Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 → Archive 20


NO CONSENSUS
1–2, not added. Cobblet (talk) 18:14, 4 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.

Add Folk religion

I'm renominating this, as it had a realistic chance of passing before it was closed.

Support
  1. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support as before. Gizza (t)(c) 22:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Too academic concept. Main religious practices are listed except for Funeral. Folk religion#Problems and critique. The article is about the definition of a problematic concept which is used in religious studies and other disciplines, not about the practice. Folklore is already listed. --Thi (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Thi and too specific and sufficiently covered by religion. RJFJR (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

While I support adding folk religion in principle, I can't support a renomination so soon after the previous proposal was closed. Gizza (t)(c) 01:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Ironic, seeing as I renominated it on principle because I believe you closed it too soon, which you have a bad habit of doing. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  1. It appears to have been opened closed and opened again all within 50 something days which is quick, especially as it was left at 4vs2 support. If I wanted to support this now, the total number of people who have expressed their opinion on adding Folk religion within the last 60 days which is a fairly short time scale, would be 5 in support and 2 in opposition, which is enough to successfully add. (BTW note; with the exception of myself, the only people so far to have reacted in this thread are the same people to have reacted in the first one). I feel it was closed a bit quick, as it had a reasonable chance at success if only one other person supported. I find it, not wrong, but a little odd it was closed by someone who was supporting it.  Carlwev  06:31, 23 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.
FAILED
1–3, not added. --Thi (talk) 11:57, 3 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.

Add Funeral

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 06:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. A type of ritual, which is already listed. And we also list death, which covers funerals. We don't list wedding, which is a more important ritual/ceremony than funeral. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Rreagan007. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above. Since Rite is a generalization of Ritual, how about adding Rite of passage to level 4? wumbolo ^^^ 09:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

@Thi: What do you think about add Veneration of the dead and Folk play to the level 3? If Halloween is listed at the level 4 these articles fit at the level 3 and Mummers play should be at least at the level 4. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I think that festival is the most general article and maybe vital at this level. --Thi (talk) 08:13, 2 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.
FAILED
3–4, not added. Cobblet (talk) 18:14, 4 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.

Add Republic of Ireland

Relatively small population country, but it is an English-speaking country. And I think its importance culturally and historically to the English-speaking world makes it vital to the English Wikipedia at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Rreagan007 (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Weak support Likely of higher interest to enwiki readers than, say, Democratic Republic of the Congo or Ethiopia. I would rather add Switzerland, Netherlands or Taiwan first, though. feminist (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The list has plenty of European countries already, and Ireland is nowhere close to being the most vital unlisted European country, and is most definitely not the most vital unlisted country in general. Cobblet (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. There are countries 10x the size that aren't on the list. pbp 22:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above. Also the Netherlands, Malaysia and Sweden are bigger readers of the English Wikipedia than Ireland [1]. Assuming that only first-language speakers of English read and edit here is wrong. English is becoming the global lingua franca. But I also agree with previous comments that it's not even all that relevant. Language is just the medium of the knowledge that Wikipedia sends out to the world. Apart from perhaps a few more articles on the language itself, I'm not convinced of a need of any further tailoring. Gizza (t)(c) 01:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Per the FAQ reflecting long-standing community norms: "since this is the English language Wikipedia, the majority of editors come from either the United States or the Commonwealth. This creates a systemic bias towards topics better known in the Western world. To counter this, the list includes a number of important topics less-known to the average American or Brit. The Countries subsection primarily includes countries featuring either one of the highest GDPs in the world, or one of the highest populations." Ireland does not qualify. If someone doesn't like this, it is best to discuss it and reach a new consensus. It is not good to just ignore it. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
  • My mistake. I think everyone who has already voted knew that I meant the country of Ireland and not the actual island. I have changed the nomination to the country article. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:46, 17 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.
NO CONSENSUS
2–2, not added. Cobblet (talk) 18:14, 4 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.

Add Victor Hugo

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 06:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support. Hugo's oeuvre is still used in musicals, plays, and movies. He is arguably the most famous French writer, more than Voltaire currently in the list.T8612 (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose without a specific swap proposal I don't think there's quota. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose the addition, and especially oppose any to proposal to swap with Voltaire. The list would make no sense if it didn't include a French Enlightenment figure, and there are already as many Romantic authors on the list as there are Enlightenment thinkers. Cobblet (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
  • If Geoffrey Chaucer didn't get on the list because of there being too many writers i do not see how Hugo should make it. GuzzyG (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I would swap Hugo with Voltaire, who belongs to the Philosophers section.T8612 (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Generally it seems to me that we have too many compossers and too few writers at the level 3. Composers are often more vital than writers at the level 5 because of readers are more interested in modern pop culture than noblists but at the level 3 I would add Victor Hugo, Geoffrey Chaucer and Hans Christian Andersen before: Louis Armstrong and Igor Stravinsky. These composers I would add rather at the same level what David Bowie and Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky than at level 3 Dawid2009 (talk) 16:00, 20 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.
PASSED/FAILED
5–1, added; 2–2, not removed Rreagan007 (talk) 01:39, 5 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.

Swap Marketing for Market (economics)

More vital. WikiProject ratings agree with me.

Support
  1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 12:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support adding Market, not sure whether Marketing is the right article to swap. --Yair rand (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support addition. Gizza (t)(c) 06:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support addition. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We should not be removing marketing unless we're adding advertising back. Cobblet (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removal. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

For reference, market was swapped out over 4 years ago and replaced with supply and demand (see archive). Of course that's a long time ago, the shape of the list was different and consensus can change. Gizza (t)(c) 06:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I was just going to write something similar. Marketing was added recently in place of advertising. Market it in the same kind of area as marketing, and contains the same route word, but they are not identical in scope. The closest thing to market I can see is Supply and Demand, I wasn't aware that replaced it, but I might support swapping that back out for market.  Carlwev  16:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
2–2, not added. Cobblet (talk) 18:14, 4 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.

Remove Fraction (mathematics)

Covered by Division (mathematics).

Support
  1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 12:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  1. Support as nom. Dmartin969 (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


Oppose
  1. pbp 13:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose The rationale makes no sense. One article is about an arithmetic operation. The other is about a set of numbers. Chalk and cheese. Cobblet (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

I'll note that we removed rational number two years ago because of its overlap with this topic. Cobblet (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I feel like we should be listing at least one of these at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Note that fractions and rational numbers each mean only one thing, while "division" would be the vital term which can be applied more generally, also e.g. Fair division. wumbolo ^^^ 19:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
2–1, not added. Cobblet (talk) 18:14, 4 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.

Add Hans Christian Andersen

Andersen was poet and author. Most famous writer in Europe at the time. His fairy tales have been translated into well over a hundred languages and continue to be published in "millions of copies all over the world".

Support
  1. Support as nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support. 160 language versions. --Thi (talk) 09:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I'm not in favour of adding more people. At this level fairy tale is sufficient. Cobblet (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

What do you think about swap Hans Christian Andersen for Walt Disney? Will Eisner called Carl Barks "the Hans Christian Andersen of comic books."[1]. On that basic I think that Hans Christian Anderssen is much more vital than Carl Barks and more vital than Walt Disney. Some time ago there were discussion about remove all film directors, it has not passed but Walt Disney was the most controversial person Dawid2009 (talk) 22:00, 1 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.

Why is Laozu listed as a "religious figure" instead of a "philosopher" like Confucius?

Chdlwq (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


PASSED
5–0, added. Cobblet (talk) 18:14, 4 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.

Add Hygiene

Part of everyday life. The most vital article absent from Health, medicine and disease section (see Hygiene#Home_hygiene_in_developing_countries).

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 08:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 09:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  14:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1–5, not added. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:54, 23 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.

Add Combat sport

This concept cover a lot of sports related with combat/martial arts. These sports historically were significant. Boxing is not the most popular sport in the world but is maybe the most popular among very old sports (outside athletics).

support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
oppose
  1. Oppose We don't need more sports. Cobblet (talk) 12:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose don't need more sports and these aren't the most important sports to add. (Would support adding martial arts per Power~enwiki.) RJFJR (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose martial arts is a good idea though. Gizza (t)(c) 10:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose I agree with the above comments. If we were going to add something in this area, martial arts would be a better choice. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
2–5, not removed --Rreagan007 (talk) 20:00, 14 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.

remove Video game

I think that in historical context video game is someting littly fewer vital than arcade game and in general context something littly feer vital than social media (we have more articles related with social media at the level 4). Beyond that I also think that video games, board games and card games generally are not vital at this level. More general concepts such like: swimming, combat sport, tabletop game are better candidates.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose  Carlwev  15:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose has been a major topic for 30 years. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 19:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose AdA&D ★ 23:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

It is young, but not much younger than the Beatles. We have many entertainment/arts articles from the 20th century and after. Jazz, Louis Armstrong, Elvis, Beatles, Hemingway, Picasso, Frida Kahlo, All the film directors. Video game is not as "high brow" as most of these, but is culturally, economically, historically more important than most of these. Many of the articles I listed will possibly get less attention the more time passes but video games are huge and are only continuing to grow. I just cannot see how several musicians, writers, directors, and artists from the 20th Century are all considered each, individually more important to entertainment/arts than a multibillion dollar industry/medium that is growing and a lot more people, work, study, play and are interested in than those artists are each individually.  Carlwev  15:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, so I give you rerasons why video game in general context can not be more vital than social media and why in historical context can not be more vital than board games or other sport listedor nominated here (video game even is not first in history global entertaiment). Video game certainly is not near vital for 1000 the most important topics regardless you tell about diversity. Recently we have removed newpapers due to fact it is covered by mass media. Excatly in the same way video game and comics are covered by mass media as well. Social media is more vital in general context than video game and every other subterm of popular culture (which is near to remove from level 2) because of social media have influence for society such like Internet (for eample on politics) while video game is generally only entertainment. Beyond that can compare personalites which have various parent articles at the level 4 (for example art works) for encyclopedia to video games which have practically 0 parent articles at the level 4 (two games are listed not due to general vitality of video games but due to historical vitality of arcade game and one game is not listed due to vitality of vidao games but due to vitality of media franchise so de facto due to vitality of social media but not vitality of video game; why we have only arcade game and one media franchise at the level 4?) or social media which have a massive parents topics at the level 4 (more than 10)? I would rather consider swap video game with social media. Fact that we have filmmakers at the level 3 is irrelevent because of we also have cinematography at the level 4 and cinematography economically and culturally is vital such like video games as well and will be vital such like video games as well. I do not see any reason why video game need be considered vital at this level (among outline of 1000 the most important articles). Among modern topics it is less vital than social media. I could support keep video game if it would be although first in history worldwide entertaiment but it obviously even is not first global entertainment in history of the world! Nine men's morris obviously is first global entartainmant in history of the world. Nine Men's Morris has been played on every continent arguably even for milleniums by names such like nine men's morris (Europe), noku narabe (Japan), Akidada (it is only an example name from Africa), Pitarilla (Indians from Americas) with influence for religion for whole bronze age. It should show and mind why board game for human should be considered more vital than card games or video games. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:19, 12 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.
FAILED
2–5, not added; 1–3, not removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:03, 24 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.

Swap Paul the Apostle for Mary, mother of Jesus

Support

Women are underrepresented and Mary is enaugh vital for inclusion here.

  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support addition (Ios2019 (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition --Thi (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose addition Covered by Jesus Bible and Christianity. Sources on her are less historic and more religious, much of what is "known" or written is from the Bible. The article on Christmas is culturally much more important and prominent. (Or choose festival if we want to be culture neutral.)  Carlwev  15:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. About 1/3 of the New Testament is attributed to him. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Goes without saying.. GuzzyG (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Fact that Mary is covered by Jesus is irrelevant because of Jesus pretty fit among 500 the most important topics, while Mary fit among at least 1000. Currently we have a lot of not historical figures (Abraham, Homer, Confucius) and some of them even are not include to section of people at the level 4. Pryer is at the level 3 and festival is at the level 4 so it logically shows that Mary is more vital than christmas for christian. Beyond that christmas will never be on this list because of easter is offically main celebration of christianity and none other festival is close to easter's level of vitality. Recently christmas is more influencial for popular culture than easter but if you read more about fundamental cults such like Fertility rite or Veneration of the dead, you will find information that folklore always has been more celebrated beetween winter and spring than on winter solstice. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:55, 22 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.
FAILED
1–5, not swapped. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:42, 23 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.

Swap: add Francisco Pizarro and Hernán Cortés, remove Süleyman the Magnificent and Joseph Stalin

Pizzarro and Cortes had very big influencial for expansion of Spanish language. On that basic I think that they were much more influencial for history of world than someone like Joseph Stalin. While we list Vladimir Lenin on this list I doubt that we also need Joseph Stalin. Encyclopedia also should cover Pizzarro and Cortes ahead someone like Simón Bolívar who is probably more vital than Süleyman the Magnificent.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose At this level having Columbus, European colonization of the Americas, Aztecs and Inca Empire is enough. Cobblet (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose addition per Cobblet. --Thi (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).
  5. Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Unless/until the articles to remove are suggested, this is a non-starter. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: I gave two suggestions but if someone have better I would be insterested in. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
What do you think about add Spanish Empire else? Dawid2009 (talk) 18:33, 12 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.
FAILED
3–5, not removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:12, 24 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.

Remove Artificial intelligence

Intelligence and Human intelligence are level 4.

Support
  1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 21:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Biology is underrepresented and technology is overrepresented. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support swap with Intelligence. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Popular topic. --Thi (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. But intelligence should be added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, I would support adding intelligence  Carlwev  20:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 06:55, 24 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.
FAILED
2–5, not removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:42, 24 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.

remove Walt Disney

Currently we do not list Mark Zuckerberg at the level 4 due to fact Facebook is more vital than he is (depite fact that Zuckerberg had also influence on Instagram and has been chosen "the most influential person of the year" so he should be undoubtedly added ahead of dozen sport figures who are listed a the level 4). Walt Disney is listed at the level 3 while The Walt Disney Company is listed at the level 4. I doubt that in future Walt Disney will be more vital than his creations. By the same way I am also not sure Miguel Cervantes is enough vital at this level.

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 07:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. His cultural influence and legacy have had an enormous impact on the English-speaking world and beyond. For example, Disney's animation success had a profound influence on Japanese anime. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose: Not sold on Walt being less vital than Mark Zuckerberg now or ever. We're talking THE most influential person in animation and perhaps THE most influential in all of motion pictures. And he also contributed a fair amount in television and theme parks. pbp 05:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
    I do not have idea what you understood in my comment (If you actually although have read my comment) but I have never told that Walt Disney is less vital than Mark Zuckerberg. I have told that Walt Disney will never be more vital than The Walt Disney Company and I have showed similar analogy to Zuckerberg vs Facebook. The list should not have Walt Disney much more vital personalities (such like Socrates or Hans Christian Anderssen) are missed. I certainly agree that Walt Disney arguably is the most influencial personality of motion pictures but what is sense adding Walt Disney ahead of Socrates or Hans Christian Anderssen? Dawid2009 (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose even if his namesake company has bad more overall success/impact than the man himself, Walt's major influence on animation and theme parks on general cannot be downplayed. Both of these are more than enough for him to qualify as a vital article. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Supremely vital cultural influence, Ford is on the level 3 list and his company isn't. GuzzyG (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 06:51, 24 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.
FAILED
1–5, not removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:08, 24 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.

remove The Beatles

The Beatles are important in context of band but not in context of real person. We do not support semi-legendare figures so we also should not list any bands on this list (speciffically when most of members is listed at the level 5 and one member is listed at the level 4). Currently we have two representants of Rock Music despite fact that we do not have any other representants of non-rock popular music. It is not reasonable. I see in which way The Beatles are vital for English Wikipedia readers but currently 40% musicans from this list represent last 100 years. There are many other not listed artistic musicans who have made actual constribute to history of music/musical education so we really do not need two rock representants. Elvis Presley is better choice due to fact that he is more vital than every member of the beatles' band separatly. I think that Louis Armstrong also is more vital than the Beatles due to fact that he has been ranked 5-th on the list of 100 most influencial people from 20-th century[2].

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Hey Jude, let it be. #bandsarepeopletoo Cobblet (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose they're a highly influential group of people who are among the best-selling musical acts ever (if not the number one highest). Beatlemania, anyone? As Cobblet said, bands are people too. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose One band to represent bands is good. The Beatles are the music phenomenon of the 20th century. GuzzyG (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. They are too important culturally not to list here. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 06:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).
Discuss

References

  1. ^ "A Timeless Classic For All Ages - Fantagraphics Books" (PDF). Fantagraphics. 2011. Retrieved May 12, 2017.
  2. ^ https://www.ranker.com/list/time-magazine-100-most-important-people-of-the-20th-century/theomanlenz
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
2–5, not swapped. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:51, 23 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.

swap Ritual for Tradition

Ritual it is the same level of vitality hat cult or festival. Tradition is much more general and important concept.

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support addition. National anthem is at level 4, and probably other similar items too. wumbolo ^^^ 09:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal I don't mind adding festival or tradition but ritual is a basic human behaviour and object of study in anthropology, and traditionalism is just one of its many aspects. Cobblet (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose removal. Of upmost importance in every social science. If Ritual is removed, it will be cited as a reason not to ever add Rite or Rite of passage to level 4. I don't see how Prayer and Meditation are more vital than Ritual. wumbolo ^^^ 09:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Ritual is, in it's basic means; a object of several studies and, a primitve right in itself. Rekonedth (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Would like to keep ritual and feel tradition is too vague. RJFJR (talk) 20:14, 8 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 Gender

A proposal to add Third gender to level-4 failed here. Together with listing Transgender at level-4, this means that only two genders are vital at this level. So I propose that Gender is removed because it is redundant to Man and Woman, especially at this level. Notice also that Ageing is level-3, while Old age is level-4. And please don't make the argument that we list Sex at this level. wumbolo ^^^ 19:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The Sex article is currently listed at Level 3. feminist (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I would keep this. I would even suggest gender at level 2, we have ethnic group there, I feel someones gender defines them more than their ethnic group does. Here at level 3 We removed Homosexuality, and added sexual orientation. We have sex at level 3, male and female are only level 4. To remove gender from level 4, but leave man and woman, we would be removing gender and leaving the two traditional genders, the opposite to what we have done with the other areas. We have not excluded sexual orientation, but included one or two individual orientations, we have not excluded sex, but included the two traditional sexes. Why would one want to remove gender, but leave the 2 traditional genders? ...Also the article on gender could include the main aspects of man and woman and may be able to include information about the concept of gender in general that might be out of place at man and woman, not to mention stuff on genders outside the two traditional ones that people perceive to exist or wish to identify as.  Carlwev  14:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

As you said, Sex is not on the same level as Male and Female. Gender shouldn't be on the same level as Man and Woman, either. However, I like the idea of including Gender at level 2, and will give it more thought. Sex is definitely not a candidate for level 2. wumbolo ^^^ 14:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Human sexuality is already on level 2 – I don't think we need gender there as well. The comparison between sex and gender doesn't make sense – sexual reproduction involves only two sexes, but gender is more complicated than that. Cobblet (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
That's what I tried to point out with And please don't make the argument that we list Sex at this level. But everyone ignored it, so I tried to argue differently. wumbolo ^^^ 15:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
PARTIAL PASS
6–1, removed; 2–3 not added. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:42, 23 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.

Swap: Remove Submarine, Add Spear

Submarines are no more historically vital than battleships, and less vital than aircraft carriers, both of which aren't listed. The spear is the most-used weapon in all of human history. It deserves to be listed at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support removal --Thi (talk) 07:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support removal. wumbolo ^^^ 12:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. I don't think the simplicity of a spear makes it less vital. An encyclopedia should cover both modern, complex technology and simpler old technology likes wheels and spears. And spears are not just a weapon. Gizza (t)(c) 09:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support removal Less vital than Warship. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support removal (Ios2019 (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition Dawid2009 (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose addition --Thi (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose both Submarine is more than just a weapon, spear is too simple. RJFJR (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

I am generally oppose addition any weapons and much prefer removing weapons. Currently we list Bow and arrow but we do not have Archery. We do not list Performance art/piano despite fact that Performing arts are at the level 2 and Frederick Chopin is listed at the level 3. @Carlwev: You generally prefer add general articles before people, what do you think about my point? Dawid2009 (talk) 18:41, 5 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.
PASSED
5–0, added. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:41, 23 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.

Add Swimming

One of the most basic recreation/leisure. It cover also swimming (sport). I think that encyclopedia need this definition at the level 3. Other concept which maybe could be vital at this level is Hiking. It is covered at the level 4 under athletics despite fact that description of the article is more general.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Important addition. --Thi (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Almost Internationally, and chronologically universal  Carlwev  15:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).
Oppose
Discuss
@Rreagan007: Running and walking are vital only in context of human behaviour (in context of sport are rather well covered by athletics). Athletics generally does not covers swimming because of even swimmers have deicaded separate category at the level 4 and at the level 5. So on that basic swimming seems be vital in context sport and in context human behaviour. On that basic I also would be oppose add bath because of bath can be covered by hygiene while swimming does not. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd support a swap with Whaling for some balance. wumbolo ^^^ 15:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
3–6, not added. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:26, 29 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.

Add Americas

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Weak support as it's a historical topic on its own with Europe's early stages of colonisation. Also I agree with RekishiEJ's comments marginally. J947 (c), at 19:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. support (Ios2019 (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).
Oppose
  1. Oppose No need to list this when North and South America are already listed at this level. Cobblet (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above reasoning. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per above reasoning. RJFJR (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose We have North America, South America, and Mesoamerica. In addition, North America and South America both get more google Scholar hits than "the Americas"--although "The Americas" is a big hits. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
    @AbstractIllusions: "The Americas" is popular term basicly in historical context but not in geographical context. While South America and North America are more popular in geographical context, "the Americas" (or America in forgein languages) in historical context probably is more often used term ([2] - check and compare Wikipedia's own statistics results results for: "History of North America, "History of South America" and History of Americas). Swapping History of SA and History of NA for History of Americas would be interesing. This swap could give more chances to swap Mesoamerica for Pre-Columbian era and to add Latin America. If we decide have Pre-Columbian era and Latin America maybe we would not even need History of Americas. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Just a note that I'm not going to be convinced by wikipedia hit statistics for 'vitalness'. I am, at first glance, fine with many of your other suggestions (particularly Latin America), but I ran 25+ searches in various databases and 'the Americas' (various usages) never came close to 'North America' or 'South America.' I'm not concerned at all on Vital Articles about wikipedia views. So: Google Scholar, JStor, Web of Science all have 3 or 4 times more for North and South than they do for the phrase 'the Americas.' That's what I'm basing my vote on. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  1. Oppose History of Americas can be reasonable instead history of SA and historry of NA but Americas are not more vital than SA and NA. South America and North America should be never removed from VA 2; for diversity and to escape from overlaping at the level 3. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. Now that both North and South America are included in WP:VA2, it is sensible to include this here. Besides, some people say that there are only five continents on earth: Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania and Americas, and I think that both North and South America should be replaced by Americas in WP:VA2.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
There are also people who consider Zealandia as "continent" and we do not list Eurasia already on the list Dawid2009 (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
As a New Zealander, I've got to say that absolutely no one thinks of Zealandia as a continent (and even was a continent). There's a reason why in the context of when India was apart from Asia experts still referred to it as a subcontinent, and Zealandia is smaller than that anyway. J947 (c), at 19:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5–0, added. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:44, 23 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.

add Martial arts

Martial arts covers combat sport such like swimming covers swimming (sport). Beyond that martial arts it is not only kind of recreation/sport. A lot of societies consider it as part of arts. Capoeira confuse martial arts with dance. Kung fu is a term related with philosophy and many other things etc. When we list a lot of weapons we undoubtedly should have martial arts on this list. In my opinion it is even more vital than soccer. I would add martial arts separately such like tourism, not under sport section. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  20:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support Wide ranging arts/philosophy/sports mixture that's affected almost every culture and for centuries too. GuzzyG (talk) 22:57, 23 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.

Request for input on proposed Saudi Vision 2030 section in Saudi Arabia

There's a discussion at Talk:Saudi Arabia on including a brief summary of the main economic aspects of the Saudi Vision 2030 program. I've suggested some options for this, which editors here are invited to give feedback on. Thanks. Tarafa15 (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

SNOW FAIL
2–6, not added. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:09, 29 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.

add Spanish Empire

Spanish language it is second the most important language in western world so Spanish empire also should be vital at this level. It seems make no sense that we we include Simón Bolívar ahead of Spanish Empire. Encyclopedia with Bolivar ahead of Spanish Empire is confusing and dissapointing encyclopedia.

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).
  2. Oppose There's very substantial overlap with European colonization of the Americas. We should be covering European colonization more generally, not focusing on specific empires. So if I had to add something to improve our coverage of European colonization it would be Western imperialism in Asia, except it's not on level 4 yet. Bolivar represents something else entirely: decolonization, which also ought to be more vital than any specific colonial empire. Cobblet (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Too much overlap. GuzzyG (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose (as I was pinged) we barely have room for history on this list, and I don't think this is a needed addition. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per the overlap arguments. The Spanish Empire is just one of many defunct empires. It wasn't magically special. What's had a lasting global significant was European colonization of the western hemisphere more generally. The fact that Spanish is an important world language is a reason, perhaps, to add Spanish language as a vital article, but that's not at all the samem subject as the Spanish Empire. Same goes for the extended discussion below of making Latin America a vital article (which is probably a more plausible proposal).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

@Cobblet: When we have Scramble for Africa atbthe level 3, Western imperialism in Asia but it should be go at the level 4 as first. Anyway what do you think about Latin America'? It would be better choice thana Central America or Spanish empire. In context of physical geography Central America is related with North America but in cultureal context more with South America. IMO Latin Aamerica seems be too influencial to miss it at this list when we list 17 cities. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Regions at the levels 3-5 are underrepresented asa whole. [3] - here is interesing contigent (converastion SMcCandlish with power~enwiki) Dawid2009 (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
The reason we list 17 cities and 130+ people but only nine continents/regions is not because each one of those cities and people is more important than any single cultural region we've left out. That seems to be how a lot of people look at the list, but I think it's a misconception. For me the real reason we list 17 cities and 130+ people is because you need more than nine of each if you want to have lists of cities and people that reflect the world's diversity. Maybe you think 17 and 130+ is too much, and maybe you think nine continents/regions is too few. But there are ways to fix those ratios without adding Latin America. So when you ask specifically about Latin America, I ask myself: is our list of nine continents/regions representative of the world's diversity, and does the single addition of Latin America improve or worsen that representation?
Here's one way I look at that: the Americas make up 13% of the world's population, and right now they already get 2/9 or 22% of the continent/region articles. If you add Latin America (or Americas, as some have suggested in the past), that ratio becomes 3/10 or 30%, and I don't see why the list's coverage of the Western Hemisphere needs to go that high. I understand that this is only one of many ways to look at the vitality of Earth's regions and that diversity is about more than just demographics – I'm not saying we should remove Oceania, Arctic and Antarctica just because they combine for less than 1% of the world's population. But the main reason we'd list Latin America is because it's a cultural area, and you can't have culture without people; so focusing on population does make some sense.
Moreover, the contents of the three articles on the Americas will necessarily overlap a lot. Let's assume Wikipedia already had high-quality articles on North and South America; and let's assume we wanted to improve the Wikipedia's coverage of Latin America even more. You could choose to develop the article on Latin America, but I think you would end up repeating a lot of the content that was already in North and South America. I don't think that would be the best way to improve the content of Wikipedia as a whole. I think we'd gain more by developing an article on a Latin American country like Peru or on a subregion that doesn't overlap any other country on the list, like Central America or the Caribbean. Cobblet (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure we would be overlap for Americas if we try add Latin America even if Western imperialism in Asia is good addition as well. Middle east has lower population than Latin America but we list at the level 3: Middle East, History of the middle east and some middle east politics figures (for example Suleiman the Magnificent) so IMO listing the LAtin America would be addition for diversity of World's representation even when we list European colonization of the Americas and Columbus at this level (I would even consider swap history of middle easst due to it can be covered by middle east and Pre-Columbian era is more interesing for our readers than history of middle easat). I agree that adding Americas ahead of Caribbean could be littly something like overlap but IMO if we try add Latin Aamerica; Central America would be covered by North America in context of phyical geography and Central Aamerica would be covered by Latin America in cultural context (it is sensiblite when Central America culturally is more near to South America but in context of physical geography is part of North America). I do not mind with addition of articles such like Peru or Caribbean but countries from Aamericas are not the only candidates for additions here (someone other could say: no we need more specific articles related with middle east, for example United Emirates etc.) so it seems to me that Latin America would not be obstacle at the moment. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind adding Pre-Columbian era but I don't see why it should be more interesting to readers than History of the Middle East. Given that the Middle East was where human civilization first started and the birthplace of its two largest religions, I think it's natural that we have a few more articles about Middle Eastern history, religion, and historical and religious figures. Cobblet (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I did not suggested that we could swap History of the Middle East for Pre-Columbian era. My point is rather swap for Latin America (or add without swap). Generally Middle East is littly more important (if we compare it in every field) but it does not need be covered by many articles (we list not only Middle East figures and Middle East but also history of Asia etc.) and fact that Latin America has larger population + Pre Columbian era get more pageviews than history of middle east; can something mean in that case. And it would be valuable for consensual discussion. Dawid2009 (talk) 08:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

People can't keep being compared to things like countries or continents or empires. Obviously most countries are more important to an encyclopedia then people but a LARGE fraction of people come to a encyclopedia purely for people and so we list a certain amount of biographies (132 - although i'd prefer a nice even number of 150). Latin America is redundant to South America and North America, it's just unnecessary. GuzzyG (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

My preferred round number is 125, but I can live with the current number. I don't see us cutting 17 or 18 other articles just for the purpose of getting to 150 people. Cobblet (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I would also support 125. We generally ned more non-people articles. We do not have several artocles which are more important than artifical intelligence or global positioning system. Also if Higerald of Bingen will be delted we need more articles related with history of music. Dawid2009 (talk) 08:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I generally buy Cobblett's argument, when it comes to this "should we add Latin America?" side proposal. However, another approach would be to more narrowly define North America as the US, Canada, and Greenland, which would permit Latin America and North America as the two major western-hemisphere divisions for these purposes. I'm not a big fan of that idea, but mention it as a possibility. Issues I have with it are the lack of symmetry between "North" and "Latin"; the fact that North America has many definitions, but the most common one includes Mexico; "Latin" (in this heritage sense) also includes the Portugal–Brazil connection, technically, but it implies a cultural homogeneity that is a fantasy (despite socio-political efforts to unite Latin America, they've not exactly met with success). In short, "Latin America" as a concept is rather more artificial and a matter of opinion than North and South America as geographical divisions rather than cultural ones.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: Swapping History of North America and History of South America for History of Americas; maybe could give more chanceds to add to add Pre-Columbian era, Latin America/history of Latin Aamerica and History of United States to the level 3 by escape from overlaping (speciffically when we have for example history of Asia and history of India already at this level; and due to "Latin America" actually is continuation of Pre-Columbian era). North America and South America most definietly are more popular concepts in geographial context but "The Americas" (also as synonym of "the new world") as context historical probably is more often used term (readers more often search concepts for NA and SA; but in case of history they more often read History of the Americas instead history of NA and history of SA (see: [4]). Fact that we list history of the world at the level 1 but we do not list world on any level shows why New World/Americas is good term in context to overlap history/culture but not to overlap geography (and other terms such like the west), anyway thinkink about it more I agree that Latin Aamerica can be quite difficult to addition here. In short: History of Latin America (speciffically due to we list Latin music at the level 4) maybe could have more chances for addition to the level 3 (from level 5 to level 3) if we decide swap history of SA and history of NA for history of Americas (I explained this reasoning above at this comment/message, speciffically in my first sentence) but addition of Latin America is difficult when Western World (IMO much more vague concept than Latin America) is listed at the level 5. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5–0, added. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Add Intelligence

Very important topic that should be added at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support, even if only because we have Artificial intelligence at this level. wumbolo ^^^ 22:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 06:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).
  5. I would support adding intelligence  Carlwev  20:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC) (preserved from artificial intelligence nomination)
Oppose
Discuss

If we decide have Intelligence at this level. We should also make room for Wisdom. it is not right when Intelligence is listed among 1000 the most important articles and Wisdom can not be added due to fact we do not have enaugh space. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Wisdom is only philosophical, while intelligence is both philosophical and psychological. We aren't Dungeons & Dragons. wumbolo ^^^ 22:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Wisdom is a more subjective and strictly human concept. Intelligence is much broader and has application beyond humans--animal intelligence, artificial intelligence, extraterrestrial intelligence, etc. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Sense and Cognition seems be more vital for me. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
6–0, removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Remove Major depressive disorder

It is just as vital as other common mental disorders.

Support
  1. Support As nom. Mstrojny (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support As per nom. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Per nom. And I have also my doubts article about Mojor deprerssive disorder should be ahead of Psychiatry or Neurology. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support. Dawid2009's point about related articles that are more vital that aren't currently listed at this level is convincing to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support as per nom and Dawid's point. J947 (c), at 05:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

This is already in the list. RJFJR (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
Rreagan007 (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Add Danube

The geography section looks a little weak, especially since it looks like we will be removing Mt. Everest. We currently list a river from N. America (Mississippi), S. America (Amazon), Africa (Nile) and Asia (Yangtze). I think Europe should have a river listed at this level too, and the Danube seems like the most vital one to me. It's the 2nd longest river in Europe and flows through Germany, Austria, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, and empties into the Black Sea. It also serves as the international borders between several of those countries.

Support
  1. Support nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)).
  3. Oppose All the rivers Dawid's suggesting are centres of cradles of civilization and I'd consider them more vital. No reason given for why Europe should get a river ahead of the Middle East, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, Australia, etc., especially when the Mediterranean and Caspian Seas are also already listed. Cobblet (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Currently Europe is represented at physical geography by Mediterranean Sea and this sea clearly is better choice than Danube; because of Danube is not historically significant such like Euphrates, Tigris or Ganges. If we are going add more articles related with physical geography it should not by river (It is not good have 4 rivers when none single moutain is listed at this level). I would also suggest remove Lake Victoria (comparable vitality to Kilimanjaro or Swahili language) and add: Equator, North Pole, South Pole. Or that if we are going to add specific physical articles for the diversity, Ganges or Carribean Sea would be my first choices befor Danube. BTW I am quite suprised why articles such like Bermuda Triangle or UFO are not listed on any level. Is it due to vague of the concept? Dawid2009 (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

We don't have UFO but we have Parapsychology at level 4. wumbolo ^^^ 12:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Rivers and lakes provide water, food, sanitation, and transportation; they are significantly more vital to human civilization than mountains are. The African Great Lakes absolutely deserve representation at this level (25% of the world's freshwater, more than the American Great Lakes). Arbitrary points or lines on the globe are not vital at this level. Sargasso Sea should cover the concept of the Bermuda Triangle. Cobblet (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5–1, added. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Swap Plato for Socrates

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support addition --Thi (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support addition (Ios2019 (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).
  4. Support addition. Per the article he is considered one of the founders of Western philosophy and the first moral philosopher. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support addition Eh, let's do it. GuzzyG (talk) 04:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose No rationale given. Cobblet (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
I think that Socrates should be added ahead of Plato due to fact that he is founder of western philosophical tradition and even philosophy before Socrates is called "Pre-Socratic philosophy". He is more interesting for readers than Plato. In my opinion we also should not include all three important Greek philosophers because of in that case we will have bad time diversity. For the same reason we do not have all First Viennese School people. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
We already have an earlier, more "foundational" figure in Pythagoras. Why only focus on pre-Socratic philosophy and not Platonism or Neoplatonism? Cobblet (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
To be fair Pythagoras was removed a while ago. GuzzyG (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
If Socrates is added Franklin Delano Roosevelt, as these were the two additions held back to stop clutter but if one's added they both should be. GuzzyG (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
We already have 2 U.S. Presidents at this level. If I were going to add a third, I would probably add Jefferson or Jackson. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
But they're from three different centuries so it's not that bad when we have two consecutive Russian 20th century leaders. If this is a English wiki list; why are France and Russia the only countries with 3 reps on this list in the leaders section? Either Britain or the US need a third but Queen Victoria is the only possible candidate from Britain; so i don't know how viable this is. GuzzyG (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Sometimes important historical figures come in temporal clumps. And I would probably put George III ahead of Victoria, and I would put both of them ahead of Churchill, as I don't really consider him the most important British prime minister. Churchill and Roosevelt are both overrated in my opinion, but Stalin managed to turn a mostly unindustrialized nation into a world superpower in the most infamous way imaginable, by killing millions of his own people. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
6–2, swapped. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Swap in Sargon of Akkad for Pericles

Support
  1. Support As nom (rationale below) Orser67 (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support - a significant improvement. There are many Ancient Greeks that should be in before Pericles. Sargon covers an earlier era of history which right now isn't covered in the leaders section. Gizza (t)(c) 01:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Pericles is too clustered in with other figures and someone from Sargon's time is obviously not represented. GuzzyG (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support We've already got Alexander, Homer, Sophocles, Hippocrates, Archimedes, Euclid, Herodotus, Plato, Aristotle, and possibly Socrates to represent the ancient Greeks. Even if they're foundational to Western civilization, nine or ten on a list of 132 or 133 people is plenty. Meanwhile Mesopotamia's only represented by Hammurabi. Cobblet (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support Per above. Sappho also is nearly to pass; and when we do not list Eratosthenes, removing Pericles will not be loss. Sargon clearly is vital as first leader of the Empire when we have so plenty figures of popular culture. Level 3 should be purly historical. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support. I must admit that I was not very familiar with old Sargon before this nomination, but after reading the arguments above and pursuing the article he probably does deserve to be listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose not convinced Sargon is vital in a modern encyclopedia. RJFJR (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. While an interesting and important figure, Pericles was just one of many leaders (albeit the most prominent) of a relatively small state. We also already have Alexander the Great from the same general Ancient Greek milieu. Sargon of Akkad, meanwhile, founded the Akkadian Empire, the first ancient empire of Mesopotamia; it's sometimes described as the first empire in human history. He also lived about 500 years earlier than Hammurabi, who I believe is the earliest-living Level 3 political leader. Orser67 (talk) 20:31, 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.
PASSED
5–1, removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

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

remove Akira Kurosawa

Same as above. He is not more vital than Bollywood or Cinema of the United States anyway.

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support directors are over-represented. 2 is probably enough. Gizza (t)(c) 01:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).
  5. Support It's a shame, but I do agree that there are too many filmmakers for a list this small, and he's the least vital of those currently listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per my comment in the Hitchcock discuss section. GuzzyG (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
2–4, not removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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

remove Soybean

It is less vital than apple and lemon.

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).
Oppose
  1. Strong oppose Ridiculous. Soy is a staple food in Asia and one of the world's most commercially important crops. Cobblet (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. For vegetarians it is no doubt quite vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. As much as I despise soy, it's a very important crop worldwide. It's most certainly more vital than apples or lemons. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Opppose not just because of vegetarians or current commercial aspects but due to the historical aspects --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:08, 2 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.
PASSED
5–2, removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

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

remove Alfred Hitchcock

We have four filmmakers despite fact cinematography (as part of art) exist shorter time than architecture and architecture is not represented by people. Hitchcock have much less pagewatchers than Walt Disney and I do not see why we have to add FOUR filmmakers ahead of Lummierre Brothers or Eadweard Muybridge.

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support directors are over-represented. 2 is probably enough. Gizza (t)(c) 01:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support removal; favor replacing with Auguste and Louis Lumière
    @Orser67: I think History of film would be better choice. Lumierres in very short encyclopedias (for example in popular science encyclopedias) usually there are described among inventors and piooners such like Alexander Bell or Wright Brothers (in context of inventions of 20th century) not among artists such like Da Vinci, musicans etc. They fit at the level 4 where we have big diversity list of filmmakers but level 3 is very rigorous and when we even do not list here "technology-piooners" such like Alexander Bell, Wright Brothers and we even rejected airplane I would consider history of film. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
    I could get behind that idea. But if not, I'd take the Lumierres over Hitchcock. Orser67 (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support I don't see how Kurosawa was any less expendable than Hitchcock; they can both go. Cobblet (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    Then start a nomination for Armstrong too.... no way sound film or dramatic film was any less important to the 20th century then Jazz and if film only gets two then Jazz should have none as Jazz's short reign 1920s to 1970s (at the most) doesn't compare to films worldwide dominance of last century. GuzzyG (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd cut Stravinsky, Wagner and Chopin ahead of Armstrong. In general I think artists and classical musicians are overrepresented. Cobblet (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Stravinsky can go too now, if 4 filmmakers and no dramatic film representative is here then 4 20th century musicians is too much aswell. I don't see any encyclopedia listing a Jazz representative over drama films. GuzzyG (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I also think that musicians and artists are a little overrepresented. Orser67 (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per my comment in the discuss section. GuzzyG (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).
Discuss

Directors are not overrepresented if you look at it as:

  • Chaplin covers silent films/comedy - (yes, he made sound films but it doesn't count as representing them if the majority of his career are silent films)
  • Hitchcock covers drama/talkies/golden age
  • Kurosawa covers foreign film/one of asias greatest entertainment figures
  • Disney covers animated/mainly he is notable for his business anyway

No way should film only be covered by comedy films and animation. Even if it is Chaplin. GuzzyG (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PARTIAL PASS
6–1, removed; 2–3 not added. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

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

remove Igor Stravinsky, add Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and Claude Debussy

If we need one Russian composser it should be Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, not Igor Stravinsky. Tchaikovsky is widely considedred as "Greatest Russian composer of all time". Based on fact that Stravinsky is not the most important Russian composer, I think that Debussy is better choice as one representant of 20th century classical music. He would be the one and the most important French musican on the list. Beyond that if you chack pageviews for Debussy and Stravinsky in foreign languages you clearly will see that Debussy is even more known worldwide than Stravinsky (Debussy has 36 wikidata entires with 5+ pagewievs per day while Stravinsky only 33 does).

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support addition --Thi (talk) 08:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support removal. Gizza (t)(c) 01:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support removal. GuzzyG (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support removal Cobblet (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support removal (Ios2019 (talk) 10:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)).
  7. Support removal Rreagan007 (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition Tchaikovsky is definitely a more popular composer than Stravinsky, and I'll even acknowledge that I like his music more than Stravinsky's; but that does not make his music "greater" or "more important." You will find many classical musicians with the opposite view, and I think it's fair to say that Stravinsky's music is more intensively studied. Nobody with a more than casual understanding of classical music will deny that his body of work had a revolutionary impact on 20th-century music and is much more innovative than Tchaikovsky's. I can think of any number of 20th-century composers whose music has nothing in common with Tchaikovsky's but it would be very difficult to find one who wasn't influenced in some way by Stravinsky. I could support swapping Stravinsky for Debussy (whose music IMO had a similar impact) but I oppose any increase to the number of classical musicians on the list: they already take up 70% of the musicians. Frankly, I could live with just listing Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. Cobblet (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removal --Thi (talk) 08:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose addition. Gizza (t)(c) 01:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose addition. GuzzyG (talk) 03:05, 14 February 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.
PASSED
5–0, added; 1–3, Sophocles not removed Rreagan007 (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Swap: remove Hildegard of Bingen and Sophocles, add Sappho

Hilderald of Bingen is remarkable polymath and one of the most important medieval music figures but she still is not much more vital than Pindar who even is not listed at the level 5. Sappho is greatest female Greek writer of all time and she was very influencial for Pindar who is probably the most important ancient composer. Currently we have two man Greek writers (Homer and Sophocles) and none Greek females. On that basic I think that it would be really reasonable to swap Hilderald and Sophocles for Sappho.

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Sappho is infinitely more vital historically then Hildegard in my opinion. GuzzyG (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support remove Hildegard of Bingen and add Sappho (Ios2019 (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).
  5. SUpport Rreagan007 (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal of Sophocles. --Thi (talk) 08:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removal of Sophocles. GuzzyG (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose removal of Sophocles, as he is probably the best known of the ancient Greek playwrights. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

comment If Hidegard off Bingen will be removed and nomination for remove of Stravinski will be failed... I would suggest to add articles related with history of music but other than people. I am not sure having 9 composers with 4 from last 150 years and 9 from last 300 years is good idea. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

If you think there's too many composers why did you start a nomination to add Tchaikovsky and Debussy? most of these "history of" pages would be redundant on this level. GuzzyG (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Music exist for thousands years, not for last decades such like film and if none older musican than Bach is not enaugh vital at this level (because of this level need be extremaly riurous) reasonable would be consider addittion of historical topics other than people for representation for music. Recently I have started several nominations related with compossers because of I was going to add some littly older instead 20-th century compossers (they alreadey cover 40% of representation at the moment). Anyway, now, when I see how extremaly overrepresented is section with musicans, I am not going to courage other editors to any increasing number of musicans. Section with musicans is clearly overrepresented if you see how other people are missed at this level and compare them to other categories. For example when we compare representation of musicans with representation of religious figures: we list Frederick Chopin ahead of John Paul II and four musicans from last 150 years ahead of Saint Peter or Zoroaster (We decided remove Zoroastere due to Zoroastrianism despite fact Zoroastrianism without Zoroastere would be less vital than for example Jazz without Armstrong). I do not suggest to swap Chopin for John Paul II (even if globally they have the same vitality, John Paul is not vital among other popes such like Chopin among other romantics) but listing handful other musicans ahead of Saint Peter or Zoroaster shows that we have more than enaugh of compossers or that simply section with Religious figures is underrepresented. Dawid2009 (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: If we decide add Sappho where she should go? I just have found in archives conversation where you suggested to add Sappho to musican section but she is listed at the level 4 among writers. If we add her to writers we will have already 3 Greek writers. But thinkink about it some more, replacing Homer with Greek literature for the diversity would be interesing. If we are going to remove all non-historical figures probably we should also swap Homer for Greek literature. Dawid2009 (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1–5, not added. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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

add Goddess (or remove God)

Currently we have Deity and God at this level but we do not have Goddess. Add God ahead of Goddess it is such like add male ahead of female. I would prefer add Goddess because of religion is strongly underrepresented. Recently wew have removed theism despite fact it cover polytheism and monotheism, and these two concepts often were nominating here.

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. This is inaccurate; God (male deity) is the article about the male deity. wumbolo ^^^ 22:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose addition; Neutral on removal. There is obvious overlap between God and Deity, so removing one might be okay, but I don't think adding goddess is necessary at this level, as "god" can be masculine or gender neutral. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 05:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).
  5. Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1–5, not swapped. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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

swap Fishing for Hunter-gatherer

Fishing is not vital at the same level what martial arts or football. At the level 3 we should cover more important concepts such like Hunter-gatherer, exploration, travel, eventually nomad etc.

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I don't have any objections over Hunter-gatherer being inserted into vital article list. Fishing is, and will be a important virtue in classification and survival in many aspects. It's the activity which was performed way back from several millennia, it shouldn't be swapped. Having own processes, uproot of problematic degradation of nutritional value, cultivation and subsequently making it a tradition. One couldn't think of living without it; forget about replacing it rather supporting addition. Rekonedth (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Rekonedth RJFJR (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).
  5. Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

I don't have any objections over Hunter-gatherer being inserted into vital article list - hmmm. If we try list Hunter-gatherer we will have more chances to add Farm at this level. And if we list farm we will do not need list some animals (for example pig) which are historically more important than dozen people (listed here) who make constribute to society. Adding more general articles instead specifics (such like animals) keep more space for other needed articles. Dawid2009 (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PARTIAL PASS
5–1, removed; 1–7, not added. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

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

swap Mount Everest for Seven Summits

Seven summits recently/currently in context of exploration certainly are not less vital than north pole + south pole (compare famous of Junko Tabei and Reinhold Messner with Ann Bancroft and Marek Kamiński). Also moutaineers recently are more often regarded as "National Geographic" person of the year" than polar people ([5]). Mount Everest probably is not enaugh vital when we do not list Coral Sea which is the biggest sea in the world (or Australia (continent) as part of Oceania). Mount Everest very vital is generaally only in context of Seven Summits than in any other context (there are other mountains which are not less vital than Mount Everest). Article about seven summits can give imagination to human knowlage about world such like covering dozen cities at this level but I am not sure how important is Mount Everest outside fact that this mountain is very famous. Wikiproject about mountains is much larger than any other wikiproject related with phisical geography (deserts/forests, etc) and is nearly big such like wikiproject related with cities so I think that article about seven summits wuld reasonable for addition to cover littly more mountains. If we decide list Seven Summits we will have informations about some other vital mountains. For example currently we list Lake Victoria but we do not list Kilimanjaro. Other complex article which maybe is reasonable at this level is Seven Wonders of the Ancient World (What do you think about swapping some buildings for styles and Seve Wonders of the Acient World?).

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support removal of Mount Everest. No single mountain should be vital at this level. Cobblet (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support removal as it is already covered by Himalayas, which is already listed at this level. It is the tallest mountain in the world, so if any single mountain is vital at this level, it would be this one. However, I don't think any single mountain merits inclusion at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support removal GuzzyG (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support removal per above and previous discussion. Gizza (t)(c) 01:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition of Seven Summits. As purely a mountaineering topic, it's less vital than mountaineering itself, which is very far down the list as far as vital human activities go. Cobblet (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose addition of Seven Summits. --Thi (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose addition Rreagan007 (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose addition GuzzyG (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose addition – I can't see the some random philosopher being included ahead of Everest. J947 (c), at 18:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
    I don't think that's a very good way to judge. I suggest you try comparing it to other articles listed in the geography section and other geography articles that could potentially be added to the geography section.
    Danube ahead of Everest? No way. J947 (c), at 00:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    That's certainly a more appropriate comparison, but Everest is covered by Himalayas, which is already listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    Okay, didn't realise that. I'll become neutral on removal, and change the oppose to oppose addition. Suppose 4 rivers and 4 mountain ranges is good, though if another river is added I'd prefer Everest to come back. J947 (c), at 21:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    Fair enough, but at this point Danube looks very unlikely to pass. I'm considering just withdrawing the nomination. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)).
  7. Oppose addition Gizza (t)(c) 01:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
I would suggest add exploration. Moutanieering is not needed when we also have tourism what also is littly similar. Seven summits is something more reasonable to human knowlage than Mount Everest. Also moutanieering historically is not more vital than all not listed sports/activities related with recreation at the level 4. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
SNOW FAIL
1–6, not added. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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

add Filmmaking and Cinematography

Both these articles are enaugh vital at this level. Performance art does not cover Filmmaking and film is listed at the level 2. Vitality of Cinematography is comparable to vitality of Photography and vitality of Animation.

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Saying things are vital doesn't make them so. Film plus a handful of filmmakers is enough. Cobblet (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose covered by Film. RJFJR (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).
  5. Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 06:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. History of film would be more vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

I could see potentially adding one of these, but do we really need both at this level? Rreagan007 (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

There does seem to be a lot of overlap. RJFJR (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Rreagan007: In article about film, there is information that cinematography is film industry so film industry probably would be better choice (specifficaly when we are going to remove Kurosava because of in article about film industry we have information about Bollywood). Filmmaking probably is not good choice (We intentionally do not list Performance art due to overlap with Performing art at the level 2 and other articles at the level 3). Potentially good choice for addition is also History of film. In this article we have information about Loumierre Brothers and if we are going to add History of Architecture we should list history of film. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
SNOW FAIL
1–6, not removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Remove History of India

Support
  1. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).
Oppose
  1. Oppose No rationale given. The history of South Asia is as important as that of any other region in Asia or the world. Cobblet (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Without a rationale, there's no way to assess. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose No rationale given Dawid2009 (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose No rationale given. GuzzyG (talk) 06:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Weak oppose. I think it's vital enough to remain at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
  • Comment It's certainly helpful when nominators give their rationale for a nomination, but it's not actually necessary to make an assessment. Just ask yourself whether you think the article nominated belongs in the 1,000 most vital articles or not and make your own judgment. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. J947 (c), at 09:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
SNOW FAIL
1–7, not removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Remove Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune

Solar System and Planet are level 3. Why list so many planets a level ahead of this many stars and this many galaxies?

Support
  1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 1:42 pm, Today (UTC+1)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)).
  3. Oppose Because the Solar System is where we live. Cobblet (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. I appreciate the logic of the nomination, but the individual planets are just too important not to list here. Every school child learns the names of the planets in grade school, but many don't learn the names of stars and galaxies, though I could see maybe adding a few at this level like Polaris or Andromeda Galaxy Rreagan007 (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Wait, what? pbp 20:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Partial oppose – If Earth is at Level 1, these belong at level 3. However, I weakly support removing Neptune and Uranus as they have little link to the Earth, and aren't as famous and vital as Jupiter, Saturn, and the large pieces of rocky road closer to the sun. I appreciate the nom's rationale, and my idea could be a small way to improve level-by-level stuff. J947 (c), at 20:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  7. Oppose all except Uranus and Neptune which I support removing. Agree with J947. If this list is meant to be anthropocentric (and most of it is), then the significance of the planets beyond Saturn diminishes greatly. They seem to be on the list for completeness more than anything. It's like adding Antarctica on Level 2 alongside the inhabited continents which I disagree with too. In the field of astronomy, eclipses have been more central to human culture than the outer planets. Gizza (t)(c) 08:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Swap failed, 2-4; no consensus to remove card game 2-0 Cobblet (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Swap: remove Card game and Board game, add Tabletop game

Card game and Board game are covered by Tabletop game. Tabletop game cover also other games such like cue sports, titled games etc. In my opinion better option is have Tabletop game instead card game and board game because of we have mre cue sports players than poker players at the level 5. Beyond that card game historically is fewer significant than sports such like box etc.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support removal --Thi (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support. wumbolo ^^^ 06:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose  Carlwev  15:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Carlwev power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose The fact that card games and board games can be played on a table is irrelevant to the significance of these concepts. It's like saying we should list quadruped instead of cattle, dog and horse. Cobblet (talk) 12:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).
Discuss

Even though the article technically covers the others.... I just think table top game is not term used very much. The article is tiny list like, few page views and few other interwiki languages, I just think not many people use the term or would look it up to read or improve the article, even though it is a "parent topic" I think it would be unwise in this case. There was an attempt to have Precipitation instead of rain and snow which failed for similar reasons. One could argue to remove Association Football and add Ball game to "cover" cricket, golf and tennis, but I think this would be unwise and unpopular, probably? other sports are covered by sport, other games are covered by game.  Carlwev  15:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Remove card game

Reasons above. Card game historically is less vital than boxing and people do not want to add combat sport to the level 3.

Support
  1. Support nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not removed 2-4 Cobblet (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

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

remove São Paulo

São Paulo is less famous than Rio de Janerio despite fact that Rio de Janerio is not capital of Brazil. We have bad balance between cities and countries so São Paulo is good candidate to remove it.

support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2018 ‎(UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
oppose
  1. Strong oppose It's the largest metropolitan area in the Americas. The list of cities would make no sense without it. Cobblet (talk) 12:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Vitality is not the same as fame or being a current capital. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).
  4. Oppose Willing to be convinced if a replacement that is better, but Google scholar hits for the two cities are about the same. I'd also note that current trajectories will put São Paulo at twice the size of Rio in the next few decades. PWC has predicted the São Paulo will be the fifth wealthiest city in the world by 2025. São Paulo has the largest gay pride parade in the world. I'll admit Copacabana beach is awesome, but if we are going to delete a Brazilian city, it should be Rio. AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
Not added 2-2 Cobblet (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

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

add Central America

I think that this concept from physical geography is enough vital for inclusion here

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 08:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I don't think it's needed. Central America is part of North America. I'd be more inclined to add either Caribbean or Caribbean Sea. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Mesoamerica is already listed (under Ancient History). I think that a replace could be interesting, but with the current list: The overlap is clear. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Thinking, Either this or Caribbean, region or sea?  Carlwev  15:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Also unsure. I can see adding an article for the area between the United States and South America, but am not sure this is the right one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:48, 13 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.
FAILED
Not removed 2-4 Cobblet (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

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

remove Taj Mahal

How it is more vital than Ganges or even Uttar Pradesh?

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 10:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose – On the occasion of comparison between architectural structure vs country in terms of debate architectural structure should undoubtedly be the method used. In terms of thing vs more encompassing thing it depends. But in terms of swap Taj Mahal with Uttar Pradesh... no way. And besides with that, in the architecture section it wouldn't be the first thing to go. At least Angkor Wat and Stonehenge would fall before it. J947 (c), at 03:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).
Discuss

The Taj Mahal is in the architecture section. It should be judged alongside the Great Pyramids, Colosseum, Great Wall, Stonehenge, Machu Picchu, etc. to which it is comparable. 9 articles is not a lot for architecture. There may be a case for replacing the landmarks with styles but the section itself shouldn't be reduced. The Ganges isn't a bad suggestion since physical geography is a bit weak at the moment but I don't see why Uttar Pradesh could be considered more vital. That would be like replacing the Colosseum with Lazio and the Parthenon with Attica Region. Absurd. Gizza (t)(c) 10:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. Now that we've cut several individual works of literature from the list, the architecture section is due for a revamp along the lines Gizza is suggesting. Cobblet (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I think the Architecture section stands out like a sore thumb compared to the other sections the 'arts'. Support a rework and we possibly don't need 9 sub-articles to cover this adequately at this level. Crazynas t 17:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
The architecture section does feel out of place now that we have removed all of the individual works of art and literature. Perhaps we should just remove all of them and add History of architecture and a few more architecture or artistic movement articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
3-4, not removed Gizza (t)(c) 10:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Remove Gunpowder

Explosive material at this level is sufficient.

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support. Firearm is also here. wumbolo ^^^ 22:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 07:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose While there is some relationship between the two, it's not a very strong one (would you use gunpowder to demolish a building?), and the Tang Chinese invention of gunpowder and the European invention of modern explosives about a thousand years later are independently significant events in the history of technology that are worth treating separately at this level. Cobblet (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. The same as Cobblet.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).
  4. Oppose per Cobblet's argument Orser67 (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
2-4, not swapped Rreagan007 (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

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

swap Ship for Maritime transport

Maritime transport is more vital than ship because of transport is at the evel 2 and Vehicle is at the level 4. I am also generally oppose additions of more types of ships and weapons.

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose sometimes the most prominent specific example is more vital than the general category. Nobody goes to Google or Wikipedia and searches for "maritime transport". If a person wanted to learn about ships and boats, they would type in "ship" or "boat" respectively. The number of page views, page watchers and language versions all attest to the greater importance of ship than maritime transport. Gizza (t)(c) 07:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
    Recently we have removed password due to it is covered by Authentication despite fact "Nobody goes to Google or Wikipedia and search for "Authentication""
    There is a much larger gap in pageviews between ship and maritime transport compared to password and authentication [6]. Password gets about 21% more pageviews while ship gets 254% more views. And that proposal was about removing one of the two articles instead of swapping one for another. I wouldn't necessarily be against swapping authentication for password at that level but don't support both. Also ships/boats are still the primary form of maritime transport whereas passwords are declining in usage in many situations where authentication is required, being replaced by biometrics like fingerprints and other factors. Gizza (t)(c) 21:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Gizza RJFJR (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 06:26, 5 February 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.

Reworking the architecture section

A number of editors in the discussion on removing Taj Mahal suggested that it's time for us to rethink the way this list presents architecture. Apart from religious texts, we've previously removed all of the individual works of art and literature from the list, and have added in their place some articles related to artistic styles, genres and media. Architecture has become an outlier, being primarily represented by specific individual structures. Therefore, it's been suggested we do the same thing for architecture what we did for the arts in general – remove some or all of the individual structures, and replace them with articles on broader architectural concepts.

I have no problem with that in principle. I also have no strong opinion on how many structures we remove, or how many articles to add in their place. Here are my thoughts on the matter:

  • If we keep any individual architectural works, I suggest two in particular are worth keeping: the Great Pyramid of Giza, and the Great Wall of China. I have in mind not only the immense historical and cultural significance of both works, but also the way they rather complement one another in reflecting the symbolic and functional value of architecture. I wouldn't mind if we kept more than these two, but keeping only one of them would feel a bit unbalanced to me.
  • Before discussing what we should add, it's worth pointing out that many articles on the list are strongly related to architecture even though they're not listed under the Arts section, such as construction, civil engineering, garden, and most of the articles in the Materials and Structures section under Technology.
  • History of architecture is the single most obvious addition, given that history of art does not discuss architecture in detail, and we also already list history of literature and history of music which I think are comparable in significance.
  • The traditional way of describing the history of architecture, or at least the history of Western architecture, tends to emphasize polite architecture: works built by professional architects who make stylistic choices meant to convey a sense of import or to impress a cultural elite. I'd suggest adding vernacular architecture as a way of counteracting this kind of bias towards "learned" or "formal" architecture, but that article's not on level 4. (If the distinction seems a bit abstract, compare Romanesque architecture with Romanesque secular and domestic architecture.)
  • Another topic that potentially could fulfill the same purpose of representing vernacular architecture is domestic architecture, except it's not even an article: it's a redirect to house, which we removed in favour of home a while back. I personally wouldn't mind listing both house and home, and if we're to add categories of architecture by function, I think house should be prioritized over types of polite architecture such as sacred architecture or monument. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
PASSED
6–1, removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Remove Ion

Not vital at this level from the properties side, and only 4 ions are listed at level 4 (compare to e.g. 102 chemical elements). Ionic compound might have to be added to level 4 at least, because we have Molecule at level 3.

Support
  1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 13:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support An ion is just an atom (or molecule) with a charge, and we list both of those at this level so listing ion separately is unnecessary. I don't think ion is any more vital at this level than Isotope, which we don't list at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Weak support per nom and Rreagan. J947 (c), at 20:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 06:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support RJFJR (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)).
Discuss

I count five ions (cyanide, carbonate, chloride, nitrate, sulfate) and fifteen ionic compounds (two hydroxides, two carbonates, sodium bicarbonate, two chlorides, three nitrates, four sulfates, sodium silicate) at level 4. (By the way, polymers should be listed under their own section, not classified by functional group, especially when polyvinyl chloride does not even contain the chloride ion.) Cobblet (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
7–3, swapped. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Metric system, add International System of Units

SI is the modern form of the metric system, and is the most widely used system of measurement.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Strong Support (Ios2019 (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)).
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 06:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support I read a bunch on this (thanks for the rabbit hole, ya'll), but in the end it was a gut call. Would it be more important for wikipedia to have a good article on Metric system or ISU? I think ISU based on contemporary usage. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support Per above. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  7. Support I'll support the more modern version. RJFJR (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose SI belongs to metric system, and the latter is better known to the public and elementary school students than the former.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. After thinking about it and looking over both articles, I think we should keep things the way they are. We generally list the broader article at Level 3 and the article on the metric system is certainly the broader article, and it actually covers the SI very well. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. I've been thinking hard about this since well before there were any opposes. Thinking on a historical basis brings me here. And metric system is the name still widely used. The amount of supporters surprises me. J947 (c), at 23:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

User:Rreagan007, you now have !votes for both sides. Cobblet (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I meant to remove my support vote but accidentally removed someone else's. It's fixed now. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
7-1, swapped. --Thi (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Colosseum, add History of architecture

General topic instead of specific example of architecture.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support We've added history of literature and history of music; history of architecture is just as vital. Cobblet (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 11:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)).
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 06:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support Among Seven Ancient Wonders, some of them we list at the level 3, others are at the level 5 but none is listed at the level 4 so if we decide remove Colosseum it will be not loss. Colosseum is vital but not vital such like Great Wall of China or Great Pyramid of Giza. History of architecture is decent addition and most of individual works should be removed because of adding individual work ahead of architecture style it is such like adding song ahead of music genere. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
    BTW that list (Seven Wonders of the Ancient World) predates the Colosseum by a century or two. J947 (c), at 02:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
    At this list is mentioned "Colossus of Rhodes", not " Colosseum" (Honestly I did not noticed that and automatically assumed that Colosseum is here). The Colosseum is listed at the Wonders of the World. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support Orser67 (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  7. Support —J947 (c), at 00:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal. The Romans were the greatest engineers of the ancient world. We need an example of Roman architecture/engineering on the list if we are going to list any individual structures. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
    Not if we only have two individual structures, which seems the right way to go. J947 (c), at 17:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    I assume you mean the Great Wall and the Great Pyramid. If we're going to remove all individual structures except those two, then I'm not sure why we wouldn't just remove them also. Yes they are well known, but a large wall is still just a wall, and there are two other pyramids at Giza that are almost as large. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:38, 19 February 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.
PASSED
7–1, added. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Add History of film

This has been suggested by several people recently, and with the removal of both Akira Kurosawa and Alfred Hitchcock, I think that adding the History of film article at this level is warranted. It also makes sense to add, since Film is listed at Level 2. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support important addition to cover history of art which is already at the level 2. An encyclopedia which covers only 1000 articles should have it. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)).
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 08:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support Orser67 (talk) 05:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  7. Support. More vital than any film biography, and I believe 'history of's are slightly underrepresented at this level, but honestly they should not be grouped together. J947 (c), at 23:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The Film article has a good section on history of films. I feel this is one of many overly-specific history articles. RJFJR (talk) 03:20, 17 February 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.
SNOW FAIL
1–8, not swapped. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Swap: remove Employment, add Authentication

Employment better fit to the level 4 where we list articles related with economy such like Job and Service (economics). Authentication is more vital than Employment because of without Aauthetication Employment could even does not exist. If we add Aautheticaton to level 3 we will have more chances to add password and biometrics to level 4 (Password for sure is more vital than playing card and should be listed there)

Support

As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose
  1. Oppose Swap with Unemployment seems better option if Job covers employment. --Thi (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    Job is on the level 4, not 3. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose People have been paid for labour since time immemorial. Modern methods of identity verification make this process more efficient, but they're hardly essential. Most people did not even have identity documents before the 20th century. If you want certain things to be added on a different level you should discuss those things at that level. Cobblet (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    All people did not have computers before 20th century and computer is listed on the level 2. It is good argument to reject swapping and to reject identity document but not to reject authentication. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    And how do you authenticate someone's identity when they have no way of proving their identity? Authentication is meaningless without identity documents. Cobblet (talk) 07:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)).
  4. Oppose removal. The more job-related articles are removed, I expect better arguments. wumbolo ^^^ 15:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    Well, so I give you more arguments. We generally list Economic sectors at the level 2 (Industry, Agriculture) and Service (economics) is the only listed at the level 4. How you explain it? Is Employment more vital than Job and Service? We do not need more articles related with Economics. Missed articles related with mind are more vital. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per above. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Oppose employment is definitely within the top 25 articles relating to business and economics and 25 articles is a fair number at this level. Security in general is more important than authentication though I'm not sure if it's Level 3. Gizza (t)(c) 02:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  7. Oppose the authentication article is not general enough for L3. RJFJR (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. I agree with the above sentiments. Employment is clearly more vital. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:15, 17 February 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.
PASSED
5–2, removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Remove Sword

Swords are used nowadays only for ceremonial purposes.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Weak support Historically less influencial than astrology although I would remove Nuclear weapon as first. Nuclear weapons have been used few times in history of world and Global catastrophic risk should have higher priority for featured article. Yes we have article related with Nagasaki and Hiroshima at the level 4 but when we list Nuclear power and we do not list Nuclear technology at the level 3 + we miss spear I would remove nuclear weapon as first for these reasons. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support. Historically important, but there are probably more vital articles to list at this level. Spear failed to pass at this level, and spear is as important and probably more important historically. We also list knife at this level, and one bladed weapon is probably enough. After all, there is really no dividing line from where something goes from being a long knife to a short sword. We could probably remove artillery from this level also. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support per Rreagan007's cogent argument. RJFJR (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support no need when weapon and knife are on the list. Orser67 (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)).
  2. Oppose  Carlwev  11:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Is there an article that would cover all the basic human powered weapons including swords, spears, maces, etc? RJFJR (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@RJFJR: Melee weapon. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd say Sword is more vital than Knife and I'd prefer to remove that. Thoughts? J947 (c), at 03:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
6–3, removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Remove Zoroastrianism

Zoroaster (possibly not a historical person similar to some views of Moses) was swapped for Zoroastrianism in this list. There is an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 Zoroastrians (Parsis), and Zoroastrianism is practiced as a minority religion in parts of Iran and India. Personally I think that Greek mythology is more relevant example of historical religion.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support. Its claim to fame is that it is considered to be one of the first monotheistic religions and a possible progenitor of Judaism, but it's just too small and niche at this point in history to list at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support per Rreagan007. RJFJR (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support – Not convinced it's vital enough at this level. As Rreagan said, it's too niche. J947 (c), at 03:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)).
  6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Historically important religion that remains globally relevant. If there are going to be ~50 vital articles on religion (including individuals), Zoroastrianism should be one of them. Orser67 (talk) 05:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    How exactly is it "globally relevant"? Rreagan007 (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
    100,000 to 200,000 followers worldwide = "globally relevant" in my book. Orser67 (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
    So you're saying that a religion with ~150k followers is more vital than many cities with 3M+ people? J947 (c), at 01:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Weak Oppose I think it should be swapped with Zoroaster. Zoroastrianism is not a globally significant religion but Zoroaster was a historically significant philosopher and religious leader. Zoroaster's views on good vs evil, free will, Satan, heaven and hell were influential on Judaism, Christianity, Islam and some Ancient Greek philosophical schools. In more modern times, Zoroaster also influenced Voltaire and Nietzsche, who are both listed. Gizza (t)(c) 23:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
    You're always free to change your mind, but just as a reminder, you supported the opposite swap last time. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose  Carlwev  04:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
  • Comment As I think I may have mentioned, I'm fairly skeptical of the value of deciding which articles are "vital" in the first place, and I won't vote on this one. But I'd like to offer for consideration that the importance of Zoroastrianism is not limited to the number of its modern adherents. It's a key piece of the puzzle when comparing the major monotheistic religions, especially with regard to their eschatology. As an analogy, consider whether it would make sense to judge the importance of Latin by how many people currently speak it every day. --Trovatore (talk) 04:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
2-4, not removed Rreagan007 (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Remove Ibn Khaldun

Support
  1. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose IMO proposals with no rationale whatsoever should be a SNOW speedy close. These are supposed to be consensus-building discussions, not referendums on the popularity of a subject. Cobblet (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I support arguments. Cobblet is right. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose we need a intellectual from his time and place. GuzzyG (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. He was considered to be one of the greatest philosophers of the Middle Ages by 19th-century European scholars.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
  • Comment There is currently no requirement to explicitly give a reason for a nomination. I think nominations with well-articulated rationals have a much better chance of success, but some nominations pass with very little reasoning given in the initial nomination. Often, other voters will come along and give their own rationals for which way they decide to vote, and personally I always try to think of the best reasons for and against each nomination that I vote on. And WP:SNOW closes are for when nominations have an almost 0 chance of success. That's not the case here, so a snow close would be inappropriate. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually, there is such a requirement: consensus-building is Wikipedia policy. !Votes are just that, not votes. Elsewhere on Wikipedia, !votes that don't contribute to a discussion aren't given any weight. Why should we act any differently here? Cobblet (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Because here on the Vital Articles nominations, the process for adding and removing articles to these lists actually is a straight vote count. That process of voting is what has achieved consensus among the contributors here, that a straight vote count with prescribed voting percentages is what works best here for determining which articles get added to and removed from these lists. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
The answer to the question "why do we do act this way?" can't be "because we do." I'm not saying we shouldn't !vote, and I have no problem with the procedure we follow in counting !votes. What I am saying is that for too long we've been ignoring one of Wikipedia's conventional rules: !votes that don't contribute to a discussion shouldn't be given any weight. WP:CONSENSUS says, "Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns." How can we discuss concerns about Ibn Khaldun being on the list when those concerns aren't even expressed? Cobblet (talk) 04:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I hope that the list is not a result of straight vote count, but that that is a community-agreed upon form of organizing discussion to reach consensus. I've changed my vote, others have changed their votes based on the discussion. Hence why at least starting off the discussion with even a brief justification is necessary (and certainly the strong and widely followed norm here). Indeed, as the FAQ clearly states: "Be sure to clearly explain your reasons for the replacement." (edit conflict)AbstractIllusions (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
So let's just get this straight right now. Is there anyone here who thinks that if the vote were 5-4 and I thought the supports had the stronger case, they would want me to close a nomination as passed? And conversely if the vote were 7-3 and I thought the opposes had the stronger argument, they would want me to close a nomination as failed? I can tell you right now that there is no way a system like that would ever work here. Our local consensus of a straight voting system, while not perfect, has worked amazingly well here for years, and I honestly don't think any other system would really work. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Total straw man – nobody's said anything about having to decide which side had the stronger case. What's the problem with discarding !votes that don't advance some form of argument? Cobblet (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
From a practical standpoint, it's not really an issue. This is an inherently subjective process and most "arguments" for inclusion or exclusion from the list are little more than "I do[n't] think this article merits inclusion because it's more[less] important than the other articles listed already". So if someone makes a nomination for addition without explicitly stating a rationale, you can simply infer that they think the article is as or more important than some of the ones already listed, and vice versa for removals. It would certainly be helpful for them to specify which articles they think it is more/less important than, but not entirely necessary. I know what articles are already listed, so I can compare whatever article is nominated to the articles already listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but how is the way we discuss things on Wikipedia not a practical issue? Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion#Straw poll guidelines is specifically about handling straw polls in practice. The problem I'm talking about is not the one you identified. I'm not saying we don't know what the nominator wants the outcome to be. The problem is we don't know why they want that outcome. "Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns." When no legitimate concerns are expressed, there's nothing to decide. This isn't and never was about who had the "stronger" case – this is about a case not being made at all. Cobblet (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I absolutely think a nominator should provide their rationale, I just don't think it is strictly necessary because it can be inferred. Let's use this nomination as an example. I can easily infer that the nominator doesn't think that Ibn Khaldun is as important as the other philosophers that we currently list at this level and so he should be removed to make room for other articles that could be added. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Or that they overlap with already covered material. Or that we have too many people listed. Or that we have too many philosophers listed. Or that the nominator doesn't actually know about the topic. It is strictly necessary: It is the strong project norm, it is in the FAQ, it is part of the bedrock of all wikipedia discussion regarding consensus. And it avoids people agreeing or disagreeing with a nominator for very different reasons than those intended. AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Rreagan007, do you not understand what a rationale is? Why does the nominator think Ibn Khaldun isn't as important as the other philosophers? Is that even what the nominator is thinking? For all we know, the nominator wants to remove Ibn Khaldun and History of India because both article titles contain the capital letter I: that would be an example of a concern that isn't "legitimate." I have no idea whether the nominator's concerns are legitimate if I don't know what they are at all. Cobblet (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I think that the default rationale is "Not vital at this level". Not all people are very verbal people and not all people can spell out specific details even when they know that something is right or wrong. Some topics were added to the list in the past without discussion. If you disagree with the nominator, you can write about your own rationales. Words can be misleading and people don't always have the same context. If you write at the internet for example that "tortoises are not vital" there is always someone who asks "why do you hate tortoises?" - "You have the right to remain silent... Anything you say may be used against you..." --Thi (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
"Not vital at this level" is not a rationale. An opinion is not an argument. Feeling that something is right or wrong is not a reason for why it is right or wrong. "Discussing with the other party" is an integral part of Wikipedia's policy on dispute resolution. If you choose not to discuss, there's no dispute to resolve. Moreover, an encyclopedia is a verbal medium: if you neither trust words nor your ability to use them, you can't contribute effectively to building an encyclopedia. If you think dealing with Wikipedians is like dealing with the police, you're going to have a bad time here. Cobblet (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
if someone makes a nomination for addition without explicitly stating a rationale, you can simply infer that they think the article is as or more important than some of the ones already listed - I agree with yours exmplains at this sectgion a lot of Reagan ,but this one rationale is not reasonable rationale and probably go to nowhere. Why we have to assume that currently diversity of vital aticles is well builed based on long consensus and we can simply compare articles each other in relevant sections? If we are going to make consensus based on: "article must be comparable to other articles in the same category" our diversity will not be consensually better and will be the same whole time. For example if we will make process in a way: "recent figure need be comparable to filmmakers on VA 3 to be listed at the level 3" and "country need be comparable to other countries on VA 3 to be listed at the level 3" countries always are underrepresented and and people obverrepresented. People will be favorize by inclusionism while we will have big deletionism or cities which are less vital than countries but obviously much more vital than a lot of people on the list. The same problem is in other sections at the level 4 as well. Why we have to assume that (for example) quota for universities need be 62 and quota for languages 88, or quota for writers 250 and quota for sport people 100? Why we need assume that so long consensus was enaugh for this diversity and we will naver make new changes? Comprasion articles in style: "this one man is not much less vital than other figures from the same category" is issue. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
This section is not the place to talk about quotas. Anyway in this section I agree with Cobblet a lot. We should not tolerate nominations without a rationale or indeed votes (not !votes because quite honestly this is entirely pure vote count, which we should change exponentially) without one. Imagine if someone turned up to AfD without any deletion rationale. That falls at the 'duh' end of speedy closes. Even someone just saying 'delete' followed by a signature bang in the centre of an AfD discussion falls afoul of guidelines. 95+% of my votes here (mostly at VA4) include a rationale, ranging from a wall-of-text extravaganza to 'per [user]'. Only when I can't think of anything to say and it is an obvious vote do I resort to just bold lettering and signature. J947 (c), at 03:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay so after thinking about this some more I do think that some minimal amount of a rationale should be provided for a nomination to pass, but if the nominator does not provide it and a later support vote comes along and provides it, then I think that is sufficient. Same goes for opposes. Every oppose vote doesn't have to restate the same rationale, but at least one oppose vote should state some kind of rationale. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I am perfectly fine with that. The problem is that there are a few threads on this page that would not adhere to as simple a change as that. Also, I still think the onus is on the nominator to provide a rationale if it not fairly obvious enough for another editor to chip in and provide one. J947 (c), at 21:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
We require people to start a proposal here instead of boldly changing the list of vital articles because apart from Level 5, the list is a product of consensus. If the nominator disagrees with the current consensus and wants it changed to reflect a new consensus, it's only fair for them to begin the process of reaching that new consensus by explaining their disagreement with the current one. We revert undiscussed changes to the list on the spot; we should also be reverting proposals without a rationale on the spot. In fact, from now on, I think I'll start doing that at levels 1, 2 and 3. Cobblet (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Just do it at 1 and 2 for now. This may get too heated if you do it here, as this is a bigger base and has this discussion. We need to reach an appropriate consensus first. J947 (c), at 05:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
So the more I think about this, the more I agree that we have gotten a little too lazy about not stating our rationale for supporting or opposing a nomination. As I state above, every support and oppose doesn't have to explicitly state a rationale, as they can simply be agreeing with the rationales that have preceded their vote. I'm not opposed to people speedy closing nominations that provide no rationales, though if another editor comes along and "saves" the nomination by providing a rationale before it's closed, that should be good enough. Also, if none of the opposes express any rationale whatsoever for their opposition, then their opposes can simply be ignored. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
3-5, not removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Remove Moses

This will probably be controversial, but I don't think this article deserves to be listed here. There are currently 2 people in the Level 3 people section that are under the Mythology section in Levels 4 & 5: Moses and Abraham. They were moved there a while ago because there was a general consensus that since most historical scholars consider them to be mythical figures, they should be placed under the mythological figures section. Having Moses (and Abraham) listed in the people section is akin to having Hercules or Achilles listed in the people section. Also, out of the 9 people in this section, 6 of them are from the Abrahamic religions. I think that's a bit much and removing the lesser important of the 2 mythological characters listed here is warranted.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support neither should be on here, they're both mythological and no other cultures mythological beings are on here. GuzzyG (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
    Well, technically, god is listed, and I'm sure that almost everyone would agree that at least some gods are mythical. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
    That article's topic is specifically as understood within monotheism. --Yair rand (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support Abrahamic religions seem overrepresented among religious figures (Pew has Abrahamic religions at 55% of world population ) and anything vital about Moses seems like it would be covered in other vital articles. Moses is mainly significant as a legendary figure to Abrahamic religions, three of which are listed as vital articles. Additionally, the main source on Moses's life, the Bible, is listed as a vital article, as is the Talmud, which afaik contains more stories related to Moses. I'd personally favor swapping in someone like Mahavira, Zoroaster, or Guru Nanak, or adding more political leaders. Orser67 (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Orser67: The chart linked says that non-Abrahamic organized religions are only 23% of the world population (29% if you include folk religions). With Moses swapped with a one of those suggestions, they would be 4/9 or or 5/10, depending on whether Confucius is counted, which would clearly be overrepresentation for non-Abrahamic religions and underrepresentation for Abrahamic religions. --Yair rand (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
    That's a good point, I hadn't looked at it that way. It's a shame there isn't a figure for the non-religious/unaffiliated/atheists that stands out enough to be a Level 3 candidate. Orser67 (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    The list does include Friedrich Nietzsche and Karl Marx, fwiw. There's some difficulty in that there's a much shorter time span to choose from, and that a much smaller fraction of significant people who were irreligious were known specifically for being irreligious, or based their identities around being irreligious. --Yair rand (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
    There are actually a number of irreligious people on the list, such as Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein, though they were not well known for their irreligion specifically. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Strong Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)).
  2. Oppose. First of all, six of nine religious figures being from Abrahamic religions isn't far from the actual global demographics, especially if you consider Confucius (currently listed under philosophers and social scientists) as debatably within the religious figures. (~64% of people associated with a religion are associated with an Abrahamic religion.) Moses, understood in his role in the political founding of the Jewish Nation, the establishment of the Biblical law, philosophy, and moral code, and being a critical figure in a large portion of the world's religions, is extremely vital at this level. --Yair rand (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose No rationale given why Abraham is more vital than Moses (fact that Abrahamic religions are called Abrahamic religious does not mean that Abraham is desribed in encyclopedias ahead of Moses), no rationale given why Moses and Abraham have to go from this list before other mythological figures (Laozi and Homer). Also calling Abrahamic religon "overrepresented" is unreasonable when Religious section is underrepresented as whole. Swapping Moses and Abraham for historical figures would be reasonable but I do not see why Moses have to be straight removed without any swap. Dawid2009 (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Laozi is also semi-mythical, and nobody knows anything about Euclid or Homer. I agree with Dawid that Abraham is less vital than Moses here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. OpposeRlendog (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment
  • Either way they're not real historical people as determined by scholars and as such should not be in the people category. (Just like they're not at level 4). No proper encyclopedia is going to claim that these are 100% without a doubt real people. We should not here. GuzzyG (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PARTIAL PASS
7–1, removed; 4–4, not added. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Parthenon, add Greek mythology

Both the Bible and the Greek mythology are important for understanding Western art history. "From the Midas touch to a Sisyphean task, from Pandora's box to Achilles' heel, characters from classical Greek and Roman mythology have an inescapable presence in everyday life and language. Their stories have been continually retold across all forms of culture - in novels, poems and plays, in music from opera to pop songs, and in every type of visual art, from ancient painting and sculpture to installation and video art today." [7]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support removal Per my comments on restructuring the architecture section. Cobblet (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support – Removal easy decision. Addition not so. Honestly if we have myth(ology) at level 2 then we should have a country's mythology at level 3. And with 16 other representatives at level 4, Greek mythology is second only to Abrahamic mythology (17) at that level, which is adequately represented here by Abraham and the religions he exists in. Greek mythology and surrounds does not achieve that same level of representation at this level, even while scaled due to appropriate significance. J947 (c), at 05:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support removal GuzzyG (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support Greek mytholohy has enormous influence for Roman and Medieval European mythology, literature and artwork. Other sugestions mentioned by Cobblet shudl be covered at this level by History of literature, History of architecture, History of astronomy etc. but swapping Homer for Greek literature would be interesing. If we are going to remove non-historical figures and Sappho is going to section with writers we should swap Homer for Greek literature. Iliad and Oddysey never have been listed at this level but IMO these two are much more vital than any individual literature work which was listed or nominated to this level (except Mahabharata). Dawid2009 (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support removal (Ios2019 (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)).
  7. Support Orser67 (talk) 06:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition Greek mythology has been proposed twice in the past and failed both times. I'll say again what I said last time: "Ancient Greece is listed and summarizes the impact of its culture on Western civilization. It is hardly clear to me that after having listed Ancient Greek philosophy as well, mythology should be the next aspect of the culture to be highlighted, ahead of Ancient Greek literature, Greek astronomy, Greek mathematics, Ancient Greek medicine, Ancient Greek technology, Ancient Greek art, Ancient Greek architecture and the like. Where does this end?" Cobblet (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
    On occasions similar to this I feel like other subject matter should be the object of comparison rather than other aspects of culture/science. It's hard to find an appropriate example here though, well without giving quite dissimilar comparisons. J947 (c), at 04:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose addition Can't decide with the removal, but I still think that 'Myth' (post-merge) covers the topic in a better way than culture-specific mythologies. If we were to add one specific mythology, I think it should be something without so significant overlap as Cobblet notes. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. It's more vital than Taj Mahal, which looks unlikely to be removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Addition We have myth and ancient greece to cover this subject. RJFJR (talk) 01:24, 19 February 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.
PARTIAL PASS
5–2, removed; 2–3, not added. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

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

swap: remove Southern ocean, add Ocean

While Shoutern ocean is really very good described in English Wikipedia (better than other Oceans) and get quite a lot of pageviews here, it is has really very low popularity in forgein languaes and it is not even comparable to Arctic Ocean which is weakest other Ocean at this level. Southern Ocean is less popular than others because of a lot of people consider that exist 4 oceans in the World and Shoutern Ocean is only part of other Oceans. When we list article about Continent ahead of other specific articles such like Americas, Australia (continent), Polynesia, I think that we should replaced Shoutern Ocean with Ocean. Ocean is good addition to physical geography and this addition is possible when sea/land are level 2 and Plate tectonics is level 3. Oceans/seas historically are not infuencial for developing civilisation but his main role is significant for biosphere.Dawid2009 (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Weak support removal. wumbolo ^^^ 13:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support removal. The 4-ocean model is the most generally accepted, which views the Southern Ocean merely as parts of the other oceans. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support removal --Thi (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 08:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)).
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition. As for the general article on ocean, we already list sea as well as the individual oceans at this level. That should be sufficient. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose The Southern Ocean is the linchpin of the World Ocean's thermohaline circulation, its biggest upwelling site, and one of the planet's most productive biomes as a result: for example, Antarctic krill is believed to be the world's most abundant animal species by biomass. It's also the world's largest remaining oceanic wilderness area, largest than the Eastern South Pacific or the Arctic. It is exactly the kind of topic Wikipedia needs to highlight, even if not everybody has heard of it. The only thing ocean covers that sea does not is the concept of an ocean on planets other than Earth; that is hardly significant enough (we don't even list exoplanet) to justify adding an otherwise completely redundant article to the list. Cobblet (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose At a certain point, we have to trust experts and not "what anagrams we learned in school". The experts appear to have decided that there is a fifth ocean (the 4 ocean model is not generally accepted). Scientific articles that refer to it over the past decade do not define it or justify that it is an ocean, taking for granted that the informed readership understands that it is an ocean. Read a couple of NASA articles about it and it is clear that it is not a minor part, but increasingly seen as a key part of the overall ocean system. See: here or here or here from 2002. AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

BTW I have two questions... 1Do we need Arctica and Arctic Ocean? If we decide add North Pole in future one of them we cpould potentially remove. 2Why Amazon rainforest is at the level 3 but Tropical rainforests and Rainforests are not? If main vitality of Amason Rainforest is fact that it is influencial for life on our Planet, I would consider add Tropical rainforests ahead of Rainforests, not Amason Rainforest (destroying all Tropical Rainforest would be larger catastrophic than destroying Amason Rainforest itself). Dawid2009 (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you mean Arctic, and I kind of agree with you that we don't need both it and Arctic Ocean, after all we don't list Antarctic at this level, and I don't think Arctic is any more vital. In regards to Rainforest and Tropical rainforest, we already list forest at this level, which covers the other two. Amazon Rainforest is listed because it is the most important forest on the planet by far. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
When we have Amazon rainforest I likely we should have equator. Equator it is so common concept that even Tropical rainforest climate is called in forgein languages as "Equator climate" (see Interwiki). Addition of equator, south pole, north pole and cartography is valuable for discussionalthough I am not sure we should have all of them Dawid2009 (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The Equator is just a Circle of latitude. Latitude, Longitude, and Geographic coordinate system would all be more vital and none of them are listed at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Cartography is not listed because map is listed. I think adding more biomes is a good idea (better than adding more countries, I think), and rainforests are sufficiently distinct from other types of forests to merit being listed separately. Cobblet (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
SNOWFAIL
1-6, not swapped Rreagan007 (talk) 03:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Swap: remove Weather, add Meteorology

We generally list studies ahead of specific articles (for example mythology would be better article than myth). Earth is listed above Geography because of there are also other vital studies about Earth such like Geology (the same case is with Ethnic group vs etnography/ethnology) but in that case Metorology is better article.

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Why do you say that "we generally list studies ahead of specific articles" when all three examples you give show the opposite? The truth is that we much more frequently list concepts ahead of studies of that single concept – history of the world ahead of history, music ahead of musicology, religion ahead of religious studies, crime ahead of criminology, cell ahead of cell biology, transport ahead of transportation engineering, complex number ahead of complex analysis, etc. Cobblet (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose weather, as the thing that is studied by meteorology, is more general than studying the study of weather. RJFJR (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. After thinking about it, I think weather is the article we should list. When someone is looking for an encyclopedia article about this subject matter, they will want to read about the subject of weather itself not about the field of study of weather. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)).
  6. Oppose – The study of weather is a recent topic, whereas weather itself has shaped human life for milleniums. J947 (c), at 23:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

My gut feeling says that weather is the better article to list, but I'll think about this. Under the same logic, would you also want to replace Climate with Climatology? Rreagan007 (tatlk) 11:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Climate definietly is vital on yhe level 2 because of is extremaly influential for developing civilisations. I am not sure how vital is climatology (among meteorology and weather) but for sure not level 2 article. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
You could say the exact same thing about Weather and Meterology and remove extremely and replace 2 with 3. Think about it Dawid. J947 (c), at 01:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5–0, added Rreagan007 (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Add Rodent

The best suggestion from the Cat discussion. From Rodent: About 40% of all mammal species are rodents (2,277 species); they are found in vast numbers on all continents except Antarctica. They are the most diversified mammalian order and live in a variety of terrestrial habitats, including human-made environments.

Support
  1. as nom power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 07:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 12:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)).
  4. Support Rlendog (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support in general I think there needs to be a few more animal types at this level. J947 (c), at 19:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

My initial reaction is that if we're going to list mammalian groups, a better first choice would be primates or perhaps even marsupials or ungulates. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with primates, but rodents should be too. Rlendog (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Adding redents and primates (as both) ahead of marsupials potentially could be odd, speciffically due to fact that marsupials aree more general group and mammals are already more represented than any other animals. I also quite doubt any wild life example is enaugh vital for this level when we even do not list apple. BTW when language is level 1 article and Wild animal is level 5 probably we have way too few languages and way too many taxons on the level 4. I do not know why it is not growing proportionally when we have several languages at the level 3. Very most of languages (near whole fraction) obviously are very niche but we even do not list Catalan language at the level 4 despite fact Catalan Wikipedia was long time at top 10 the biggest Wikipedias. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
As a side note I've been thinking of adding Wildlife (wild animal redirects there) to L4. But the thing is things like wildlife aren't that much of encyclopedic topics, and as I've said before (/Level/4#Add Skill) things like these can turn into, at an exaggeration, Level 2 or bust. J947 (c), at 19:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
1-5. --Thi (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Add Puberty

Partially covered by Adolescence. Possibly vital at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I don't see why we need both this and adolescence any more than we need both ageing and old age. And I think sexual reproduction is the better topic to add anyway – remove sex if need be. Cobblet (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose ditto. RJFJR (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. I agree that we don't need both at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 06:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)).
  5. Oppose I agree with Cobblet; also Childhood more deserve for inclusion here when we have Play (activity) already on this level. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:30, 6 March 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.
PASSED
6–2, swapped Rreagan007 (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Artillery, add Military history

Historically important topic, but maybe a general article about history of warfare is better at this level. Similarly History of agriculture is listed but plough and irrigation are not.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support I'm not sure that artillery is the best article to swap out, but I do favor adding military history, partly because it covers technological advancements and doctrinal advancements, e.g. the Military Revolution. Orser67 (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support. Military history is certainly more vital, and artillery is covered in the article on gunpowder, which is listed at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support – I've been thinking of proposing the add. More vital than either of the world wars and when we've got things like Scramble for Africa on this list we can't exclude this. IMO history is slightly underrepresented at this level. It does seem on a subvertive level at first sight when comparing to 'history of's at this level but it is a very wide-ranging topic that pays homage to the biggest WikiProject here due to its vitalness. There might be a better removal than Artillery though. J947 (c), at 23:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 06:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)).
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition Oppose another specialized 'history of' article. RJFJR (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose '  Carlwev  04:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Military history is vital concept but I would add machine technology or military technology ahead of Military history. I also highly doubt we should have so many weapons when even glasses are not listed at this level. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
7–0, swapped. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Meningitis, add Infection

General article about infections and pandemics seems useful. Meningitis seems to me least vital disease on the list. It is a notifiable disease only in some geographical areas.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Seems overly specific to me. Surpriosed we don't already have infection. RJFJR (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support, also surprised we don't have infection already. J947 (c), at 23:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)).
  6. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 21:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  7. Support Sure. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

How is infection distinct enough from disease? Can someone explain?....Also I've had Parasitism on my mind for a while. I remember reading over half of all species are parasites, seems quite important, vaguely related.  Carlwev  14:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Disease includes both infections (infectious diseases) and non-infectious diseases. That obviously means there is some overlap, but since disease is at Level 2, I think it's appropriate to list infection at level 3. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikidata integration to help

I am working on a software that try to guess the subject of any article based on its content. It works with wikipedia vital articles level 3. I struggle to extend the experiment to level 5 because level 5 page layout is not systematic. That is, some time subcategories are in subpages and sometime they are in-page. Anyway, this lead me to think that maybe wikidata could help structure vital articles into a hierarchy. WDYT? i⋅am⋅amz3 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

A lot of Level 5 is currently a mess. I've been meaning to get around to organize level 5 into a more hierarchical structure the way level 3 is, but it's still so far from being completed that the amount of time it would take to properly organize it all seems not worth it yet. Some sections of Level 4 also still needs a good bit of organizational work too. Another issue is that some articles aren't listed in the same categories across all levels. Some of that came be fixed, but in some areas it makes sense to have a discrepancy, such as the Geography section at Level 3 includes some articles listed under Earth Science at Levels 4 and 5. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, actually it possible to process level 5 with code. Prolly, wikidata can help. i⋅am⋅amz3 (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
PASSED
5–1, added Rreagan007 (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Add Cat

Support
  1. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)).
  2. Weak support – Right now we list four mammals, namely dog, horse, cattle, and human. It seems fairly reasonable to include another one, as they are the closest we can call to intelligent life. It seems rather wrong to include dog but not cat, as cat is a more common pet. Dog would be here for it's long-time significance, yet going back to the early stages of that, wolf was probably on the same page. Furthermore, it is good to have a representative of felidae—probably the largest class of mammals—and cat would undoubtedly be the one. Monkey could also be an option (note: this was originally deleted by Cobblet but I reverted it. This can be considered a statement on behalf of Ios2019). J947 (c), at 21:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support tentatively. --Thi (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support Echoing the idea that if we include dogs we should include cats. Swordman97 talk to me 21:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose. Horse is important historically for transportation/warfare. Cows are important historically for meat and milk. Dogs are important historically as service animals and for companionship. Cats are pretty much only companion animals and overlap in that area with dogs. It's a close call, but I don't think it belongs in level 3. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

I've suggested this before, but if we were to add an animal, my preference now would be to pick another livestock animal (sheep or pig; sheep has failed before) or rat, which is significant for reasons completely different from any of the animals currently listed (pest, ubiquitous distribution to the point of invasiveness, experimental model, and representative of rodents, the largest order within Mammalia). Cobblet (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Horse, dog and cattle have more historical significance. Sheep, pig and chicken are other animals worth thinking about, but might not be important enough. Cat's although having pest control significance, are important mostly as pets. Would pet be a better choice? Rodent and Primate are other articles I was thinking about.  Carlwev  13:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I would consider add farm ahead sheep or ping and pet ahead of cat (even when we have dog already on the list). When we list fishing reasonable is add farm because of farm is not less influencial than fishing. And if we are going to keep both (fishing and farm) we also should have Hunter-gatherer. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Cats are more than companionship animals. Their main practical purpose when domesticated was hunting rodents which were and still are significant carriers of disease. Not sure if that's enough to make them vital. My own views are probably in the minority here since I think a culturally significant, wild animal like lion, tiger, eagle or bear would be a more valuable addition than another domesticated animal. Rat is also not a bad suggestion. Gizza (t)(c) 22:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This would be an easy support if there were a plausible article that included both housecats and lions (Felidae is too technical for this level). As it is I'm undecided. Another animal to consider would be Whale. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
2-3, not swapped. --Thi (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Atheism, add Irreligion

Irreligion is a broader subject that covers both atheism and agnosticism, as well as arguably less important subjects like Apatheism, Theological noncognitivism, and individuals who consider themselves to be Spiritual but not religious. If religion is going to be a level 2 vital article, then I think an umbrella topic covering all irreligion, and not just atheism, should be at least a level 3 vital article.

Support
  1. Support as nom Orser67 (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Atheism is vital such like Theism (we recently removed it despite fact it was instead polytheism and monotheism). Irreligion is better choice. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Irreligion is too much like Secularism, which is already listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    Secularism is largely about separating religion from governance, and many of the most prominent secularists were themselves religious. Irreligion is no more like secularism than atheism is. Orser67 (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
    The scope of the article on secularism is much broader than just being about a secular state. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Atheism is philosophically more important term and it has been in use for hundreds of years. The term irreligion is related to study of religion (sociology and psychology of religion and religious/nonreligious people). Apatheism and noncognitivism are much newer terms and they are used mostly in theoretical context. Spirituality is listed and covers also 'spiritual but not religious'. --Thi (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    Even accepting all of arguments in the last sentence, atheism still doesn't cover agnosticism. Orser67 (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)).
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1–4, not added Rreagan007 (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Add Chronology

Chronology ("study of time") is very important concept for history. I think it is more important to history than sphere to mathematics. It can be also useful in arts, for example in Setting (narrative).

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not as important in general as Calendar. --Thi (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)).
  3. Oppose While I see time as a general concept and important, I'm not impressed with chronology in a general purpose encyclopedia. RJFJR (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose chronology is an important concept in historiography, not history. Gizza (t)(c) 08:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1–5, not removed Rreagan007 (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Remove 0

We currently list 3 constants at this level: 0, along with π and e. The number 0 sort of sticks out to me as not being vital enough to list at this level. At level 4 we also list 1 and -1. I think 0 would be more at home at level 4 with those. As a side note, I've also recently added numbers 2-9 at level 5.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. weak oppose π is less vital because of we do not list irrational number (Even if we have Fraction, featured article about irrational number IMO should be ahead of featured artibcle about pi). If we decide remove 0 and π, listing constants without them would make no sense. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Strong oppose The widespread adoption of zero by mathematicians is arguably the single most important event in the entire history of mathematics.[8][9][10] Cobblet (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 07:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Strong oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)).
  5. Very vital in physics.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Maybe Negative number should be added to level 4? It seems about as vital as zero. wumbolo ^^^ 21:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
2–4, not added Rreagan007 (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Add Election

Essential topic in politics and government.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Plenty of undemocratic governments hold elections, so it seems like a distinct topic to me. And clearly elections are a vital aspect of modern life. Orser67 (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I think this is already covered sufficiently by democracy, which is already listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. per Rreagan007. RJFJR (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)).
  4. Oppose When we have democracy already on the list Totalitarianism would be better choice although I am not sure it is vital. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:17, 6 March 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.
PASSED
5–2, added Rreagan007 (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Add Primate

Primates are common example of wildlife. The topic is also related to Human evolution. "By studying them and watching their behaviour, humans have been able to gain a remarkable insight into our own beginnings and how our complex cultures have developed." [11]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 08:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support - absolutely. Rlendog (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)).
  4. Support, quite honestly animals are the most underrepresented section on this list. J947 (c), at 17:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support Swordman97 talk to me 22:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose too specific. RJFJR (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Dawid2009 (talk) 09:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-5, not added. --Thi (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Add Human impact on the environment

General article about human overpopulation, overconsumption and other environmental problems which are not listed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I see environment might be vital, but not this impact article. RJFJR (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Just saying, environment is a disambig page. J947 (c), at 06:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I don't think we need all four of pollution, environmentalism, global warming, and human impact on the environment. Orser67 (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)).
  4. Oppose per Orser67. Swordman97 talk to me 01:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Already covered adequately by other listed articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
How much is this covered by Environmentalism? RJFJR (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
SNOW FAIL
1-5, not added. --Thi (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Add Americas

A lot of people regard it an entire continent (e.g. the United Nations), thus it should be added.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. We don't need to list it separately when North America and South America are already listed. Eurasia is objectively more of a unitary continent than the Americas are. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose the UN Geoscheme is not an assignment of 'Continents' it is a statistical grouping mechanism for countries. Hence why Vladivostok is considered part of Europe, and every colony is in the region of its metropole. So, I'm not sure what exactly the source is here. But I can't think of an expert body dealing with geography in the UN that considers the Americas to be one continent. Agree with Rreagan about both timing of the nomination and overlap. AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Already have north and south. RJFJR (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)).
Discuss
  • Only three months since the last nomination? And the discussion was closed barely a month ago? I just want to close this right now because that is utterly terrible RekishiEJ. J947 (c), at 19:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @J947:, actually it was not closed barely a month ago, since it was closed on 29 January. I did initiate this proposal too early, though, as 29 April still didn't come, and I didn't notice that last time the proposal to add Americas failed at the end of January.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Look, if a proposal to add something fails, then wait at least a year and bring up new evidence, not a month and 11 days. J947 (c), at 18:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
        • There have been proposals to impose a 1-year rule, but they have failed. In principle, I don't have a problem with quick renominations if there is a good reason, such as if the first nomination had a likelihood of passing but was closed too soon; however, in this case the other nomination failed rather convincingly by a 2/3 majority. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
          • Yes, I know there have been, I know they've failed, but surely a wait of more time than this is justified? J947 (c), at 20:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
            • In this case, I absolutely agree with you it was way too soon for this renomination. But I'm willing to examine every renomination on a case-by-case basis. I would encourage the nominator to withdraw this nomination. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
            • Can we come up with a procedure so instead of renominating a recently closed proposal we somehow reopen the proposal instead so people who commented on the previous proposal don't need to do it again? RJFJR (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
              • @RJFJR:Oppose, closed proposals should not be reopened.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
                • Renominated a recently closed proposals should be at least renominated as "swapping". We very often have renominated proposarls even during another one which is not closed yet but: first one is nomination for addition meanwhile other is swapping. For example at the level 2 we had recentrly accident where we had three proposarls related with addition of folklore (one proposal as addition and two proposals as swappings). Dawid2009 (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
This proposal has a lot of issues with it. Also, as per J947's post under Support, I have proposed this to Level 4. A new Level 3 discussion, however, may take place if the Level 4 proposal is passed. InvalidOStalk 13:47, 22 March 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.

Suggestion to add Negative number and Imaginary number to the list of level 3 vital articles.

I believe that Negative number and Imaginary number deserve to be added to the list of level 3 vital articles. An imaginary number is necessary to create a complex number as, according to the article on complex numbers, "is a number that can be expressed in the form , and is a solution of the equation ." Likewise, a negative number is necessary to make an imaginary number, as is defined by the statement . Negative numbers are also a very widely-utilized concept and are extremely important to number theory overall. InvalidOS (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. I support adding Negative number, as I've said somewhere above, but Imaginary number is not vital enough in my opinion. Just because it is used for something vital does not automatically make the ingredient vital. wumbolo ^^^ 19:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. I'd too support Negative number (Wumbolo: #Remove 0 is it), but I think it would be better to propose it to level 4 first. Not sure about Imaginary number. J947 (c), at 21:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Nom (please sign).
Oppose
  1. Oppose adding imaginary number already covered by complex number.RJFJR (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
  • We should probably split this into two proposals, one for each addition. RJFJR (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe. Doesn't really seem to be worth the hassle though. J947 (c), at 18:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
1–2, withdrawn by nominator. --Thi (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Add Louis XIV of France

He is probably at least as famous as Joan of Arc.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Being famous doesn't make you vital, and I don't see this as vital. (Does someone have additional reasons this person is vital?) RJFJR (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Not more important then, Saladin, William the Conqueror, Franklin D. Roosevelt or Ashoka. Joan of Arc is only one of ten women on this list, a male political leader just does not compare and plus Emmy is the weakest woman anyway. GuzzyG (talk) 02:07, 26 March 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.
WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn by nominator. --Thi (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Add Vitamin

It has more entries in Wikidata than Nutrition itself. Seems like essential topic.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

It may have more entries but it is still a subtopic of nutrient, which is in turn a subtopic of nutrition. An entry on vitamin wouldn't exist in an encyclopedia without similar articles on mineral, protein/essential amino acid, fat/essential fatty acid, carbohydrate/glucose, etc. Seems like a next-level article to me. Gizza (t)(c) 08:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

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

References

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_13&oldid=1137398165"