Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

The following discussion is closed. 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 Drama

If we are going to list Comedy at this level, then we should also list drama. It used to be on the list, but was removed because of concerns that it overlapped too much with Theater and Tragedy. The article on tragedy has since been removed, and the articles on comedy and drama are both much broader in scope than just covering those subjects within theater.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).
3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The article is about the literary mode, not the media genre. I could support an article on the latter (which would be Drama (film and television), but it's unfortunately a stub and not on any lower-level vital article list); but the concept of dramatic expression in the arts is already well covered in the articles on the arts themselves, and I'm very far from convinced that there's much to be gained from treating the topic in a standalone article. It certainly gains nothing from this article: the sections on Western and non-Western theatre cover the same ground as theatre, only more poorly; and the bits about non-theatrical arts hardly talk about the dramatic element at all. I think narrative may be a more coherent topic than drama. Cobblet (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

• Link to removal discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_7#Remove_Drama. --Yair rand (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • My thinking at the time is that the wikipedia page for Drama says clearly that it is what happens in a theater. That is their definition, explained at length. I agree with Rreagan007's argument in principle, but the problem is that they aren't defining drama as the reverse mask to comedy on the page, they are defining it as things that happen in a theater. As the page explains: "The use of 'drama' in a more narrow sense to designate a specific type of play dates from the modern era." So, that creates the redundancy. Maybe Tragedy is the better add? I don't know. I won't vote, I'll trust the hive here. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
    • The very first sentence of the article says: "Drama is the specific mode of fiction represented in performance: a play, opera, mime, ballet, etc, performed in a theatre, or on radio or television." Tragedy is a subset of drama, and shouldn't be the article included at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
      • According to the page, Tragedy is not a subset of drama (genre): "Drama" in this sense refers to a play that is neither a comedy nor a tragedy." Your justification is that drama is a genre like comedy. Cool, but that is deliberately not what the article Drama is about. Indeed you'll see that 'Comedy', 'Drama', and 'Tragedy' are listed as a types on that article. I would be happy with Drama replacing 'Theater,' for what its worth. AbstractIllusions (talk) 04:24, 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.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Machu Picchu, add Peru

Machu Picchu is an ancient architectural wonder and now a tourist attraction in Peru. Peru is a "a biodiverse country... home to several ancient cultures. Ranging from the Norte Chico civilization in the 32nd century BC, the oldest civilization in the Americas and one of the five cradles of civilization, to the Inca Empire, the largest state in pre-Columbian America, the territory now including Peru has one of the longest histories of civilization of any country, tracing its heritage back to the 4th millennia BCE." Modern Peru "is classified as an emerging market with a high level of human development... The country forms part of The Pacific Pumas, a political and economic grouping of countries along Latin America's Pacific coast that share common trends of positive growth, stable macroeconomic foundations, improved governance and an openness to global integration".

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal GuzzyG (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Support per above reasoning. According to demographics of Peru Peru is a biodiverse country. It is also the largest not listed country from Latin America. Machu Picchu should not staying if we are going to remove most of individual architecture works. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Support. Orser67 (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
5. Support removal. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 11:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)).
2. Oppose addition. I don't think any more countries should be added before English-speaking countries like Ireland and New Zealand are added. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

   Let me just say that is preposterous to put New Zealand in before Peru, and I say that as an NZ'er. J947 ^(c), at 23:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

   I disagree. I think the New Zealand article is more vital to the English Wikipedia than Peru. On the English Wikipedia, New Zealand gets over triple the number of views as Peru.[1] Rreagan007 (talk) 01:54, 20 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.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Stonehenge, add Republic of Ireland

Ireland is the tenth most prosperous country in the world. Recently the Brexit has caused a boom in investment and jobs in Ireland as companies relocate from London. "The Irish diaspora, one of the world's largest and most dispersed, has contributed to the globalisation of Irish culture, producing many prominent figures in art, music, and science."

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) 16:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Support addition As I said last time, this article is tailored to the English Wikipedia and as such the English-speaking country of Ireland should be on the list. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Support removal GuzzyG (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
5. Support removal, no comment upon addition – No way we're listing Stonehenge before Ireland, but do we need either? J947 ^(c), at 08:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
6. Support Orser67 (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition The last proposal to add Ireland failed half a year ago. Repeating what I said there: "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) 16:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)).
3. Oppose removal. It's the only example of neolithic/prehistoric architecture we have on the list. Unless we remove all of the individual structures, this should stay. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose Stonehage is the only article relatedd with prehistoric art on this level and Europe is better represented by countries than other continents. I can support swap Stonehage for pehistoric art and increasing number of countries, but I can not support swap Stonehage for Republic of Irleand because of it would not be reasonable for the diversity. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Dawid2009. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 22:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

I suggest a more appropriate swap would be to add prehistoric art. Cobblet (talk) 16:42, 3 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.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Joan of Arc, add Akbar

While Joan of Arc's military and cultural record is quite impressive, I don't think it is vital enough compared to the Mughal Emperor Akbar. Akbar is considered one of the greatest Indian emperors, enlarging the empire to cover most of the Indian subcontinent, tripling the size of the empire and establishing its superiority. The foundations of tolerance he constructed helped the multicultural empire unite and stay strong, and his reign helped establish the position of the Mughal Empire as one of the great Islamic empires of the time, along with the Ottomans and Safavid, and also ushered in the golden age in India that followed, exemplified by buildings like the Taj Mahal. —Spykryo (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support nom.
2. Support removal --Thi (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Support removal (Ios2019 (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)).

Oppose

1. Oppose removal again; on a list that's meant to be diverse adding another male leader and removing a woman does not make sense. Also i'm not convinced Akbar is more vital then Ashoka or Saladin GuzzyG (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal. Agree with GuzzyG to a large extent. Ashoka edges out Akbar and arguably Gandhi too in vitality. As far as empires go, the Mughal and Gupta are greater than the Maurya but in terms of a single leader than will be remembered for a very long time, it is Ashoka. Saladin is also a good suggestion. Surely we could remove some of the writers first if we're tight on space. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose We could use another political figure from South Asia and Akbar is a reasonable suggestion; but any addition should not come at the expense of one of only ten women on the list. If the list is to reflect the world's diversity, it surely cannot be too much to ask that women biographies comprise 1% of it. Cobblet (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose Another South Asian political figure is a good idea, but I don't think we should remove Joan of Arc, and I'd go with either Chandragupta Maurya or Ashoka before Akbar. Orser67 (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

@DaGizza: What do you think about swapping Kahlil Gibran for Saladin? Gibran is the least vital person listed but he's on for diversity reasons;considering we removed Kurosawa i think Gibran's time is up. Saladin is more historically important to that region and he covers up a gap in the politics section, while Gibran is bloated in writers. Abu Nuwas and Rabindranath Tagore are more vital writers to history and will last longer from this region too, so i don't see a place for Gibran unless we go by bestselling. GuzzyG (talk) 06:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: yeah I think Gibran and Dostoevsky are the weakest writers on the list. Gibran for the reasons you stated. Dostoevsky because there is too much overlap between him and Tolstoy. Same country and era. Not quite at Tolstoy's level. Similar to Victor Hugo, Dickens, Oscar Wilde and the Brothers Grimm I feel in being second or third to their respective countrymen. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@DaGizza: I agree with Dostoevsky, same as Mark Twain being second to Hemingway. I don't see why Russia gets two writers from the same era when others are more spread out. I would support both Gibran and Dostoevsky removals or swaps but honestly i am not a good writer and not intelligent enough to come up with a proper nomination and all of my nominations get shot down so i am just going to wait until someone else does. I also now think Dali is a weak link too, maybe. Dali, Gibran, Dostoevsky, Heisenberg, Gutenberg and Chopin are the weakest links on this list now and i think they should be swapped atleast for someone from a different field/time in something for a fuller diverse list. Also to be clear my opinion for two good swaps is Gibran for Saladin and Dostoevsky for Ashoka. GuzzyG (talk) 06:32, 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.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Neptune, Uranus

Per below discussion, Neptune and Uranus potentially are not vital at this level. These two planets are the only planets in our solar system which have been discovered very much leter than Copernican Revolution and are long distance from Earth. When we are anthropocentric (for example we list Global warming ahead of Climate change or civilized continents ahead of Antarctica and Continent) we should not list Neptune and Uranus ahead of Equinox, Solstice, Eclipse, Astrology and History of astronomy. Also fact that we have already Planet and Solar system at this level makes Neptune and Uranus less vital than Mount Everest IMO. Pluto is not covered by Dwarf planet at this level. Dawid2009 (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 09:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Support per nom and my previous comments above and in the archives. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Weak support as per my comment that raised this discussion: 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 04:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)).
2. Oppose All eight (non-dwarf) planets are vital for both cultural and scientific reasons. Orser67 (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose The Solar System is our home. We should list all of the most significant objects in it. Uranus and Neptune certainly count as some of its most significant objects. I don't see how they're any less "famous" than the other planets – any schoolchild knows all of them. Cobblet (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
4. weak Oppose I'm for keeping the full list of planets as articles. (Though I see why these would be considered the least vital of the planets.) RJFJR (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
5. Strong Oppose They’re planets that are in our Solar System. Also, I am not having the harmony of that section’s featured articles be disrupted. InvalidOStalk 19:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
6. Oppose. I've had to think about this one a long time, because I do see the argument for removing these, but in the end I think all 8 planets, the sun, and the moon are vital articles at this level (or higher). Rreagan007 (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

When we have Galaxy and Star already on the list I do not support addition of other Glaxies and Stars to this list but adding History of astronomy instead something like Greek Astronomy (which is less vital than Greek Mythology IMO) and adding Observation (not as astronomic article) or Light-year is reasnable for discussion. Some time ago there were failed nomination to swap Global warming for Climate change but I would support addition of Meteorology. Dawid2009 (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

We don't list the histories of any of the other pure sciences, and I'm not really convinced any of them are necessary. Cobblet (talk) 04:18, 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.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Mesoamerica, add Pre-Columbian era

Maya civilization and Aztecs are listed.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Support addition (Ios2019 (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)).
3. Strong support addition We are under quota and it is clearly more vital than Stoonhage in context of prehistory. Outline of Britanicca covers it among 43 the most general topics. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Support addition Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal All cradles of civilization should be listed. The Maya and Mexica were just two out of many remarkable Mesoamerican civilizations – Olmec, Zapotec, Teotihuacan, etc. This is like saying we should remove Mesopotamia or History of the Middle East because we have Sumer. Cobblet (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Strongly agree with everything written by Cobblet. I would favor adding Pre-Columbian era, but not removing Mesoamerica. Orser67 (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal Neutral on addition. As Cobblet notes, Mesoamerica produced many civilizations and not just the great pyramid builders. Mesoamerica gave us Corn and Tomatoes (amongst others)--but, neither the Mayan or Aztec did. I agree with the standards that all cradles of civilizations should be included. And Mesoamerica is certainly one of those (I'll add the Lenca and the Otomi to Cobblet's 'etc.'). AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose removal per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:21, 31 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.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Angkor Wat, add History of Southeast Asia

Southeast Asia is a discrete region of Asia which has a unique history and culture. The three other major subregions of Asia all have their histories listed at level three (history of India is essentially the history of South Asia, and history of the Middle East covers Western Asia). Angkor Wat is an important monument, but it's not more vital than the history of the region it's a part of.

Support

1. Support as nom Orser67 (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal --Thi (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Support removal. It's less vital than the Parthenon and Colosseum, both of which we have recently removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
5. Support this is an unusual case where I believe the history is more vital than its subject. Nice swap. J947 ^(c), at 23:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
6. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 06:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)).
7. Support removal Dawid2009 (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition Oppose another specialized 'history of ...' article. RJFJR (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose addition --Thi (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose addition (Ios2019 (talk) 06:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)).
4. Oppose addition History of Southeast Asia on English Wikipedia is less foccudes term than History of Antarctica. I do not see how it should be ahead of general article about Exploration or article about History of United States/History of China. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose addition. After thinking about it, I agree that this is not really vital to the English Wikipedia at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:54, 12 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.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Caspian Sea, add Central Asia

With 70 million people by the most narrow definition, Central Asia would be the 20th-most populous country in the world (and the most populous non-Vital Article) if it were one country. It's also an underrepresented topic on the level 3 list: only one of the Level 3 vital articles (Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi) covers an individual from Central Asia (though Genghis Khan did spend a lot of his career conquering Central Asia), and none of the geography articles are primarily about Central Asia (other than Caspian Sea, which also borders other regions). So by adding Central Asia, we can cover a largely unrepresented, fairly populous region with a single article. The Caspian Sea is an important body of water, but it's not more important than the region it borders, nor is it as vital as the other bodies of water on this list.

Support

1. Support as nom. Orser67 (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal --Thi (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition. I don't think we need to list any more sub-continental geographic areas at this level. I fail to see how Central Asia is any more vital than West Africa, Southern Africa, East Asia, or Southeast Asia. If people want a swap, I would suggest History of Central Asia instead. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

   Well, Central Asia doesn't have any countries listed. East Asia has 3 countries listed, West Africa has 1 country listed, and Southeast Asia has 2 countries listed. Also, East Asia already has a history article listed, and West African history is covered pretty well in the History of Africa article. Orser67 (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

   I don't think it's a good enough reason to list a geographic region simply because we don't list any countries from that region. Having said that, Kazakhstan might be worthy of listing at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

   I don't see how Kazakhstan is worth listing ahead of several other unlisted countries (including Uzebekistan, which has far more people and is arguably more important historically than Kazakhstan). Instead of trying to pick one country from Central Asia, I think we should just list the whole region. Orser67 (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

2. Oppose addition. Agree with Rreagan007 about not adding sub-continental geographic areas. RJFJR (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose both. Caspian sea it is the biggest and the most significant lake on the earth. Listing lakes without it would make no sense (we have 3 lakes already on this level). Also adding Central Asia as representation not listed countries sound unreasonable. We always list countries ahead of regions. Russia and Poland are level 3 articles, while Eastern Europe even is not 4. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose Endorheic basins cover 25% of the world's continental landmass, excluding Antarctica and Greenland.[2] They must be represented on the list. Cobblet (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose removal per last time. Neutral on the addition. I don't mind the idea of adding regions of the world where there are no countries represented. It would be a radical change from the current setup but I'm open to it. Apart from Central Asia, the Caribbean, Scandinavia and Central America are viable candidates.

Discuss

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

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

---

Add walking and running

Support

1. As nom. Now that we have swimming on this list, it is illogical not to include these as well.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Support walking, or possibly Bipedalism. --Yair rand (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Already covered sufficiently at this level by Athletics. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Definitely not both. RJFJR (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Exercise is enough. --Thi (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose – Athletics and Exercise adequately serve as representatives here. Also, swimming seems to be an order of magnitude more broad than these two. J947 ^(c), at 04:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 13:35, 25 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.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Andean civilizations

I see Pre-Columbian era and Peru as more vital topics at this level.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Andean civilizations spanned 6 countries (Peru, Colombia, Argentina, Ecuador, Bolivia and Chile). It was much greater than the modern nation of Peru. There would no article covering the non-Inca Empire Andean civilisations in depth like the Muisca (where the legend of El Dorado came from) or the Nazca lines. 2 articles specifically on South American history is reasonable for a continent of its size. And we're 6 articles under quota so I don't see a need for removal. Gizza ^(t)(c) 21:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per Gizza. But also: Potatoes, Tobacco, Egyptian Cotton (yep, from Peru), various beans, etc. These are results of the various Andean civilizations. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose All cradles of civilization should be listed. Cobblet (talk) 05:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose Dawid2009 (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

Remove Abraham

Abraham is a mythological figure and Moses was seen as more vital topic at recent vote.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Not a person, should not be in biography. GuzzyG (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Support. I think we should remove all of the non-historical people from this level, including this one. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. He has been traditionally considered to be the ancestor of Jews.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC) altered the argument a bit --16:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

   My father is very widely considered the ancestor of me. Give some context. J947 ^(c), at 18:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

   Because Jews have been a middleman minority in some countries, and Abraham is vital for Jews, Christians and Muslims, and many people in the world are either Christians or Muslims.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

2. Oppose. The majority of the world's population are of an Abrahamic religion. Abraham is a critically important figure. (See also Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_13#Remove_Moses.) --Yair rand (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)).
4. I don't really care if he was fictional or not, he's seminal to several world religions. pbp 00:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

   By the same measure Adam and Eve are seminal to the world's existence in Abrahamic religions? Would you support them being here? Or are you picking and choosing what "seminal figures" to have here? GuzzyG (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

   Of course I'm picking which seminal figures to keep and which seminal people to leave, because the number of "seminal" figures (real or fictional) in various nations and fields is much larger than the number of biographies included at Lv. 3. Lv. 4 and 5 exist because Lv 3 is too small to cover many, many important topics. The Adam and Eve point is a bit of a straw man, and I am conflicted as to whether they are among the top 10 most important religious figures (real or fictional) of all time. But they're certainly Top 25. pbp 16:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

5. Oppose Adam and Eve are not as vital to Judaism, Christianity and Islam as Abraham. The significance of religious figures is derived from their followers, not their historicity per se. We could move the legendary and semi-legendary figures to another section but Abraham, Homer and Laozi are all articles that are among the 1000 most vital in an encyclopedia whether these people truly existed or not. Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Going by the oppose votes, are we going to add Adam and Eve next? GuzzyG (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Probably not. They're more appropriately at level 4, given their somewhat lesser significance in the world's religions. If there were to be another added from this area, I'd lean maybe toward David, but I think the current list is okay. --Yair rand (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

But if Abraham is the "common patriarch of the three Abrahamic religions" and we're going by this story, shouldn't the patriarch and matriarch of everyone be more relevant? We're including people on this list based off people's impact on the world, if Abraham is vital as the patriarch of the religions then how is that more of a impact on the world then Adam and Eve? Better then that, if these people are listed in a completely different section of the level 4 list and not under biography... why are we making this list different?? GuzzyG (talk) 02:26, 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.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Fundamentalism

Essential topic in Religion section.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

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

---

Remove Mathematical optimization, add Numerical analysis

Mathematical optimization is an example of applied mathematics. I'm doubtful about its vitality at this level. Numerical analysis has more interwiki links and it is included in Meta's list.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 08:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal. wumbolo ^^^ 10:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Support removal. Both articles are too specialized for this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
4. Support removal, too specialized. RJFJR (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
5. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)).

Oppose

Discuss

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

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

---

Remove Werner Heisenberg

Is he really more vital than Max Planck, Ernest Rutherford or Enrico Fermi?

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

My response to Thi's question would be yes: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle has to be one of the most profound scientific developments in 20th-century science, with ramifications not just for science but also for philosophy and the nature of reality and observation. Planck and Rutherford never produced an insight that profound, and I also don't think their contributions to old quantum theory and old atomic theory are more notable than Heisenberg's development of matrix mechanics. I'd say Fermi is as famous for his personality as his contributions, and I'd rather compare him to Franklin (who's listed) and Feynman (who isn't) than to Heisenberg. Cobblet (talk) 05:27, 29 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.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Global Positioning System

It is not eaugh vital at this level and it takes space for many other more important articles such like Travel, North Pole, South Pole, Exploration etc.

Support

1. As nom.  Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Support removal per nom, and I don't think we should be U.S.-centric. wumbolo ^^^ 22:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

   Changed from "support" to "support removal". wumbolo ^^^ 22:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

3. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 06:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).
4. Support —J947 ^(c), at 03:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I disagree – this is one of the most important human achievements of the 20th century. I understand that the Poles arouse the imagination of some people but for me it is much more essential that this list cover revolutionary advances in technology. Cobblet (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Discuss

You're welcome to suggest adding exploration, but I don't mind the fact that we've chosen to list tourism and transport rather than the less focused concept of travel. Cobblet (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

You consider transport/tourism/esploration as part of travel. Even despite fact travel is at the level 4. It is reasonable to we try add travel in future ;) Dawid2009 (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I could live with Rreagan007's suggested swap if satellite navigation were on the level 4 list. Cobblet (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I've nominated it at Level 4. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

NOTE: Satellite navigation is now listed at Level 4. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Thi:, @RekishiEJ: You support keeping Radar which seems be less vital thn Satelite navigation. Wwhat do you think about this swap?

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

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

---

Swap: Remove Global Positioning System, add Satellite navigation

Support

1. Support swap with satellite navigation. GPS isn't the only satellite navigation system. There's also GLONASS, BeiDou, and Galileo. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Weak oppose Currently we list at navigation: GPS and Radar. Satelite navigation obviously is more vital than these two and it could be decent addition but still tgere are other more important articles not listed at this level. Even not necessary travel or travel-related articles but also Geodesy or Cartography. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Support Now we are well under quita and Satelite navigation better choice than something like Trade Union IMO. When we list modern things related with entertaiment (Jazz, Comics, Video games etc.) we need more modern essential inventions. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Support swap with satellite navigation. --Thi (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
4. Support swap We should cover revolutionary advances in modern navigation in some way. Cobblet (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose addition – It isn't vital enough quite honestly. We've got enough recentism already, this may be more vital than Jazz but I would prefer a swap with something of comparable vitality rather than this topic-based swap (and plus, it's just a straight add in all intents and purposes; the removal should pass with a topping of SNOW). J947 ^(c), at 03:42, 28 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.

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

---

Add Welfare state

Social security and social policy are vital issues. Welfare has fewer interwikis and Social security and Social policy are not at Level 5, so this seems to be best alternative.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Support one of the most important developments of the 20th century, and clearly a very relevant topic today. Orser67 (talk) 06:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Too specific. Part of economy, possibly part of government and human rights. RJFJR (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 06:20, 22 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.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Frédéric Chopin

The list of composers has been shrinking. Verdi, Tchaikovsky, Debussy and Stravinsky are gone and only Chopin is left. He is not more vital than those other composers or Schubert or Brahms.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Support pl:Lista 100 Polaków, którzy wpłynęli na losy świata (=List of 100 Poles who had worldwide impact) - In this 2018 ranking (diversity list made by Polish people but by global perspective in a way where country specific bios like Mieszko I or Jan Kochanowski are not included to the top 100) Nicolaus Copernicus is ranked as 1st, Pope John Paul II is ranked as 2nd and Marie Curie is ranked as 4th meanwhile Chopin is only 7. Chopin was influential for composers like Tschaikovsky or Dvorak (it is mentioned in the article) but honestly I would even consider to remove all romantics (IMO actually history of music and Beethoven can represents this era when we have only 9 religious figures and 8 explorers on this level). Chopin did not proved his legacy in Poland to be there more popular there than 19th Curie [3] even despite fact his Polish heritage was very essential to Polish partitions for 123 years. Meanwhile Anderssen as 19th century artist did it against other Danish 19th scientificst listed here to and is ‘’very’’ most famous Danish in history of the country [4]. DaGizza couple months ago has said on my talk page that he is opened to remove some coposers when religion is underrepresented and he also suggested me that he would prefer swap Anderssen for another writer as reply to my previous suggestions to add more writers: Chaucer, Hugo, and Anderssen. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Support per discussion. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
4. Support per previous discussion. Cobblet (talk) 05:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
5. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)).

Oppose

Discuss

One thing i just thought of regarding this proposal, if it passes, our coverage of composers would be 4 Germans, (obvious debate with Mozart, but still); is that a reasonable thing, it probably doesn't seem that way to me. Also on our level 4 list romantic composers have similar numbers to rock musicians, on here we'd put rock over both romantic/modern classical composers. I think we've made a mistake; i was also a big advocate for Chopin's removal but to leave the classical musicians as from only one country does not seem right. GuzzyG (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

This is why I personally would've preferred listing Debussy to Wagner, although I could also live with not listing either. One could similarly complain that all three 20th-century musicians are from English-speaking countries. Is that a result of bias, or is that reflective of an objectively demonstrable Anglo-American dominance in 20th-century popular music? It's a discussion worth having. Cobblet (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Cobblet I have noticed you (in archives) were supporting to remove Presley due to fact Chuck Berry would be better as one person than the Beatles or Presley for this list but later you opposed to remove Beatles. Was it due to fact that we list Wagner and Chopin (as more popular compossers) ahead of Debussy? Dawid2009 (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I agree anymore with what I wrote back then. I can still see a case to be made for swapping Elvis for Berry, but I don't think either person is more important than the Beatles. But none of that has anything to do with who we've chosen to represent classical music. Cobblet (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Debussy could work, although absolutely no romantic composers would feel odd, especially considering our coverage of them on the level 4 list, probably would've been better to keep Chopin and remove Wagner. As for Anglo-American domination of popular music, i agree there is a significant bias there, but there's no solution i can see. The only foreign performer i can see with any chance is Édith Piaf, which would include a woman in the music section too. GuzzyG (talk) 08:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

If we go by that list Krystyna Skarbek should be in the level 4 list then..... Chopin should only be removed in a swap. Chaucer, Hugo, Tagore, Twain, Pushkin etc are all way more vital then Andersen. Pope John Paul is not in the top 5 most important Christian leaders. You fail to take in relativity into account, aka a pope may be more important then a composer historically but not for this list when we only list eight musicians and nine religious figures. It's irresponsible to compare a founder of physics to a fairytale writer. Also romanticism is way more vital then rock, in which we have two. We need this list to be spread out... we can't have a Beethoven to Armstrong jump in music... (and we'd have to remove Armstrong if we take out Wagner and Chopin). Culture/Art figures being compared to scientific figures is not fair to them. GuzzyG (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Danish literature is not a area we're missing and from that area of the world Henrik Ibsen is more vital anyway...The areas where we are missing people from are

• Early Indian politics (Ashoka)
• More politicians after Charlemagne like Saladin or William the Conqueror
• Emperor era African leaders like Musa I of Mali or Shaka
• A African leader like Haile Selassie who i'd argue is even more vital then Mandela
• Japanese leader like Emperor Meiji or Hirohito (If we have Churchill/Stalin then Hitler/Hirohito isn't egregious)
• Maybe a pure military figure like Hannibal
• Middle age mathematician like Fibonacci or maybe even later figures like Blaise Pascal
• Ancient scientists like Ptolemy
• Space explorer like Yuri Gagarin or Neil Armstrong
• Businessmen like John D. Rockefeller or J. P. Morgan
• 20th century philosopher like Bertrand Russell or Ludwig Wittgenstein; if we need a woman Simone de Beauvoir
• 20th century inventor like Alexander Graham Bell or a little bit earlier ones like Alessandro Volta or ancient like Cai Lun
• Human rights activists like Martin Luther King Jr. or Susan B. Anthony (The problem is they are one country based)
• classical Arab literature like Abu Nuwas and Indian literature and art like Rabindranath Tagore
• Architecture like Imhotep or Le Corbusier (former would also account as a Ancient Egyptian scientist)
• Drama film representative Alfred Hitchcock
• A figure representative of mass market celebrity culture like Marilyn Monroe (most famous woman of the 20th century, beats most 20th century figures listed here like Hemingway in google Ngrams)
• A athlete like Bruce Lee or Jesse Owens

Figures like Heisenberg, Dali, Chopin, Dostoevsky, Gibran, Kafka are the six weak links on this list. Dali especially as he isn't more important then Francisco Goya to Spanish art as is Dostoevsky not more important then Alexander Pushkin to Russian literature; so they're already at a loss. But they have to be swapped. Not removed. Religious figures at 9 is perfect, because after the 1500s they're just not universally that vital, same with explorers; that's why there's only 9 of each. GuzzyG (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Your justification that quota 9 is a perfect for explorers or religious figures at 130 ~~ people becuase of they are not so much important after 15th century (when you suggest to add 20th century space explorers ahead of older than 15th century religious figiures who are way more important than John Paul II; also despite fact we do not list important space enginners on the level 4 or on the level 3 and you also suport including fashion designers ahead of models on talk at the level 4 page) sounds confusing and littly inconsistent/contradictory when you suggest that the quota 8 for musicians is too small but you support to remove mythical religious figures witout any swap and later you list fields (all other than religion) which are underrepresented here in your opinion. If we really are going to till towards of 20th century, since these figiures are important thank to global marcet; we need to remember that by the same logic scandinavian literature looks promient among others literatures which are represented here or not. We need to make the same structural methotology for every fields in biographies. Why Bruce Lee/Merlin Monroe ahead of historical people like Lumierre Bros when we do not have enough religious figures to list Pope John Paul (I do not suggest to add him)?, or why Andy Warhol ahead of Francisco Goya but not 3 Greek writers vs just ‘’one’’ Danish Writer (?) etc.

I am really opened to make general discussions about the quotas for people for all levels and I also belive many types of people should have priority for featured article but I am not sure space 1000 on the level 3 is enaugh for some diversity. Numnber 130 for biographies on the level 3 seems be quite big if you take into fact that on the level 1 and on the 2 we have no people and we even do not have enaugh place on the level 2 to keep important articles just as light, meanwhile we jump from the level 5 to the level 4 in a way that we list 40 sport journalists on the level 5 and 20th modern US Presidents o the level 4 (despite fact level 4 is 10x higher than 3 and level 5 is 5x hgher than 4). ‘’’If we decide increasing biographies from 130 to 150 on the level 3 instead some cuts; probably we would have to decreasing the numer on the level 5 from 15000 to say 1000 and increasing the numer on the level from 2000 to say 25000’’’. I am pretty sure that it would be no way to keep Clement Ader on the level 5 in current situation but list Wright Brothers among people like Nikola Telesa or Christopher Columbus (and Clement Ader probably is not at the top to add him there when we are over quota on level 4) and it would be odd to keep someone like Jesse Owens on the level 3 when people like Mark Zuckerberg (influential by time list [5] ), Magnus Carlsen ( again, influential by time list [6] ), Walter Camp are missed, I littly doubt any athlete can be higher by ‘’two levels distance’’ ahead of such people. I am opened for general discussion about people on all levels to determine what we should do (maybe 130 is a good number) but I am generally littly hesitant for increasing biographies to cut other topics on the level 3 until we do not make consensus for these issues on levels 3,4,5 among many editors. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Lets properly dissect this

Modern explorers listed on the level 4 list, not on the level 3:

1. Neil Armstrong (space)
2. Amelia Earhart (aviation}
3. Yuri Gagarin (aviation)
4. Thor Heyerdahl (Kon-Tiki expedition, arguably should not be on the level 4 list)
5. Alexander von Humboldt (geographer)
6. Charles Lindbergh (aviation)
7. David Livingstone (missionary, not more important then any missing Christianity related figure)
8. Fridtjof Nansen (arctic, but we already have one listed)
9. Valentina Tereshkova (space)
10. David Thompson (map maker)

The only ones that make sense for the level 3 list are Gagarin/Armstrong or maybe Earhart to add a woman to the explorers section, everything else has no chance on this list, so when you advocate for more explorers yet dismiss space explorers, it seems silly. We do list Sergei Korolev [7], Robert H. Goddard is superseded by Wernher von Braun and i'd support Goddard anyway. How does my stance on fashion designers outranking models on the totem pole (one is dressed by the other) or my support for the current musicians number of 8 conflict with my support of removing fictional characters from the biography (real life people) section?

1. Also going off purely by translations is clearly a bad idea for ranking writers by how vital they are or Barbara Cartland, Danielle Steel, L. Ron Hubbard, Nora Roberts, Georges Simenon and R. L. Stine would be on the level 4 list, and yes there could be a argument to replace Fyodor Dostoevsky with a Scandinavian pick, but it'd be Henrik Ibsen and not Hans Christian Andersen.
2. Because film already has two picks in Disney and Chaplin; we have no entertainers or no women in film so Marilyn Monroe fits and no athletes or Asian 20th century pop culture figures so Bruce Lee fits, we don't need more filmmakers, certainly not a pioneer, if anything we need a drama film representative back. And if you care so much about the "same structural methodology" then why don't 90 entertainers and 100 athletes deserve a figure but 30 explorers deserve 8?
3. Andy Warhol fits exactly ahead of Goya because of the fact we have no English speaking artist on this list and we already have 3 other Spanish speaking artists and if English use is justified in other areas it certainly can fit here too.
4. We can't seriously have a debate if you cannot understand why we have 3 Ancient Greek writers and why they're more important to the history of literature then Danish writers.
5. No 130 people isn't big, biographies are an essential part of any encyclopedia, the level 1 and 2 lists are irrelevant to this discussion. You seem to misunderstand that the level 5 list is meant for pop culture current topics, so sports journalist/commentators are very POPULAR but not historically VITAL yet, except maybe Howard Cosell absolutely none would be covered by the more serious level 4 list, also with a number of 400 journalists, 40 sports commentators/journalists is not that outrageous. US political leaders on the level 4 list is irrelevant to our level 5 sports journalist coverage, even more so when we list over 100 US political leaders on the level 5 list, you're comparing apples and oranges here and frankly if you cared so much then when we list 122 visual artists, 156 musicians and 255 writers on the level 4 list why do we have 9 artists, 8 (soon to be 7) musicians and 20 writers, is that an even split? Why do you not care about the "same structural methodology" then? Also ignoring the fact on the level 4 list we only list 125 religious figures and 30 explorers too.
6. Clearly Wright brothers are two levels above someone like Clément Ader in any and every way so i am not understanding that point. If you seriously think Jesse Owens is less influential then a modern businessman and modern chess player and a American football businessman, then i don't know what to say other then your methodology seems off and i don't think serious cuts should be based off of this methodology, yes a athlete can and many are two levels above those three and i doubt many other editors here will disagree.
7. Also finally, if we go by "same structural methodology" then by this table [8] made in a previous discussion your efforts to lower music and film have destroyed that methodology to pieces and that religion is exactly represented how it should.

Now lets dissect that TIMEs list, (why do we have such a dependency on such one list, every time?), since you picked Zuckerberg of it...

1. Robert of Luzarches or Eugène Viollet-le-Duc
2. Peter Abelard
3. Edmund Kean
4. Konstantin Stanislavski
5. John Coltrane
6. Marie-Antoine Carême

Now all of whom i would support over Zuckerberg on the level 4 list, who comes third behind Jack Ma and Jeff Bezos anyway in vital internet businessmen missing on the level 4 list. These one off lists people or publications make are not gospel, they're just one part of assessing things.

Now "15th century" religious figures...

1. Jan Hus
2. Tomás de Torquemada

None of these are good enough for this list and Hus conflicts with Martin Luther.

Now i assume you meant 16th century as that's a bit more star studded and the ones you were meaning

1. John Calvin
2. Thomas Cranmer
3. John Knox
4. Philip Melanchthon
5. Huldrych Zwingli

Again all of these conflict with Luther. Cranmer does not go in before Henry VIII who is in conflict with his daughter.

Now let's analyze the other 16th century religious figures on the level 4 list.

1. Vyasa
2. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu
3. Judah Loew ben Bezalel
4. Ignatius of Loyola
5. John of the Cross
6. Teresa of Ávila
7. Francis Xavier
8. Guru Nanak

Now out of these lot i only see Teresa of Ávila and Guru Nanak as fitting for this level, Teresa to have a woman and Guru because we do not have a Sikhism representative. The only other religious figure i can see/support is Maimonides

Religious figures that are unique drop off after the 1500s, the only unique and significant development is the New religious movements but people like Joseph Smith would be before that and countless saints before him, no one would seriously suggest adding Helena Blavatsky or Aleister Crowley to this list.

We need to stop saying blanket things like "15th century religious figures" are missing without completely analyzing such a list for what is missing, worse removing musicians and other people based on such reasons. GuzzyG (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

No, I have not called myself an „advocate” and my comment about the quotas for the religious figures, explorers and musicians was also relevent to previous discussion (see the !votes above) where there was contigent that religious figures and explorers should have at least the same representation what musicians on the level 3, despite fact the quota for explorers and religious figures on the level 4 at the timie also was way lower than the quota for musicians at the time, few yers ago (If we would decide to remove Abraham and Moses without swap and later we decide to add more musicians, religion is underrepresented with comprasion to music, beause of religon’s significance is growing from the level 4 to level 3 However I have started this discussion In the section below what we should do with mythological creatures. Personally I do not know how is perfect solution). And I have never suggested to add more explorers or religous figures from last few centuries. I have written „older than XV wiek” so I clearly though just about the ‘’quotas ‘’for religious figures and explorers from whole "history of the Word" (not just about the XV century) and maybe some religious figures wchich were listed on the meta list version some years ago or some other relisious figures suggested by other users (Orser and Yarir). I did not suggested to add any more explorers from last centuries or explorers other than space explorers. My contigent about space explorers was related to fact that these ones are not vital jus like other explorers mentioned currently on the list and I am not sure they should be listed already. If we take into fact that space exploration was idea of space enginner and space exploration was not influential for anthropo-centric issues like trade or politics, these ones are way less vital than other explorers menitioned here and maybe little more comparable to moutaineers. John Paul this is page which was edited by 227 editiors In last Three years ([([9]]) , and it is more often edited page (with better material for FA) than articles about :Bruce Lee, modern mathematicans (listed on the level 3) , all space explorers except Neil Armstrong. I will never suggest to add John Paul because I know that there are many more vital religious figures missek at this lkevel and I realise that enaugh increasing the quota for religion would make big overlap In representation of figures. However I do not see how adding few more religious whose are way more import ant than John Paul figures would be egregious and outrageous even if we decise make more diversity list In Fields. Currently the quotas for people on the level 4 are: 125 (Or more if we consider that some users suport to keep Abraham and Moses who are not listed at biography on the level 4) religious figures, 30 explorers ,and 44 mathematicians, meanwhile the quotas for people on the level 3 are: 9 religous figures, 8 explorers and 9 mathematicians (or 8 if we consider fact that Alan Turing is not listed among mathematicians on the level 4) on the level 4. My comments about Wright brothers, Clement Ader and some modern people was relevent to general discussion about all levels not Just the level 3 (other issues with similar topics just like history of aviation etc). and I suggested whose pe ople we maybe we could add to level4 before we decise that we need one sport person on the level 3, however this is not discussion for this talkpage (and BTW English wording „I Little doubt” was not rotund irony In that case how you maybe understood it. Honestly I was not going into this.). I am not necesarilly oppose to add one sport person or maybe even entertainment on this level if consensus will be that we need make very, very much diversity In Fields (Charlie Chaplin was listed here ahead of Socrates for years and we have handful of women In other Fields than politics on the whole lists so there are some objections (maybe fact that we changed this list in last years to point where is less divrsity for fields is not perfect idea, although I do not know how recentism should be represented here)). Like I Said above I agree with you that a lot of types of pe ople should get priority to be featured article. Sport people do not make so much constribue to society and are way less vital/influential than many other fields (represented on all levels) In acedemic range,for history, however I agree with you that this field is very integral part of society for thousands years and is recently very important. Good argument that sport is integraf part of socjety can be even fact that sports people sometimes are top i the country/regions. [In archives I have found discussion where Cobblet suggested to pick Franz Liszt ahead of Chopin]; since 2015 exist book about Puskas which describe him as „biography of the most famous Hungarin ([([10]). Aother interesing thing is fact that we represent on this level Japanese art by Hokuais who is probably less popular In Japan han Miytamoto Musashi who was vital person In many Fields (also In Visual arts) but probably is more known thank to swordmanship. If consensus will If consensus will be that Sport need get pick in recentism/20th century, I Gould probably suport Bruce Lee ahead of Lumierre Bros because of it is the most vital sport person IMO (and BTW In my opinion maybe more vital than space explorers). I have started current chart in section Below Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4#current distribution#here, to talk about quotas etc. and I am opened to discussion again. I hav shared some my thoughts and I suggested that maybe Immothep would be good option as first . I belive we can discuss and honestly I also think it is not needed to we so much arguing; I hope we will be no longer conflicted. After thinkink about it more I think it is not really needed. I am opened o estabilish diversity for people in various fields/nations/history among 1000 articles. It is not first time when it is going to discussion (on this level or lower). 130~~ is most probably right number and maybe even good for innovations.Dawid2009 (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Closing Discussions

Is there a reason we don't leave the archive status and results within each discussion on this page? Generally (see closed discussions at WP:AN or WP:AN/I) the {{archive top}} template is placed under the header of the section being closed. This helps with archiving and such. Curious where local consensus was achieved to change this practice? Crazynas ^t 16:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• I've advocated for this before, simply because it helps with archiving rather than big manual loads that you see. Might be hard to remove this semi-ingrained practice. J947 ^(c), at 03:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

References

The following discussion is closed. 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 Arctic, add Caribbean Sea

Adding Caribbean Sea is something that several people have brought up before, and I think it makes sense. I think it's at least as vital as Mediterranean Sea and Caspian Sea, which are listed. As far as Arctic, we don't list its Southern Hemisphere counterpart Antarctic at this level, and it doesn't seem any more vital to me. I think it was probably originally added to the list to balance out the continent of Antarctica, but we have the Arctic Ocean for that. Our planet just happens to have a continent at one pole and an ocean at the other, so those are the articles that we should be listing here. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Support per nominator's reasoning. Orser67 (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Strong support removal Just per last Reagan's sentence: Our planet just happens to have a continent at one pole and an ocean at the other, so those are the articles that we should be listing here.. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Support addition --Thi (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal --Thi (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal If we list 18 cities to cover the world's most densely inhabited areas, we can spare four articles to cover its largest areas of wilderness. (If places have to be inhabited to be vital, why did we so strongly oppose removing all the planets?) One article to cover each polar landmass and ocean makes sense to me. I have no issue with adding the Caribbean, but I don't think it's more vital than the terrestrial Arctic or the Southern Ocean. (It does bother me a little that the Caribbean does not include the Gulf of Mexico and almost nobody speaks of the American Mediterranean Sea.) Cobblet (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

   To be honest, I've never even heard of the term American Mediterranean Sea. As far as the Gulf not being technically part of the Caribbean, I would note that the Black Sea is also not considered part of the Mediterranean. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

3. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)).

Discuss

I appreciate idea but I am not sure Caribbean Sea is better choice than Carribean when we have Grand Canyon/Rocky Mountains/Great Lakes ahead of California. The North America is the only contined which is better represented by physical geography than by political geography. We already list Lake Victoria and Great Lakes ahead of Tigris/Euphrates despite fact even very "non-civilisational rivers" are more influencial than lakes. Carribean also would be neutral choice for American Mediterraean Sea when we list specific countries at this list. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Listing Caribbean rather than Caribbean Sea would be like listing Mediterranean Basin rather than Mediterranean Sea. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Where Mediterranean Basin is equivalent to History of the Caribbean or West Indies? Dawid2009 (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not understanding your point. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:48, 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.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Max Planck

He is the father of quantum physics.

Support

1. As nom (Ios2019 (talk) 08:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)).
2. He made much contribution to theoretical physics, and founded quantum physics, revolutionizing physics, and later chemistry, biology, and so on.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Bohr and Heisenberg are already on the list to represent the development of modern quantum mechanics (the Copenhagen interpretation). Planck's development of the old quantum theory is historically significant but I don't think a third QM person is needed on the list when inventors of things like radio, the telephone, or the airplane aren't listed either. Cobblet (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose We centairly do not need three representants of quantum physics when we have one woman scientific on the list. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose There's just too many missing people and he does not rise to the top. GuzzyG (talk) 06:23, 16 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.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Radar

Among articles related with Navigation, Radar is vital such like Time zone. IMO both should not be ahead of Geodesy and Cartography. Satelite navigation is one of the best Human's achivements of the 20th century but not Radar. We do not list at the level 4 a lot of other futurable human's achivements such like machine translation.

Support

1. Support as nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Support. It does seem to be a bit weak to be listed among the 1,000 most vital articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)).

Oppose

1. Weak oppose --Thi (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Vital in military.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

@Thi: Can you please explain your !vote? Cobblet (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that radar is still quite important topic, although not among 700 or 800 most vital articles. I am not against removal if there is consensus. --Thi (talk) 15:58, 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.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Moon landing, add Exploration

I am not sure Moon landing is needed at this level. I am not sure it is needed specifficaly when we have Space exploration already on the list and we do not list Astronautics or Sergei Korolev at this level. Based on fact we do not have Spacecraft and Exploration of Moon at the level 5 I think that Exploaration is not less vital than Space Exploration because of we list at the level 4 Antarctic Exploration, Northwest Passage etc. We also have 9 explorers already on this level. Actually people intentinallythere were several times on Moon since 60's so Moon landing should not be ahead of History of aviation. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Support addition

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

Oppose addition

1. --Thi (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Not impressed by the article as being vital. RJFJR (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Support removal

1. Support swapping. Swap with Space Race is better option in the History section. Space exploration can be in Technology. --Thi (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Supprt swapping Generally I support adding Space Race but I am not sure we need Space exploration to technology section when we have Spaceflight already on the list. I think we could have exploration and chronology as general articles about history among civilisation and archeology because of these two also are very important for historical encyclopedias. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Support swapping moon landing with space race. Neutral on exploration. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Support I think this is important, but will accept that it is covered by Space exploration. RJFJR (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
5. Support swapping (Ios2019 (talk) 06:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)).
6. Weak support swap Exploration should be listed here. Removing moon landing and adding the Space Race wouldn't be a bad idea. Cobblet (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose removal

1. Oppose The first moon landing was one of the greatest achievements in human history, and we don't otherwise list anything related to it, except the broad article of space exploration. But I could live with swapping out moon landing for Space Race. Orser67 (talk) 06:14, 20 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.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Kahlil Gibran, add Naguib Mahfouz

Mahfouz was the most significant Arab novelist in the 20th century. He was awarded the 1988 Nobel Prize in literature and his works are popular across the world.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal Dawid2009 (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Support removal (Ios2019 (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)).
4. Support removal Rreagan007 (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition He is not more influencial than Ferdowsi or Abu Nuwas. J. R. R. Tolkien also is more vital among modern writers but H. C. Andersen is the the most vital missed person at this level IMO. We also still have more than enaugh men from 20th century. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

After removing some compossers and filmmakers whole section of writers is littly overrepresented because of:

1. Voltaire is listed among writers but not among philosophers such like on the level 4
2. Sappho is listed among writers but she could listed among musicans (she did thousands compositions and she has been describeed by Plato as The Tenth Muse so listing Sappho among compossers is not wrong speciffically when we list Elvis Presley who is vital due to extremal cultural impact but he is more singer/performer than composser)
3. Homer is listed but he could be swappeed for Greek acient literature when we do not list people described based on religional sources.

What do you think about some moves? I think we can reach to consensus for 15 writers. I would also moved Alan Turing to scientists (per level 4) because of there are other more notable mathematicans than him. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

A person should be listed in the section for what they are best known for. But just because they are in one section or another does not mean we only have to think about them as representing just that category. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

15 writers? How much people do you want removed? There's absolutely no reason this list should go below 125 people, even though 130 is a good number. You can't complete destroy this list if writers go down to 15 everything else has to go down a couple too, the filmmakers removals are already kinda sketchy aswell. GuzzyG (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Also how is a fairytale writer more vital then missing people like Nefertiti, Imhotep, Alexander Graham Bell, Geoffrey Chaucer, Sarah Bernhardt, Hannibal, Martin Luther King Jr., Franklin D. Roosevelt, Wright brothers, Yuri Gagarin, Saladin, William the Conqueror, Ashoka, Cai Lun, Shaka, Pelé, Marilyn Monroe, Le Corbusier, Michael Jackson, Henrik Ibsen, Alfred Hitchcock, Akira Kurosawa, John D. Rockefeller, J. P. Morgan, Susan B. Anthony, and Andy Warhol, sometimes i do not follow your logic.. first you nominate two musicians like Debussy and Tchaikovsky but then say there's too many, then you suggest we cut down to 15 writers but say Anderson would be the next addition.. it doesn't make sense. Honestly it seems more like personal favoritism sometimes. The problem with such a list is mass market pop culture imagery of historical figures got really massive and worldwide in the 20th century, so most of the commonly known names are "recent" not to mention that only painting/sculpting and writing has legitimate historical figures, unlike music/film/sports which only has figures from the 20th century that are remembered. Honestly a tilt towards the 20th century isn't that bad considering all of that. I'm not so sure the fact that there's no entertainer or sports figure listed here is a good idea. [11] i am reminded of this chart that was done a while ago, a current version should be made today by someone who can (i have no technical ability, as you can probably tell by my bad writing/grammar). Then we can discuss what is done to the list from there, and we can discuss a final number for people and who would fit in a equal distribution of what we represent on the level 4 list. But my strong contention is that i know these people may not compare to the status of a George Washington or Albert Einstein i do think this list should fit one architect, entertainer and athlete, just to fit the leftout sections from level 4. But then again there's just too many missing people, so i don't know. Another reason those three should be represented here is that "performing arts"/"architecture"/"sport" are level 2 articles, which means they should probably be represented here. GuzzyG (talk) 06:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I think many people participate in building Wikipedia out of a desire to learn, and from personal experience I can say that participating in the Vital Articles project does help one learn new things. After one learns new things, it's possible to find that one no longer believes in things one used to believe in. Being receptive to new things and able to change one's mind in response to them is a good thing, and is an attitude that should be encouraged, not discouraged. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." FWIW, I consider Michelangelo an architect and Chaplin, Armstrong, the Beatles and Elvis as entertainers. Cobblet (talk) 08:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I can attest to that, as i have learnt most things starting from this project too. I wasn't trying to discourage that. (Sorry if i came off aggressive). I just have a different outlook to these lists as in say if i think a field is an integral/common part of society (let's use architecture) then it deserves a representation (a dedicated one not covered in another section), even if it takes the place of someone more important (Ex:Chopin may be more important generally then Le Corbusier but we already sufficiently cover classical music). Obviously everyone you've listed fits the mold of entertainer / architect but i meant having one from each section on the level 4 list. My philosophy for this list doesn't fit this one as much as the level 4 one. (Which is why i would advocate for a chef, fitness person, pornography actor, pro wrestler, more criminals on there , for a example of what i mean, as in fields that are denigrated but very mass appeal (chef the anomaly in that case.). Just like i think Fashion should itself be listed here, and i wouldn't be opposed to Chanel either. Either way, none of Imhotep, Le Corbusier, Frank Lloyd Wright or Marilyn Monroe, Marlon Brando, Sarah Bernhardt, or Pelé and Jesse Owens would look out of place if there was one from each set, all of them have had a effect on history and popular culture and none are in danger of losing prominence in their fields. Also as someone who is creating their own very vast range biographical dictionary, i'll admit obviously my primary focus is the coverage of people and i think they are an integral part of any encyclopedia and that's why i am hesitant to any bulk cuts. GuzzyG (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Cobblet: @DaGizza: How would you two feel about someone like Bruce Lee? Martial arts is listed here, so that's not a issue, he's a better replacement to Kurosawa as a Asian culture representative of the 20th century. He covers both our lack of actors/athletes, [12] he's the second ranked actor and first male one in this old MIT list. Swap him with Dali or someone, i think that's a good swap. Then maybe swap Dostoevsky for Ashoka, Ghalib for Saladin and Chopin for Le Corbusier and i think this list would be pretty much set in stone for people then. GuzzyG (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how he's a better choice than Kurosawa; but I also don't think he's worse. I wasn't thrilled with the removal of Kurosawa, who's probably my favourite filmmaker. Cobblet (talk) 04:22, 29 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.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Dubai

Dubai is one of the most multicultural cities in the world. It is home to the world’s tallest building. This is why it is vital. Mstrojny (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support nom.
2. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)).
3. Support tenatively Dawid2009 (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. It's a city, and I don't think it is that unique as a city. RJFJR (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Dubai is the most viewed non-English language city on the English Wikipedia so logically should be included here (even ahead of United Emirates). At this region it get comparable vitality to Iraq and Syria. However until add something from Europe or south-west Aasia we should first start nomination with Kazakchstan or Uzbekistan. Population of central Asia is WAY much larger than population of Oceania and we also list history of Oceania despite fact this region has shorter history. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:19, 22 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.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Menstrual cycle

Vital topic.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Support this affects half the population every month and has had a non-trivial effects across history. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose part of Human sexuality. RJFJR (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose I think this is too specific for this level and is somewhat covered already by several other articles on the list like Pregnancy, Adolescence, and Woman. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 06:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)).

Discuss

I think puberty would be better since it covers the bodily and hormonal changes that happen to both girls and boys. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Menstruation is other alternative but it is only at level 5. --Thi (talk) 09:44, 17 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.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Trade union

Another employment-related article is perhaps needed at this level. "Trade unions have had a huge political, social and economic impact."[13]

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Support. We list Corporation, which is the collective organization of capital, at this level so we should also probably list the collective organization of labor. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

   A corporation controls indirectly both customers and less so the workforce, a trade union only the workforce. Not convinced they are on the same level. J947 ^(c), at 21:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

   Wouldn't a striking union indirectly control customers too? Rreagan007 (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

   Yes, I was thinking about that, but more indirectly and unlike the corporation examples relatively rarely. J947 ^(c), at 02:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

3. Support Especially since both corporation and management are listed. In many developed countries, >10% of the working population is part of a union. Even in the United States, where union membership is relatively low, unions were a key component of the New Deal coalition and remain a fairly important part of one of the two major parties. Orser67 (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)).
5. Weak Support Dawid2009 (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

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

---

Remove Structure of the Earth

Basic topic, but possibly not at this level. Earth#Internal_structure gives basic information. Plate tectonics has more language versions.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)).
2. Oppose Earth is level 1 article, two levels higher. When earth has high priority to be fatured article on the level 1, information linked tere should have on the level 2 or 3. Dawid2009 (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose If we have many planets and other articles discussing what's beyond Earth, we should at least have one article on what's inside Earth. Also it sounds like the nom hints at swapping this out for plate tectonics, but plate tectonics is already L3 vital. Both plate tectonics and Structure of the Earth should be here. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

Add Portugal

Portuguese empire was the first global empire. "Portugal has left a profound cultural and architectural influence across the globe, a legacy of 300 million Portuguese speakers, and many Portuguese-based creoles." Modern Portugal ranks high in manys metrics of national performance.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I could support adding Portuguese Empire (though Spanish Empire would have to be added before it). Adding Portugal based on its past would be like adding Greece or Mongolia. The Portuguese language and Brazil are already listed, its two main legacies. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose I'd take decolonization and Western imperialism in Asia over adding any other specific colonial power. Cobblet (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose I would prefer add Peru despite fact we have Andean Civilisation or add something beetwen North Americ and South America despite fact we have Mesoamerica. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose per the above. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)).

Discuss

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

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

---

Add Netherlands

The economy of Netherlands has the thirteenth-highest per capita income globally and Rotterdam is Europe's largest port. Netherlands is known for its liberal policies and the country hosts many international organisations and courts, "many of which are centered in The Hague, which is consequently dubbed 'the world's legal capital'." Amsterdam is considered an alpha world city and draws over 4 million tourists annually. Many of the most famous painters in the world were Dutch: Rembrandt, Vermeer, van Gogh, Mondrian. Also many scientists and philosophers: Erasmus, Spinoza, Huygens, Leeuwenhoek.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Support as nominator says + Netherlands has a multi-century history as an early democracy and had a major influence in the development of world trade, notably with the Dutch East India Company, Indonesia, etc. In answer to the "too small" point, Israel is there, much smaller, nowhere on the population charts, and only 32nd on GDP, with just a few decades of modern history. Netherlands and Ireland, and I would say Portugal, also mentioned here, have both as good or better claims, not to mention Peru and Myanmar in other continental spaces.79.104.5.174 (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose While rich, country is too small. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)).
3. Oppose as another briefly important puffed-up imperial player. Look to one of the great historical middle eastern kingdoms, or one from south-east Asia.178.236.245.66 (talk) 06:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

Add Cetacea

We've been on a kick of adding animal articles to the list lately, and I think the main branch of aquatic mammals which includes whales and dolphins deserves to be included at this level.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I would add general article (for example Vertebrate, Invertebrate or maybe even Mollusca) ahead of it. If we are going to add more animals I think we should add general ahead of individual specific or sub-group. Mammals are important but we have plenty Mammals and for example reptiles are represented only by dinosaurus which lived longer time than mammals on the earth. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC) 22:03 - Added more

   It's true we have a bias towards mammals on the list, but we also have a bias towards humans and human activity on the list, which makes perfect sense as our readers are humans and those are the articles they will care more about reading. I'm sorry to our invertebrate friends, but mammals are more important to our human readers than shellfish. And the idea of adding invertebrate wasn't very popular a few years ago when I proposed adding it here in a swap. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

2. Oppose I think we have enough mammals now. I don't see how cetaceans are more vital to humans than molluscs. Cobblet (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 09:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)).

Discuss

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

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

---

remove Sex

Some time ago there were suggestions to remove sex to esape from everlap and get chance for other less vague and more specific articles. I would support remove sex to list transgender, sexual reproduction and sexual activity. Among articles related with every day life sports and other activities are better represented than human sexuality IMO.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Basic concept. RJFJR (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)).
4. Oppose We're not removing one broad concept for three specific ones. InvalidOStalk 18:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

add Sexual Revolution

Sexual revolution is better choice than History of human sexuality because of specific article with many views should get higher priority for FA than general article which is more covered by human sexuality. This concept is historically extremally influencial and it fits when we list only economy-related articles for modern history. Among modern topics it is surely more vital than HIV (which is mentioned in article History of human sexuality), Video Games or Jazz.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

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

---

add Sense

All senses are listed on the level 4 so sense belongs to the 3 level (just like solar system is listed at the level 2 when we list all planets on the level 3). Recently we added mistakly Intelligence ahead of sense. Intelligence is very vital but still way much less vital than sense.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Supportper Dawid. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 03:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
4. Support a good suggestion. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Perception is clearly a vital component of cognition. Cobblet (talk) 04:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
6. Support as cumulative of all the individual senses. RJFJR (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
7. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 09:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)).

Oppose

Discuss

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

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

---

Swap: Remove Hammurabi, add Babylonia

More general article. Sargon of Akkad represents Mesopotamian leaders.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Hammurabi is more vital than Sargon IMO. pbp 04:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 Ramesses II

Hatshepsut represents Egyptian pharaohs. Ramesses II used art as a means of propaganda: he build monuments to himself and put his name on the monuments of others. Thutmosis III is often regarded as the greatest pharaoh and military leader.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

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

---

Remove Great Depression

Business cycle is more general article. The Great Depression is overrated because it became a national trauma in United States but left many other parts of the world quite unharmed. Also in the America most people just carried on. Second world war was much worse, but it was fought outside the American continent.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose. It affected the entire world and was a major reason why there was a rise in fascism and Nazism in the first place. The socioeconomic effects section of the article discusses its impact on 25 regions in the world, but many of those regions are broader than modern-day countries. The Second World War didn't exist in a bubble. Economic history is already under-represented at all levels. There's more to history than wars. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Two of the nominator's statements are fundamentally wrong:
   1. "Left many other parts of the world quite unharmed" Because America had become the world's primary producer and lender during the 1920s, the Depression spread to Europe, being a major cause for Adolf Hitler's rise to power. The Great Depression is oft cited as one of the causes of World War II. Also see my comments on Latin America below.
   2. "In the America most people just carried on" What's that supposed to mean, that Americans didn't have a civil war or a totalitarian dictator? Millions of Usonians' lives were affected because of the Depression. And the Great Depression had devastating effects in most of the other countries in the Americas because their economies were intertwined with that of the USA. pbp 03:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose per pbp. Cobblet (talk) 05:30, 29 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.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Negative number

Per argument at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4#Add Negative number. InvalidOStalk 14:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. InvalidOStalk 14:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Integer already covers the extension of the set of natural numbers to their additive inverses. There is no need to list both integers and negative numbers, just as there is no need to list imaginary number in addition to complex number, irrational number in addition to real number and fraction (mathematics), or composite number in addition to prime number and natural number. Cobblet (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Cobblet. RJFJR (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 07:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

Remove Malaria

When we have infection it can be potentially no longer needed. I would also consider addition of Parasitism and maybe even Mosquito.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. The deadliest human disease in history, by a long shot. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose – Look, if we have one disease, this is it. Killed millions of people, perhaps not the most apt subject for third-world-representation from their point of view but from ours? It's vital. Saying Mosquitos are more vital than Malaria is like saying Postman is more vital than Mail. J947^{'s public account} 21:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose. A very important disease historically and still important today. It's also unique on this list as the only infection not caused by a bacteria or virus, as well as the only one carried and transmitted by a different species. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

Remove Taj Mahal

This was nominated a few months ago, but since then we have removed the Colosseum, Parthenon, Machu Picchu, and Angkor Wat from the list. I fail to see how this is any more vital than any of those that have been removed. In fact, I'd say it is probably less vital than the others, as they are all significantly older.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
2. Support In light of Dawids massive removals to every section the individual architecture listings need to be removed, just like the Mona Lisa and books were removed. GuzzyG (talk) 04:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Taj Mahal as architecture work builed few centuries ago, is not historically and culturally more vital than Ganges which is level 4 article. Machu Pichu is mentioned in the article Andean civilizations and should be swapped for Peru, Colosseum should be swapped for the architecture style. We removed so important religious work due to small 1000 space so I do not see why we can not keep few architecture examples on the same level where we list Eiffel Tower or Mount Fuji and now probably Stonehenge. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Rreagan007 provides no valid reason to remove what is probably the most iconic of India's buildings. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose and put back the Colosseum, Parthenon, Machu Picchu, and Angkor Wat, while generic topics are good as a principle, readers also need to find exemplars. A Wikipedia of abstracts will interest few.178.236.245.66 (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

• So, is this adding and removal some sort of game? Are people trying to make vital articles upon which they worked? I cannot otherwise see the point in these endless discussions that benefit the removal camp, as decent editors don't have the time or interest to oppose every proposition. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• You don't seem to be assuming good faith. It takes a 2/3 majority to remove (or add) an article to this list. That's a pretty high bar, so if a removal discussion meets that threshold, then the article probably deserves to be removed. If you can present some evidence that people here are trying to game the nomination system in some way, then please present it. Otherwise, please don't accuse people of acting in bad faith. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Current distribution

Category	Level 3	Level 4
Total People	130 (13% of total Level 3)	2004 (20% of total Level 4)
Artists	9 (7%)	122 (6%)
Writers (includes Journalists)	20 (15%)	271 (14%)
Composers and Musicians	7 (5%)	156 (8%)
Filmmakers	2 (2%)	59 (3%)
Business people	1 (1%)	30 (1%)
Explorers	8 (6%)	30 (1%)
Inventors and Scientists	21 (16%)	204 (10%)
Mathematicians	9(7%)	44 (2%)
Philosophers and Social Sciences	17 (13%)	156 (8%)
Religious figures	9 (7%)	125(+) (6%)
Politicians and Leaders(inc. Military Leaders and Rebels)	26 (20%)	616 (30%)
Entertainers and Sports Figures	0 (0%)	190 (9%)

Some time ago ([14]) there was suggestions to make general discussion distribution from the level 4 to the level 3 to determine which fields should growing proportionally each other and which ones get worse representation on the level 4 (or better on the level 3). I think it is also good ocasion to talk about diversity for nation or fields and what we should do with biographies whose are not listed in biography section on the level 4 (or other semi mythical whose are listed among people on the level 4). I am opened for new suggestions. DaGizza in section "remove Abraham" gave suggestion put them in other places. In archives at section to remove Moses we can also found contigent that God is technically is listed on the level 3 (along with Deity ahead of theism). The biggest section where we do not have people on the level 3 are: sport people, actors and architects. Personally I think the most vital person among these all fields would be Immothep (the man who was considered as god for many, many years) which maybybe could be added as first if we decide made more diversity in fields. Thoughts? Dawid2009 (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Grouping Indo-European languages by family

Is there any need to group the Indo-European languages by family as Rreagan007 has been doing? The list is short enough that I don't see how this helps the reader navigate the list. We have lists of cities and countries that are longer and nobody seems to feel the need to sort them by continent or some other way. Cobblet (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The Indo-Eurpopean/Other distinction is ok, but within that there is no need for grouping, alphabetical is fine (just like the cities and the countries are listed alphabetically). UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

These lists aren't very helpful if they aren't well-structured. Sometimes alphabetical sorting makes sense, other times chronological ordering makes since, like in the history section, but I think most of the time a hierarchical ordering makes sense. Since we list the article on Indo-European languages here, it only makes sense to group the individual Indo-European languages together under it. I would also like to group the languages together that are more similar, such as European vs non-European, or Germanic vs Romance. But regardless, the Indo-European languages should definitely be listed together under that main article. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Businessperson

And now there's a dispute over the title of the category Henry Ford is in. I don't know why this was changed from "Businesspeople" which is the category name at the lower levels and here as well until User:Rreagan007 changed it in 2017. These titles should refer to the group of people represented by the chosen biographies, so they should be plural even if only one biography is chosen (for now). I also don't see why the title needs to allude to Ford's gender or any of his other personal attributes. "Businessman" makes no more sense as a title than "American businessperson" or "Antisemitic businessperson." Cobblet (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Ford is a businessman. If there were females in that category, then we would use the gender-neutral term. But we have other categories in other levels that are gender specific. For example, on the level 4 & 5 lists we have different categories for actors (males) and actresses (females). Rreagan007 (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Ford is also a businessperson, and a representative of businesspeople. There is no particular reason to emphasize his gender, or any other aspect of who he was other than his profession. On the other hand, we group actors and actresses separately because there is a consensus that we should have roughly equal numbers of both and grouping them by gender makes that obvious to everyone. The use of gendered language in that case is consistent with our attempts to avoid discrimination. Cobblet (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree with User:Cobblet: We go with the most generic description, and as long as there is only one it should be the singular form of what is used at Level 4. It should say businessperson. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Is this even a question in these times?178.236.245.66 (talk) 06:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Confucianism?

We have Confucius and Confucianism already on the list. Zoroastrianism has been removed while ago and this one has clearly more than doubly more pagewatchers on the English Wikipedia than Confucianism does. Do we really need either of Consucianism and Confucius among 1000 articles? Dawid2009 (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

This is like asking a European or American why we need to list Christianity, Jesus and the Bible. Even if they were atheist or agnostic themselves, they would be hard-pressed to deny the immense influence of the religion on their culture. Meanwhile we don't even list The Analects. Cobblet (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Western systemic bias again, I think. Of course these two topics are needed, they actually influenced more of humanity and history than almost any other religio-philosophical factors.178.236.245.66 (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I asked about that because of I though that also Chinese philosophy is level 3 article and I only checked template for Confucianism on the talk page. I would be something OK to readded at least one of these two articles (Zorroaster or Zorroastrianizm because of none of these two topics is well mentioned in any article) but honestly I would add Hebrew language far ahead of them. In my opinion when we list New religious movement which has only 31 language versions and 275 page watchers on English Wikipedia it would make sense to list few more languages at all. However I will be wait for general discussion and if there is consensus we do not need more languages I will not support readd any of these two. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad people finally noticed that Chinese philosophy should be added to level 4; but just so others reading this discussion are aware, it's not on level 3. I think of Hebrew's vitality as being closer to Sanskrit than to Latin or Greek (to give two examples, the latter two have much more strongly influenced the English language as well as the international scientific vocabulary); and I think there are several aspects of Indian culture I'd rather add before I'd consider adding Sanskrit. Cobblet (talk) 17:22, 29 April 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 Art

We have The arts at Level 1 and History of art at level 2. I think we should at least have art at level 3.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 09:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Support, it was swapped with the arts in the top three, but I think that was unneeded at this level, a straight add would've been more appropriate. J947 ^(c), at 18:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
4. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)).
5. Support Art is both a more accurate designation and a better article than The arts and not only should be a Level 3 article, but should replace The arts in Level 2 and Level 1. Voyaging^talk 13:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose What isn't already covered in the arts seems to be covered by aesthetics (which philosophy of art also redirects to). Cobblet (talk) 04:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Covered in Visual arts and other related VAs including the Arts. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

Remove Salvador Dalí

Dalí was one of the many surrealists, but Surrealism itself is not listed. Picasso represents 20th century art. Dalí can be compared to such figures as Stravinsky and Debussy, who are not listed any more.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Support I'd bring back postmodernism instead. Cobblet (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
4. Support If music loses one, art must aswell. GuzzyG (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)).

Discuss

He needs to be gone but only as a swap for either Andy Warhol, Marilyn Monroe, Le Corbusier, Rabindranath Tagore or Bruce Lee. All of whom he is outdone by [15], Lee's a little bit under but compare the cultural context it fits. 20th century art is important and deserves the current amount of representatives, just not exactly who is on the list GuzzyG (talk) 02:18, 26 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.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Festival

Topic which was suggested several times. Some users have said it can be enaugh general article and maybe more vital than prayer and meditation which are already on the list. Articles about rituals, customs, calendar celebrations and folklore IMO generally are quite underrepresented on all levels. We lately started additions for this field (ritual has been added two years ago to the level 3). Based on fact folklore is level 2 article I would also consider to add Oral tradition or Tradition. At least some of these articles can fit when we list halloween or national athemn on the level 4.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
3. Support One of the most common ritualistic activities. Cobblet (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

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

---

Add Charles Dickens

I think this one is clear-cut: impact on the English language, broad and lasting cultural impact, extent of work, etc. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 07:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
4. Support as stated above and below, popular impact, social campaigning, media adaptations, the reach is massive. Although I agree that Chaucer and Milton are worthy too, the mass of readers will never read more than scraps of their work, and will probably never see or listen to an adaptation.178.176.23.66 (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I would say that Dickens is a far cry from Milton on all criteria given by nom. However, more importantly is I don't see how Dickens improves the breadth of the 'Writers' section. More primary poets needs to be included, maybe an essayist, or a playwright (Ibsen?), or journalist. Tagore or Neruda are as vital as Dickens and add to the coverage of the 'writers' section. (I'll note that BBC polls on the subject suggest Virginia Woolf is the next Brit who should be added--she's also in Bloom's Western Canon, along with Milton, Dickens, Ibsen, and Neruda, for those who want a 'canonical' definition of vital Western writers). AbstractIllusions (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose I could live with a swap with Poe but I don't see any reason to list more writers. Plus we already have English literature. Cobblet (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

• I love Milton. But for Dickens' cultural impact, I'm thinking films/theatre (A Christmas Carol (film), A Tale of Two Cities (film), many, others: don't know of any films made based on Milton's works, but I am sure there have been), Characters (Scrooge, Madame Defarge, Oliver Twist, many others; Milton did not invent Satan), sayings (Merry Christmas, Bah humbug). Also consider Dickens' social criticism: very impactful on late 19th century reformers. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• No English language writer should be added before Geoffrey Chaucer, obviously he's our biggest missing English writer, no matter if there's more written about Milton and Dickens they wouldn't exist without him. GuzzyG (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 Stonehenge, add Prehistoric art

Prehistoric art represents the first material evidence of abstract and symbolic thought by humans. Its significance transcends its obvious importance to historians and artists; it speaks directly to our identity as a species. I don't think Stonehenge is any more vital as a representative of prehistoric art than Göbekli Tepe or Saharan rock art or the Nazca lines or the caves of Lascaux or the bronzes of Sanxingdui, but we should definitely be covering the subject as a whole.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
2. Support I've thought about Göbekli Tepe at Level 4. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
3. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)).
4. Support Excellent proposal. Obviously would go in under Visual arts. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Obviously GuzzyG (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
7. Support as logic for more general topic clear, and having this, or Carnac or Newgrange, or Upsala Mounds, still shows Western bias.178.236.245.66 (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

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

---

Remove The Great Wall of China

The wall is a tourist attraction and it is not vital to encyclopedia at this level. I have two encyclopedias with 5000 main articles and the Great Wall of China is not among them. Other parts of Chinese culture are more important.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Support. In the last few months we have removed Colosseum, Parthenon, Machu Picchu, and Angkor Wat. I think it's time we just remove the remaining individual structures, including this one. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
3. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 09:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)).
4. Support I don't see why any individual architecture should be listed. GuzzyG (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose If we can list 120+ biographies, 18 cities and four works of religious literature, we should be keeping architectural works of exceptional cultural significance. The Great Wall is as significant a symbol of Chinese culture as any individual person or place: it gets more hits than Gautama Buddha, Mao Zedong, Beijing, Confucius, and Qin Shi Huang. It also gets more hits than any of the four religious works on the list, except for a massive spike in viewership of the page on the Bible within the last two months. It gets more views than any of the listed cities except New York, Singapore, London and Hong Kong. Cobblet (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose This is culturally, historically and architecturally very significant. The fact that it is also a tourist attraction is simply an outcome of that. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
3. oppose per Cobblet. Rreagan007 points to other mistakes made and insists we continue this trend. This ancient fortified wall, the largest of its kind, is something readers would look for. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose as there are indeed too many already of other classes, and this is iconic for a huge share of the world's population, and did represent a sustained and remarkable effort.178.236.245.66 (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Cobblet. Seeing as no other more worthy examples of Chinese culture are being suggested, I see no reason to remove a worldwide-known monument that is iconic in culture and media, and a national icon of China. Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 01:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Clearly your encyclopedias lack expertise in Chinese culture. Do you have any yourself? Cobblet (talk) 05:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Vital articles project has usually preferred general articles (New York vs. Empire State Building; History of architecture). Larousse-based encyclopedia has an article about Athens and Parthenon is extra reading inside the boxout. It has articles about China and its history, Chinese language, Chinese literature, Chinese music, Chinese art and Chinese theatre. --Thi (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

"Usually" being the key word: there are exceptions, and this is a good one. Calling the Great Wall a tourist attraction is like calling Mecca a tourist attraction for Muslims: it is frankly insulting. If you've never heard of 不到长城非好汉 or don't understand that phrase, I don't see how you can possibly claim to know that "other parts of Chinese culture are more important." Cobblet (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The list contains Han dynasty, Tang dynasty, Silk road (a symbol of trade) and other China-related topics. In my opinion listing more countries would give better idea of world's diversity than the list of monuments. Similarly listing only Mona Lisa as an example of paintings would be problematic. Mona Lisa without wider context turns to a cliche, "world's most famous painting", a place to visit. At this level, in limited space, Mount Fuji, Eiffel Tower or Statue of Liberty are at best extensions to other articles. My choice of words reflected my concern about negative effects of tourism. The criticism is about the customers, not about destinations. Historical symbols can also be reinterpreted. "As historical artifact, it has been both acclaimed and denounced by Chinese - applauded as national symbol and at the same time condemned as symbol of state oppression for its forced-labor construction." [16] "In Chinese history, the wall has always been viewed negatively until the last century when it suddenly turned into a positive symbol of Chinese greatness. Before that it was always a symbol of futility, waste, cruelty, bad policy." [17] For example, there is now an online service platform that allows Muslims to perform Hajj virtually to reduce the journey's carbon emissions and negative environmental impacts. [18][19] --Thi (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

You choose to see the Great Wall only as a tourist attraction and you don't like tourist attractions. You fail to recognize its potency as a "historical symbol" even as you present evidence of that potency. Yes, there has always been a negative component to its symbolism: an easy example of that is one of China's best-known folk tales, Lady Meng Jiang. But we don't remove things from this list just because they have a negative association; otherwise what are Hitler, Stalin and Mao doing here? Indeed, how many material objects possess a symbolism so rich that they are able to represent multiple contradictory aspects of the culture that produced them, and also so deeply embedded in that culture that anyone with a middle-school education would immediately understand both of the literary references I've made? The cultural significance of the Mona Lisa is trivial in comparison. Cobblet (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 Rainforest

Recently we have removed Southern Ocean and Mount Everest. Physical geography is way underrepresented. This general topic can be valuable for discussion.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. We already list forest and Amazon rainforest, the most important rainforest, at this level. I think that's enough. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Rreagan. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
3. Weak oppose. Maybe Amazon rainforest is enough at this level. Something like Biome would also be a good addition. --Thi (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

Swap: Remove Henry Ford, add John D. Rockefeller

Much more infludential industrialist and philanthropist. Without Rockefeller's oil, no cars would have run.

Support

1. Support as nom. -- UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Ford is more vital as a pioneer of the assembly line in mass production. Rockefeller's biggest claim to fame is how rich he became by buying up all of his competitors and creating a monopoly. If I were going to pick an industrialist to list, I would probably pick Andrew Carnegie over Rockefeller. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose: Ford is vital in engineering and innovation as well as business. If there was no Rockefeller, there'd have been one or more other guys to sell gas to Ford's Model Ts. pbp 04:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

I think there is a strong argument that the most important measure of a businessperson's impact is how wealthy they became (Rockefeller was the first billionaire, - back when that was a sum so enormous as to be inconceivable = and bu some measures the richest American of all time) , and which Rockefeller multiplied by his cultural and philanthropic legacy (Rockefeller Center, Rockefeller University, University of Chicago, UN Headquarters, Acadia National Park, many many other; collectively dwarfs Ford's Ford Foundation. Think historians now feel Ford's contribution to the assembly line was way overstated. Companies outgrowing from Standard Oil worth nearly $1 trillion today, compared with Ford Motor's $37 billion today. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 Rail transport, Add Train

I'm surprised to see Rail transport higher up than Train. Aircraft is higher up than Air transport. Mstrojny (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Mstrojny (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Similar to the list including ship before watercraft. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose: Rail transport encompasses trains, trams, light rail and so on, just as aircraft covers aeroplanes, helicopters, gliders and so on. Train is not similarly broad. Moreover, rail transport includes infrastructure, which makes it a better representation of the topic; the narrowness of the aviation topic is no reason to similarly constrain this. Triptothecottage (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

   Triptothecottage Maybe Road transport could be added to this level. Mstrojny (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose; doesn't make sense to replace a broader topic with a narrower one. UnitedStatesian (talk)

Discuss

I'm personally not so surprised. Railway redirects to rail transport, which covers both rail infrastructure and train vehicles. Listing train instead of rail transport narrows our coverage of the subject. Compare road transport where we have both car and road (not to mention horse and bicycle). For water and air transport we only list ship and aircraft, but for those modes of transport don't rely on a purpose-built infrastructure network (we don't list port or airport, although we do list canal) in the same way that road and especially rail transport do. Cobblet (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 Feminism and Sexism, add Gender equality

I think that Gender equality is the most general topic. Gender equality and Racism are the most vital topics related to Discrimination. Women's suffrage is listed and I think it belongs to the History section.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Support I think this is probably a good idea. Feminism is about the fight for gender equality, and sexism is about treating genders unequally. We have very limited space at this level, and one article that covers the core concepts of the other two topics should be preferred. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Sexism is a pretty fundamental concept to understand why gender equality and feminism would even be important in the first place. In a perfect world maybe, but too many sexist events happen today for this to be removed. And Gender equality is a related concept under Feminism anyway, because most Feminists just want the treatment of both sexes to be equal. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 22:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)).
3. Oppose of the three, sexism is the most vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

add Cognition

We do not list reading but instead listing reading or information; I would support add information technology and Cognition on this level. Cognition is also basic thing among other concepts related to mind.

Support

1. As nom . Dawid2009 (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Mind is more important topic. --Thi (talk) 20:43, 22 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.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Pre-Columbian era

It is mentioned as basic historical concept in outline of britannica. We do not list it among 1000 articles, Britannica covers it among several dozen

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
2. Support This nearly passed last time but the discussion was closed before 60 days passed. I'll put in my !vote now. Cobblet (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
3. Support as an important balancing of historical perspectives178.236.245.66 (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  18:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
6. Support per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

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

---

Remove Women's suffrage, add Women's rights

Women's suffrage is mainly about historical developments. Women's rights is more general article. It discusses both historical and current issues. (In some language versions this theme is under Women's history.)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal. There seems to be a lot of overlap between both of these article and feminism, which is also listed at this level. I think women's rights would be a better article to include than women's suffrage, as the right to vote is but one right. I would support swapping out abortion for women's rights, as the right to abortion seems to be well covered in the article on women's rights. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)).
4. Support addition IMO better option than sexual revolution (which IMO also is vital among 1000 articles) but I am not sure we need right when we have human right. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition ahead of Rights. Like Rreagan007 said, it covers the philosophy of abortion, but I oppose removing abortion; I'd rather add Miscarriage to level 4. wumbolo ^^^ 23:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

1. Women's rights is not currently listed at WP:VA4. If Thi really wants to add this article here, he should propose to add that article in WT:VA4 first.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

You also have started nomintion with walking despite fact, walking, jumping and human-powered transport all are not listed at the level 4 yet. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:19, 22 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.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Beauty

"Beauty is truth, truth beauty, —that is all. / Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know." If truth & good and evil are listed, beauty is perhaps also worth consideration. Also human beauty has its effects on society.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Strong Support Article enaugh general for this level. Human beauty covers physical attractive and sexual attractive. Both these articles sociologically are more vital than any random sport, fashion or game so beauty likely is vital among 300-500 Wikipedia's the most important topics. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Support – I'd say it's more vital than Aesthetics, but I won't suggest a swap. J947 ^(c), at 07:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
4. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 09:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)).

Oppose

1. Oppose. Too much overlap with Aesthetics, which is already listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Rreagan007. Cobblet (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose Agree with above. Based on current content on Wikipedia pages related to Beauty and Aesthetics. Significant improvement to the beauty page could make me agree with Dawid2009's point. AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

Swap: remove Dream, add Imagination

Imagination clearly is more basic article. Dream better fit to the level 4 when we list nightmare at the level 5. I would also support add sense ahead of dream and and sensation to the level 4.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Support addition I don't necessarily mind the swap, but I think it makes sense to have a few more articles on basic mental processes. Cobblet (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Hallucination is listed at level 4. wumbolo ^^^ 23:10, 23 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.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Johannes Kepler

A key figure in the scientific revolution, see Johannes_Kepler#Historical_and_cultural_legacy. He discovered three major laws of planetary motion. [20] "Kepler contributed more than Galileo to the development of modern science." [21] He was number 75 in the book The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History (1978).

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)).
3. The nominator's argument is very convincing, especially the fact that Kepler was number 75 in The 100, since the list currently contains 130 people but not him).--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC) Added "but not having him" 12:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC) altered the sentence again 04:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Since this one list made by one person without any scholarly method is being used as a support vote let's go through who else is on this list but not on here.

• 7. Cai Lun (vote failed)
• 21. Constantine the Great
• 22. James Watt
• 28. Wright brothers (vote failed)
• 32. John Dalton (was on, but got removed)
• 36. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (was on, but got removed)
• 37. William T. G. Morton (not even on the level 4 list)
• 38. Guglielmo Marconi
• 41. Oliver Cromwell
• 42. Alexander Graham Bell
• 43. Alexander Fleming
• 47. Louis Daguerre
• 51. Pope Urban II
• 52. Umar
• 53. Ashoka
• 54. Augustine of Hippo
• 55. William Harvey
• 56. Ernest Rutherford
• 57. John Calvin
• 58. Gregor Mendel
• 59. Max Planck
• 60. Joseph Lister
• 61. Nikolaus Otto (not even on the level 4 list)
• 62. Francisco Pizarro
• 63. Hernán Cortés
• 64. Thomas Jefferson
• 65. Isabella I of Castile
• 68. William the Conqueror
• 70. Edward Jenner
• 71. Wilhelm Röntgen

Now for people rated lower then Kepler

• 76. Enrico Fermi
• 78. Jean-Jacques Rousseau
• 79. Niccolò Machiavelli
• 80. Thomas Robert Malthus
• 81. John F. Kennedy
• 82. Gregory Goodwin Pincus (not even on the level 4 list)
• 83. Mani (not even on the level 4 list)
• 85. Emperor Wen of Sui
• 88. Peter the Great
• 90. Francis Bacon
• 92. Mencius
• 93. Zoroaster (him and his religion got removed)
• 95. Mikhail Gorbachev
• 96. Menes (not even on the level 4 list)
• 99. Justinian I
• 100. Mahavira

So to vote based purely based off this list is a folly. There's much more to being vital then being on some list. There's too many scientists compared to everyone else and Ptolemy and Francis Bacon are more important then Kepler in my opinion. If being ranked 75 on this list is a automatic support vote then the people ranked as high as 7!! not on this list should be in before Kepler. GuzzyG (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd support most of the above that are currently not on L4 to at least L4. Morton's claim to vitality depends on whether he invented anesthesia, which is controversial and debatable. So despite his higher ranking than most on this particular list, he may be one which I don't personally agree with on L4. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd support them all too; except Rudolf Diesel and Gottlieb Daimler should be in before Nikolaus Otto and as you mention Pierre Fauchard should be in before Morton. I still think Roger Bacon, Giordano Bruno, and Peter Abelard are the three most vital missing level 4 people though. It's hard to pick though there's so many still missing.

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

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

---

add Oral tradition

Few months ago we have added folklore on the level 2. Now it is time to add Oral tradition here. Oral tradition some time ago was listed among 100 the most basic articles and now is 10 000 but I think it should be listed on the level 3 ahead of traditions (just like Play (activity) ahead of Recreation) as subtopic for folklore. It is illogical to constain several specific religious works without it because of religious works were also building by Oral tradition; not just by writting/literature. Oral tradition is naturally influential for language which is level 1 article.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
2. Support The most fundamental way in which cultures transmit information, and a basic object of anthropological study. Cobblet (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
3. Support per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
4. Support as vital to human history and development, and still the underlying theme behind much modern entertainment. 31.173.35.205 (talk) 08:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
5. Support It was how humans conveyed knowledge for most of our history. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

add Paleontology

Major field of study, with a long history, that currently falls out through a gap btween Biology and Geology.

Support

1. As nom. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
2. Support I agree. We lately discussed addition of evolution and geology (based on Brittanica's outline of knowlage) to the level 2 so we can add now more related articles here. There are some similar topics but based on nominator's reasoning and information in the article I think that seems be enough general. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
4. Support An important gap in scientific coverage. 31.173.35.205 (talk) 08:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
5. Weak support Feels about as vital as archaeology which is also listed. Cobblet (talk) 05:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I am not sure that it is necessary at this level. --Thi (talk) 09:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

• I actually proposed adding this article about a year and a half ago and it failed 3–3. I'm unsure if we really need it at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

RM discussion at Tanakh

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Tanakh, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Tanakh is listed on the L4 list, the discussion is whether the page should be located at Tanakh or at Hebrew Bible. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

---

remove Neptune, Uranus

Per below discussion, Neptune and Uranus potentially are not vital at this level. These two planets are the only planets in our solar system which have been discovered very much leter than Copernican Revolution and are long distance from Earth. When we are anthropocentric (for example we list Global warming ahead of Climate change or civilized continents ahead of Antarctica and Continent) we should not list Neptune and Uranus ahead of Equinox, Solstice, Eclipse, Astrology and History of astronomy. Also fact that we have already Planet and Solar system at this level makes Neptune and Uranus less vital than Mount Everest IMO. Pluto is not covered by Dwarf planet at this level. Dawid2009 (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 09:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Support per nom and my previous comments above and in the archives. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Weak support as per my comment that raised this discussion: 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 04:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)).
2. Oppose All eight (non-dwarf) planets are vital for both cultural and scientific reasons. Orser67 (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose The Solar System is our home. We should list all of the most significant objects in it. Uranus and Neptune certainly count as some of its most significant objects. I don't see how they're any less "famous" than the other planets – any schoolchild knows all of them. Cobblet (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
4. weak Oppose I'm for keeping the full list of planets as articles. (Though I see why these would be considered the least vital of the planets.) RJFJR (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
5. Strong Oppose They’re planets that are in our Solar System. Also, I am not having the harmony of that section’s featured articles be disrupted. InvalidOStalk 19:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
6. Oppose. I've had to think about this one a long time, because I do see the argument for removing these, but in the end I think all 8 planets, the sun, and the moon are vital articles at this level (or higher). Rreagan007 (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

When we have Galaxy and Star already on the list I do not support addition of other Glaxies and Stars to this list but adding History of astronomy instead something like Greek Astronomy (which is less vital than Greek Mythology IMO) and adding Observation (not as astronomic article) or Light-year is reasnable for discussion. Some time ago there were failed nomination to swap Global warming for Climate change but I would support addition of Meteorology. Dawid2009 (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

We don't list the histories of any of the other pure sciences, and I'm not really convinced any of them are necessary. Cobblet (talk) 04:18, 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.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Sweden

This is a strange list but as I understand was started by one person, so of course biases can creep in, and especially things linked to the USA and maybe the UK as the majority of editors come from there. However it is really odd that there is no Nordic country. I choose to nominate Sweden, as it is up there with Norway in impact in world affairs, and is more influential in industry and technology (high patent count, 25th largest GDP in the world, home to many innovators from Ericsson to IKEA and H&M), was one of the major sources of the Vikings (and so the roots of the Rus culture which formed the Russian Empire). Why, for example, are there two Chinas, one of which is a small island not even universally considered a country?

Support

1. Support as nom.79.104.5.174 (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
2. Support and can further mention Sweden as originator or one of the leaders in multiple sports including Ice Hockey and Bandy.192.176.1.83 (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
3. There was once Swedish Empire indeed, and she dominated the Baltic region for a while.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
4. Support, adding cultural weight too, notably Abba but more too. Not to compare or compete, but definitely outweighs some of the current 36 countries. Why 36, by the way?83.220.237.89 (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC) Note: This does not appear to be a legitimate vote. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
5. Support but not 100% sure. Nordic countries have made a difference beyond their basic scale, as outlined, but the list more urgently needs more African countries, and major ethnic groups.178.236.245.66 (talk) 06:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Note: This does not appear to be a legitimate vote. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
6. Support Vital at this level. --Thi (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I think a single objective measure makes the most sense, (otherwise systemic bias creeps in), and I think population is the best measure. We should just have the top 35 by population: GDPs/capita are going to continue converging. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Scandinavia would be better choice if we decide make reorganisation. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose I agree with Dawid2009 that we need to break free of our Countries and Cities organization. Having geographic regions, both supra- and sub-national, will make for a better list. Population of Sweden is lower than Burundi, Haiti, or half as large as Sri Lanka or Niger. Taiwan has a larger GDP than does Sweden (and if we take Purchasing Power Parity into account, Sweden is near Romania and Iraq and 1/3rd that of Taiwan). If we go by per capita GDP (which we shouldn't), they are equivalent to Taiwan. One possible measure for (modern) cultural impact could be Oscars for Foreign Film won, Sweden does well coming in 5th, but tied with Denmark and the Netherlands (Sweden has 2 BAFTAs for best non-English film, tied with Mexico). We should find a way to include Nordic society, but Sweden isn't it to me. AbstractIllusions (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose There are plenty of countries not listed with a larger population than all of the Nordic countries combined; for example, Ukraine, the most populous European country not listed, has over 50% more people. Viking Age is listed and covers Scandinavia's historical influence, just like how we choose to list Ancient Greece rather than Greece. Switzerland (which is not listed) outranks Sweden in GDP, number of companies on the Forbes Global 2000, and even on several indexes of soft power. So the case for Sweden and even Scandinavia as a whole is unpersuasive. On a procedural note, it's extremely unusual to see a proposal started and mainly supported by a number of IP addresses, most of which have made no substantial contributions to the English Wikipedia. Cobblet (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose I still support adding regions to the list where the countries are not significant enough on their own, like Scandinavia, Central Asia and Central America/Caribbean to give that region a deeper level of coverage than just the continent. And yes, the Ukraine is the next country to add from Europe if another needs to be added. Easily the second most important ex-Soviet country behind Russia. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
6. Oppose – In this situation, Scandinavia seems more reasonable but that sadly doesn't include Finland. I do suspect sockpuppetry with the supports, which adds to my opinion here that consensus should replace simple vote-counting. I'd like to add my—albeit tentative—support to Ukraine as well. J947^{'s public account} 02:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

This logic is also fair, just take the biggest population shares of humanity, no exceptions.178.236.245.66 (talk) 06:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 Jews for Israel

As I've stated above, Israel does not meet the criteria well, objectively, and I think far more appropriate, given the influence on religion and other areas, would be the article on the Jewish people. Equating Jewish people with Israel is simply inaccurate, and the story of the people is vastly more than that of a remote Israel, or the Jewish State. Israel would be a good fit for Level 4, with a lot of other interesting but not "Top 40" countries of the world.

Support

1. Support as nom.79.104.5.174 (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
2. Support as Israel clearly does not belong (it might be Top 30% due to other factors, but not Top 15%, while Jewish influence is significant, out of proportion to population (under 20 million of 7000 million is pushing the boundary, but Israel is even more of a reach). 178.236.245.66 (talk) 06:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This list does not include any ethnicities, and Israel is no doubt vital due to the fact that this country has been receiving significant international attention in spite of its small area.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose: agree with Rekish that adding a single religio-ethnic group makes no sense, especially so in this case since we already have Judaism.UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Agree with above comments. We don't list any other ethnic groups. Israel is a small country, but size isn't the only factor of vitality. It is a nuclear power and its relationship with the U.S. gives it much more clout than other countries of its size. Its origins are also fairly unique. It probably deserves to be listed here. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose Countries are in general vital at this level. --Thi (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose Agree with Rreagan.AbstractIllusions (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

"Relationship with the USA"? What has that to do with anything? This is not the USA Wikipedia. The western bias is apparent even in the naming used here, US (of where?) instead of respecting other federal states such as Mexico and Brazil. Rogue nnclear power is not a reason to declare a country as among the 30-40 "most vital" in the world.178.236.245.66 (talk) 06:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

This is the English-language Wikipedia, and this list is meant to be tailored to the English-language Wikipedia. And the US is the hegemonic world superpower (at least for now), so Israel's close relationship with the US gives it much more power and influence in the region and world than other nations of similar size. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 Greenland (the island) under Terrestrial Features -> Islands

It is the world's largest island, by a huge margin. At this level we have the largest hot desert, rainforest, inland body of water, coral reef, longest river, and highest mountain range as exemplars, so having the largest island as an exemplar makes sense too.

Support

1. Support as nom. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
2. Support as makes clear sense as lead exemplar and as largest example by far.178.236.245.66 (talk) 06:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose When we removed Mt. Everest, someone (Cobblet, if I recall) said that no single mountain is probably vital at this level--I'd say the same for islands. A list with Everest, could certainly make a case for Greenland, but even then being the biggest of something doesn't automatically qualify as vital. AbstractIllusions (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose If the Earth's polar regions need more coverage, it would make a lot more sense to add the Southern Ocean back than to add Greenland, when we already have Arctic and Arctic Ocean. There's no reason to be biased towards coverage of the Northern Hemisphere within the topic of physical geography. Cobblet (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above but also the distinction between continents and islands is arbitrary. Techtonic plates don't correspond to the geopolitical continents. Australia is sometimes said to be the largest island and is listed anyway. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose Dawid2009 (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
5. Weak oppose. We don't list Australia (continent), even though we list all the other continents at this level because it is a part of Oceania, and so we probably shouldn't list Greenland since it is part of North America. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

@Cobblet:: Except that since the Northern Hemisphere contains a large majority of the earth's land, any "bias" toward that hemisphere in treatment of landforms is not really a bias at all. Same goes for the earth's human population, economic activity, land animals, etc. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I understand that land is important because people live on it (the other things you mentioned are only tangentially connected to physical geography); but let's not forget that water covers 70% of the Earth's surface. We already list more continents and terrestrial features than we do marine and freshwater features. How is Greenland more vital than the Southern Ocean, which is almost ten times larger? Why does the Arctic deserve three articles and the Antarctic only one? Cobblet (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Would support addition of Southern Ocean. Didin't think this was an either-or at this point. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

add Astronomical object

Parent article for Planet and Natural satellite. For this level also representation of astronomical objects not listed here.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The article is basically a list and we don't include list-type articles here – in fact I'm surprised this is listed at level 4, for the same reason. All the material that is contained in the introductory paragraphs can be found in galaxy and star. We list asteroid, comet, natural satellite and planet as examples of smaller objects and this article adds nothing to what is already covered in those articles. Cobblet (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose While I don't love natural satellite , this is not the one to add. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. RJFJR (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose I agree with the above comments about this article essentially being a list. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose Too theoretical concept at this level when we can list both Planet and Satellite. --Thi (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

add Eschatology

General religious topic. Part of theology concerned with the final events of history, or the ultimate destiny of humanity. Eschatology was mentioned in archives at section Wikipedia talk:Vital_articles/Archive 13#Remove Zoroastrianism by @Trovatore:. This article IMO is very difficult to be featured article but still quite vital as general topic.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose How is this more vital than ultimate fate of the universe, or physical cosmology? Cobblet (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

   It's had far more influence on history, philosophy, and religion than either of those topics. (However, I don't think it's sufficiently significant to add before many other important topics, including certain general religious topics.) --Yair rand (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

   Physical cosmology is already level 3 article but I would compare ultimate fate of the universe rather to End time or even Doomsday cult and End of history than to Eschatology. I am also suprised that ultimate fate of the universe is level 4 article meanwhile Global catastrophic risk even is not 5. It is not technically right when universe is level 2 article and earth is level 1 article although fits when for example Cyclic model is level 5. Dawid2009 (talk) 08:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

2. Oppose Too specific topic. --Thi (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose overly specific part of religion. RJFJR (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose. I agree with the above comments that it's too specialized of a religious topic for this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

Remove Currency

We also list money at this level, and there is way too much overlap between the two to list both here.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Significant, significant overlap between the two articles. I understand the economics justification for conceptualizing currency and money separately--but don't find it necessary for a list of 1000 vital articles. AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
4. Support because of the overlap. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
5. Support due to overlap, currency is just one expression of money. 31.173.35.205 (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
6. Support have money which is more general. RJFJR (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

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

---

Proposal: Add The Rolling Stones

The Rolling Stones should be upgraded from class 4 to class 3. It is a vital article to the topic of music, arguably on the same scale as The Beatles, which is already a class 3 article. The two bands were historic rivals and the Stones are still very much a force in music today, still winning Grammys, touring, and releasing albums. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose rock and roll is well represented with Elvis and the Beatles. Three 20th century musicians/groups is a lot already. And if there was another recent musician added it should probably be from a different genre. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose agree, rock and roll is well represented with Elvis and the Beatles. 31.173.35.205 (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose Would be too much at this level. --Thi (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose would give undue weight to rock music. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose - Please propose as a swap; we have very few recent people and a significant proportion is rock and roll-related. J947^{'s public account} 02:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
6. Oppose per above. RJFJR (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
7. Oppose Certainly not before Robert Johnson, Bob Dylan, Chuck Berry, Jimi Hendrix in a blues/rock sense. Or a Claude Debussy, John Cage, Igor Stravinsky, Maria Callas, Michael Jackson and Frank Sinatra or even Madonna in a general 20th century music sense. They're 2nd tier great rock along with Bowie/Led Zeppelin/Pink Floyd/Queen/The Beach Boys any of who could be listed aswell if the Stones are listed. GuzzyG (talk) 01:40, 31 May 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.