defend the quota by making value judgments as to what people care and do not care about. It's been pointed out several times by people other than myself that you're biased towards inclusion of Australians. (Why a separate spreadsheet for Aussie Rules but not, say, Canadian football?) You're not anywhere as impartial as you claim to be.
I don't doubt you've put a lot of work into your spreadsheets, but unfortunately, making spreadsheets is no guarantee against making mistakes, and no substitute for actual understanding of a subject. I see the second most-decorated female summer Olympic medalist of all time left out on a list of 1100+ athletes; I see four poker players included but none from the post-Moneymaker era, when games like Texas hold'em first started being taken seriously by both the general public and its own players; I see Sean Avery and Tim Horton ahead of Don Cherry. (I still have no idea what Avery's doing on the list, unless you've got a spreadsheet for inconsequential douchebags.)
Your decision to treat certain things as "niche" calls your basic cultural literacy into question. For example, choosing to include two competitive eaters, but only one go player and no shogi/xiangqi/janggi players, is frankly insulting to anyone with a more than superficial appreciation of either board games and/or of East Asian culture. What's the competitive eating equivalent of the ear-reddening game, AlphaGo versus Lee Sedol, or Hikaru no Go? It's no accident go is level 4 and competitive eating is level 5.
I don't doubt you've made an honest effort to put together the best list you can. But when you describe dedicating years of your life to editing spreadsheets, I can't help but think that that limits your ability to cultivate your understanding of the world around you, which in turn impacts the quality of your contributions here. I hope your life situation improves to the point where you're able to change that. Cobblet (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm biased only in that we need to expand diversify coverage to represent every country, continent and field. If including coverage of an english speaking country in a encyclopedia in english is bad, then i disagree. Because just like in this list; canadian football is represented as a sub-genre in american football - it's pretty much the same sport.
That's because people would've nit-picked three kayakers but i obviously agree, people would complain at modern poker players and you can't call me bias when you're calling someone a douchebag.
There's two competitive eaters directly because they're pretty much tied in worth and i did not want to just pick the american; i obviously agree with everything you said about go and the other board games; as you obviously know i would agree - everyone else would've nitpicked them too; "omg 15 board game players! no we need 400 soccer players etc". Obviously Hon'inbō Shūsaku, Minoru Kitani, Cho Hun-hyun and Lee Chang-ho deserve to be on here; i will never disagree with that, my cultural literacy is absolutely top notch; i just have to try and predict what people will whine about here with what they feel should be on here and more "board game players" unfortunately does not fit. You know damn well i'd be getting slammed even more if i had more go players.
Everyone has a hobby mine just happens to be building a website that ranks people on historical importance starting from Aristotle and all the way through to a Big Brother Africa contestant or internet meme; obviously that requires dedication and does not require a unnecessary dig at my mental or life state.
Now here's something to mock for you but i want to be on record for some future archivist to acknowledge, every single field that people mock me for covering (paintball, competitive eating, every minor sport listed, lottery winners, wikipedia editors, youtubers, esports, guinness world record holders (worlds oldest, tallest, longest name etc) and everything else - i guarentee in 50 years those fields are still going on strong and that one person (probably the one i've chosen) is still deserving a place on here. GuzzyG (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Maybe you are correct that those are the growth sports, @GuzzyG:. The thing is that if your prophecy holds, most of the people who have played those sports will have done so since the present day. pbp 02:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree that a lot of personalities related with modern popculture (such like Billy Mitchell, Dan Bilzerian, Justin Bieber and Kylie Jenner) deserve for featured article but I doubt that the list will be reasonable if we include detailed personalities related with futurable culture such like Narcissa Wright, El Rubius or Vitaly Zdorovetskiy. I do not doubt that these people are top of futurable representative field but who we are to say that they will be vital in future? In my opinion these three people could be listed in other page such like Wikiproject Biographies/vital people in various modern cultures against other people with current red links such like Brittany Renner who also have their top of futurable representative field and popularity at higher level.
I belive that If we are going to have 15 000 biographies we can left small space for some specific biographies/representatives, but if topic which is not describe in academic book have more pageviews than other topic which is not described in academic book, it not necessary mean that more popular topic must be more vital than that fewer popular topic even sometimes even if it is futurable. For example One-T is famous eletronic music/pop bad. And this popular music band really has fame just thank to other jazz/rock band Blue Effect. One-T has been famous band thank to their several sampled songs from Blue Effect and people do not realise about that (e g see: The Magic Key (song)). These bands are not vital at this level but it would be example why something what is tredy not necessary must be more vital and interesing for our readers or future generation (both could be featured but it is at least the same vitality, one-T in that case does not need to be more vital) Dawid2009 (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: For the most part the first four levels have developed fairly well. Over the years, there have been many "experts" (either people with real-life, off-wiki expertise or those who regularly contribute to articles of a particular subject matter) have worked together with "laypeople" to improve the lists. Editors from the WikiProjects of all major subject areas have chipped in, along with people of many nationalities and demographics. The most apparent biases have been discussed at length and while some of the biases remain, things are better than before.
The Level 4 (10,000) was initially a free-for-all too, but even so this particular list has been the most unplanned and rushed. It's not the fault of any one person but it is what it is. Considering its size, it may have been better for the regular participants in the project to just decide on the quotas (but discuss them more rigorously) and then let the editors from the WikiProjects fill them up, at least as a starting point. You would get duplicates (since many articles are important for multiple reasons and therefore WikiProjects) and perhaps overly technical articles but otherwise the list will be in a better shape than this one. Then again, the larger a "vital articles" list becomes, the more redundant it becomes to the importance tags of WikiProjects. The smaller lists serve as a reminder to everyone that sees them that it should be a higher priority to make articles like Albert Einstein, car, the Great Pyramid of Giza, the universe, etc. featured quality than say, an episode of the Simpsons or an internet meme. These are obvious examples but there would be other articles of higher importance that aren't as obvious to most people.
The bigger list also diverts attention away from the second stage of the project, which is to improve the articles that on here. If somebody stumbles upon one of the lists, finds an important biography that is barely more than a stub and them helps bring it up to GA or FA status, and adds a few other articles here on their watchlist, ensuring they will revert vandalism faster or keep those articles more up to date, then the list is serving its purpose. The problem is, we don't even keep a record of the quality of the Level 4 articles. The Level 3 list is updated manually and sporadically. There does appear to be a gradual improvement in article quality though not as fast as it could be. I would've preferred an initiative to start recording the article quality of L4 vital articles (and then identifying which fields of knowledge are in most need of attention which could be communicated to the rest of Wikipedia via the Signpost or some other means) before creating another bigger list.
We should also seek to reinstate giving extra points to vital articles in the WP:Wikicup and perhaps create other incentives to improve what's on here. Otherwise you have a bunch of people arguing with no beneficial outcome. I was originally drawn to this project on 2 November 2013 when I saw that sea was Today's Featured Article. To me, it was a bigger achievement than an average FA because of how broad and profound the subject matter is. And for everyone's reference, there was a draft Signpost article about VA in November 2011 here. Gizza (t)(c) 12:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Happy 1-year anniversary!

Happy 1-year anniversary to Vital Articles Level 5 and thanks to everyone who has contributed here. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Miscellaneous people removals

Remove Alexander Nix

A person affiliated with Cambridge Analytica; not important enough for this level. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment Definitely not in the news and not vital.Just a fan. GuzzyG (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove Elizabeth Holmes

Far too soon for a person known for the Theranos debacle. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment Underrepresented field/woman. With a business list of the current quota and the meant to be focus on modern culture - she fits. GuzzyG (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove Simmias (explorer)

Mentioned once by Diodorus Siculus. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment Yes, let's get rid of all the ancient explorers because the article sucks. GuzzyG (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove Graham Hughes

Visited every country without flying; utterly trivial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment Utterly trivial to you but in the quite massive travel community he's regarded as a vital figure, again fan, though. GuzzyG (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment Recently I have added Bertrand Piccard and André Borschberg. In my opinion those peoople are notable enaugh when we are stil under quota such like Graham Hughes.

Remove Jessica Watson

Sailed around the world at the age of 16; more suited for the Guinness Book of World Records than this list. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment Again woman explorer in a exploration field not covered. Again i may be a massive fan though. GuzzyG (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Feminist Not even going to bother, we should have both (if i had to choose one it would be Dekker) ; we're nearly 100 under quota in explorers and people are just supporting removals because they disagree with my temperament, notice people waited a full month till the day i commented to vote; i deliberately waited to reply to show a pattern of people waiting until i voted. Noone on this page can provide a legitimate reason for the removals on the misc page; they justify it by using some silly we're missing scientists angle but the list has quotas, the misc quotas are not going down by removing the heavily viewed Hubert article on a flimsy 4-2 vote (if removals are that close in voting i have no interest anyway); now we're just gonna have a empty "other" section which is just pathetic. I have no more interest in this lists other then voting on the proposals. I specifically requested this list for high viewership and current articles; so yes my statistics are legitimate; some people view this as a purely "vital to human contributions" page which is stupid for 15k people and unreasonable. I added people from every field to make our encyclopedia the best out of the others, by having a FA on people in fields other encyclopedias do not cover makes ours unique; other people do not see it like that; i respect that but i can't justify working on such a list; in that case i'll just goto Britannica. Articles regularly featured on "Did you know" lists or "can you believe this" spam pages which get passed around regularly absolutely should have a high priority to be a high-class featured article so the volume of readers that view them have accurate information; these vital lists were originally to improve articles that need accurate information; not a highly specific "greatest" people's list. A mathematician from the 1300s which gets 100 views a month is not needed to be a FA as a highly viewed page on many spam lists or trivia competitions like Robert Wadlow would be, people into the mathematician are likely to externally look for academic information whereas the average person looking at Wadlow's article is just going to use Wikipedia. Yes, one's more important to history but not to us. There needs to be a clear guideline as to what this list is. GuzzyG (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
It's OK. I definitely agree with you on the fact that there should be a clear guideline as to what constitutes a vital article. Perhaps something like WP:PTOPIC? feminist (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Remove Anna Loginova

Article is primarily sourced to the Daily Mail and other gossip columns; no claim of importance for this level. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment Clearly as a representative of three things, bodyguard/woman (barely any in the law enforcement list)/russian. Again, i might just be a massive fan though. GuzzyG (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove aXXo

An anonymous person who is one of many people to upload illegal DVD rips. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC) :#support Too many temporariness Dawid2009 (talk) 06:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

CommentI mean you can say it's tabloid trash; but you don't have to blatantly lie, arguably online piracy is one of the most committed crimes and this "one of many" people quoted from the article at one point had "33.5% of all movie downloads were aXXo torrents" which is pretty significant in that world and not "just another online pirate" but whatever use whatever dismissive language for things you personally disagree with but atleast give the actual reason for them being on it other then someone just added them for no reason. GuzzyG (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
PASSED
5-2, removed. feminist (talk) 07:01, 28 October 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.

Remove Hubert Blaine Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorff, Sr.

A man with a very silly name and no other importance. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

There are several fewer vital people on the list in this category. If we remove Wolfe+585 as first without general disscussion about miscellaneus it can reach to haos. You currently are nominating Blaine Wolfe+585 but omnissed Michael Carroll (lottery winner) and Jack Black (rat catcher). I agree that Wolfe+584 is not vital but we do encyclopedia for readers and people who are famous by guiness also often are more famous thanan various sciencefists. For example Mateusz Mach is inventor of first messenger for deaf and is not popular like to current guiness record people, although he did it in 2015. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I intentionally skipped the rat-catcher; that and several others (Kylie Jenner) will likely be removed but require more effort than I'm willing to put in right now to make an argument for removal. The lottery winner was an oversight, adding that now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment Not like the Guinness World Records book isn't in multiple languages and the best selling copyrighted book of all time. GuzzyG (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Hubert Blaine +584 has a lot of pageviews in various languages as person born in 1914 year. Some time ago GuzzyG was explaining that the most important people in Guiness record culture are: "the oldest human", "the tallest human", "the shortest human", "haviest human" and "the longest name". Anyway in my opinion if we have people notable due to guiness world records, Guinness World Records also should be added and if we will have more than five people relate with guinnes culture, the guinness world records even should be at the level 4. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support --Thi (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support again the list needs to be looked at holistically. I think it's fair to add Guinness World Records at this level but the people that appear in it and pretty much nowhere else in literature should be listed at the next hypothetical level (at least 100K). Silly to have Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorff, Sr. when people who are notable for contributing to society are missing. Gizza (t)(c) 03:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support pbp 12:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Notable enough when we're still under quota and in this section no adequate of yet replacement. Remember, all these nitpickers are removing people from the section called "other" this will just leave empty spaces and it's petty to prefer empty spaces, these people are NOT taking space from scientists. GuzzyG (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support A person in a country with laws permitting could break this record tomorrow simply by filling in a form for themselves or their child. It is moderately interesting but it is not vital. I believe his work, his career, his personal life, in essence his biography, would not be of interest to people. Record held by a person born in 1914 yes, but I would guess the only reason this record has not been broken numerous times since then is because many countries have laws preventing names like very long, or containing numbers, symbols, titles or offensive terms in them, which were, luckily for him, not in place or not followed at the time his name was officially registered/recorded.  Carlwev  11:31, 27 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.

Remove Michael Carroll (lottery winner)

A person who won the lottery in the UK and was in the tabloids. Purely of interest as gossip fodder. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC) Oppose I am not buying reason that National Lottery (United Kingdom) is parent topic for lottery winner. Lottery dlearly is parent topic chich is currently lited at the level 4. If Narional Lottery is parent topic for Michael Caroll in this log we could say that that World Chess Championship is parent topic for Garry Kasparov. Currently we have a lot of biographies which do not have really parent topic yet and Michael Caroll is not one of them. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment Actually you'll find there's a massive lottery community who pays attention to winners. But i could just be a big ole fanboy, adding my darn favorite. GuzzyG (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Support too local. And no regular lottery players don't care about winners if you ever chat to them. They care about the money. There's a reason why most winners don't meet the notability threshold let alone vitality. Gizza (t)(c) 01:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
PASSED
Done, 6-0

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 Adrianne Wadewitz

Feminist Wikipedian who died from a rock climbing fall. Didn't have an article before her death and not much has happened after. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 11:59, 23 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.

Changes needed for quotas for journalism

The quotas for journalism strike me as imbalanced, particularly with an overemphasis on sports journalists. Currently, there is a quota of 400 total, and the subquotas are:

  • General (75 articles)
  • Broadcast journalists and commentators (80 articles)
  • Critics (75 articles)
  • Publishers and editors (120 articles)
  • Radio journalists (5 articles)
  • Sports journalists, commentators and sports announcers (40 articles)
  • Web journalists (5 articles)

It's a little tricky, because many people could fit into multiple categories (some refer to subject, others to medium, and others to role), so perhaps what's ultimately needed is to redefine the categories overall. But more immediately, I think it's odd that sports are separated out and given a significant chunk, and any other number of journalistic specializations are not. I think the sports journalist quota should be reduced, and the space allocated to additional radio journalists and general journalists. Thoughts? - Sdkb (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: [14] - in this edit you have said that number of sport comentators at levels: 4-5 grow from 0 to 40 because of they are not influencial in historical sense at the level 4 but they can be very popular etc. as level 5 contigent. On that basic I generally do not understand why number of rock musicans growing at these levels grow from 19 quota to 150 (despite fact that rock musicans generally are not influencial such like religion figures/sciencefists but very popular such like actors/sport figures). Curently we have two sport bussiness personalities at the level 4 and 190 limit/quota for sport bussiness people and sport journalists (combined) at the level 5. I also think that musicans and artists not necassary have to be in the same category. Philosophers and Religon Figures are listed in separate sections despite fact that philosophy and religion is combined. It would be good make separate section for musicans and separate section for visual artists because of we currently have 1400 limit for musicans and 800 limit for artists. It would be pretty comfortable comparing artists each other among 800 quota such like religious figures each other among 500 quota. What do you (all, prular) think? Dawid2009 (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Remove Walker Evans (racing driver)

PASSED
5-1 (including nominator), removed. feminist (talk) 09:43, 28 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.

I don't see why this race car driver is supposed to be vital at this level. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:04, 7 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.

Larry Kehres, John Gagliardi and Eddie Robinson

PASSED
Kehres and Gagliardi removed, 5-0 pbp 21:33, 8 October 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.

We currently have three “small college” college football coaches (i.e. those that participate at Division I-AA, II or III). With the impending quota drop to 15 for football coaches, officials and owners, I reckon we should only have one of these guys. pbp 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Retain Kehres, drop other two
Retain Gagliardi, drop other two
Retain Robinson, drop other two
  1. pbp 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  4. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:57, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  5. Gizza (t)(c) 20:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Drop all three
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Art Modell

PASSED
Removed, 5-0 pbp 00:11, 16 October 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.

Not among the most influential of NFL owners. With the impending quota drop 15 for football coaches, officials and owners, we gotta make cuts somewhere. pbp 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Hated in Cleveland; but the Cleveland Browns themselves aren't listed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove George Preston Marshall

PASSED
Removed, 5-0 pbp 00:11, 16 October 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.

Not among the most influential of NFL owners. With the impending quota drop 15 for football coaches, officials and owners, we gotta make cuts somewhere. pbp 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  4. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Don Shula

PASSED
Removed, 4-1 pbp 00:11, 16 October 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.

With the impending quota drop 15 for football coaches, officials and owners, we gotta make cuts somewhere. We’re probably gonna be left with only 4-5 NFL coaches, and if it’s that few, he doesn’t make the cut pbp 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. The perfect season isn't enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The only coach to coach a perfect season is vital in my book. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Jim Foster (American football)

PASSED
Removed, 5-0 pbp 00:11, 16 October 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.

With the impending quota drop 15 for football coaches, officials and owners, the commissioner of a minor league doesn’t make the cut. pbp 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  4. Gizza (t)(c) 23:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Bro-country

PASSED
5-1 (including nominator), removed. User:Makkool (talk) 12:55, 17 December 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.

A contemporary genre that hasn't had lasting cultural impact yet.--Makkool (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Then why is the genre's main single the only country song to become diamond and broke nearly every record in country music chart history? Surely that's impact on pop culture? It's increasingly obvious that only controversial/critically derided things are being removed and that's a shame and not best for this list and why it's not worth it to be worked on just to be cherry picked to what editors choose "deserve" to be on the list. If something like red dirt was on the list no one would even bother because it's not something they've been only exposed to due to it being critically derided without examining the impact on the larger subject. I think we have to examine that when we are significantly under quota why are things being removed? Why is it mainly popular but derided subjects? Is it the utter visceral reaction that something NON WORTHY should never be on a PRESTIGIOUS list like this? That's what needs to be examined. GuzzyG (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
We are actually over quota, because 70 articles have been allocated for specific musical works, and articles need to be removed from general music related articles. As to what comes to the reason for removing this article, it's propably recency at first for most of us. --Makkool (talk) 10:55, 17 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.

Remove African, Arabic, Australian, British, Chinese, French, German, Korean and Russian hip hop

PASSED
4-1 (including nominator), removed. User:Makkool (talk) 12:55, 17 December 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.

I mostly suggest this, because we don't list country/continent articles of other popular music genres like rock or electro as vital. They take too much space. --Makkool (talk) 22:57, 29 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.

Remove Screamo

PASSED
4-1 (including nominator), removed. User:Makkool (talk) 12:55, 17 December 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.

It's a sub-genre of a sub-genre, so it's propably too obscure to be considered vital. --Makkool (talk) 22:57, 29 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.

Remove Argenteuil, Boulogne-Billancourt and Montreuil, Seine-Saint-Denis

PASSED
All three removed, 7-0 pbp 03:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  1. They are suburbs of Paris rather than core cities
  2. They lack the historic/cultural significance of a Versailles or a St.-Denis
  3. They’re not particularly large: each has fewer than 150,000 people pbp 15:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Support
  1. pbp 15:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. --Thi (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. feminist (talk) 08:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support --Makkool (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Villeurbanne

PASSED
Removed, 7-0 pbp 03:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Similar to the three above (suburb under 150K) but a suburb of Lyon rather than Paris pbp 15:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 15:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. --Thi (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. feminist (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support --Makkool (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove L'Hospitalet de Llobregat

PASSED
Removed, 7-0 pbp 03:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A suburb of Barcelona. A little larger than some of the other suburbs I've nominated, but still a suburb

Support
  1. pbp 21:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Was going to nominate this. feminist (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 08:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support --Makkool (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Elizabeth, New Jersey

PASSED
Removed, 7-0 pbp 03:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A New York/N. New Jersey suburb, and not a particularly large one at that. We already have Newark and Jersey City to represent North Jersey pbp 21:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 21:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. feminist (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 08:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support --Makkool (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Stamford, Connecticut

PASSED
Removed, 7-1 pbp 03:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Population of much less than 150,000 and lacks the cultural significance of Hartford or New Haven pbp 21:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 21:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. feminist (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 08:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support --Makkool (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support --Dawid2009 (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I've skimmed the lede and know that Stamford is the largest financial district in the New York metropolitan region outside New York City itself and one of the largest concentrations of corporations in the United States.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC) altered my argument a bit 15:51, 23 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.

Remove Santa Rosa, California

PASSED
Removed, 5-1 pbp 03:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Essentially a suburb of San Francisco and Oakland, and also below 200K. pbp 21:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 21:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support but something like Wine Country (California) might be a reasonable inclusion on regions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support --Makkool (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose I'm not convinced Santa Rosa is "essentially" a suburb of SF and Oakland. I think it's a distinct metro area (unlike things like L'Hospitalet, Elizabeth NJ or Funabashi, which you can't easily make out from satellite imagery), and it's not that close to either SF or Oakland. Santa Rosa Airport has its own catchment area and is able to sustain commercial flights, including flights to SFO. As Power points out, the region should have an article on the list, and I would rather keep the city. feminist (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Discussion

Is Santa Rosa the best representative of Wine Country? Napa? pbp 15:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's the largest city in the area. feminist (talk) 15:24, 11 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.

Remove Strovolos

PASSED
Removed, 7-0 pbp 03:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suburb of Nicosia with a low population.

Support
  1. feminist (talk) 09:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Last I checked, there were five Cypriot cities on this list. Probably should be culled to about two. pbp 13:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 08:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support --Makkool (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:18, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
  7. 70,000 people = not enough. J947 (c), at 04:52, 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.

Remove Arecibo, Puerto Rico

PASSED
Both removed, 7-0 pbp 03:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

City has just under 100,000 population and is considered to be part of the San Juan metro area. pbp 15:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 15:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Puerto Rico should probably be cut down to two cities at most. This means removing Mayagüez, Puerto Rico as well. feminist (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 08:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support --Makkool (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support –J947 (c), at 04:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  7. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Should the Puerto Rico section be under Caribbean or United States? feminist (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Remove Mayagüez, Puerto Rico

Not particularly large city or metro area. pbp 16:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 16:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. feminist (talk) 09:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support --Makkool (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support – Doesn't even break 120k in metro population. J947 (c), at 04:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  7. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 17:02, 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.

Remove Oregon City, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington

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.

Both are suburbs of Portland, Oregon. Both are older than Portland (Van-1825, OC-1829, Portland-1845) and have some significance to Western pioneer history. They seem somewhat redundant to each other, including the fact that John McLoughlin had a hand in both of their foundings. Oregon City currently has a population of just over 30,000, making it one of the smallest American cities on the list, and Vancouver has a population of below 175,000 (and it only cracked 50,000 in the 1990s). pbp 14:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Remove Oregon City
  1. pbp 14:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Remove Vancouver
Remove both
  1. Support --Makkool (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. feminist (talk) 09:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support suburbs shouldn't be listed. Maybe a few suburbs of L3 vital cities but no more than that. Gizza (t)(c) 02:17, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. –J947 (c), at 05:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Remove neither
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sports removals

Remove Séan Garnier

Won something called the Red Bull Street Style World Finals (currently a red link). power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

  • weak support French Sean Garnier could have more pageviews if article was good. To be my honestly it was my suggestion but thinking about vital article list more I am not sure he should be listed. If we have street basketball players players maybe we could have one street soccer player who is really more popular in social media than various great football players and other sport figures (for example French David Belle) but in my opinion if we have in paragrah: "vital articles" better will be if we removal him. We do not know how he will vital for next 10, 15 years. Better option would be add other famous young soccer players such like Alex Morgan or James Rodriguez. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't know if you can put two and two together or it may be how my brain works but instead of the snarky nomination comment maybe you could infer from his wins that maybe he's the most important freestyle footballer (disclaimer: i only added this because Dawid suggested it). GuzzyG (talk) 08:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support freestyle football may or may not be vital at Level 5 but Garnier certainly isn't. As Dawid alludes to, there is no way an encyclopedia would have an article on Garnier before Rodriguez. Gizza (t)(c) 21:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support --Thi (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Remove Lucien Laurent

The main claim of notability appears to be scoring the first goal in the 1930 World Cup, which is far too trivial to justify inclusion here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Currently we try add soccer players from each country/continent and from each decade/era (per: Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions ). This list evidentary has players from various countries, from various eras. Generally in my opinion we could swap [ Sean Garnier Michael Owen, Eric Cantona/Lucien Laurent, Radamel Falcao, Zbigniew Boniek, Ian Rush, Yaya Toure, Allan Simonsen ]. and Nilton Santos for: [ Gary Lineker, Didier Deschamps, Jose Leandro Andrade, Alex Morgan, Didier Drogba, Teófilo Cubillas, James Rodriguez and Sandor Kocsis. Anyway soccer list could consensus for number of players from each counrtry due to it is viedly popular sport. Very greatest player in history of small country often is more famous than quite great English/Brazil/Italian etc. players [15], [16] (sometimes even former player from New Zeland has better pageviews than English soccer player who won world cup in 1966 [17]) but not always. Anyway players from Europe and South America generally are much more vital. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove Earl Manigault

Simply not important enough; article includes details like He once reverse dunked 36 times in a row to win a $60 bet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove Steph Cook

Won the 2000 Olympics for women's modern pentathlon. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove Andrey Moiseyev

A stub about a modern pentathlete of no particular prominence. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove John Brzenk

We don't need any arm-wrestlers at this level. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose For the purpose of this list a sportsman who has dominated his sport for 30+ years fits, this isn't some couch potato, no matter how small the endeavor; he'd only be replaced by yet another amateur/pro wrestler; he's not holding up some important scientist. GuzzyG (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support --Thi (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support may be vital in a 100,000 list at best. Gizza (t)(c) 22:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Absouletly not. We prefer add top representative field. This man is more very greatst armwrestel of all time than mohhamed ali at box and armwrestling should be at the level 4. This man have more pageviews than 31 sport personalities at tjhe level 4 (see: ). I would add him even among 200 important sport figures. Among hypothetical level I would left more specific sports such like street workout, Amputee football etc.. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Remove Masami Hirosaka

We don't need any remote-control-car drivers at this level. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Add your opinions about small sports to section where we are wondering what we should do with space 10 if we remove American Football coaches. Anyway we should be carefully if we do a lot of global changes. Some winter sports have wrong separate titles of their sections (snowboarding do not deserve for separate section if cross-country skiing is in the same section what ski alpin). In my opinion we also should have section for Tabletop games. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

American football removals

Based on how some other votes have gone, I don't feel a need to participate in entry-by-entry votes at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Power and Presidentman have agreed each other that Bowden deserve for removing from this list. I also support this idea. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Remove William Heffelfinger

Just the answer to a trivia question for being paid to play football in 1892. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose Why do you diminish everything? If you nominate something don't half-ass it, it shows your intention (just to diminish the person, to hope others do not notice; most likely you just do not know enough about the subject yet act like you do). First person to be paid to play football, highly important to American football history GuzzyG (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support there's more to vitality than being the first professional to play a sport. Gizza (t)(c) 21:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support --Thi (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am sure that it is not accident that William Heffelginger has been rated as high-important topic by relevant wikiproject. Colin Kaepernick has recently more pageviews than Kylian Mbappé ([18]) but he has been rated as low-importance topic by relevant wikiprojects. Maybe we do not need 40 american football players or 1200 quota for sport figures (I could agree with other limit) but William do not deserve to go first. Now I see that it is not the same case what Lucien Laurent. Dawid2009 (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


Remove Tom Landry

With the impending quota drop 15 for football coaches, officials and owners, we gotta make cuts somewhere. We’re probably gonna be left with only 4-5 NFL coaches, and if it’s that few, he doesn’t make the cut pbp 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Neutral here; unsure we'll have to cut this one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove Roger Goodell

He’s not Pete Rozelle. With the impending quota drop 15 for football coaches, officials and owners, we gotta make cuts somewhere. pbp 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. He's currently a thing, but not yet historically important enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Per Power "he's currently a thing" which is what this list was meant to cover (highly important pop culture people that lack the history for the level 4 list (ex: Justin Bieber) GuzzyG (talk) 07:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per GuzzyG. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Discussion

Remove Bear Bryant

To get down to 15, we probably need to cut one more college football coach. He has fewer wins than Bowden or Paterno, and doesn’t have the mythology of Rockne pbp 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I'd rather get rid of Bowden or Paterno than Bryant. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Speaking as a Southerner, he's virtually an icon on par with Knute Rockne. The houndstooth pattern is universally associated with Alabama due to his style of clothing. Bowden should go first. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Discussion

Interwiki requirement?

Is there any interest in establishing a minimum number of interwiki links required to be included on this list? pbp 18:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion better option would be if bot lists articles with fewest what links here on the new metapage Dawid2009 (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree that it would be good to have a list of articles with the fewest links but not necessarily a minimum number. In theory, there is no reason why there can't even be redlinks here. Especially in areas which Wikipedia is weak in like anthropology. There were a few articles while being proposed on the Level 4 page that were red at the time. Gizza (t)(c) 22:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I've been contemplating an idea of a bot that assigns an "estimated vitality" score, calculated from various metrics such as: amount of other language versions of the article (I assume these are called Interwikis?); amount of what links here (from mainspace articles); sum of Wikiproject importances (e.g. Top=5, Bottom or undefined=1; Zorro's sum would be 4+1+2+1+1+2+2+2=15); amount of pageviews; amount of page watchers; and whether it's linked from an outline and from what kind of position. Each metric could be weighed depending on how reliable it's believed to be in estimating vitality. This score would be used to help find both possibly least vital articles on the list and most vital articles not yet listed. I don't know how feasible such a bot would be in practice, though.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 20:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
@LaukkuTheGreit: This score would be used to help find (...) most vital articles not yet listed Is this possible to list all articles which had lost nomination to the level 4 for last years? When we check arhives of Level4 talk page we can find quite a lot of articles not listed at the level 5. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
A bot estimating a score would be an interesting idea. We could test it out on the higher levels and see whether articles in the top 1,000 tend to score more highly than L4 and L5. Recent topics may also need to be discounted compared to older historical topics. Gizza (t)(c) 01:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Origin years for most article subjects could potentially be scraped from wikidata.org, but it doesn't seem to have years listed for many things like inventions or wider concepts. Nevertheless, for those subjects that do have a year, the hypothetical estimated vitality score could be indeed adjusted by giving older subjects more weight in a logarithmic fashion. Something like multiplying it by an "age weight" score calculated by e.g. 1-[10/(x+10)], where x is the age of the subject in years. (In the example formula I just gave, things that are only 10 years old get 0,5 weight, and 100 years old get ~0,901 weight, and it slowly approaches one, giving less penalty to older things. The weight progression can be made less steep by squaring it.)--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 17:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

When we search vitalaity" based on "what links here" or wikidata we need to remember that a lot of topics are described in Wikipedias and a lot of are not described in Wikipedia. For example on Wikipedia there are not a lot of topics related with anthropology, Blood sport (due to this fact Jemmy Shaw has few links) or maths and logic, but Wikipedia has a lot of topics which are related with IT, etc. Making "score of vitality by scale" based on years/counts etc is unreasonable idea (specifically at biographies) and it is not useful when we make it based on importance scale by wikiprojects and parent topics/outline (jujst it should be reflection of historical range). Importance scale by wikiproject show us when something what was earier is not "vital" (for example chess players who were great among average ones in 17th have worse importance scale by wikiproject template). Parent topics at the levels 1-4 just are good reflection of vitality by historical range for topics at the level 5. For example Messi should has big score of vitality due to football is at the level 3 and Zuckerberg should has big score due to a lot of topics related with social media are at the level4. Tom Thumb could has better score than Darth Vader due to literature is at the level 2 and Darth Vader could has better score than Slender Man due fact that Star Wars (level4) have higher level than Internet meme (level 5). Dawid2009 (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: You made some good points to my talk page, one being that some articles have been "crosswiki-spammed", i.e. excessive other language versions have been made for an article (likely to promote the subject). Another article I noticed has been crosswiki-spammed is True Jesus Church with 261 Interwikis - totally disproportionate relative to its probable true vitality, especially considering Jesus has "merely" 245! Only counting Interwikis that get 5+ daily pageviews gets more sensible results indeed: 84 for Jesus and 8 for True Jesus Church. Anomalies exist for other proposed metrics as well: Lea Luboshutz is on the watchlist of 16247 users due to a database error. These anomalies remind us that the "estimated vitality" is just that, an estimation, and it should be left up to the discretion of editors to do the final judgment of whether to add or remove an article. But it could be a very useful tool if done right. Regarding pageviews, IMO it should be counted from a large timeframe, something like the last 5 or 10 years (maybe even some year count divisible by 4 due to The Olympics), to even out spikes and so that it remains relatively consistent. Ultimately though this talk about specifics is all speculation until someone builds a prototype - I don't have the skill nor time to do it.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 17:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I belive that simulator of vitality could be constructed based on complicated statistics such like at Gapminder Foundation. @Nettrom: you are operator of suggestbot, what do you think about idea "simulator of estimated vitality score"? Is this possible or reasonable? Dawid2009 (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Dawid2009, thanks for asking! Thanks also for your patience while I've gotten around to finding time to respond to this! The idea of a "simulator of estimated vitality score" sounds to me very similar to a project I worked on with Halfak last year: Automated classification of article importance. While in that project we focused on importance in the context of a WikiProject, the notion of vitality is closely related, and we were also looking at trying to estimate importance across the English Wikipedia. I don't have free cycles to pick this project up again at the moment, but maybe you or someone you know might be interested? Using machine learning to suggest scores to users (similar to what ORES currently does) is to me a key way to make maintenance work easier and faster, so this could definitely help Wikipedians prioritize what to work on and thus be a helpful addition to the Wiki. Cheers, 01:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Arlington, Virginia should be listed in American Cities - Level 5

I am very new to this so forgive my naivete, but I believe that Arlington VA should be part of the list of American Cities in Level 5. It is extremely close to Washington DC and holds numerous national and international landmarks both political and historical. For example, The Arlington Cemetery, the Pentagon, and other national memorials that, if listed as being part of Washington DC would be incorrect. Therefore i believe this should be revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdebraine248 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

pre-RFC: talk-page tagging

I'm considering starting an RFC regarding the templates included on talk pages for pages on the Level/5 list. The options would be:

  1. Include them (roughly the status quo).
  2. Include them, but use a term other than "vital" to describe them ("This page is listed on the Wikipedia Short Index" or something)
  3. Wait for the list to be more complete (specifically, at the point where additions require consensus) to include them. They could be hidden/minimized via template magic.
  4. Don't include them at all/ever.

Thoughts? power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Obviously number one, it does not matter that one person finds templates "offensive". Maybe we should swap Bach for Monteverdi on the level 3 list too? GuzzyG (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Number 3 and number 4 in my opinion are not reasonable, because of in this way we could loss readers of level5 list. It seems to me, we should make consensuns beetween number 1 and number 2. When the level5 has been nominated or has been created there were suggestions for the name such like: WikEssentials, Wiki Prime, Compedium, Comprehensive etc. User @Wikid77: in this post to Jimbo compared vital articles to wikimicropedia. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Number 1. Talk page templates are a good way to notify editors of an article (which may be more familiar with a particular topic than the average vital article editor) that the article is listed at Level 5. This allows them to provide advice on what articles to list. feminist (talk) 05:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
How about the template "Nominated as a Level 5 Vital Article" posted on the article's talk page -- rather than allowing an editor to designate an article as vital. After the posting of the nomination, other editors could then express their opinions of the article on the talk page -- and eventually it could be named a Level V Vital Article and the appropriate template posted -- or not. Smallchief (talk) 09:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Newbie thoughts. I found my way to this page when I ran across a new Level 5 today. My belief is likely best represented by Number 2. Let people see on a talk page that it has been nominated or is short listed to become a vital article. To allow Number 1 before it has been reviewed is to place a significance which may or may not be deserved and will eventually have to be reviewed regardless. Best to apply for VA before you template it. Good things come to those who wait. Having your suggestion for a new VA move through the process can be a rewarding undertaking, or a lesson on just cause. To allow any editor to simply put a template up on an article attaches a certain level of cache to that editors contributions which may not prove to warranted. Let a failed nomination for VA add to an editors overall participation level instead of having a temporary VA beef up their CV. Numbers 3 & 4 I agree with others sound unreasonable. Mrphilip (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

A "nominated for Vital Article" template would be ideal for lower levels (1 to 4) to advertise addition/removal discussions to editors of the articles. However, as the Level 5 vital articles list is incomplete and follows a WP:BRD cycle, the process of adding articles does not require a nomination or discussion. If an article is listed on the Level 5 list, it becomes a Level 5 vital article directly, and adding the existing {{vital article}} template to its talk page would allow editors to come here and dispute the addition if needed. feminist (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

  • A template needs to be included on the talk pages. I really don't see the problem with the term "vital" but if people really want to change it to something else we can. My question would be would it be a universal renaming of Level's 1-4 also? Having only Levels 1-4 called "vital" but level 5 called something else seems unnecessarily confusing to me. Whatever we choose to name it, it should be the same across all 5 levels. Until Level 5 is more complete and stable, we could call it something like the "draft Level 5 vital articles list" or "tentative Level 5 vital articles list". Rreagan007 (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree that calling it something like "tentative" or "under construction" would be the best solution here. feminist (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
      • What do you think about megre level 1 with level 2 and make four levels for vital articles list? At Level 1 could be called: Article has been added among 100 most important and general topics. At the level 4 could be called: Article has been added among 50 000 essential articles (under construction) etc. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
        Nah, Level 1 and 2 are fine as-is, other than the problem of endless bickering over what articles should be included in the two lists. feminist (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Musicans and compossers removals/additions

Swap Caetano Veloso for Elis Regina

In my opinion we shuld keep definietly both but if we have limit 50 for latin musicans, in my opinion better option is swam Eaetano Veloso for Elis Regina. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Swap Kryzys for Czerwone Gitary

In my opinion we even do not need Czerwone Gitary at this level because of Michał Kleofas Ogiński, Stanisław Moniuszko and Ignacy Jan Paderewski historically are more vital and even more interesing for average/common readers of ENwiki. Anyway when we have limit for 200 artistic compossers in that case the only reasonable choice is swap Kryzys for Czerwone gitary at Non-English language music section and miss Ogiński, Moniuszko and Paderewski among artistic musicans. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Add The Cranberries

Zombie certainly is the most popular song from 20th century on Youtube (and second among songs before 2010, after crazy frog cover) and we omnissed this band among 2000 artists/compossers. Anyway in my opinion Carnberries deserve for inclusion here even if Zombie is not enaugh vital at the level 5. If The Cranberries is enaugh vital among 150 rock compossers (currently we have 152/150) and Zombie deserve for the level 5, valuable for discussion will be also: A-ha and Take on me. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

  1. Support --Thi (talk) 07:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Remove cities for more space for physical geography and religion/philosophy

If we ckeck pageviews for last 20 days Newport, Wales is 768 the most viewed article among 1500 cities. In my opinion it is silly when sibirb is one of the most important topic among 1500 cities. What do you think about decreasing cities to add more space for: physical geography and philosophy and religion? Philosophy and Religion is the only subpage where we are over quota at the level 4. If we compare fictional characters included to art with mythological creatures at philosophy and religion, you clearly will see that philosophy and religion is underrepresented. In my opinion more reasonable idea is increasing philophuy and religion than decreasing arts. It is better idea to add Angel at the same level what Michaelangelo than removing Mario from the level 4 when we have two video games at the level 4 and 75 at the level 5. Physical Geography also is underrepresented. It is not right when Caribbean is at the level 4 (instead the level 3) and Mount Pelée (second the most killing voulcan in history of world) is missed at the level 5. I would also add historical continents (such like Arctica) to the level 5 due to fact that we have a lot of historical animals. Thoughts? Dawid2009 (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we need to reduce this quota; none of the other sections seem to be suffering from a shortage of quota. I do have some qualms with some of the additions; there are too many cities in Iran and Indonesia currently, and not enough in Brazil and Russia. We also don't need all 16 cities in Metro Manila. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I doubt that we have too few cities in Russia. Cities from Siberia are fewer interesing for readers than a lot of average mountains. Philosophy and religon is very underrepresented on every level. It is not right when we list Easter Bunny or Easter traditions at the level 5 but we do not have parent articles articles important for religion by historical context such like Ēostre, Fertility rite, Cult (religious practice) etc. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree that some of the cities in Metro Manila should be removed. feminist (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

My two cents. In the past few months, I have been adding (and sometimes removing cities) based on the sole criterion of population, the cut-off point being around 200,000. Apart from a few culturally, politically or historically significant cities which have a population fewer than that number, this criterion captures all the major cities in the world within the limit imposed by this page. If we consider other criteria based on subjective interpretation, we are going to open a pandora's box. "Too many" in this country, "not enough" in that country --- all of this sounds quite subjective to me. I propose to stick to the population as the main, if not the only, criterion, exceptional cases notwithstanding. If one wants to reduce the quota of cities, the population criterion again comes to the rescue as we can simply raise the minimum population limit to say 250,000 rather than 200,000. A second criterion that can be justifiably used in tandem with the first criterion, in my opinion, is the administrative significance of the cities, such as checking whether it's the capital, or a provincial or regional capital, etc. But I am afraid the ship has already sailed on this topic. Still hoping that common sense might prevail. --Zaheen (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Process of removig articles?

Currently we have introduction related to challenge additions but we do not have introduction related to consensual removin of articles. It seems to me that we also should make two rules for removing articles (I have suggestions):

  1. When we are well over quota in relevant section and previously there were consensus for change of quota for relevant section (for example from 25 figures to 15), the nominated article should be removed if it has although 55% support among 5+ votes (for eample with score 4-1, 3-2) and should be removed as well if it has 3 votes with 100% of support (for example 3-0). Article with score 4-1 should not be removed aheead of nomination with 4-0 which does not have 5 votes yet. Also if we have previously consensus about change of quota (for example from 25 to 15) it is not needed to article be removed with strong supporting when we have bold + we are over quota. When wrong article will be removed too fast it should be controversial when section is complete and always removed article can be again nominated or discussed for addition.
  2. When we are well under quota and there were not any consensus about change of quota (for example we have not decided that we should change quota from 400 to 300), the nomination of removals should be the same such like at the levels 1,2,3,4 (Wikipedia:Vital articles/Discussions). This list is not complete so we should not favorize removing by 55% before consensus for change of the quota.

What do you think? Dawid2009 (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Add Karel Čapek to Playwrights or Writers or Journalists

My proposal. 94.113.94.240 (talk) 12:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Added Karel Čapek. In the future, you can be bold and add items (within reason) to any of the categories far enough below quota. Thanks --Cincotta1 (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

New religious sites section?

I think it might be a good idea to create a new section under Religion and philosophy called Specific religious sites. Currently, there are a number of religious sites listed under Arts. However, for many of them, their significance is not necessarily artistic or architectural, but religious. Therefore, moving them into one centralized place would make it easier to keep track of them and to better categorize them. Ergo Sum 00:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Support makes sense. feminist (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Support I agree. Some topics which have quite vague of a concept such such like Magic carpet or Elixir of life could be added to this section. Also semi-legendary creatures and media franchises have a lot of vague of a concept and need disscussion where should be included. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Support Me as well. Currently the Golden Temple is listed in Religion and philosophy on Level 4 already. --Makkool (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Support per nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 02:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Wow

Iran has 47 cities on this list which is ridiculous. As I'm on mobile I'll just put this up here for dicussion. J947 (c), at 08:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you that the number of Iranian cities needs to be significantly reduced. pbp 14:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Probably best not to include new topics or redirects under sanctions

I'm happy to have spent some time today finally learning about the WP:VA project. Congrats on all the good work.

I'm concerned that the list includes Holistic health, which has been a redirect for over two years. Given the topic is under sanctions, I don't think it a good idea to include it in the VA5 list. I think it would be a good rule of thumb to not allow any new topics or redirects that fall under sanctions to be boldly added to the list. It might be a good idea to not include any new topics or redirects at all without discussion. --Ronz (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Can I endorse wot Ronz said, as I have piggy backed his their discoveries today about the work of this project. Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd say that's a bit drastic. If a topic has received sufficient coverage, and readers are looking for it, it's important for Wikipedia to cover the topic in a way that the reader will find useful. When the VA/E (Level 4) list was built I think it initially included several red links, and there was consensus for them. And because VA5 includes 5 times the articles, there is a lot more scope for us to include newer topics. And, as the whole VA5 list is under construction, it's OK to include articles that may not make the final cut. feminist (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh and many topics are under sanction. Not allowing any topics falling under sanctions to be added to the list, would mean articles like Old City (Jerusalem) cannot be added. As I said, that's drastic. feminist (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
First off, redirects should not be vital, so holistic health could be removed on those grounds. Secondly, I agree with Feminist that it's OK to have articles under sanction on this this, though perhaps they should have to be discussed before being added. pbp 14:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Add: Herman Vandenburg Ames

I propose Herman Vandenburg Ames be added to Historians. Chetsford (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead and do it. Right now only removals require discussion as this list is still heavily under construction. J947 (c), at 05:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm responsible for 95% of the edits to it so I'm not sure if I should be that bold? Chetsford (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay didn't realise that, it's probably best to go to a discussion then. J947 (c), at 23:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Support
Oppose
Discuss

add Hotel California

Support
  1. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 08:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)).
Oppose
Discuss

Just add it. J947 (c), at 21:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Sports Figures Swap (auto racing)

Swap: Replace Keiichi Tsuchiya with Eliška Junková

Czechoslovakian driver Eliška Junková was the first woman in history to win a Grand Prix race. Keiichi Tsuchiya, while notable, does not appear to have played a similarly historic role in auto racing (his article suggests he is more of a pop culture figure than anything else). I think Junková should be considered a vital article. Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
Discuss

Just add her. We really don't need to discuss removals at this point. J947 (c), at 21:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Alrighty -- will do. Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_3&oldid=929816265"