Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20
NO CONSENSUS
1-2 for addition, 3-2 for removal, with no !votes after 30+ days. Resulted in good wider discussions about cultural significance & physical geography. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Grand Canyon, Add California

I proposed adding California a while back but then withdrew it almost immediately upon realizing that there isn't much room at this level for a straight addition, especially of something related to the United States. I noticed that the Grand Canyon was on the list; while it's certainly interesting and worthy of Level 4, it's not on the same level as the Amazon Rainforest or the Pyramids in terms of impact and significance. Canyon itself is at Level 4. As I said earlier, California is one of the world's Top 10 economies and the home of both Hollywood and Silicon Valley, being thereby the pop-cultural and technological capital of the world, serving as a good counterpoint to New York City on this list. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support removal per nom. --Thi (talk) 06:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support removal, neutral on addition. Physical geography currently is North America-heavy on the level 3 at the moment and maybe Grand Canyon's culutural influence is not quite notable if we already no longer include Mount Everest (the highest peak which influenced Flang of Nepal). Neutral for addition. If we need to include more countries or districts IMHO the most interesing would be 1Malysia (see [1] and pay attention on fact that Malysian language was several times nominated/sugested - for southeastern Asia, maybe we should swap with Singapoore which is not richer city than Shanghai?) 2Ukraine (For European countries Ukraine more fit to company which is on the level 3 because of European countries on the level 4 like Portugal have not comprable population) 3Morocco/Algeria (Algeria has either of surface and polpulation, Morocco is most touristic country in Africa) 3country from Central Asia (maybe Kasakchstan/Uzbekistan?) Dawid2009 (talk) 13:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd support removing Singapore (interesting place but not sure how central it is for the average reader). There are also a few countries I'd consider cutting too. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per my comments here. This discussion is also relevant. Cobblet (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose addition. Neutral on removal. Per previous discussion. Also not convinced California is the most vital country subdivision in the world. Still think that England is ahead because of its much great historical significance. Gizza (t)(c) 12:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
    I don't disagree with you on that front, but in all fairness England is a lot less distinct from the UK as a whole in popular conception and historical significance than California is from the US, given the relative unimportance of the other three UK countries (both internally and externally) to the rest of the United States. In other words, having both California and United States is less redundant than having both England and United Kingdom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose removal, support addition in spirit. Personally, I'd shave some countries & cities to make room, then consolidate articles like Grand Canyon under a small "natural wonders" section. And for North America, the Grand Canyon seems to be high on every list. Funny thing is when I did visit the Grand Canyon, I was one of those "it's just a big gouge" people (probably in a bad mood). As for California, while it would take more haggling to pass, I'd prefer more granularly adding 1. LA or Hollywood (maybe under the Arts section?) 2. Silicon Valley (possibly under Technology?) --Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
    Adding LA has been discussed and rejected before, the general rule is that a country gets up to only one city here, and ours is NYC. I do think that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts in this instance, and given the tightness of the list I'd rather have fewer rather than more articles, but Silicon Valley could work as well. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
    I didn't think about it, but a city limit is a sensible rule. But like I said, while I don't know how far it would get, I'd support listing Hollywood under the Arts & Silicon Valley under Technology. I'm personally not a booster of either, but I think there's a strong argument they're more ideas/institutions at this point; they just happen to be rooted in a single place. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Discussion

IMO the single most vital missing geography article is now Southern Ocean, which was removed recently. I could support swapping the Grand Canyon for that. Cobblet (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3 opposed; discussion largely centered on the list itself vs. architectural content it represents. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Add Seven Wonders of the Ancient World

This is the most famous list in the Western world (well, second-most famous), and has spawned countless imitations and allusions, as well as the proverbial "Eighth Wonder". This would beef up our architecture selection, which has a meager three entries. Note that this is about the list as a whole; the Great Pyramid is (and ought to be IMO) the only individual wonder on here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The Pyramids are the only one of the seven wonders still extant and are rightly listed. I don't see how adding a list of monuments that no longer exist can be a higher priority than any of the historic sites that we used to list under Architecture and have now removed – Angkor, the Colosseum, Machu Picchu, Taj Mahal, etc. The section on Architecture under Arts is short because the Structures section under Technology is essentially another section about architecture. There are still other topics related to architecture listed in other sections – home, garden, history of architecture, construction, wood, etc. Tower was removed recently, and nobody in that discussion seemed worried about architecture being underrepresented on the list as a result. Cobblet (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
    As I said in the nom, it's not the monuments themselves but the list, which has influenced architecture and cultural thinking to this day, as evidenced by its many "knockofs" and references. (Though the architecture argument was likely faulty.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
    The cultural significance of the Seven Wonders as a list seems minor if not trivial when compared to any list of religious precepts, e.g., the Ten Commandments, the Five Pillars of Islam, the Four Noble Truths, etc. I'm not even sure it's more referenced or imitated than other lists of seven (seven virtues, seven deadly sins; seven hills of Rome and List of cities claimed to be built on seven hills). This kind of numerology pops up everywhere, and not only in Western culture. We already cover the lists I consider most important: we have the Standard Model and the periodic table, and the four fundamental interactions are individually listed. Cobblet (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Many other things are in similar level of importance. --Thi (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose While I like the idea of beefing up the architecture section, and this would net several famous examples for the price of one, relying on the list just involves too much redirection for my taste. I think this is another case where even though it's harder, freeing up a few slots from other categories is the way to go. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
6-0, added. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Add Concrete

It's strange that even though we list several building materials (steel, wood, glass, plastic, textiles, plus masonry which covers brick and stone), we don't list the single most widely used manmade material in the world – so much so, that concrete production accounts for 5% of all humanity's carbon dioxide emissions. [2] And concrete is not just a modern material – the Romans also famously made extensive use of it.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. Per nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support, also seems more fitting under technology than wood or natural rubber (even if they require lots of skill & knowledge to use). --Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  6. Support - vital. Gizza (t)(c) 05:12, 28 September 2020 (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.

What is the reason for not displaying status of article explicitly (next to summary)?

I wonder if there is good reason to have visual marker informing viewers what is the status of the article immediately next to its summary? I think this is a key information and helps bring attention to its relevance within a system... Zblace (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Existence vs. ontology

This isn't my area of expertise, but aren't all problems in ontology problems of existence? Why do we need both? Cobblet (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

That... is a really good question. I definitely don't consider myself well-versed enough to say either. The only issue I can think of is that maybe ontology also encompasses essence in a way existence doesn't? Even then though, you still may be right and we could drop existence as subsumed under ontology. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles § Most-viewed non-vital pages

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles § Most-viewed non-vital pages. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

General thoughts on the math category

Maybe it's because I have a math background (though I don't claim to be a professional with a PhD), but I don't think I could !vote for or against individual math topics in a normal proposal. After reading over the recent ones though, I did have a few thoughts; maybe you all will be able to sift out something useful:

  1. Overall, I think the current list is pretty well-balanced, but some of the individual topics do seem arbitrary, especially when compared to what's left out...
    I know in the above proposal for Linear algebra, several people mentioned VA Level 2 or the Meta list and suggested limiting the category at 50. To me though, debates like in the Add 1 proposal, suggest the category is maybe still too small.
    Since going from Level 2 to 3 in VA is an increase of an entire order, I don't think a similar % allocation needs to be a hard rule. And however you feel about the Meta list, I don't think it's controversial to say it's less active & follows a less rigorous process.
    How about a 60-slot target to start, or even just 55? I plan to propose a few removals from other categories soon, and while we may have different candidates in mind, I think others have mentioned being willing to cut some People or Geography entries.
  2. I don't know of an existing classification well-suited for a list like this (short & targeted at the widest possible audience)...
    Even grouping things in the basic "trinity of pure math" I've heard before (algebra, analysis, & geometry) is a very rough, informal thing. In a way, maybe focusing on subcategories or fields to choose the specific topics is counterproductive.
    Instead, it may be better to focus on picking specific concepts, then only use subcategories / fields to organize or merge them after the fact, when there's a clear opportunity.
  3. Math topics can be notable for several reasons, but I think it's rare for one to check all of the boxes...
    For example, a topic could be very intuitive & commonly taught, widely applied, historically significant, have conceptual power, etc. I think if you want to take the math category to the next level, you'll need a way to balance those different reasons.
    The first thing that comes to my mind is complementing the normal !voting with a rubric or soft quota for the different kinds of notability. It would only need to be active while there's interest in shifting the category to a new equilibrium too.

I don't know if there's any appetite for specific ideas like these, but even then, maybe you all can riff off them with better ones. It's just math as a whole might be tricky in ways the other categories aren't, and adding a bit more process could help with that. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

It's great somebody finally came along who is willing to bring an informed perspective to the math section.
  1. Maybe start by suggesting what you consider priority articles to add, just to gauge people's interest in expanding the section to accommodate them. A lot of discussion went into making the People and Geography sections what they are nowadays, while the Math section has received very little attention in comparison. If we don't focus on the Math section, we might get sidetracked by debates about what to delete from the other sections. If we get a consensus that an expansion is in order, we can figure out what to specifically delete later.
  2. That's no problem. I think we have the ability to look at the section globally and not get bogged down by headings.
  3. It's hard to neatly pigeon-hole various types of vitality: as far as I'm aware, we've never agreed on a way of doing that. Different people weigh different reasons for vitality differently. Some people don't think of vitality that way at all – they prefer looking at the question more holistically. (I could be regarded as one of those people.) If you think it helps you to use a rubric to structure your ideas, by all means please go for it; but be prepared for people not to necessarily follow along with it for the purposes of !voting. It's hard to say: we've never tried something like that. Cobblet (talk) 02:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate the feedback; I'll keep it in mind & consider proposing some math additions after I finish my economics-related proposals. My emphasis on freeing up slots was because otherwise, despite support, I could see more proposals getting stuck on needing a specific swap. For example, I would have supported adding 1 and keeping 0 on the list, but by the time I really read over it, I had the impression only one or the other would be accepted.
Just to reassure you too, I would emphasize the word "soft" to describe the rubric / quota idea. It would be a shared logic people could use to think up new proposals, and also add a little more objectivity to opening arguments. Everything would still come down to the same !votes though, for whatever reasons people find compelling. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

This is just a small related question, but would anyone be opposed to me reorganizing the math articles currently listed? I can work in small steps over time in case anyone dislikes a change. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Probably not. We can always revert and discuss if need be. Cobblet (talk) 01:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
Found page popularity and previous decision (topic also stands in for advertising) convincing. Market (economics) also turned up as a possible alternative for removal; determined other issues were with current article state, not topic. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Remove Marketing

Here's another one I think we could put at Level 4. Not only is the topic (at least as presented) pretty recent and ahistorical, but at least in its current form, it seems very practitioner-oriented. The topic is already discussed some under Market (economics) too.

Actually, I considered proposing a swap for Sales. After looking into it more though, we already have the Retail article, which (while technically more specific) already seems more developed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per previous discussions. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

We swapped advertising for marketing a while ago. This discussion is also relevant. Cobblet (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Yup, I went back and found those after you reminded me about the archives above. The need for some coverage of advertising (indirect or not) is a pretty strong argument, and that swap wasn't too long ago. I don't want to retract the proposal just yet though; I still wonder if we could get sufficient & more focused coverage at this level indirectly through other articles (like Business, Retail, and Mass media). --Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

After thinking about current coverage and some good points about an alternative, I've changed my mind. Marketing should probably stay for the foreseeable future. Even if the current article doesn't always feel geared for a general audience, the topic is a good, central compromise for several topics. The market (economics) article is likely a better candidate for removal, and I'll open a separate proposal for that. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
Interstellarity (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Remove Nelson Mandela

We try not to include people who died recently in the list since this list is guided towards anti-recentism. The most recent person to die that is on the list besides Mandela is Kurt Godel who died in 1978. The FAQ for this page doesn't describe the barriers between recentism and anti-recentism. I'm hoping that whatever the outcome is for this discussion, we can get a better clue of how distant in history people need to be to be included in the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Interstellarity (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Would support a swap with Martin Luther King Jr. if consensus developed for it but that introduces its own Americentric bias. Given Mandela's massive importance in the area of civil rights, we can set aside such guidelines in favor of filling the niche. (As another example of such dispensation, I think Elon Musk would/will get the same treatment if all goes according to his plans.) Just to be clear if it wasn't already implied, I oppose a straight removal. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
    To clarify, I think not including living persons on the list (I don't count Paul and Ringo since the Beatles are in as a group) is still a hard barrier. I do think that someone can be considered as soon as a) he (she, etc.) is deceased and b) it is obviously and abundantly clear that his (her, etc.) legacy is on par with Lincoln, Caesar, and indeed Mandela (a stricter form of Thatcher/Mandela that even excludes Thatcher). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
    In case you haven't seen it, King has been discussed recently at Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_16#Add_Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.. I don't think it's worth discussing again until time has passed since then. Interstellarity (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
    Of course, I was just saying that if consensus developed there I wouldn't oppose it, sorry for misspeaking. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Clearly the most vital sub-Saharan African leader of all time, recent or not. Cobblet (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Cobblet. We have said time and time again that we aim to create a diverse and worldly list. Mandela is the only African leader here besides the two Ancient Pharaohs. Aza24 (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  4. Oppose as Mandela was one of the most influential and important rights leaders in Africa. NoahTalk 02:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  5. Oppose even if recent I agree Nelson Mandela is long-term important enough to stay. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - recentism is an issue when the article added is part of a trend or fad instead of having enduring value like the case here. Also recentism is a matter of balance. One article from the late 20th century is reasonable when there are many articles from the early to mid 20th century. On Level 4 and 5, the ratio flips in the other direction which is true recentism. Gizza (t)(c) 12:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

I opposed his addition only because Shaka was also on the list back then. Mandela is clearly the better choice. Recentism is only an issue if it's unclear whether a person's legacy will be secure in the foreseeable future: the fear is adding people based on what we expect them to do in the future, as opposed to what they've already done. Mandela's legacy is about as secure as it gets. Cobblet (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@John M Wolfson, Cobblet, Aza24, Hurricane Noah, Crouch, Swale, and DaGizza: I would like to know your thoughts on adding someone who had an impact on the creation of the computer and internet as we know it today like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or Tim-Berners Lee? I understand these people are recent, but their influence will probably be here for the foreseeable future. Interstellarity (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I would probably still say Nelson is more appropriate but I'm not completely sure. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I do recognize that there is a consensus to keep Mandela. I was wondering about adding someone recent alongside Mandela whose legacy is as secure as it gets. Interstellarity (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Adding living persons is still a hard pass from me (much like we categorically exclude any biographies from Level 2 even if we could theoretically add Jesus, or non-scriptural specific works of art from Level 3 even if we could theoretically add Citizen Kane), which excludes all but Steve Jobs. We could therefore add Jobs, but only once someone can explain his legacy over that of, say, Gates or Berners-Lee. I think Turing's already on here, though. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I think the main problem with adding people who contributed to the personal computer revolution is because many of those people are still living. Jobs' legacy is the iPhone. Before the iPhone, phones had lots of buttons. Because of the iPhone, later generations of phones had similar designs to the it. If I proposed adding Jobs to the list, would you support it? I won't propose it just yet, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on it. Interstellarity (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I could personally consider Steve Jobs, although Dennis Ritchie is arguably a better candidate due to his invention of C. Both are currently Level 4, so you could start a discussion to promote one (or both) of them if you are so inclined. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the more I would in fact support Jobs, at the very least to supplement the "businessmen" section with more than just Henry Ford. I will note that I have not researched whether there have been previous discussions for adding him. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I did look through the archives and found that adding Jobs was discussed here in 2017. I do think it's too soon to open up a discussion about adding him so I won't propose adding him. Since there is near unanimous support for keeping Mandela, I feel it is appropriate to withdraw this proposal. I'll be adding a proposal to add Ritchie below. We can continue discussing on that post. Interstellarity (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Open source software

Discussions regarding the level 4 list belong on that talk page, not here. Cobblet (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3, not added. --Thi (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Add Dennis Ritchie

He created two programming languages and Unix operating system which has influence on its descendants. Interstellarity (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support "Without Dennis Ritchie there would be no Steve Jobs." If this fails maybe Unix can be added instead. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. We already list one computer scientist at this level, Alan Turing. I'd like to see someone added from a field that isn't currently covered at Level 3, like Wernher von Braun for rocketry and space exploration. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
    1. Ritchie was more of an inventor/programmer than a scientist in Turing's sense. And au contraire, I feel like computer science is underrepresented, given that Turing was during WW2. I wouldn't oppose Braun, but I think having more computer people is more important. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Agree with Rreagan007 in that I'm not convinced more than one computer scientist is necessary, and Berners-Lee would seem like the better choice anyway. To carry on the discussion from before, a businessperson like Gates or Jobs seems like a better choice than a second computer scientist. Cobblet (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
    1. I could support Jobs if consensus develops in that direction. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Not the first choice, and I doubt if another computer-related person in necessary at this level. --Thi (talk) 09:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

I'll note that while the legacy of Gates or Jobs may be secure, how their legacies ultimately stack up against people who showed up later like Zuckerberg or Bezos is not as clear. I'm aware that the latter two people are not on level 4, although their companies are. Cobblet (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

By the way, without Steve Jobs's parents there would be no Steve Jobs. That doesn't make them more vital than Jobs. I don't think the list is improved by replacing the current list with the first 125ish people known to recorded history, although surely the achievements of everyone after them could be traced back to them if one tried hard enough. The point of the vital articles project (and this principle extends not just to biographies but the rest of the list as well) is to list 125ish people who represent the diversity of human achievement. It's not to construct some sort of hierarchy in which people can be ranked by vitality, and then take the top 125ish. Cobblet (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
4-3 after 60+ days. Opinion largely split over importance to anthropology vs. relationship to hunting. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Add: Foraging or Hunter-gatherer

Seems like there's some interest in supplementing Hunting with the concept of gathering on the list so I'm spinning off this proposal. There are actually two options that jump out at me.

On the one hand, there is no specific article for gathering, but foraging includes gathering (and technically hunting). At least in its current form though, the foraging article is focused on animal behavior, not the human activity (unlike the hunting article). Another possibility is to add the article on hunter-gatherers, but I could see how that might be considered too specific to anthropology for Level 3.

I'm personally neutral on any outcome so I won't be voting; I just thought it wouldn't hurt to get the proposal down. Zar2gar1 (talk) 01:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support Hunter-gatherer, as that was our way of life for the majority of our existence. There's room for both it and Hunting IMO; as I said earlier the latter has other importance with medieval aristocrats, sport hunting, etc., and even without it is technically in a different field, being an economic activity while Hunter-gatherer is a sociological category. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support Hunter-gatherer, important concept in human history. --Thi (talk) 07:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Hunter-gatherer as nom, foraging is more of an ethological topic. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Hunter-gatherer per nom Heart (talk) 03:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. We already list both Hunting and Fishing at this level, and I think that's enough. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
    That's a good point, but just to clarify, I expect Hunter-gatherer (or Nomad as suggested below) would go under anthropology. This did branch off a discussion around Hunting under economics, and complementing that (even if elsewhere on the VA list) was the initial reason for the proposal. Seeing it as its own discussion though, I think the relation to Hunting became a minor reason, at least for me. Foraging might have worked differently, but after looking at that article more closely, I don't think there's much interest in promoting it (even under biology). --Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose but would support a swap for hunting. The main rationale for keeping hunting given in the previous discussion was its importance to hunter-gatherer societies. We do not need to list both. Cobblet (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose hunting is more important. GuzzyG (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
8-0 for add, 6-0 for removal. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Coordinate system, add Linear algebra

One thing that's always bothered me about the math list is that it's heavy on extremely elementary concepts at the expense of equally fundamental but somewhat more abstract concepts, and sometimes even entire fields based on these concepts. This is a case in point. Coordinate systems are obviously an important topic in geometry, but I think dimension ought to cover the idea of how one specifies geometric elements in space. We don't need this kind of overlap, much as we don't list number line in addition to number.

Linear algebra is a ubiquitous tool in modern mathematics, tying together algebra and geometry and having all sorts of applications in science and engineering, from general relativity to video game graphics and just about everything in between. Dot product, Cross product, Eigenvalues and eigenvectors, Rotation matrix and Matrix (mathematics) are all currently among the top 100 most-viewed math articles. This list needs to have some coverage of vector and matrix operations.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support addition, neutral to leaning oppose on removal given that there is some non-overlap with "dimension" and non-cartesian coordinate systems such as spherical and polar coordinates the more I look at the list, I can see that Coordinate system is one of the weaker entries if we're trying to get this down to 50. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Linear algebra belongs to central concepts in mathematics and vital topics in an encyclopedia. It is in Meta's list. The project needs more discussion about what elementary concepts are needed at this level. --Thi (talk) 07:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC) Support removal too. --Thi (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support, coordinates are an important topic but less central than others. Some basic coverage could also theoretically come from Map under technology. I'd prefer a specific linear algebra concept to the subfield but prioritize not shrinking the math category for now. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support, contacted an expert on the topics and they said almost exactly what Cobblet's rationale was. Also this post on the American Mathematical Society website should make the case clear: "Linear algebra is the common denominator of mathematics. From the most pure to the most applied, if you use mathematics then you will use linear algebra." In terms of general reorganization discussion below, I think the light consensus between Cobblet and John M. Wolfson seemed like a great end point. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  6. Support addition I also agree with just adding. Idimoayli3388 (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  7. Support per above. Gizza (talk • voy) 00:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  8. Support per above. GuzzyG (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

@John M Wolfson: I don't understand your objection. The number of coordinates of any coordinate system, Cartesian or not, is equal to the number of dimensions in the space described by that coordinate system. Dimension#Spatial dimensions gives polar and spherical coordinates as examples of coordinate systems in two and three dimensions. We do not need two articles to explain the same idea. Cobblet (talk) 07:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that, which is why my objection is weak (and I'd rather it not counted as an oppose should there be consensus for it), but on a high-school/early college level (and thereby a presumable general audience) how those points are qualitatively presented (whether in a flat plane/space or as part of a curved sphere) matter. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thi mentioned the Meta list, and their Math section is about half the size as ours, so if we're going to add this, we should probably remove something. Combinatorics seems like a pretty weak article to list at this level. How about swapping out that article? Rreagan007 (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't remove combinatorics. It's a big part of discrete mathematics which we have no other coverage of. Factorials, permutations and combinations, recurrence relations like the Fibonacci sequence, graph theory – these are all basic combinatorial concepts with wide-ranging applications.
To add on to your point about the Meta list, I will also note that math makes up 5% of the level 2 list and 3% of the level 4 list. So it probably should not take up more than 5% of this list, i.e., we should have no more than roughly 50 articles. Which is to say, something else has gotta give if we want to add something like linear algebra. I do not see how it is vital to list both dimension and coordinate system when equally fundamental and non-overlapping concepts in only somewhat more advanced areas, e.g., polynomial for algebra, derivative and integral for calculus, and probability distribution for statistics, are omitted completely. Cobblet (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I would support limiting the Level 3 math section to 50 articles. The only question is, can we agree on what the 2 or 3 weakest math articles that are currently listed? I'd personally like to get rid of the 0 article. I feel like the concept itself is covered well enough by other listed articles, such as Integer and Natural number. And, I mean, who really comes to Wikipedia to read an article on the number 0? Rreagan007 (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Many people do: it's 49th among the most-viewed math articles. It gets more hits than Trigonometric functions, Time, or Statistics. I'll repeat the last comment I made on the thread about adding 1: I'm OK with keeping pi as the only specific number on the list (which Meta also does) if we absolutely must get down to 50 math articles. But I will be annoyed if 0 and the 54th-ranked e have to go while both the 238th-ranked Dimension and 554th-ranked Coordinate system get to stay (although to be fair, Cartesian coordinate system is 138th). Cobblet (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd be fine with getting rid of 0, although e should stay if pi is also staying. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Pi should definitely stay, and e probably should as well. They both pop up in a lot of math situations. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
We should also move Algorithm to the Computing and information technology section rather than Math, IMO. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think I'd really call an algorithm a "technology", so it's probably better off in the math section. And an algorithm isn't just something that a computer follows. It can also be a sequence of instructions that a person performs when doing some task, such as solving a long division problem. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
For math, an "algorithm" is interesting but more Level 4-worthy. The main interest of algorithms in the wider world is due to their being of central importance to computer science. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Euclid, Newton and Gauss beg to differ. I'm with Rreagan007 on this one. Also, we list theoretical computer science and its subtopics under Math on level 4 anyway. Cobblet (talk) 04:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm starting to think that the two weakest articles on the list are 0 and sphere (the latter is redundant to circle IMO, notwithstanding dimensions and the fact we list both polygon and polyhedron); I think we could also do without subtraction, which is simply the inverse of addition and doesn't have the interesting stuff of division, IMO, but it might be conspicuous in its absence. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm OK with removing sphere. I'm not OK with removing 0 unless we're also removing e. I get that both of you think 0 is trivial, but it's not: compare the history sections of 0, pi, and e. Since 0 and e get a similar number of page views but pi gets significantly more, I think we should list all three or just pi. I doubt the idea that subtraction is "less vital" than the other three basic arithmetic operations will gain much acceptance – you might have slightly better luck if you suggest keeping only addition and multiplication. I did have in mind replacing nth root with polynomial though. Roots can be viewed as an extension of exponentiation (which of course is listed) and as solutions to a particular class of polynomial equations. I think listing the generalized algebraic concept of a polynomial is better than its specific application in an arithmetic context. Cobblet (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with also removing division, but division has more interesting stuff than subtraction (that it's not closed among the integers, for example). I'm fine with substituting polynomial for root. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Just noting the proposal is still open since we're at 4-0 for the removal of Coordinate system. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-2 for both removals. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Remove Microeconomics and Macroeconomics

So I suspect this may get some push-back, but let's go for it. If you look through the main Economics article, it already discusses many (most?) of the main points in the specific micro- and macroeconomics articles. We also have Market (economics) and Supply and demand at this level, and even the Tax article discusses some of the relevant economic analysis.

How about putting these two sub-fields at Level 4? Not only are they relatively narrow and technical, but they retread a lot of ground we already cover with more focus.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support Economics gives an overview and the consensus seems to be that Supply and demand is the most basic subtopic. --Thi (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Micro- and Macro- economic topics are already mostly covered at this level, so I don't see the need to keep them here.JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 20:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Idimoayli3388 (talk) 08:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support per everyone. GuzzyG (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose from an academic perspective, micro and macro are more fundamental topics than Market and Supply & Demand. Birth of Modern Economics after Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations and birth of Macroeconomics after Keynes' General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money are considered watershed moments in Social Sciences. The importance of both fields in influencing modern society's decision making from the lowest to highest levels is huge. The main issue seems to me that both Micro and Macro articles are in dire state for their importance and the Micro section of Economics is better written. Roller26 (talk) 09:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Roller26: Considering economics in isolation, I mostly agree with you (I'm a little surprised Keynes isn't listed under People). But I'd also emphasize the non-academic perspective and compare to other social sciences on the list. Except for social science as a subheader (which I'd support downgrading), the articles are overwhelmingly real aspects of social life, not theoretical subdisciplines.
    On influence, I don't want to try persuading anyone or debating it since it quickly becomes political. I will be upfront I'm more heterodox & feel the mindshare economists have had most of my lifetime, especially in the Anglophone world, isn't normal or sustainable.
    You mentioned the articles themselves needed work, but couldn't that be one more sign the main points mostly fit better elsewhere? Between foundations in the main article and specific topics, is there much to be said about micro- or macroeconomics that's critical to a general audience? --Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose unless the other branches of fields of study are removed (political science for politics, epistomology for philosophy, biochemistry for chemistry, history of film for film, etc.) there is no reason why the two major branches of economics should be removed. Gizza (t)(c) 22:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
    @DaGizza: That's a good point, and I could support cutting some of those (history of film, maybe even biochemistry). Like I mentioned just above though, if you compare with the other social sciences, economics as a discipline seems overweighted. With psychology for example, besides the main article, every article listed under the section is an empirical thing studied by psychologists.
    As for political science, I would personally like to see the economics or psychology sections like that too, with the actual object of study higher and the theoretical discipline under it. Of course, the Economy article isn't nearly developed enough to justify even proposing it anytime soon. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

Relevant previous discussion. Cobblet (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I really should look harder through the archives first. Actually though, I think that discussion might motivate this proposal more; the original argument for adding the two sub-fields was purely for taxonomic reasons. After several years though, no subtopics seem to have globbed onto either the micro- or macro- article at this level, and like I said, I don't think they add much that isn't already in the main Economics article and a few other more concrete ones. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
A big part of our task is figuring out what degree of redundancy in coverage is sensible, because avoiding it is impossible. I don't hate having these articles around. Among the macroeconomic subtopics, economic growth doesn't seem to get much attention elsewhere – maybe Economy could be improved to cover this, but I don't know if that will happen. I do think the overlap between Microeconomics, Market (economics) and Supply and demand is a bit too much. It seems to me that market, consumer theory and producer theory all deal with aspects of microeconomic theory, and maybe they (more accurately, the articles they redirect to) should either all be added/kept if microeconomics goes, or all removed if microeconomics stays. My preference would be to get rid of market (economics). Supply and demand is about modelling all of these theories, so it adds something different to the list and should stay. Curious to see what others think. FWIW, here are the page views for the articles I mentioned. Cobblet (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@Cobblet: I understand where you're coming from, and if there were room, there are topics I'd like to see covered more. IRL, I always find myself explaining the balance of payments & capital account to people whenever the US trade deficit comes up (and they still don't believe me :| ) But at the 1000 article limit, I think the econ category is relatively overweighted.
I'm going to keep this proposal open as is, but those pageviews are interesting, especially if you play with them some. If you add Economics, it swamps everything else, and Tax is actually higher than all the others too. I think supply and demand being about even with microeconomics is another small argument for removing micro.
Your point about market (economics) is particularly good, and it is relatively less popular. I actually want to address that in relation to my other proposal about marketing though.
As for macro, maybe adding a specific topic in place of the macro article would be good. I don't have a clear leading candidate in my mind, but if you were to propose adding economic growth, I could probably support that. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for replying and continuing to add to the discussion. What leads you to think that economics is over-represented on the current list? TBH, economics and finance are very much not my forte and I wouldn't feel comfortable !voting on these proposals other than to support a consensus if one becomes established. Cobblet (talk) 02:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm no expert either, but I have a relatively strong interest in economics. In college, I actually almost minored / double-majored in it (so not just freshman micro), and I did really well academically in the classes. For full disclosure though, by the time it came to commit to the last credits, I was already pretty disillusioned with mainstream economics (I'm still a big Keynes fan though).

Anyways, I could have been a bit more precise like in the other responses, but I don't think the whole business & econ category is particularly oversized. I would support adding more common, day-to-day topics if slots were freed-up elsewhere, though given the current weights, I prioritize math & maybe the arts more. For example, while thinking about this, I realized Accounting isn't listed at this level; I'm definitely about to propose we add that.

But as I mentioned above, none of the other social sciences are given slots for subdisciplines, or individual theoretical results for that matter. Indo-European languages (or at least the reconstructed family) may be the only exception, and I would also support making that just a header at this level. When you really drill into it, even the supply and demand concept is actually a theoretical thing. It's inferred from other intuitions & observations, it relies on assumptions (prices are effectively set auction-like in the short-run, or by natural selection in the long-run), and some very real phenomena are just defined away (e.g. when the market doesn't clear).

I'm definitely not saying we should drop that article, but I think it shows that the current list holds economics to a different standard, and theory is given more visibility & slots than the other social sciences (or actual business) without further questions. Frankly, I suspect it's due to a bias too, not by anyone in particular, but as a result of the way mainstream econ has been politically elevated so much in my lifetime. I think it's become habitual (I know I do it) sometimes to treat theoretical concerns in economics (including the micro / macro distinction) more like real things than we would for another social science. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
See discussion below. Interstellarity (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Elvis Presley, Add Edith Piaf

We need non-English singers on the list and Piaf represents that. Interstellarity (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
  1. Oppose at least removal; Elvis is the King of Rock and Roll and right up there with the Beatles. We have several non-English composers on here (Bach, Wagner, etc.) so maybe one of those can be removed if we add Piaf, or maybe Louis Armstrong instead. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Not as influential as others and there are already too many biographies. --Thi (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Elvis is vital at this level. pbp 21:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

@John M Wolfson, Thi, and Crouch, Swale: If I changed Elvis to Louis Armstrong, would you vote differently or would it stay the same? Interstellarity (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

No, Elvis is far better known, I hadn't heard of either of these but Elvis is widely known. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I'd have to think about it. @Crouch, Swale: Interstellarity is talking about removing Louis Armstrong instead of Elvis. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
No opinion then but Louis Armstrong has 128 Wikipedia articles v 119 for Édith Piaf and 161 for Elvis Presley. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Remove Existence

We're at 1001 articles, so something needs to go. A previous attempt to start a discussion got little attention. But it still seems to me that all ontological problems relate to existence in some way. We do not gain much by listing both existence and ontology under metaphysics. Since ontology gets significantly more page views, that's the article I suggest keeping.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support but pageviews are not the metric to use. I use the precedent of kicking Knowledge down from Level 2 in favor of Epistemology; this means that in general the field of study should be above the topic of study (there are of course exceptions, but in Philosophy this is a good rule of thumb). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Per nom. Too specific philosophical problem for this level. --Thi (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support per previous discussion. Ontology introduces questions of existence already, but also balances it with other ones like essence & relation. And while I normally prefer concrete topics over fields, Philosophy is very heavy on abstraction so it makes sense here. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
2-2, proposal didn't fail but after discussion, consensus leaned more towards improving Finance article. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Finance, add Credit or Debt

One last economics-section proposal for the day. While technically encompassing things like Equity (finance) too, the Finance article seems relatively narrow and abstract at the same time. However, outside of indirectly through Bank, we arguably don't have any article directly addressing lending & borrowing, interest, etc.

I'd like to propose replacing Finance with either Credit or Debt to bring in that coverage. Not only are these concepts still the foundation for the whole debt-instrument side of the financial world, but they have a long history, and they're present in one form or another in many people's lives. As for which one, I'm leaning towards Debt since people seem to refer to that side of the equation more in everyday life. However, I can also see the argument Credit is actually prior and must be extended for a debt to exist in the first place.

The one downside is that it seems like there's no single, clear entry-point for this topic right now. But even then, I'd consider that an issue with the current organization of the articles, not that the topic itself isn't central.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support Debt is basic concept which is close to average citizen's life. Credit is narrower concept. Corporate finance, management, marketing and accounting are probably not so important at this level. They are popular choices in education, but Business, Corporation, Money and Retail give perhaps sufficient overview. --Thi (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The article needs a lot of work, but I don't think that's because the topic is poorly chosen. Yes, it has to cover corporate, personal and public finance, but the article on debt has to cover all three types of debt as well. If the latter can do so, I don't see why the former could not. Cobblet (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
    @Cobblet: I'm going to let the proposal run down in case others feel strongly about it, but looking at it again, you may be right that just improving the article is the right way to go. And of course, the specifics of that can be worked out at the article. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Cobblet. GuzzyG (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

Page views of these three articles in comparison. Cobblet (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I actually wonder if this is a case where the page views show a chicken-and-egg effect. Does one article get more views because it's better positioned and written, or has it just absorbed more edits and content because of a first-mover advantage? Despite Finance receiving roughly 3 times the views and edits, the Debt article is appraised higher, and it seems more polished & focused to me. There's actually a tag on the Finance page that the page is spam-prone too, so those counts could be inflated.
I'm interested in seeing how this proposal goes though; ideally, I'd prefer a single article covering cash-management, debt, & equity as an entry-point. The finance article doesn't really explain those basics though and feels a bit all-over-the-place (e.g. the history section seems to really overreach, is an entire personal finance section appropriate, etc.) Maybe that's just an issue with the current article, but then again, maybe it's trying to unify too many things that should be separate.
Sort of off-topic, but that's a big drop-off in views that came in once the pandemic hit the US & Europe. I've seen that for a lot of other articles too, though not that big. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
1-2, main concern was topic might not add vital coverage beyond current business & money articles. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Add Accounting

Weirdly enough, I don't think anyone has proposed this before, but I actually expect this to be a less controversial one.

Accounting is a basic bodily function of any business or large organization, it's at least as old as cuneiform, modern double-entry bookkeeping is a major innovation of the Renaissance, and accounting identities are about as certain as economics can get.

What do you all think? --Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose raw addition We already have Finance, Bank, and Money, so adding this would be redundant IMO. I could maybe swap Finance with it, however. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
    I can appreciate wanting to make it a swap; we'll see if a current removal on the table passes. Part of why I think Accounting would be a great add though is because it's actually so much more general than monetary accounts. Things like inventory systems, valuation / depreciation of both real & intangible assets, strategic planning, even legal issues fall in its orbit, just to name a few. In a way, I think you could call it the business & econ analogue to data-collection & measurement in science. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per John. GuzzyG (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

I can perhaps be convinced otherwise, but my gut instinct is that white-collar professions that fall squarely within the umbrella of business administration don't feel vital at this level. I'm not convinced that accounting is vital (picking it is tantamount to picking financial statement as a level 3 article: either one feels overly specific and technical to me), and I'm also not convinced that the currently listed management is vital: how is it more vital than the unlisted leadership, for example? Cobblet (talk) 04:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

That's sensible, and I could probably support replacing Management with Leadership too. I'm not as well-read on it, but my impression is that as much as people have tried to develop formal "best-practices", it really is the same messy art as in politics, warfare, etc. For Accounting though, I'd just emphasize what I said in my reply above; if you look at it as a process, not just a career, it permeates & helps ground almost everything in business / economics. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
4-3, support was for various reasons (wealth, stature in business, time-period) while opposition questioned need to cover another businessperson in a full list. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Add one of John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, or J. P. Morgan

We have Henry Ford and Thomas Edison up here, but those are more inventors rather than "pure" businessmen. Rockefeller is the richest man in (modern) history, with a peak real net worth double that of Bezos (at least for another decade), and founded the influential Rockefeller family (not to mention Standard Oil). Carnegie founded modern-day philanthropy with "The Gospel of Wealth" and his many libraries (not to mention, likewise, U.S. Steel). Morgan was influential in the development of the modern American economy, to the point where he's been dubbed "America's greatest banker", and helped found what eventually became JPMorgan Chase, the world's largest bank by market capitalization. Overall, I think one of these three is the best to flesh out our "Businesspeople" section. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support any, with Rockefeller > Carnegie > Morgan I think Rockefeller's sheer wealth puts him a little over Carnegie, while both of their philanthropic legacies supersede Morgan. Nevertheless, if consensus develops towards someone else I don't want the best to be the enemy of the good. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support any 1 of 3, I can actually moderately support this on the grounds that they embody the Gilded Age & provide a lot of indirect historical coverage. I won't make it a red-line, but I think another American or a related history article should be swapped out though. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support I personally think that the presence of a capitalist at this level should not be bad. priority with Rockefeller, who controlled a large part of the American oil industry. Idimoayli3388 (talk) 08:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Ford will define the car/pioneer of mass production more than business - historically Rockefeller will define American capitalism at it's peak - the mythology of American capitalism excesses is a longer lasting legacy than actual achievement, it's why you know Cleopatra instead of Hatshepsut. Thus Rockefeller represents a core aspect of American society more than any other figure listed. He's the penultimate capitalist business person, Bill Gates/Steve Jobs represent invention/the computer - not pure business. I definitely support Rockefeller and think that this biography represents one of humanities phases. If a US historian in 3578 had to define American capitalism/business at it's peak it'd be Rockefeller. Monopoly/Oil refinery are specific in general but in a biography section Rockefeller fits under representing every side of human history (pure wealth/business). People like Bezos/or any other businessperson won't have the power Rockefeller did because of regulation now. Yes, it's slightly crystal ball to say that - but even more so to say regulation will go away. American wealth/business/unchecked capitalism is defined by the gilded age and he's one of the defining figures. history could change in centuries and Bezos/social media business mythology over takes the gilded age but we should represent how it is today too. GuzzyG (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I suspect neither monopoly nor oil refinery would succeed if proposed as additions. But both seem better choices to me than Standard Oil or Rockefeller. I think Ford is sufficient to represent the American industrialists of the late 19th/early 20th centuries. Cobblet (talk) 04:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Henry Ford was innovative businessman, another example is not needed among 100+ biographies. --Thi (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
    Why not? The list has both Augustus and Julius Caesar and many more people who made similar contributions to the world.mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 15:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I'm neutral on adding another business figure but as the list currently stands with 1,001 articles, I can't support it. Would only support a gaping omission, not a borderline article. Gizza (talk • voy) 06:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
I am closing this as no consensus because there is an absence of a clear consensus after much-extended time for discussion, and frankly this represents a rather large change from a longstanding status quo, which should obtain a clear consensus before such a change is made. There is is substantial support, but also substantial opposition, both sides providing good reasons. BD2412 T 05:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 1 October 2020

Wikipedia:Vital articles → Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3 – I think this page should be moved to this title because Level 3 is not the most important level in the levels of importance of an article. I think the title WP:Vital articles should have a description of the vital articles and be a directory of the 5 levels. Interstellarity (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

—Relisting. BD2412 T 03:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support yes include links to all levels at the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment There will need to be some history-merging/finagling going on if this passes, since Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/3 formerly had separate content. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose until I see a draft of what would actually go at Wikipedia:Vital articles. I think the Level 3 list works pretty well as the central hub, as it's the last Level where all articles are listed on a single page. I don't think it's worth messing with it. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Level 3 is the standard list, not as many as level 4 and not as few as level 2. It is likely the most referenced and definitely the most active in terms of the talk page; most people will be looking for it. Aza24 (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Levels 1 and 2 don't have much content compared to this level. It is good to know what are 10 or 100 most vital articles but the list don't have much function independently. They are shown in this list as main articles of different sections. --Thi (talk) 06:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have created a draft on what the page would look like: Draft:Wikipedia:Vital articles. Interstellarity (talk) 11:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, with the caveat that solid implementation will be important. Regarding rationale, I think many editors have lost sight of the fact that this is supposed to be a reader-facing page, and while editors tend to reference level 3 the most, I'm not sure readers have any special preference for it. This page title is just a relic of the fact that it was created first; it's time that we bring it into alignment with all the other VA page titles. It just makes intuitive sense that WP:Vital articles be a landing page that leads to the specific levels. Also, re definitely the most active in terms of the talk page, that's not a feature, it's a bug—I hate the fact that broader-scope discussions are mixed in with all the debates about which articles to promote/demote, and I wish they'd all be moved to WT:WikiProject Vital Articles, to which the talk page of the new WP:Vital articles could redirect. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
The vital articles lists are about identifying the most important articles for improvement. Since editors are the ones who improve articles, I think the lists are primarily for editors, not readers. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Rreagan007, they've been linked from WP:Contents for forever, which makes them part of the reader-facing area of Wikipedia. They're not actually treated that way, but I hope that the talk page banners here and elsewhere will start moving them in that direction. If we were more on top of our game, we'd split each page so that one would have editor-facing things like assessments and the other wouldn't. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Of what benefit is the Vital Articles list to casual readers? Rreagan007 (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The other "levels" are prominently linked from the top of this page and aren't really that important. SnowFire (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
    The other levels all have the /Level/# format, so I'd think they'd be an argument for the move here per WP:TITLECON. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
    Let me be more blunt: the other levels don't matter. This is the relevant page, so it having the "base" title is fine, even if not consistent. See pageviews. SnowFire (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
    I'm not seeing justification for that in the pageviews (here's by month). Last month, level 3 did have the most views (4900), but some of the other levels weren't that far behind (in the 3000s), and level 3 is presumably helped because of its current base page status, so making that an argument for retaining its current status is circular logic. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Presumably one day we will have Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/6. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
That is by no means certain. The Level 5 list at 50,000 articles is already very unwieldy. I'm skeptical that we will ever go past that. And if we did, we might just increase the number of articles that are in Level 5 rather than creating a separate Level 6. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support There is no reason, why this level should be more important tha the others. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support and split into 1 page listing level-3 vital articles, and 1 page about vital articles, with details such as how to improve them etc. Opalzukor (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in theory, I've never understood why when you bring up the VA list, it defaults to level 3. Why not have an actual page explaining what they are, and how it works? However, I think we'd need to be careful about how exactly this would be implemented. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, as per above, it would be useful to have an overview article explaining the project, then keep the 5 levels as subpages. JackFromReedsburg (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I think the Level 3 is the heart of the Vital Articles project. Level 1 & 2 have too few and extremely broad meaning topics to get the interest of participants. Level 4 and 5 have too many topics especially when there is a lot of work to be done at Level 3. Atleast till most L3 articles are GA or solid B class, having vital articles direct to Level 3 makes sense. Roller26 (talk) 05:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per everyone else, also, the number of links we would have to fix that link to this is astounding. Heart (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@HeartGlow30797: If this RM passes, I would be willing to help out in fixing those links using AutoWikiBrowser. Interstellarity (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
As said earlier, history-merging will have to happen since WT:Vital articles/Level/3 existed as a (sparsely-used) separate page before I redirected it here a couple of months ago. I am willing to do so if this passes. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Support I think that a landing page separate from Level 3 would be the best way to organize this project, especially for newcomers. Orser67 (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support It's time. GuzzyG (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Since l3 is by far the most useful, it does make sense to have it be the landing page. This is the list of vital articles, in some sense. I suppose if Wikipedia:Vital articles redirects to level 3 it would be ok... ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

Data Request

Hello! Sorry if this isn't the best place to do this - I was told to ask here by info-en@wikimedia.org. I was wondering if there is any compiled data (csv, excel, etc) of the vital articles that I could be sent (preferably level 5). Anything to do with the hierarchy would be wonderful. Please email me at dan@raymond.ch so I can get in touch with any of you! TheRauser (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC) The Rauser

@TheRauser: Hi there, I don't know of anything that actually tracks the VA lists in structured form. There's User:Cewbot, but I think that's more of a crawler that keeps the list counts & data from the talk-pages in sync. Your best bet may just be to download each page as either wiki-markup or HTML source, then run a script to convert them to the format you want. The wiki-markup may be easier since levels in the hierarchy are just marked by symbol, not nesting that needs to be parsed. Sorry there isn't something more convenient, at least that I know of. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The two articles were merged with each other. No need for this proposal to be opened. Interstellarity (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Child, Add Childhood

I think this article would be a better candidate for this level because it goes deep into the life of a child. Interstellarity (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support agree with nom. Gizza (talk • voy) 00:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose due to pending suggestion that the two articles be merged. OnAcademyStreet (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Discuss

Interestingly, separate articles don't exist for other stages of life for humans. One redirects to the other in the case of adult, adolescence, old age and infant. Gizza (talk • voy) 00:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I see no reason for there to be two separate articles. I'm very surprised both are listed at level 4. I don't care which one we choose to list. Cobblet (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
@DaGizza, GuzzyG, and Cobblet: I opened up a merge discussion here so you can comment on the merge. If the merge happens, then this proposal is stale. Interstellarity (talk) 12:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
0-3, no votes to split proposal or drop Armstrong, both for equal world-wide recognition and as a representative of jazz. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Louis Armstrong, Add Edith Piaf

Per discussion above. Interstellarity (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
  1. Oppose If Armstrong is ever to be swapped, it should be for another jazz musician, or for another musician working at least partly outside the European musical tradition. I'd rather remove Wagner. And what makes Piaf more vital than Umm Kulthum, Miriam Makeba, Lata Mangeshkar or Teresa Teng? Cobblet (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Armstrong was influential pioneer, vital at least for English Wikipedia. --Thi (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jazz is the newest popular artform institutionally included in most parts of Academia and is actually popular in Europe too (by the metrics i track), but on a list like this a Jazz musician is required because most music conservatories include it/academia studies it - so essential for a encyclopedia. The fact there hasn't been a more mass tabloid representation of Jazz in pop culture on the level of Elvis would appear to be related to race issues in America, largely speaking. On a Chinese mandarin encyclopedia/social media Armstrong [3], gets more likes than Piaf [4]. (Might be hard to understand if you don't understand a bit of Mandarin but the thumbs up are likes. Small results, but it says something - China is the predominant country based on population and who is big there is the biggest. (Bigger population than Euro/the US combined, whoever is household in China beats being known by every Euro/American). (For instance Elvis has only 20k [5] and Michael Jackson has 1mil [6]. GuzzyG (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
Please take this irrelevant discussion elsewhere, or create a separate proposal. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Michael Jackson is the only other needed western musician, it's clear his fame is not receding, even under massive controversy (unlike Elvis, which does appear to be fading). He dominates every single thing. We need a woman though absolutely, removing Hildegard of Bingen was a mistake - no other woman in music is as important and Madonna wouldnt be added because MJ is more important and it'd be too English language focused if we added them both, Umm Kulthum is the better rep for women in popular music, she's the preeminent musician in the Arabic tradition - beating the men, Makeba is limited by Fela Kuti, Mangeshkar is alive (and Mohammed Rafi is a better pick for Filmi),. The true swap needed in music would be Richard Wagner for Ravi Shankar, Shankar is the best representative for non-western classical that'd fit on this list. It should be Tansen, but not enough information is available on him in English/mass western promotion of his name - so there's no familiarity. Shankar just fits better and Wagner is not the unanimous forth of western classical. (Wagners main conductor pushing Three Bs)... But Wagner has a Cult following, who feel strongly about his work [7] and pop out of nowhere with the need to defend western civilization, so would be a hard removal or swap with someone from India - despite that listing two opera composers (Mozart having just as many operas on the level 4 art list as Wagner) is a stretch. But India's population is bigger than Europe's and has a high percentage of English speakers meaning one form of it's classical should fit (Carnatic music has a trilogy of greatness and one should not be placed higher than another). The only other reasonable addition is Fela Kuti or Bob Marley to represent black popular music, considering Elvis/The Beatles take Chuck Berry's spot and they by and large created it and deserve representation. The perfect representation of music history for this list in my opinion would be Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Armstrong, Umm Kulthum, Elvis, The Beatles, Michael Jackson, and Shankar. This would cover every major area of music represented in pop culture and be the perfect representation based on my research, but may be too much musicians for peoples liking, which i could agree with except music should have atleast as much as painting though imo - music has become more important now and arguably is more important to art history - although this is my opinion of the future - not based in anything. GuzzyG (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your insight, GuzzyG. Since it's clear that Piaf will not be added and Armstrong will not to removed, do you think a proposal titled something like Swap: Remove Richard Wagner, Add one of the following (Umm Kulthum, Michael Jackson or Ravi Shankar). I have made a proposal earlier this year here to remove Wagner in favor of Chopin, but did not succeed. I would like to know if you think this is a good idea. Interstellarity (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Interstellarity Based on my experience here that would not pass. It's not worth the stress, i would not bother. I agree with it though, revolutionizing opera (when we already cover a opera composer in Mozart/Claudio Monteverdi is not added and just as vital to Opera's development AND covering a different country/time period, so Wagner has multiple strikes against him - let alone this list giving opera the same prominence as film or more than business), is not as vital as covering women in music, black people in popular music (since black people by and large created western popular music, yet we only list Elvis/The Beatles), or a country of a billion (more than Europe) and it's classical music tradition. (More English speakers in modern India than 19th century Germany, so more relevance to a English wiki than a "key figure of western civilization", one would think). But if you nominate Wagner, you'll get editors proclaiming jingoism [8] and affirmative action accusations [9] like these edit summaries when i tried. (Wagner would approve). So yeah, in my opinion not worth it. But support in theory. GuzzyG (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry but your characterization of Wagner is completely false. He does have a cult following, sure, as does every major composer. Wagner's music basically heralded everything afterwards, without him this list would end with Beethoven in terms of art music, which makes no sense. Wagner (and Liszt to a lesser extent) were the reasons that people decided to go further than Beethoven, otherwise they would have accepted him as the height of music; see War of the Romantics. His influence on cinema music is enormous; Debussy and Ravel's impressionism were a reaction against him; Schoenberg and Stravinsky were in debt to him. His influence in opera extends to all realms of theater; he even impacted German philosophy and conducting. The list goes on and on, just look at his ridiculous Influence and legacy section. The proposed list of "perfect music history" has an 100 year gap that Wagner fills fine. I adore and have studied Hildegard of Bingen's music, but it is nowhere near as influential of any musicians on this list for even consideration. It is not even clear that it had a direct effect on the following music, the Notre Dame school (which "founded polyphony") has no records or evidence that she effected their music. Aza24 (talk) 08:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Yawn, casual hyperbole is not a crime. But let's get into my characteristics of Wagner and statements related to him
  1. Wagner is not the unanimous forth of western classical." (prove it)
  2. A smart aleck dig that Hans von Bülow pushed the Three Bs (which creates doubt to Wagner being the unanimous fourth! Marriage squabbles have affected history!!), which means nothing other than me being annoying, digging at the editors who use "western civilization" to dig at non-white people, other than that this factoid is undeniable, but ultimately meaningless. Just fun!
  3. Wagner has a Cult following, who feel strongly about his work (your comment only reinforces this)
  4. Mozart having just as many operas on the level 4 art list as Wagner (true)
  5. revolutionizing opera (true)
  6. More English speakers in modern India than 19th century Germany (true)
  7. That Wagner would approve of Jingoism and mockery of affirmative action (true, most likely!).
So what is "completely false" - did i ignore his importance? No. Except the world is bigger than western civ and we need to account for that. If you have a problem with me taking a dig at mockery of non-white figures, fine. But not once did i deny Wagners importance, but you over state it when we consider the world, absolutely.
  1. "Wagner's music basically heralded everything afterwards" how about Ravi Shankar and Mei Lanfang for starters - the two biggest nations on Earth - which nearly double Europes population - ignoring every other kind of musician who does art music not of European origin - which points to a seemingly limited understanding of the actual music on this world. Is hyperbole a crime than? You'll say "Importance is much different" but only from the lens of the culture you partake in, by numbers absolutely not, Wagner is small potatoes to the vast majority of the worlds population.
  2. "without him this list would end with Beethoven in terms of art music" Which is why i would want and did mention a swap, unless you consider Ravi Shankar not art music - was that a conscious mistake - Why with Wagner is conscious ignorance of non-western things so common?
  3. War of the Romantics this article is a mess and bad representation of its topic, but does not single out Wagner as the greatest unanimous fourth composer in history and has no impact on the musical study or history of the majority of this world. War of the Romantics's musical impact does not impact any of the three musicians i mentioned - it has no impact on the development of Shanker's music, Kulthums, or the evolution of the Blues and African music into modern American pop stars such as Michael Jackson. Infact the article implies Liszt is the most important here "The key figure on the Weimar ("New German") side was Franz Liszt. The other leading composer of the group was Richard Wagner.", so how does this not backup my own point of "not the unanimous fourth" greatest composer?
  4. "His influence on cinema music is enormous" this is reaching hard for anything - may as well have included the common "influenced Heavy metal music too" argument because atleast we have a heavy metal band on the 2k list, unlike the fact we have no film composer. Cinema music is so insignificant on this level that this means nothing.
  5. "Debussy and Ravel's impressionism were a reaction against him; Schoenberg and Stravinsky were in debt to him" - this has nothing to do with what i was saying - covering other non-western forms of classical. Who cares? A person in Africa, China and India does not and it has no impact on anything.
  6. "His influence in opera extends to all realms of theater; he even impacted German philosophy and conducting". German, German, German and German!!! Franklin D. Roosevelt must be rolling in his grave that he was not listed because we covered so many WWII guys, yet we're fine with having 4 German classical composers. we list the important German philosophers. Raphael must be rolling too - why not the 3 major Renaissance painters- Italian, Italian and Italian? Playwrights are adequately covered already and influence on conducting arguably means little on this list, i'd rather list Conducting itself first. Does Wagner's impact reach Chinese opera or Indian classical drama - what about the all forms of theatre claim? Things around infinitely longer than Wagner, which had an infinitely larger impact on higher amounts of human lives - so in that case, how do you hold Wagner higher and more deserving of coverage and representation when we already cover German music?
  7. "The proposed list of "perfect music history" has an 100 year gap that Wagner fills fine." - well to be specific it has a nearly 2,000 year gap from Limenius to Bach, why didn't you care about that gap? 100 years means nothing in that case, so what is the difference? Why in a rush to defend Wagner, but not anything early? "Not as influential or important" yeah, yeah but if gaps are so important - who cares? I'd say a gap of regions impacting billions of people or 49.6 of the population are more important than a 100 year gap in a European tradition. It'd live.
  8. "I adore and have studied Hildegard of Bingen's music," okay. "but it is nowhere near as influential of any musicians on this list for even consideration. It is not even clear that it had a direct effect on the following music, the Notre Dame school (which "founded polyphony") has no records or evidence that she effected their music" which is why she was not in my "perfect" list - i only mentioned her as the most likely musician to represent women on the list and that it was a shame women (using her) have no representation. So, what's the issue?
It's obvious you obviously massively overestimate Wagner's influence on the world, which is what my whole point was about. Most countries outside of the Eurosphere have their own traditions too, you know? Shen Kuo and Emmy Noether are not as famous as other mass tabloid produced scientists but we list them too, because if they had the fame that a normal prominent scientist has, they'd qualify on their own merits. Tansen and Mei Lanfang type of musicians are in the same boat - if they were given Wagner's profile - they would be worth the same to world music as a whole. They are just not tied to prominent figures like Hitler keeping them in pop culture. Shankar was a compromise because his name is everywhere because he influenced the Beatles - a influence that will cement him far longer into anything Wagner has done by the way, considering the Beatles are the Mozart of western popular music - which influence is more important and more longer lasting - influencing popular musics number one icon or influencing Schoenberg and Ravel or which will last longer popular music itself or opera. Combine that with the billion population/representing a centuries long tradition i'd say Shankar would beat Wagner if things were treated the same (Euro classical/Hindustani classical music). How's that for a characterization?
But first - is opera as a artform on the same level as film or on the same level as business as a whole? Why should we have more opera composers than business people or the same amount of film? There's so many justifications needed for Wagner, but not once did i deny his importance. Prove it. GuzzyG (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
GuzzyG I obviously struck a chord (pun not intended...?), which was not my intention, but I don't have the time nor motivation to respond to everything here – you can quote that and interpret it however you want. "Heralded everything afterwards" was obviously a Western viewed statement. This is a list for the English speaking Wikipedia, not List of articles every Wikipedia should have (which at the moment is totally Western centric – even though it shouldn't be). By removing Wagner, there is a gap created in the basic chronology of what we have set up. You obviously have a bias against Wagner that there's no point in even trying to argue with, otherwise you would not have felt the need to analyze every sentence I wrote. I merely stated my opinion on Wagner's influence, which you seem to have massively underestimated. Also notice that I did not say anything like he "has to stay on the list" – only that the proposed list "has an 100 year gap that Wagner fills fine". You can bring up any other gap you like, but you should keep in mind that removing Wagner not only creates a gap but results in six 20th-century figures if you perfect list were to go through. Compare that to the other subjects here and there's no parallel besides the politicians/leaders. If you were going to rethink and analyze this list, we would remove Bach, whose actual influence, was non-existent until the 18th century and never approached that of Beethoven or Mozart, at least from a long term, overall point of view. Machaut and Palestrina's influence is significantly more, and Palestrina specifically would be a great counter to Michelangelo and Leonardo. Umm Kulthum would once again make sense for the Wikimedia list, but not the English one; Michael Jackson would be a tough sell with the Beatles and Elvis already here (although I would support a swap of Elvis for Jackson). I am completely in support of Shankar being added to what the list is right now, and to be honest, I don't know why he couldn't be added without a swap, since it would then match our artists-musicians ratio. Anyways your subtle personal attacks in Which is why i would want and did mention a swap, unless you consider Ravi Shankar not art music - was that a conscious mistake - Why with Wagner is conscious ignorance of non-western things so common? are unproductive and pointless. Obviously my reference was to Western art music, by removing Wagner, you remove someone who is best fit to encapsulate both the romantic and modern era of Western art music. Look at our list of artists, could you imagine what it would be like without van Gogh and Rembrandt? We have someone like Wagner who can sum them both up in music, why not take advantage of this unique status? If you're going to respond (which I hope you do) you may want to ponder on WP:AGF before doing so. Aza24 (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
0-5 for addition, 0-3 for removal, consensus was Rome is already covered enough elsewhere, whereas decolonization is a major facet of modern history. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Decolonization, Add Pax Romana

The Pax Romana was one of the most important events during Roman history and world history and I think it should be added as well. Interstellarity (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition we already have Ancient Rome on here, so I think this is redundant. As said before, I am neutral on removal. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Ancient Rome and Augustus are enough. Decolonization remains very relevant as a social issue worldwide. Cobblet (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose addition Pax Romana is detail of history of Ancient Rome. --Thi (talk) 08:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  4. Oppose We still have arguable colonies in places like French Guiana and then there's world issues like Expulsion of the Chagossians. So still a hugely important thing. Pax Romana is in large a term to desribe the thing we already list, Pax Britannica would be just as important. I don't think it's enough, certainly not on the level of decolonization - one could argue it's one of the most important things of the 20th century. Certainly in academia. GuzzyG (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  5. Oppose for all the manifestly obvious reasons. Let's not create more systemic bias. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

I'm neutral on removal (we already have Mandela, for example), but I think Roman Empire (currently at Level 4) would be a better candidate here; together with the British and Mongol empires already on here and the Spanish Empire I proposed below, that could round out the empires. and we already have Ancient Rome on here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
2-6 on actual swap, but several mentioned they would support a straight add of Spanish Empire or Western imperialism in Asia. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove European colonization of the Americas, Add ??

I think this article should be swapped with an article that covers European colonialism in other parts of the world such as Asia and Oceania. Not sure which one, but if you can suggest one, that would be great.

Support
  1. Support, perhaps swap with Spanish Empire too specific and overlapping with stuff like British Empire, etc. Spanish Empire is not on here, but they led such colonization. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal but would support the addition of Western imperialism in Asia to complement the listed articles on colonization of the Americas and the Scramble for Africa. Reaching Asia was the motivation for the Age of Discovery in the first place. For example, I'd support swapping out Magellan to add an article on colonialism in Asia. It makes no sense to swap out an article on European colonization of the Americas for an article on the Spanish Empire – the net effect would be to deprive the list of coverage of Portuguese and French colonization in the Americas, and I don't see how that's a good thing. Cobblet (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
    Western imperialism in Asia is too niche IMO (other than British India, which is already covered by British Empire, and Indochina few countries were outright colonized compared to, say, the Americas or Africa); we have Age of Discovery on here, which adequately covers the topic. The Spanish were the main colonizers of the Americas and had Columbus (which, combined with its size, should warrant Spanish Empire's inclusion regardless of this swap IMO); the French were relative latecomers (as were the English, but this is offset by India IMO) and while Portugal is understandable (da Gama, etc.) its efforts on American colonization are represented by Brazil IMO. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
    I'm taken aback by the notion that colonialism in Asia is a "niche" topic, and cannot fathom why anyone would minimize the impact of colonialism in Asia relative to other regions of the world. If Brazil is enough to represent Portuguese colonization of the Americas, then USA and Canada should suffice to represent British colonization of the Americas (and those plus Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, Kenya, Egypt, Israel, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Hong Kong, Singapore and Australia should suffice to represent the British Empire as a whole) and Mexico, Colombia, and Argentina go a long way towards representing the Spanish Empire in the Americas (there has been some support for adding Peru in the past). Sure, the Spanish had Columbus, and Columbus is listed. But would you swap Columbus for the Spanish Empire? The better way to cover European colonialism is by region, not by colonizing nation. There is no reason to emphasize the colonial activities of certain nations over others, and no reason to emphasize colonizers over the colonized. Cobblet (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, not against adding Spanish Empire per se but not at the expense of European colonization of the Americas. At the moment, the two main portions of the Spanish Empire not covered are the Spanish Philippines and some of their European territories like the Spanish Netherlands. Western imperialism in Asia would cover the Spanish Philippines in addition to quite a few colonial histories of many countries but because of the dominance of the Spanish Empire, it still may be worth adding it as we have with the British. But removals will have to be made elsewhere. Abolitionism looks the weakest because of its overlap with slavery. Gizza (talk • voy) 00:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per everyone. GuzzyG (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  5. Oppose exceedingly influential topic that is clearly vital at this level. pbp 16:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  6. Oppose this is self-evidently vital. OnAcademyStreet (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Discuss

Spanish Empire seems like a good choice for this level. Interstellarity (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

European colonization of the Americas is important so should remain. There seems to be agreement that Spanish Empire be added to this level and I Support this. Is consensus in a general discussion of another subject sufficient for inclusion or does there need to be a specific heading, Add Spanish Empire for clarity? Otr500 (talk) 08:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, with agreement spheres are analogous enough to circles to exclude at this level. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Remove Sphere

Per our earlier discussion with Linear Algebra, the Math section here can stand to be trimmed. A sphere is a 3-dimensional circle, and most of its properties of interest are analogs of those of the circle (the only major exception I can find is sphere packing, which is analogous to the less-known circle packing and arguably tessellation), with the concept of 3-dimensional volume being adequately covered by polyhedron. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Redundant to circle at this level. Gizza (talk • voy) 02:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support We are overly heavy on geometrical objects relative to basic concepts in other mathematical areas. We do not list polynomial or derivative or integral or probability distribution for example. In particular, distance is a concept (and I mean the notion of a metric in general, not just the geometric notion of distance) I'd prioritize over these objects. Cobblet (talk) 05:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Per above. --Thi (talk) 08:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support per everyone. GuzzyG (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, consensus was the topics are not rich or deep enough to require listing along with other operations.
Note: Please wait to remove the articles until the below proposal (to swap out Addition & Multiplication) is resolved. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Remove Subtraction and Division

Per our earlier discussion with Linear Algebra, the Math section can stand to be trimmed. Subtraction and Division are the respective inverses of Addition and Multiplication. Division is more interesting (it is not closed among the integers), while subtraction is notable mainly for negative numbers; however, removing only subtraction would lead to a conspicuous omission on the list. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support per John. GuzzyG (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support now that swapping in 2 algebraic structures (which subsume the 4 basic arithmetic operators) are on the table. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support I think the list looks a bit odd with just addition and multiplication, but now that Zar2gar1's proposed removing those as well, I will support both proposals. Cobblet (talk) 04:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I'm still sorting out what I think about how much we need to cover basic arithmetic. I'm not opposed to this proposal, but right now my inclination is to go even further and eliminate all the articles listed under Arithmetic, with the exception of Logarithm. That's what Britannica does: they have an article on logarithm and a brief one on root (of an equation), but all the elementary arithmetic operations including exponentiation and root extraction are covered only under arithmetic. Cobblet (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I actually agree with Cobblet that we could go even further, cutting Addition, Multiplication, and even Exponentiation (given a section in the Arithmetic article). I'd need a bit more to be OK with tossing nth-root, but that's another discussion. My only reason for not offering support yet is that I would like to see at least a couple replacements proposed. Since we're discussing operations & inverses, how about adding Group (mathematics) and Field (mathematics) under Algebra? They may not be in the typical public-school curriculum (maybe they should), but the basics are pretty simple & they're practically everywhere in working mathematics nowadays. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I would support such additions; they are fundamental enough extensions of the set concept to be at this level, IMO. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm also OK with adding these if we're removing the other elementary arithmetic operations. Cobblet (talk) 05:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Failed, 1-6. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:22, 2 January 2021 (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.

(Closed) Add Stephen Hawking

I'm surprised no-one suggested this article. Hawking's work in physics was incredible. He developed theories on black holes and built on the theory of relatvity suggested by Einstein. Interstellarity (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
  1. Oppose raw addition, but can maybe be swapped for Niels Bohr (although I'd personally rather have Planck as the quantum counterpart for Einstein). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
    I definitely think we have enough physicists on this level. Newton, Galileo, and Einstein are physicists whose influence is too great to be removed from the list. I was thinking about removing someone, but not sure who. Also, I think we need some more people who died recently whose influence is hard to ignore. The only other person we have that recently died is Nelson Mandela. I have proposed Dennis Ritchie before, but that proposal failed. Interstellarity (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Einstein is sufficient to represent physical cosmology. Just as we do not have space for every titan of American industry, we do not have space to list every physicist who did incredible work. We cut Heisenberg last year, for example. Cobblet (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose We should have no more extremely modern representatives unless they represent something not covered. Like Steve Jobs, Yuri Gagarin or Bruce Lee - and only to represent the complete human experience. (modern tech&social media/space/entertainment&sports being three areas of human activity that are incomparably important in modern day culture that we do not list). I support Shaka or Mansa Musa over Mandela too - to lessen 20th century figures, but when we have only three other black people Hatshepsut, Ramesses II and Louis Armstrong, Mandela fits. I supported Rockefeller because American capitalism is world defining and Rockefeller will always be it's defining rep whereas ford represents invention - whose area is already covered by Edison and if Disney is kept because of his business contributions it'd be better to list a actual capitalist, Hawking's area is already covered by alot, it's a big difference. Either way, i don't think any new additions should be added. I believe this list needs to be either 125 or 130, with 125 being better - all this combined i cannot support this nom. If Hawking is still a world defining figure in 50 years he can always be re-added. Also, do not suggest any names i mentioned, it will not go good, lol. GuzzyG (talk) 09:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  4. Oppose He was obviously a brilliant, well-known scientist with a captivating life-story, but besides being relatively recent, IIUC his research had a relatively narrow focus. If everyone really wanted to add a relatively recent scientist / inventor, I'd suggest someone in a distinct & younger field like genetics or rocketry (for computer-science, there's already Turing & arguably Godel under Mathematicians). --Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Cobblet. --Thi (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per Cobblet. --Salvabl (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  7. Oppose raw addition OnAcademyStreet (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
6-1 for removal, 5-2 for add. Support was based on Space Race being sufficiently covered by Cold War & related technologies, while 21st century lacked coverage of an overarching concept. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Space Race, Add Information Age

We don't have enough articles discussing Post-Soviet history. Space Race should be removed when we already have Cold War. Information Age went mostly in the 21st century. This addition might be recent, so if you are opposed to the addition, how many years should we wait before adding it. Interstellarity (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Per nom. Everything with FAANG and post-2000 history can be associated with this age. Space race is cool but too subsidiary to the Cold War for my tastes, and has a technological component that is also present in Information Age. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support per above. Whatever is vital in space race should be covered by the Cold War and space exploration. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom GuzzyG (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support removal for all reasons given, oppose addition simply on the grounds of recency. Beyond the normal precedent for the lists, I think we're still too in-the-middle of the post-Cold War transition to really try summarizing it. IT & the internet have been very noteworthy, but even those are political & still in flux (e.g. countries & companies moving towards closed networks / ecosystems). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zar2gar1 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom.--01:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)Salvabl (talk)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Information Age is not universally accepted as central concept. Other articles as computer Late modern period etc. are more vital. – Space exploration is general article is Technology section, not historical article. It does not cover the topic fully, it is among many details in the article. Moon landing was originally listed and Yuri Gagarin was proposed for inclusion, but general article is better. If we list Nikola Tesla, Henry Ford and major technological innovations, Apollo 11 is equally important. It is well known technological and historical milestone. [10] As someone has put it: "Humans left their native planet and stood on the surface of an alien world for the first time. Other firsts of the 20th Century would be utterly meaningless to aliens from Tau Ceti, but they would instantly recognize the significance of the moon landing." --Thi (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, as a distinct & highly-influential institution. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2021 (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 University

The proposal to add research nearly passed, but there were some concerns with overlap with scientific method. I think adding University not only helps cover research but also adds to our coverage of education, where IMO we are a little light. This has also been proposed before, and some people preferred adding higher education instead. While that may seem like the broader topic within the field of education, focusing only on the educational function of universities neglects their role in producing research to drive a knowledge economy. Given the clear support for adding Information Age, I prefer specifically adding University.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support, may technically be a kind of school, but they're different enough to justify listing. Higher-education is broad but feels almost too fuzzy to me, but I would definitely also support adding something like Apprenticeship. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. Per everyone else; the "college experience" (at least in the US) and research makes this more than simply a school. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Historically important social institution. --Thi (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. --Salvabl (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Composers and musicians

We don't have much diversity of composers on this list. I don't think nominating any removals in this category of articles would pass. To fill this list, I will propose adding three composers on this list to include more diversity. Interstellarity (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
6-2, added. --Salvabl (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2021 (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 Michael Jackson

This addition would represent pop music since we don't have any pop icons on this list.

Support
  1. Nom
  2. Although this proposal historically hasn't boded well, my position remains that MJ most definitely belongs at Level shamona three-hee. Pace Thi, there's room IMO for Presley, Jackson, and yes, even the Beatles. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support. Totally agree. The FAQ about vital articles says that "Individuals within the People section represent the pinnacles of their field" and, by example, Elvis Presley doesn't represent the Rock music pinnacle at all. Michael Jackson really represents the Pop music pinnacle (and development). Adding Michael Jackson we'll get one Jazz, one Rock and one Pop representative of 20th century music. About Michael Jackson... his huge influence in the development of music videos, a legacy in Dance that is globally known and timeless (e.g. The Moonwalk).. and a death that is already part of History (with dance tributes in practically all the main cities of the World or a funeral with a billionaire audience). I think Michael Jackson definitely deserves to be Level 3.--Salvabl (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Every single metric i track in my own database - MJ is number one out of the majority of (dead) artists, it's not even close to Elvis. [11] do this and MJ beats out Elvis in EVERY country and most by a long shot. If MJ's scandals (and the type of them) are having no effect on his career or dampening his fanbase worldwide, than nothing will and certainly not time. I track 25 languages and it's pretty much the same worldwide, while Elvis is more limited to the US/Europe. Using Mandarin, as it represents the biggest country by population [12] the NGram results are clear. (Elvis goes by a nickname in China, his actual name gets nothing). I've opposed MJ in the past, but everything i check shows that MJ is actually one of the closest artists known to mostly every country - Elvis (or Sinatra) is almost certainly not, thus MJ represents the pinnacle of pop music to the majority of the world. We'll be back here every decade until he gets added. There's no way Armstrong has done more either. Elvis gets beat by MJ in mass pop appeal and by Bob Dylan in artistic respect, i don't think he is the singular solo star of music in the 20th century, atleast not for long. Elvis is on the level of a Marilyn Monroe, who is not listed. GuzzyG (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support. Without commenting on whether Elvis deserves to be noted, Michael Jackson was far more the innovator in his field. Like Sinatra, Elvis performed songs written by others in a style that became very popular, but was not particularly a songwriter. Jackson wrote many of his most iconic songs ("Beat It", "Bad", "Billie Jean", "Smooth Criminal", "The Way You Make Me Feel") and substantially contributed to the musical production of those that he didn't write (e.g., "Man in the Mirror"). Compare Category:Songs written by Elvis Presley (9 entries, of which the only "hit" was "All Shook Up") with Category:Songs written by Michael Jackson (over 100 entries, including the aforementioned, and many others that performed well). BD2412 T 17:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. --Awvazquez (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Elvis Presley is a pop icon. --Thi (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Thi: I would say that Presley is more of a rock icon than a pop icon although the influence of both figures can't be overlooked. Interstellarity (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I think Elvis is more vital. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
2-5, not added. --Thi (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2021 (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 Umm Kulthum

We should have more people from different cultures rather than a western-centered list for composers. This addition would represent the females and non-Western culture of composers.

Support
  1. Nom
  2. Support support in spirit; women are absolutely underrepresented, but to get one added is the problem. People who have not grown up in a culture that speaks Arabic won't be able to understand how big she is though, so she may not resonate to people as being on the level of a Madonna. Don't nominate these straight away, but the best shot for another woman would probably be in actresses like Marilyn Monroe or Sarah Bernhardt, dancers like Isadora Duncan or Anna Pavlova or designers like Coco Chanel; they're the only shot for representing more women, they're all names that are clearly going to last in their fields and they're all fields we do not cover. GuzzyG (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
    I would support Coco Chanel. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
    @GuzzyG and John M Wolfson: I was actually looking for a woman in music. Whilst I agree with you that we should include more women in this list, there are some areas where I think no woman would be vital at this level such as in the Explorers category. I can't think of a woman explorer that would be sufficient to list at this level. Interstellarity (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Level 4 is sufficient for this musician; at this level we can start showing some western-centric bias, and it would be ludicrous to put Kulthum above Michael Jackson. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I agree with John M Wolfson. --Thi (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per John M Wolfson. --Awvazquez (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  4. Oppose while Western centric bias is unfortunate, we're still the "English Wikipedia". Putting Kulthum at the same level as these other figures who are know significantly better in the English-speaking world is unsuitable. Aza24 (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. A certain amount of Western-centric bias is tolerated in these lists, as they are tailored to the English Wikipedia. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Discuss

@John M Wolfson: Do you think we need women in music at this level? If so, what would your first choice be? I picked this particular figure because she is a woman and women can influence music just as much as men. Interstellarity (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

That's a good question; I think we should, but I can't think of any at the moment who would be suitable (Cher, maybe? or Joan Baez?). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
@John M Wolfson: I nominated Edith Piaf as a possible addition to this list since she is in the same category of singers as Umm Kulthum because they are both women. My proposal above for Piaf seems to be rejected, however, I think the opposition seems to be more against removing Armstrong rather than adding Piaf. Would you put Piaf above Umm Kulthum or do you think they should be the same level? Your ideas such as Cher and Baez are still living and we try to avoid recentism in this list. Interstellarity (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Piaf is more cinema rather than music, but she might be useful as a female artist. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
@John; the problem with Chanel is Fashion is not even on the level 3 list and Fashion design is not on the level 4 list, with that bias, i can't see a fashion designer being added to this level. (although i would support all three).
@Interstellarity; No, Amelia Earhart exists and would be fine; considering aviators are predominant in Exploration history and since Lindbergh's pro-fascist views tend to mean he's not mythologized means Earhart would be a fine choice; but considering the dislike on this list toward Wright brothers and Yuri Gagarin; i doubt how Earhart would make it. It's not out of the ordinary to compromise; we list Frida Kahlo in 20th century art, yet we don't list two important movement figureheads Dalí and Warhol; or Duchamp for conceptual art; despite them having arguably larger impact because we recognize the need for women. We list Emmy Noether over Pythagoras, Fibonacci or Brahmagupta etc because we need women. Importance on at a top level is mainly split by fame; Kahlo/Noether are super important as some of the men; just not as known. Sarah Bernhardt is fundamental to theatre/modern celebrity culture; but not as known, so she would not make it. Some would list Marlon Brando as the actor; but if you gave them both equal attention, Bernhardt would stand higher. Apply this to many things. The fact we list Joan of Arc over Hernán Cortés or Hannibal as the military rep (i know conquerors are military types, i mean from the level 4 military section) means we can give a pass to women in certain areas. The other four sections we miss women here; (Film/Music/Business/Religion); would not be as bad if we lowered the requirements just a little (Except business, that's the key example - not exploration). Film could add Marilyn Monroe or add Bernhardt with (Film & Acting). Music, Kulthum or wait till Madonna would qualify, Maria Callas would be the only other option. Business would be Estée Lauder (businesswoman); but there's just no way possible i see her being added knowing this list - although with the right attention; fundamentally changing the landscape of western perception of beauty would be a big accomplishment on the level of a Cornelius Vanderbilt type and more of a direct impact on people. Helena Blavatsky would be perfect for religion; to add someone modern to that section covering the Occult, spirituality and new religious movements; pretty much one of the most fundamental new thing in modern religion (NRMs) and which deserves representation - although time hasn't settled on which one is the most important. Teresa of Ávila and Aisha would be the most important from established religion. I'm also interested in figures representing sections of the level 4 list that we do not cover on this list. (Entertainers, journalists and athletes). Marilyn/Bernhardt would cover entertainers, journalists are mega weak in pop culture, although with the right attention Walter Lippmann would make it, the only shot athletes have as representatives are Muhammad Ali, Bruce Lee or Pelé; all would be good and we'd be covering Asian/South American culture figures too. A suffragette like Emmeline Pankhurst and a nurse like Florence Nightingale would be good too. It's all about balance. This list is just a list for targeted improvement; it does not hurt to not be 100% accurate. Hernán Cortés had a infinitely higher world impact than Joan of Arc; but we chose Joan to include areas we miss. Don't add any of these please, this is just me brainstorming, most likely none would pass and it just wastes time. It's better just to wait a couple decades though too, most of the people i've mentioned has their importance rise every year in my data tracking thing, normally it does not flip unless there's major scandal; which i doubt there will be for a Pankhurst or Nightingale. Either way, it's all about the attention; there's important women in every field. GuzzyG (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Without prejudice to the rest of your writing, Lindbergh is not particularly negatively affected by his views in modern-day elementary school historiography, where they are not mentioned, and IMO still take a backseat to the Lindbergh baby. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Lindbergh baby is tabloid so it's not surprising and non-comparable - i'd support Frank Lloyd Wright and the attack on Taliesin (studio) is just as tabloid and arguably worse - but this has no affect on legacy. Columbus is still taught like a saint in some school programs too; i talk about long term longevity and it's unrealistic to think in this current climate; which will only go on as younger generations believe in emphasizing stuff like that; that Lindbergh will have less of a positive legacy than Earhart - which was my point. Unless you think that in this climate - which is here to say - one of the only prominent women in exploration history will have a less positive legacy than a pro-fascist; it's not working out for Philip Johnson right now and every prominent figure is going to be examined for this behaviour (rightly). I was the one who nominated Lindbergh for the level 4 list; but my point is that one will continue to be portrayed as a positive hero/mythologized (which matters for long lasting historical importance) and one will not. I'm interested in analysis of long-term importance; Amelia Earhart has 51k news search results [13] and Lindbergh 28k [14]; wanna take one guess why one is being emphasized more; do you think that any future generation - who will write the next history - will think any better of him, that these saint portrayals will persist? I'm obviously not saying he isn't important (I nominated him for the level 4 list), my point was that on a edge case Earhart would be just as good of a add. GuzzyG (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
4-3, with noticeable support for the proposal, just not quite enough for consensus. Multiple oppose votes did express support for a different Indian musician/composer, specifically Lata Mangeshkar. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2021 (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 Ravi Shankar

We should include non-western composers as well for this one to represent the diversity of this list.

Support
  1. Nom
  2. Support support in spirit; we absolutely need to cover non-western music and India has a high population of English speakers. Shankar is the one. GuzzyG (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support - I agree that Shankar is a great call for this list. Jusdafax (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  4. Support here is a the perfect example of a non-Western musical figure whose influence is well known enough in the English speaking world to warrant their inclusion. The perfect way to diversify, but not sacrifice the fact that we are on the English Wikipedia. Aza24 (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Lata Mangeshkar consistently gets more page views than Ravi Shankar on the English Wikipedia and seems to be the better choice to represent Indian music. She was 10th by polling on The Greatest Indian; Ravi Shankar was 20th. We have previously spoken of the need to address the lack of representation of both women and non-Western figures in both music and film: this appears to be a logical opportunity to address multiple deficiencies in the list. Cobblet (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Doesn't seem vital to the English Wikipedia to me, especially in light of Elvis being recently removed, who is clearly more vital to the English Wikipedia. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Shankar is only notable worldwide because of his association with Beatles, who are already listed. As Cobblet says, Mangeshkar has a stronger case. Gizza (talk • voy) 23:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Discussion

Shankar was removed as a result of this discussion. Cobblet (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Worth noting that all of these "English wikipedia" arguments fall flat when you consider that India has the second highest number of English language speakers by state [15]; (doubling the UK via this list); now adding in the fact that the British Raj was a thing; one would think India would be a very worthy contender for a placement as a massive country of English speakers. If one were to wager their life on whose music has casually reached more humans ears Shankar (backed by the Beatles in their prime, contributing to their artistic development/inspiration aka Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and in a country of a billion) or Elvis; one would have to bet on Shankar. "clearly more vital" is in the eye of the (tabloid) beholder; depending on if academics (who write arts history); would judge a seminal figure of a centuries long and still ongoing artistic tradition of Indian classical music less worthy than a tabloid image of decades long, now over (generally) Rock music (which he has no strong claim to other than fame - the male Marilyn Monroe - who has been denied here) - which seems like a massive reach - considering Chuck Berry is now getting the acknowledgement that he should've, Bob Dylan is getting all the academic attention and The Beatles beats him in everything and is listed. In a list that has made a strong point of placing people like Sergei Korolev over Yuri Gagarin or Neil Armstrong; one would think Elvis does not stand out in any category and is hardly a singular defining artist in his genre in the 20th century unlike Shankar, especially with Igor Stravinsky being removed and Arnold Schoenberg not being listed. Western music is well covered; but Indian music - of importance to the second most populous country of English speakers (who are unrepresented); would need covering the most; so unless you're looking at it from a fandom backed tabloid perspective; yes i would say Shankar would be a more vital add for the English encyclopedia at this point and considering there's a tie with his music to religious importance - i can't see how he can be compared to any pop music figure either. Countries like Canada, Republic of Ireland, Australia, New Zealand are dwarfed by English speakers by comparison in numbers and historical comparison, any less worth given to India is not rooted in numbers. (which is what matters)

Lata Mangeshkar is living so irrelevant for this list and has a few hurdles; mainly Kishore Kumar and Mohammed Rafi not being on the level 4 list and there's not that much of a gap as would be if one was on this list and the others on level 5. Plus Mangeshkar's music backs film; which places Indian cinema as more important (than the music backing it); which with Indian cinema means Satyajit Ray would come first; but he's from Bengal like Rabindranath Tagore and he's not Bollywood (Hindi speaking) and which Mangeshkar dominates - so than we'd have to go to Raj Kapoor but his films Awaara and Shree 420 are noted to be heavily inspired by Charlie Chaplin; which would make it too much overlap to list both. Madhubala would be a non-starter too. So if there's no strong candidates for Indian cinema without overlap (and with Hitchcock/Kurosawa being removed) than i don't see how Mangeshkar can fit easily. Shankar is the best fit for a example of Indian artist, someone like Mani Madhava Chakyar is more regional but not Shankar.

China, India, Japan, France, United Kingdom, United States, Russia, France, Germany, Italy, Iran are all specifically vital states (and their former states like Rome etc) with a centuries long importance of historical importance in both history and arts means they should be covered in both and should override any "English wikipedia" concerns anyway. Indian arts; Ravi Shanker; Persian arts Rumi (terrible removal) and Japanese history Emperor Meiji are the only areas we miss and all three would override any "English wikipedia" concerns; as any respectable encyclopedia would specifically focus on these countries and as we should. Arabic and Spanish as languages and Africa as a continent as well; but only African arts is not covered here and only Imhotep, Fela Kuti or Chinua Achebe has a shot (Nigeria also has more English speakers than the UK and Colonial Nigeria existed.. not out of place within a "English" wikipedia). These areas are so inherent to the world they would be covered by anyone and especially by a encyclopedia written today - they are fundamental aspects to the history of the world and any English encyclopedia should strive to have high quality written articles of each - anything less would not be adequate. GuzzyG (talk) 10:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
7-2 for removal. --Salvabl (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Remove Elvis Presley

If Michael Jackson (and possibly Ravi Shankar or someone lese) is added, another musician should go. The Beatles (or Chuck Berry) can represent rock music. --Thi (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Franz Liszt is the better example of celebrity culture; since he was one of the founders of it and yet we list Wagner, so fame is not a strong point. If Frédéric Chopin, Igor Stravinsky, Alfred Hitchcock, Akira Kurosawa, Ernest Hemingway and Edgar Allan Poe all have been removed recently, than i do not see how Elvis holds up to them; i doubt he will ever be as studied/analyzed like them in a academic setting (he rarely created anything himself, so unlikely) or as important as the other Americans - Bob Dylan will probably be the most studied popular musician of the 20th century and Elvis is atleast his equal importance wise. Elvis is vital like Marilyn Monroe is and yet she is not listed and a vote for her failed, any different treatment seems odd. Elvis isn't even comparable to Disney, which has a massive cultural company to push his legacy - which Elvis does not. I don't see any path other than fame for Elvis to be on this list and fame is shaky - people might say "everyone can recognize Elvis", same with Marilyn - but again - not listed. He didn't create rock Chuck Berry did, he hardly wrote his own stuff (which removes academic analysis), his films are not important (so no analysis there), no cross culture fame like MJ around the world - so no noticeable way to continue to last as a important figure. (We're still in the nostalgia phase of his primary audience, so he still has a connection to pop culture - but this won't last for ever). In the Cultural impact of the Beatles#21st century relevance article there's a line "In the 2000s, Presley was the only other defunct musical act to generate as much continued news and interest as the Beatles. His mass appeal curtailed significantly by the end of the 2010s, while the Beatles' popularity has endured with younger generations"; so already apparently falling. Elvis is similar to Frank Sinatra, more of a localized fame than MJ/The Beatles, didn't write their own stuff and very famous; artists primary historical importance is creating art and the consistent resultant analysis of it; and Elvis rarely did. GuzzyG (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. I'd never thought I'd support removing Elvis from here, but here we are. Chuck Berry's a maybe, but I still think the Beatles are more worthy, and we already (will probably) have MJ as a person of color. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support - I agree with the above comments. I think other good candidates for this level might include Freddie Mercury and Aretha Franklin. They impacted rock and soul music genres. I don't plan on nominating them any time soon, but I think they are worth mentioning. Interstellarity (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support I think there are others music artists (like Freddie Mercury or Chuck Berry) better suited to be considered creators and Rock music icons, with a greater and more lasting remembrance and influence (even after their deaths) on other artists and the music panorama. --Salvabl (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. --Awvazquez (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  7. Support per nom and the fact that Jackson has now been added Aza24 (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I think Elvis is more vital. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Vital at this level, as I see it and per previous discussions. Jusdafax (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-1 for add & 9-0 for rem (including nom), unanimous consensus that Abolitionism is covered enough by Slavery et al., strong consensus for more coverage of American Revolution, though with some push-back that wider American history coverage is sufficient. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Abolitionism, Add American Revolution

We already have Slavery at this level and Abolitionism can be covered by that article. The American Revolution paved the way for decolonization and influenced other countries to break away from European powers. Interstellarity (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support One could argue that American Revolution is a bit too close to the French Revolution that's on here, but Abolitionism is much closer to Slavery. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support removal Per above and George Washington's article gives overview of Revolutionary War. --Thi (talk) 08:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support removal too specific. GuzzyG (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support removal Gizza (talk • voy) 21:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support per Nom: The American Revolution is a vital article for inclusion on the English Wikipedia. See comments below. Otr500 (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  6. Support removal With Slavery already included in the list, Abolitionism is too specific and not necessary. --Salvabl (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  7. Support the American Revolution is vital to the English Wikipedia, as it involved two of the most significant English-speaking countries. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  8. Support swap - Good call. Jusdafax (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition History of the United States would cover this and more. --Thi (talk) 12:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Discuss
I agree that Abolitionism should be something covered in an already listed more broad Slavery article.
If we add or swap based on an article being too specific or another giving more broad coverage why would we consider that American Revolution not be "more vital" and George Washington "a bit too" specific while giving only an "overview of Revolutionary War"? As this is supposedly the English version of Wikipedia I think referencing that American Revolution is "a bit too close" to French Revolution not a logical argument. While I am not suggesting that the French Revolution is not vital I would think it "a bit" more vital (in the scheme of world events) to the French Wikipedia and the American Revolution certainly as worthy (if not more) of being listed as a vital article here. Otr500 (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Otr500 for the record, I support adding American Revolution, while giving a plausible counterargument. That said, you bring up an interesting point, given that Level 3 is where Anglocentric bias just starts becoming acceptable and to an extent desirable. (Levels 1 and 2 should ideally be the same across all Wikipedias, while Levels 4 and 5 should be more specific towards American and Commonwealth culture, while obviously still giving Eastern cultures their due). I think we might have used up this Americentric "quota" for the era with George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, however. I can't think of many Americans who would be on a "global" Level 3 (as opposed to the broader Meta list) other than Abraham Lincoln (who, for the record, was called the greatest statesman of all time by Tolstoy if I'm not mistaken). The French Revolution had a greater impact in Europe and its colonies, however, so I think it would be included in the "Global" Level 3 and it would be undue bias not to include it on here. There might be room for both, however. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 08:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Just bumping the proposal to note support for the removal is clear so far (6-0, including the nom), but the add is still under discussion (3-0, including the nom). It will still be open for a while (the 60 day mark for no-consensus should be Tue, Jan 26) --Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PARTIAL PASS
Addition: 6-2

Removal: 3-5

Consensus to add Mental health. No consensus to remove Epic poetry. Interstellarity (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Epic poetry, Add Mental health

Related discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/2#Swap:_Remove_War,_Add_Health
I am proposing that Health being moved up to level 2 and Mental health moved up to level 3. Epic poetry doesn't seem that important to be up on level 3. Mental health is just as important as physical health and that physical health is only half of the components that make up health. Interstellarity (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Per nom. We already have poetry at this level. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support addition Listing mental disorder alone does not give a complete picture of mental well-being. Per the WHO's Constitution, "Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity." Cobblet (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. --Awvazquez (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  4. Support addition per above. Gizza (talk • voy) 23:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal Epic poetry is a foundational component of many world literatures as pointed out by Zar2gar1. Supporters of the removal do not offer persuasive arguments to address this. Cobblet (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Epic poetry is historically important form of literature. National epics are important also today. Mental health is one aspect of public health and health care. Mental disorder is already listed and it seems to me that those topics are quite overlapping in general encyclopedias. I think that more specific articles such as depression or dementia would be more useful, although those articles were removed. Readers would probably be more interested about facts about dementia etc. than general definitions of mental health and health policy. --Thi (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I'm in favor of adding Mental health, but this isn't the right swap to do make it happen. OnAcademyStreet (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  4. Oppose removal per above. Gizza (talk • voy) 23:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Too much overlap with Mental disorder. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Discuss

I don't necessarily oppose this, at least not yet, but I would like to lay out two counterpoints. For the removal: not only is the arts section pretty under-weighted, but epic poetry arguably has unique historical significance. It seems to be consolidated & preserved as a major part of many cultures' identity.

For the addition: I like the direction of the proposal, but setting aside philosophical debates, I wonder if mental health is the best choice. The medical view implicit in it is relatively recent, definitely not universal, and occasionally controversial. We also already have Mental disorder under the Health section, plus several topics under Psychology. However, while we do already have Happiness, I could support adding another holistic article like well-being or quality of life. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PARTIAL PASS
Removal 5-0, two articles removed. Addition 3-1, no consensus. --Thi (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Addition & Multiplication, Add Group (mathematics) & Field (mathematics)

So this is a big one, but it supplements the above discussion about basic arithmetic. The Arithmetic article probably covers all 4 basic operations sufficiently, at least for VA level 3, but just removing them will leave the Math section much shorter. Plus there seems to be some interest in covering the more abstract ideas around them (e.g. inverses).

Adding Groups & Fields will still cover the arithmetic operations some from a more advanced, algebraic POV. The add will also help fill out the Algebra subsection with some abstract topics, plus these structures are almost everywhere in contemporary working mathematics. And even if they're not part of the typical public-school curriculum, the basics are actually quite accessible.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support the removal of the basic arithmetic operations so that we can get some coverage of abstract algebra instead. This is the area of math where Emmy Noether's work made a revolutionary impact. Earlier, some people wanted to add symmetry. I'd prefer to add the concepts that not only form the basis for the study of symmetry in mathematical physics, but also underlie many other areas of modern math. Cobblet (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. Sure, why not? If 1 doesn't make the cut, it's not too fatal if Addition is trimmed either, and that goes double (heh) for Multiplication. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support removal per discussions. --Thi (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support removal. I think the Math section does need to be trimmed down some. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition. The proposed additions don't seem to be that vital to me, and I think the math section should be reduced in number overall. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Discuss

Just to follow up for anyone ambivalent about the additions, is shrinking the Math section your main concern? If so, would you support these additions if another proposal could cut 1 or 2 slots more? Recently, we have already cut Sphere, Subtraction, & Division (the last 2 are just waiting on this proposal before editing the list). I'd personally like to see Math upped by a few slots, but support cutting some specific articles in the short-run. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2021 (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.

Two vital articles undergoing quality review

Trying to move this project back towards its intended purpose of improving high-importance pages, I'd like to give invites to two important level-3 articles that have been recently put up for quality reviews. First, there's a FAR of climate change, which is in fairly good shape but hasn't had a systematic outside review in over a decade. Second, there's a GAR of China; that page is in need of cleanup and may get delisted if there's not a coordinated effort to save it. Comments/work at either discussion would be appreciated, although particularly at China because that page doesn't have a community of watchers the same way Climate change does. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3, not swapped. --Thi (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Human rights, Add Rights

Rights is a more broad term than Human rights. Interstellarity (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
  1. Oppose Rights should be about the theory of rights. Human rights should be about the norms the international community tries to promote. The latter is more vital for a lay audience. Compare the SEP entries on rights and human rights, for example. Cobblet (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Human rights is often used term in journalism, education and politics. I would expect comprehensive article about human rights from general encyclopedia and would look for article about rights from philosophical dictionary. --Thi (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Human rights are a significant aspect of international law. "Rights" is ill-defined and far from significant. Dimadick (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Discuss

Rights may or may not be vital but if broadness equals vitality then there are other articles in the social issues section which should be taken out first. Liberty and privacy are both specific types of human rights. Arguably racism, sexism and justice are all subtopics of human rights too. Human rights is a broader term than nearly every article in that section. Gizza (talk • voy) 11:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

In fact I feel like we could use even more specific coverage here: I'm strongly considering proposing freedom of speech as an addition. I think Wikipedia should prioritize coverage of fundamental aspects of liberal democracies – election is the other addition I'd like to re-propose. Also, back on the topic of specific rights and freedoms, freedom of religion seems like a more important article than the listed theocracy. Cobblet (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3, not swapped. --Thi (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Humour, Add Sadness

Sadness is one of the most important emotions a person has. Humour seems sufficient for level 4. Interstellarity (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support addition since it's a basic human emotion that also leads into many other ideas. Oppose removal though; even if humor isn't a basic human emotion, it's... culturally and philosophically interesting (?) Plus we already have some slots free with possibly more on the way. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Humour is self-evidently vital. I don't think we need more emotions listed, and I certainly don't think that it's necessary to list both happiness and sadness on this level. Mental health as nominated above is a better choice for the list, and I also see other behavioural/psychological topics like interpersonal relationship and creativity/imagination as a higher priority than listing more emotions. Cobblet (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose at least addition. Clinical depression is more important topic than sadness, which is not as widely discussed as for example the concept of happiness. --Thi (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Humour is a key aspect of comedy and satire, which are culturally significant. Sadness has had much less impact on human culture. Dimadick (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-5 for add & 1-6 for rem (including nom), consensus was Parenting is a central topic; some discussion about how human emotions could be covered in the list. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Parenting, Add Anxiety

Anxiety seems to be a very common emotion in some people. Parenting doesn't seem that important. Interstellarity (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
  1. Oppose parenting is more common and understanding the role mothers and/or fathers play in society is pretty important. Even in the vicinity of anxiety, major depressive disorder and mental health seem more vital to me. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removal, parenting is a major period of life for many, whether you're talking about daily-life, culture, kinship, even birds & mammals. I'm not necessarily opposed to adding Anxiety, but it would be borderline for me at this level. By the way, besides some connotations, is there really much difference between Anxiety and Worry? --Zar2gar1 (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Parenting is again obviously vital. Mental health again seems like a better addition than the various negative emotions being proposed. Cobblet (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Parenting is major area in human life and behaviour. --Thi (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Thi --Salvabl (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  6. Oppose and that is coming from someone who has anxiety and is not a parent. Parenting is far more vital.OnAcademyStreet (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Discuss

I have proposed that mental health be added above. As for Major depressive disorder, I think Mental disorder covers that topic sufficiently. Because of that, I don't think that should be added. Interstellarity (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@DaGizza and Zar2gar1: I would like you and others who comment on this one thoughts on adding something like Disgust or Surprise to this list. Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not aware of a consensus that Paul Ekman's list of basic emotions is definitive. Keep in mind that there are more widely accepted paradigms in other areas such as Maslow's hierarchy of needs or Big Five personality traits that we don't list at this level, let alone all of their individual components. Cobblet (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Reply: I'm not that strong in psychology, so I only have an everyday sense of which emotions are basic. I'm willing to support adding Sadness since it's not just the absence of happiness, plus it's so basic it colors many other things (other emotions, tragedy, etc.) I'm not sure if there are any others I'd support though. I could be wrong, but Surprise doesn't seem that major or deep a topic to me: I instinctively expect one thing, something else happens, I react instinctively.
I could see Disgust being a bit richer since it leads into things like Hygiene (which is on the list), religious ideas of cleanliness, and other negative emotions. I'm still not sure it's that crucial to this level though. I was thinking maybe Taboo would make a good related proposal, but not everything taboo is disgusting & vice versa, plus that article looks like it needs a lot of work at first glance. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Withdrawn by nominator Cobblet (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Fairy tale, Add Children's literature

Now that children's literature has been added to level 4, I am able to propose this swap. I agree that children's literature is an important literary genre and educational topic, but I don't see why fairy tales should be considered more vital than other subgenres such as fables. Previous discussion here.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom.--Salvabl (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support add, on second thought, we have room to work with and children's literature is a distinct enough topic --Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I think that the difference between fairy tales and fables is not always clear and both can teach moral lessons. Fairy tale is older literary form than children's literature. Fairy tales were also for adults and also now many people at least are familiar with typical plots of fairy tales. I think that in modern society fairy tales are probably often the first touch to myths, legends, folklore and oral tradition. Children's literature is not a genre in strict sense, it consists of novels, short stories etc. It is modern commercial and library classification. I think that fairy tale represents children's literature and it is also important form of literature and its history (1001 Nights, the Grimms, H. C. Andersen). --Thi (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removal per Thi. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose removal Fairy tales have had a large cultural impact, have inspired numerous works, and have been intensely studied by scholars. They have more long-term significance than children's literature. Dimadick (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Discussion

I'm not sure either way on this one. There probably is a more central literary topic than fairy tales, but I'm not sure I'd swap them out for children's literature. It's mainly because I've heard before that fairy tales weren't originally just morality tales or geared towards children, while the concept of distinct literature for children is sort of a recent thing historically. This is honestly one where I'd defer to someone with academic expertise on the topic. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Removal 1-5, addition 3-3, not swapped. --Thi (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Pollution, Add Homelessness

Pollution is an environmental issue covered by Environmentalism and Climate change. I think a better addition would be Homelessness which is an ongoing problem in the world. Interstellarity (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support addition, while there are obviously a lot of slums globally & refugees are often homeless, I guess I underestimated how common simple homelessness is outside the Anglo-American world. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support addition Homelessness has been an enduring problem for human societies, and I think its importance is underestimated. Dimadick (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Pollution is one of the key topics in environmentalism and environmental biology. I would rather list more ecological problems and concepts. Social policy or another general subject would cover social problems better. Unemployment is also social and economical problem. --Thi (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removal, I think Pollution is distinct enough from Environmentalism and Climate change to justify keeping. If we need to cut articles, I think there are better candidates both in & out of the Society category. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose removal Pollution is a broad topic not fully covered by either Environmentalism or Climate change. Homelessness is also broad, but seems to more fully fall under the issue of Poverty, which is already included.OnAcademyStreet (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Thi. Jusdafax (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  5. Oppose addition. I think the concept of homelessness is already covered enough in articles that we already list like poverty and home. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  6. Oppose removal per Zar2gar1 --Salvabl (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2021 (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.

Note

There is a discussion on the metawiki page regarding a replacement for articles that every Wikipedia should have. See meta:Talk:List_of_articles_every_Wikipedia_should_have#Swap:_Remove_Edith_Piaf,_Add_Protestantism. Interstellarity (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Expanding the vital articles levels

I would like community input on whether we should increase the levels to 8 instead of the current 5 levels. I think it gives greater depth on priorizing which articles are most important. For example, we could put the most important individuals in Level 4 and we could put the important, but not so important individuals at Level 5 and so on. Here is an idea of what I'm proposing:

  • Level 1: 10 articles
  • Level 2: 50 articles
  • Level 3: 100 articles
  • Level 4: 500 articles
  • Level 5: 1000 articles
  • Level 6: 5000 articles
  • Level 7: 10,000 articles
  • Level 8: 50,000 articles

I would like to know if the vital articles community would be willing to do this and if so we can propose which articles should go on each level. Interstellarity (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the current orders of magnitude system works. We'd have to have a lot of discussion which of the current Level 2 would, for example, go into the new Level 2 or the new Level 3. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
@John M Wolfson: This is how it would work. The level 1 articles would be the same as the current list. The old level 2 would be the new level 3, the old level 3 would be the new level 5, the old level 4 would be the new level 7, and the old level 5 would be the new level 8. What we would need to discuss is what articles would go in level 2, level 4, and level 6. This might take many months in order to figure out what articles we would include and that's OK since Wikipedia has no deadline. These are my thoughts regarding this area. Interstellarity (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Why make work for ourselves that nobody has asked for? Cobblet (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Trying to see the point of it. If there is a separate top 50 and top 100, then you might have biology in the top 50 and ecology in the top 100. How is that to make a difference to our end goal, which is to improve and maintain the quality of each article considered vital? Will there be a edit-a-thon on the new Level 2 articles that lasts for a longer time than the new Level 3? Or is it just going to result in months (or more likely years) of further discussion on all of the new talk pages? Gizza (talk • voy) 07:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
No, this would be a disaster. The 4 levels are good as is; i tried to have a level 5 to complement popular pop culture articles that need improving for our readers and articles from every subject with Wikiprojects (like: Wikipedia:WikiProject Paintball), to have a featured article goal from every wikiproject to represent Wikipedia best, but then people complained about there being too much pop culture and too much small subjects and prefer articles like William Giauque being prioritized over articles like Cardi B. But if we're gonna stray away from pop culture articles/shutout certain wikiprojects from collaboration and article improvement and our editors/readers in favour of technical knowledge there's no need for further expansion; the level 4 list is good enough for popular, yet still important topics. Articles like Giauque are not priority articles for readers [16];, so there's no need to split it up further because we cover that area best as is with these four lists. Since noone is willing to have discussions or do the work to improve these lists, these talk pages would go dead as they currently already kinda are. If you're that interested in article improvement/lists, create your own lists. That's what i've done, i have excels with hundreds of thousands of names/data/information and plan to turn it into my own personal thing and can't recommend it enough to create your own instead if you take these seriously and wanna see article improvement, other than that this is not going to happen, ever. The best solution would be to delete the level 5 list and have it where articles are not duplicated on each level, so there's a little room for extra to the point where the standards are not compromised yet we can still have a little expansion, that was my original suggestion before the level 5 list and i stick to it. GuzzyG (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Can you please link to the discussion regarding Cardi B? Cobblet (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I mean if science gets atleast a 900 people bump, it's only fair if religion/politics get a increase from the same method science would (to match the level 4 list quota). Naturally people like Cardi would be the ones cut, let's be honest - pop women have not been treated well on this list at all; you know with Britney being "trailer-park trash" and " Nearly meaningless in terms of her impact on American music. When the history of 21st Century music is written, she will be lucky to be a footnote" [17]; or Whitney Houston "in 50 years we might remember she had a coke habit" and "Houston will have very little long-term impact on American music" [18] (despite being the most awarded women in music history, paved the way for black women on mtv). Or Mariah Carey being "not significant" [19] despite her holding the record for the most number-one singles by a solo artist, a female songwriter, and a female producer. So if those of the highest tier of pop music are getting referred to by their drug habits (lets not check the rockers); i doubt people like Cardi would not be removed first (with worse said about personal habits). I do wonder though if a more diverse Gen Z and below generations and their scholars in the future think so too, since they will decide twenty first century music history. A generation known for poptimism and specifically highlighting the achievements of non-white people (Like Whitney) and if they would rather highlight people like Missy Mazzoli, Caroline Shaw or Jennifer Higdon as the center of 21st century music or if the mother of the 21st century pop star (Britney) would be a "footnote" in a Gen Z world. There's no link to a actual discussion, though all the evidence points to twenty first century people like her being the ones removed and she was the example i used of a pop culture article being highly important to have written well (nearly 50 million views). That's all, it was just a example to my point - but lets be honest, the first people cut will be the non-western musicians and 21st century musicians - because most people will call it sacrilegious to compare them to a Harrison Birtwistle type in music history, only a Joy Division or Radiohead type of act would be so worthy in popular music. GuzzyG (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Who added Birtwistle? Cobblet (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
@GuzzyG: The decision to do away with level 5 altogether is beyond the scope of this discussion. That would require a MFD discussion. You are welcome to open up a discussion there and try to get consensus to remove those articles. I am neutral on removing level 5. Interstellarity (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't care enough to nominate it, but it'd probably be for the better, since noone wants to work on it and my additions are controversial. GuzzyG (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
This would be useful for new, smaller wikis. Users would more easily found which articles are more general and which are details. People like Rockefeller would be more naturally in list of 5000 than than in this level. However, it would be unnecessary if current Level 5 is going to have 100,000 articles. Also template text "This article has been listed as a level-8 vital article" would look like too complicated system for those outside the project.If I would start the project from scratch, I would include only lists of 1000, 5000, 10,000 and 50,000. Smaller lists would be useful mainly for the editors of this wikiproject, listed as additional pages inside the project. --Thi (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
I think 5 is a nice number of levels; it allows for some precision but isn't too complex. Plus it seems much of the value to these lists comes from the discussions, with very specific reasons for why one topic should be prioritized over another. Having some hard-limits, even if they're a bit arbitrary, helps maintain that.

That said, I have wondered how scaling each level differently might work. Orders of 10 give nice, round totals, but seem too restrictive sometimes at the top levels (preventing basic partitions of a topic at Level 2, for example), whereas Level 5 still has thousands of open slots despite requiring no discussion to add. Maybe Level 1 should start at a slightly higher number, and the next levels scale less exponentially? I think there's also been occasional discussion about trying to partly-automate the rankings, whether through a score or a rough algorithm. That would make more sense to do in tandem with the lists as they are though. Just brainstorming. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  • No. We already have too many. I'd say go back to four levels, if we are to make changes. Jusdafax (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I think having an automatic list would be better off as it's own project. Swordman97 talk to me 19:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm currently neutral on this idea in general, but if we ever did this I would suggest we name the levels the following:

  • Level 1: 10 articles
  • Level 1.5: 50 articles
  • Level 2: 100 articles
  • Level 2.5: 500 articles
  • Level 3: 1000 articles
  • Level 3.5: 5000 articles
  • Level 4: 10,000 articles
  • Level 5: 50,000 articles
That way the current levels would be preserved as is and we wouldn't have to go through the pain of moving everything around. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-1 for add & 6-0 for rem, consensus was Western Esotericism is clearly a marginal topic while Fashion is a basic part of society & art; good opposing points for adding other topics, which could perhaps swap-out or supplement Fashion going forward. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Western esotericism, Add Coco Chanel Fashion

Given in the above discussion that two editors support adding Chanel, I thought this would be a good time to nominate her. Fashion is a better addition because we don't cover much of it. However, we need to be careful not to nominate too many articles to add because we only have a limited number of slots on this page, so I picked Western esotericism to remove since there are more important articles on this level that are level 3. Interstellarity (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support (the nom)
  2. Support Fashion is a fundamental part of every culture that has existed, while Western esotericism and stuff like Animation is not. The first quote on the WE article is "'Western esotericism' is not a natural term but an artificial category", so it does not seem super important. If Social science is up for deletion, than i don't see how this cannot be - it's just as broad. GuzzyG (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support at the very least removal (how did this get on here????) and probably the new addition (Fashion is important in society). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom.--Salvabl (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support, while interesting, esotericism seems like a bit of a grab-bag & not very vital. And beyond what everyone else said about Fashion, the Arts section could use a little more weight. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  6. Support removal Esotericism is more in the margin than in cultural mainstream. --Thi (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition Per previous discussions concerning businesspeople. I don't think that the list should overemphasize biographies. Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies is still ongoing project. --Thi (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC) I think that this phenomenon can be explained via other articles. I have proposed Beauty before and Ornament (art) is in my opinion the most basic topic on decorative arts and popular aesthetics. Handicraft discusses the same area. Design is often used as euphemism for marketing ploys and status symbols, but it also leads thoughts to creative process, production methods and usability. Fashion can be economically important, but it also has psychological effects (to young minds), social effects and environmental effects. I would add Handicraft before Jewellery ([20]), but I think I recognize the ideas of identity and self-expression behind fashion, jewellery and similar topics. What I don't like is environmental impact of fashion which is similar to gold mining and other wasteful industries. [21] The history of clothing can be told in other articles, but article about fashion is in practice about modern fashion industry. "The fashion industry is one of the most polluting, unethical, and least sustainable industries on the planet." [22] It might be said that fashion is everywhere but I see many people who really don't care about fashion in strict sense of the word. So I don't think that fashion is necessarily among the most vital concepts, when there are people who think that we can live without fashion. [23] [24] --Thi (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

We haven't even listed Fashion at this level, so this won't pass likely. I was answering your questions and brainstorming, i told you not to start additions of any i mentioned, because they are likely to fail. I don't think we should list a person before their field. I wouldn't classify her as a business person though (shes not under business on any other list) and Core biographies is arguably dead and has two baseball players on a 200 person world list, so not suitable to the strictness we have here. I would support many people to this level, that does not mean they can all fit and we have to be strategic about it. Fashion has to be added first (and even this has failed before). But Fashion is bigger than Animation and we list both it and Walt Disney - so it's not that much of a overlap. Fashion first though. GuzzyG (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: Changed to Fashion. Hope this helps. Interstellarity (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
It was very close to passing the last time around. Cobblet (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-7, not merged. --Thi (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2021 (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.

Merging List of articles every Wikipedia should have into this project

I propose that meta's list of articles be merged into this list. The talk page for this list is more active than that of the meta list. They each have similar articles to each other. Although I understand that meta's list is geared towards all Wikipedias and this one is tailored towards English Wikipedia, I don't see a reason why each of these lists should be separate entries. Interstellarity (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

How would other Wikipedias be affected? Don't some have their own lists? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I found that the Afrikaans, French, Guianan Creole, Hebrew, Italian, and Mon Wikipedia have their own lists and since they are separate projects, I don't any of them would be affected if a merge took place. Some Wikipedias such as the Spanish Wikipedia use the list on meta as their baseline for articles. I think instead of the current list for all Wikipedias, we can use the English list as a baseline for all Wikipedias. These are my thoughts regarding the proposal. Interstellarity (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. many projects have their own versions which reflect their priorities and cultural specifics, which is why it wouldn't do to impose English ones on everybody (I believe it was discussed before, too, you might want to check archives). Yes, the English Wikipedia is the closest to a "global" one, but native English speakers have overwhelming influence here, while the Meta list is more global in this regard. — Yerpo Eh? 12:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree that we ought to consolidate our lists of vital-esque articles, since it's quite enough work to maintain one, let alone several. However, same as Yerpo, I think other languages would (rightly) object to a multilingual resource being hosted on English Wikipedia (and it's highly questionable whether the discussion we're having now on English Wikipedia even has jurisdiction to say. I think the better solution would be to have the centralized list be located at Meta (and to keenly express our disgruntlement to whoever created the fork in the first place way back). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 10:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I adapt what I originally said here:
  1. This page explicitly says, "This list is tailored to the English-language Wikipedia." For example, just as we list English language and English literature, it seems reasonable every Wikipedia should make the article on its own language and literature a priority.
  2. This list specifically compiles 1000 subjects "for which the English Wikipedia should have corresponding featured-class articles", while the Meta list doesn't say that. Perhaps a Wikipedia with fewer than 1000 articles should make sure it has articles on the four most elementary arithmetic operations, but those articles need not necessarily be prioritized in terms of quality.
  3. Our convention on this list is to not nominate redlinks, redirects or lists on the English Wikipedia. Other Wikipedias shouldn't be bound by that, e.g., some may find a subject like Ancient China to be vital.
  4. The Meta list should be structured with linguistic differences in mind. The distinction between green, light blue and dark blue is what immediately came to mind in the context of the level 4 list; one that's relevant to level 3 is how different languages count continents differently. Cobblet (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. These lists serve two separate functions and merging them would necessitate the abandonment of at least one of those functions. It's a shame that the meta list doesn't get more participation, but the solution to that problem is not merging these lists together. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Rreagan. Jusdafax (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Leaning oppose per the above. There are two distinct concepts going on here. BD2412 T 01:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose We can help Meta's project and other projects best by improving lists in English Wikipedia. --Thi (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2021 (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.

Auto archiving

I see that Interstellarity has set up automatic archiving on this page after 90 days of inactivity. I'm not sure that's a good idea, as Vital Article nominations are routinely left open beyond 90 days with no activity. I think continuing to manually archive passed or failed nominations is probably the best way to go. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Automatic archiving suits better for talk pages with one active discussion. It is not suitable for often viewed pages with many active topics. 90 days is for general pages in encyclopedia, not for project discussions. More space for new topics is needed. --Thi (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
4-2, and no !votes in 30+ days, so clearly on the fence. Opinions seemed to split on whether to view social science primarily as a unified field or a categorization of otherwise distinct ones. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Remove: Social science

This briefly came up in another discussion, but I don't think we need the actual article for Social science at this level. It's largely an academic topic, plus it looks like every specific field in the article is also on the VA list.

I don't think it's that that crucial to the taxonomy either, but even if you want to keep the sub-header for grouping Anthropology & Sociology, it doesn't need to be linked & take one of the actual VA slots. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support Agree that the list includes all the important disciplines within the social sciences, or their objects of study. We don't need this any more than we need applied science, formal science, natural science or humanities. Regarding headers, anthropology can replace culture as a heading, while sociology can go under society. Cobblet (talk) 07:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support per everyone. GuzzyG (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. --Awvazquez (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose for two reasons. First, there's a long-running unanswered question about to what extent the VA list is supposed to include the broadest articles vs. just the most important ones. Despite the arguments I've seen from some that it's only about importance, looking at levels 1 and 2, I think it's pretty clear that the de facto result we've arrived at is to give some amount of priority to very broad topics, because it makes nesting easier, because having good coverage of these topics is an important marker an encyclopedia should strive to pass, and since they're areas that Wikipedia struggles with and the need the attention this project can bring. It's one thing to get rid of Continent at level 2, but getting rid of Social science here would be a bridge too far, I think.
    Second, even putting the broadness aside, I think Social science is an exceptionally important topic in historical terms. We need to remember that it's only comparatively very recently that all the different social science disciplines have split off from each other and become hyperspecialized. For most of history, "social science" wasn't just this broad container term but a distinct area of study. Our article is (predictably, since it's both broad and not STEMy) not great, but there's plenty that can be said encyclopedically about social science that's not just listing out its disciplines (the replication crisis being one example). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
    Those are fair reasons. Just to add some commentary, my thinking on your first point is that Level 3 adds enough slots to start changing priorities some. So if a topic isn't sufficiently broad to be at Level 2, then it can probably be covered indirectly (but more accessibly) by multiple concrete articles at Level 3. Or vice versa, if something covers enough that broadness is reason enough to include it at Level 3, then it should likely be at Level 2 also.
    To your second point, I actually agree with the specifics you mentioned, but funny enough, I see those as reasons to de-emphasize the article. To keep it brief, along with the specialization you mentioned, isn't the very idea of "social science" (as a single, coherent thing mirroring natural science) grounded in recent philosophies like Positivism & Materialism?
    I definitely don't want to cut our coverage of Society topics (if anything, I think we could probably find some Natural Science topics to cut & free up more slots). I do feel though like the abstract topic of "social science", as a unified thing, may be more artificial than "natural science" (e.g. compare how common arguments over basic methodology are). Essentially, the topic (perhaps regardless of the article's state) seems to be less about common principles in the actual fields, and more about epistemology, history, & philosophy of science. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
    The replication crisis sounds like an article that should be vital at a lower level, probably level 5. Gizza (talk • voy) 09:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose There are essential differences between social sciences and natural sciences. --Thi (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

Science already has a subsection on the replication crisis. I share the concern that it's only recently that the various approaches to social science have been considered distinct branches; on the other hand, we do seem to cover just about every important branch within the social sciences. Cobblet (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Removal 1-5, swap 1-4. --Thi (talk) 09:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Swap: Replace Roald Amundsen with Neil Armstrong

I propose that Roald Amundsen be replaced with Neil Armstrong on this list. Currently, the Level 3 Vital articles list includes eight explorers, none of whom went to space. In fact, as far as I can tell, no person on this list went to space, a glaring omission in my view. As the first human being to step foot on the Moon, Armstrong is clearly one of the most significant explorers of all time. This is not to dismiss or diminish Amundsen's accomplishments, but between the two, Armstrong seems like the far more vital individual to include in a list of 1,000 vital topics.OnAcademyStreet (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal - I definitely think Amundsen should still be on this list due to his acomplishments. I am neutral on addition. I definitely think we should include a space explorer at this level, however, I would prefer Yuri Gagarin. However, if we have consensus to add Armstrong, then I would support. Interstellarity (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per previous discussions on Armstrong. Cobblet (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Interstellarity --Salvabl (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Neil Armstrong was only part of Moon project and Amundsen fits for current list. --Thi (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Polar exploration has a much longer history than spaceflight, and Amundsen is a towering figure. Dimadick (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-4 Rreagan007 (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Remove School

We don't really need both School and University listed at this level, especially since we also list Education. One should be removed, and since University was just added I think school should go.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - I think School represents the middle ground between the broad Education and the specific University. Education encompasses all of learning. School represents elementary, middle, and high school. Interstellarity (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Universities are distinct from schools in that they are also research institutions. That was why we added them. Cobblet (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Cobblet --Salvabl (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Education is more general concept and University is not only a school. --Thi (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
1-4 against, quickly too, but some interest in trimming/replacing specific Indo-European languages. As proposer, also just noting that Language family could be proposed for this level. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Remove Indo-European languages link (not header)

I've had this one on my list but wanted to wait until the existing proposals ticked down some. There are a few reasons for this one:

  • We don't give an actual slot & link to the other language family headers; they're purely for organization.
  • We currently don't even include the concept of language family at this level.
  • A convention appears to have evolved for this level that specific theoretical results aren't included
    • There are no experiments listed under physical or social sciences, no theorems under math, etc.
    • Even the few physics theories make sense as exceptions, since they represent the currently understood basic principles, not just a specific discovery
    • As a specific theoretical result, the reconstruction of the Indo-European languages should arguably be demoted from this level
Support
  1. Support as nom. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose the dominant language family of the world, especially outside of China, and by far the most studied. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
    Both points are true, but don't we already convey how dominant it is simply through the relative number of Indo-European languages we list? And also, a lot of that dominance today is more about recent colonialism (and Indian demographics), not necessarily the original spread & evolution of Proto-Indo-European.
    As to being widely-studied, I won't argue with that (at least in modern times); I'll just point out again it seems relatively theoretical compared to most of the Level 3 list. Not that I'm really expecting to persuade anyone, just wanted to respond. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
    That its dominance is due to colonialism is irrelevant, and besides the "Indo-" part already contained much of the world's population even before European colonization. As for theoreticality, the existence of the language family is so well established with evidence and reconstructions as to constitute an empirical fact. I could maybe support adding Afro-Asiatic languages, given the Semitic languages and Ancient Egyptian. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
    In re. colonialism & the size of India being irrelevant, that's kind of why I brought it up; it's incidental to the fact that the Indo-European languages form a family. If people feel how widespread they are is a main reason to give the family a slot though, I can respect that.
    As for your suggestion, I could get behind adding a 2nd language family for a little balance. And actually, if people just don't want to cut this one, I'd suggest adding Language family too. That way, we're not introducing examples of a concept before the concept itself. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I think this is too important as a topic not to list at this level given how widespread this language family is. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I fail to understand the logic of comparing this topic to an experiment in the physical or social sciences or a mathematical theorem. I also think there's more redundancy between Greek language and Greek alphabet than between Indo-European and its languages. Cobblet (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
    My comparison pretty much comes down to the idea of it still being a theoretical result (even though, like John M Wolfson said above, it is a very solid one). This proposal is actually an offshoot of my bottom comment in this discussion about the Micro- & Macro-economics articles.
    I do agree that including both the Greek language & alphabet seems like overkill. That would be another proposal, but I guess I'd rather keep the language over the alphabet. The language is still very influential in medicine, science, and philosophy, while the alphabet wasn't even originally Greek and its derivatives became way more popular. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
    Any comparison between a result of the comparative method in linguistics and something obtained through the scientific method risks being an apples vs. oranges comparison, especially when you focus on empirical results rather than on results obtained through analyzing observational data, e.g., any of the taxonomic groups listed under biology. In my view there are many topics listed in the social sciences and humanities which like Indo-European are the product of some sort of theorizing based on real-life observation, be it specific political ideologies, or social concepts such as class or race (we list racism) or gender, or even certain business topics like management and marketing. I think the list would be improved if we dropped the Greek alphabet to add another widely spoken or historically important non-Indo-European language like Malay, Swahili or Hebrew. Indo-European languages are dominant but not to the extent that more than 3/4 of the languages we list should come from that single family. Cobblet (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
    The apples-to-oranges is a good point, but another sense I mean by saying it's theoretical is that it doesn't just come up in everyday life. You kind of have to go looking to discuss linguistics or study multiple languages to come across it, unlike (basic) biological taxonomy.
    I'm going to go ahead & withdraw the proposal though; there's a pretty clear demand to keep the topic.
    I do agree 100% with what you said about cutting some of the specific languages or replacing them with ones from other families (e.g. a Bantu or Turkic language). I also still think it's a bit odd to introduce a specific language family at this level without putting Language family under Linguistics. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Important in linguistics. --Thi (talk) 09:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
1-1, closed early to spin-off as a proposal at Level 4. Not going directly from unlisted to Level 3 is a reasonable policy. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Conic section, Add Curve

One last consolidation of the Geometry section. I really like the topic of Conic sections, but they're just one type of Curve. The general topic of Curves could also bring in additional perspective from other fields (like topology), which don't normally come up when discussing Conic sections.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Curve is not on level 4. Cobblet (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


Discuss

I support adding curve at level 4. Unsure here but clearly an article that should exist among 10,000 in an encyclopedia. Gizza (talk • voy) 22:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Not jumping from unlisted to Level 3 is a sensible policy. Can we just cut-and-paste proposals to continue them at a different level? Or do I need to withdraw it here, then start a 2nd at Level 4? --Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Spanish Empire added, 6–3; Western imperialism in Asia added, 7–1. --Rreagan007 (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Add Spanish Empire and Western imperialism in Asia

We already have European colonization of the Americas for the Americas and Scramble of Africa for Africa for colonialism. I think these two articles would give a bigger picture of colonization. Interstellarity (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. Nom.
  2. Sure. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support Western imperialism in Asia per discussion above. Cobblet (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  4. Support both additions. --Salvabl (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  5. Support The Spanish Empire was a major force in world history for several centuries. I am less certain about the significance of Western imperialism, but I agree that it should be covered. Dimadick (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  6. Support. I think they're both vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  7. Support, we have the slots, history isn't particularly overweighted, and both provide major context for understanding international politics today. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Spanish Empire. With European colonization already being covered by continent there is less of a need to also cover the colonial activities of specific European powers. Cobblet (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Spanish Empire, covered by other articles. --Thi (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose for now See below Dawid2009 (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Discuss

While I somewhat agree with Cobblet and Thi, I think that Spanish Empire fits well with British Empire and Mongol Empire, given that it predated the former and was more influential in the long run than the latter. It's the reason why Spanish has the most native speakers of any Indo-European language, for example. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

European history, including the Spanish Empire, is the subject of every article listed under the early modern period except for the one on the Mughals. We also list Spain. The list has plenty of coverage on the Spanish Empire as it is: we do not need any further articles on post-medieval European history. Any comparison with the Mongols would have to take into account the catastrophic destruction under the Mongol Empire, and the reestablishment of trade and cultural exchange along the Silk Road under Pax Mongolica, which led to the Black Death on the one hand and the Italian and Timurid Renaissance on the other. As for influence on language, it was the Mongols who not only reunified China but also established its capital at Beijing for the first time, which led to that city's subsequent dominance and its dialect of Mandarin becoming China's national language, the only one with more native speakers than Spanish. Cobblet (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I would support both of those proposals if we decide swap Ancient Rome for Roman Empire first. I years ago made failed nomination on Spanish Empire and never made on Roman Empire but it was just due to reason I automatically though Roman Empire is already listed. Not sure 100% do Roman Empire could be better article for FA than Ancient Rome (remember both are very similar, though Acient Rome has more overlap with Rome which is slready listed, meanwhile Roman Empire does not have that overlap with Rome) but in my view this one had more significant impact for western World than any other empire (given that fundamentalism, time span - actually yes, more for western World even than British empire). Any thoughts? Dawid2009 (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I think Ancient Rome is the better article to list, as it covers all of the Republican period of Ancient Rome plus the Empire period. But I'm really not understanding what that has to do with your opposition to this nomination. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
But Ancient Rome is pretty much covered and overlaped at Rome#history, meanwhile Roman Empire is not - this is just debatable topic. I'm really not understanding what that has to do with your opposition to this nomination. - Of course I mean that Roman Empire is more influential than Spanish Empire and should go first to the level 3 if we are talking about ranking of the most influential Empires in history of World. I see Roman Empire is of course more often mentioned at Western Civilisation than British Empire but Spanish Empire even is not even linked there (though this also was very influential empire, of course). Dawid2009 (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok I think I understand your point then. I certainly don't think we need both Ancient Rome and Roman Empire, especially since Rome is also listed. If you feel that strongly about it, perhaps you should start a new proposal to swap one for the other. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-5 Rreagan007 (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove (Myth or Shamanism), Add (Any of the following Emotions)

I think the Religion section could be trimmed down a bit. I would like to see Shamanism removed first. The only emotions we have are Happiness, Anger, Fear, and Love, all of which I would not be in favor of removing. If we list emotions, we should cover emotions such as Sadness which I already nominated above. I would like to spark discussion on whether we should have emotions at this level, keep what we have, or add more. Interstellarity (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
  1. Oppose per my previous comments re sadness. Meanwhile shamanism and especially mythology are essential to many cultures around the world. If it's accurate to characterize all forms of shamanism as mysticism then I could support a swap, but I'm not sure that's the case. Cobblet (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Myth covers an important and universal aspect of human culture, and shamanism is an interesting topic for anthropology. I doubt that emotions have long-term significance. Dimadick (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. The Myth article also covers Mythology ever since those two articles were merged together several years ago. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per above. The "Myth" article on Wikipedia is actually what used to be mythology. Arguably well known mythologies like Greek mythology could be vital here too (there are 20 articles related to it at the next level). Gizza (talk • voy) 10:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Myth and currently listed emotions such as happiness are important social phenomenons. --Thi (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 6–2. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Remove Winston Churchill

There is some talk above in the FDR discussion regarding removing Churchill. The only other English leader we have on this list is Elizabeth I. This could be a controversial nomination, but I would at least consider removing Churchill even if he is not removed. Interstellarity (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support the nom.
  2. In the grand context of this list, Churchill is a minor figure that is already covered by the broader World War II article. As GuzzyG says above, there's no contest between William the Conqueror, who's not on this list, or Geoffrey Chaucer, who's also not on this list, and Churchill, who should be removed. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support in spirit. per my comment below. GuzzyG (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  4. Support per discussion. --Thi (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  5. Support. I agree with replacing Churchill with William the Conqueror. Gizza (talk • voy) 03:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  6. Support. Churchill is generally overrated as a leader, and we already have a lot of representation on the list from the WWII/postwar period. And as far as British Prime Ministers go, I'd rank Benjamin Disraeli and William Gladstone ahead of Churchill. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The greatest Briton, sorry. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. Strong Oppose It was Churchill's resilience that allowed the Allies to keep on fighting, without him they would not have won the war. That contribution alone is enough to keep him on the list. I'd argue he is definitely not the least important leader on the list. Ideally I would like FDR on here too but I do not view him as more important to the war effort than Churchill.PaleoMatt (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Neutral
Discuss

It's easy to get wrapped in a contemporary fame outlook and Churchill's fame is one of the biggest, which means noone will agree with this nom or give it some thought. (Like honestly believing Churchill has greater longterm importance than people like Charles Darwin and thus that being the weakest big 3 Allied leader (when we dont list one of the others) and someone more de Gaulle like than the other two is more impressive than Darwin's contribution to Evolution theory.) One would beg to wonder why Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, the more individually accomplished Churchill of the 19th century does not have quite the long lasting historical importance to make this list as one would've suspected if you were in the 1800s. As figures whose importance is strongly based in wars tend not to hold in massive importance as the centuries go on and as that wars memory fades, so does importance except the primary instigators of it (Napoleon) and as Wellesley shows - not even the technical winners get to be the most important of the war. It's outright extreme to think that for centuries multiple people will hold onto enough longterm importance for this list for one event (Importance due to it being a World War or not, which conveniently enough we leave out the two main leaders of the non-Europe parts of the war anyway - by our coverage it's a Euro war). If history relegates people like William the Conqueror (Or Wellesley) to a level not of this list, it's hard to see how Churchill holds onto the importance required of this list. Contemporary fame or not, all evidence (Wellesley) says otherwise. As World War II still has contemporary importance - Churchill is a OK addition, but this "greatest Briton" is definitely over the top and in another century would be more Wellesley like than a George Washington or Julius Caesar. We can list heaps of Euro leaders like Charles Martel who stopped massive invasions that would've seriously changed the continent and they hold nothing long-term and are not on the list.

TLDR; He's a ok add for a contemporary list, but he's not a integral part of the list when we don't list Roosevelt, who had much more importance for the war effort. It is unfathomable why we have three Euro war leaders and not one that covers the main two combatants of the Pacific War. It's not clear to me why Stalin + Hitler for the Euro war and Roosevelt for the pacific war is a worse idea than Churchill. I don't care about fame but we should be proportionate. I don't think Churchill is any more important to a world view of history than Franklin D. Roosevelt and Emperor Meiji and both would be better adds to cover WWII than another person that covers the Euro side. British Empire covers Britain in WWII better. This may be the English Wiki but the United States and Japan's role in the war are more important to cover than Britain's when we already cover Hitler/Stalin and are under a strict limit. Imagine a textbook of the war that does not involve the main two pacific war participants. Without the war, per Historical rankings of prime ministers of the United Kingdom Clement Attlee is seen as just as worthy of a 20th century leader of Britain and we should not go by outright war mass fervor, as this always fades. If Yuri Gagarin is just a symbol and Sergei Korolev is true importance, than i don't see how Churchill isn't just a symbol of the war rather than Roosevelt who had many more hard accomplishments in his country and in the war and whose country actually remained a superpower and dominant power of the century. I strongly dispute this "greatest Briton" claim and it being automatically indicative of a place on this list or that a nomination like this is without any merit. GuzzyG (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Recasting part of Guzzy's comment in a rather more succinct way: let's not fall prey to recency bias. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I'll limit my comments to some narrow points. First, there was a third main combatant in the Pacific War (which was more than just the Pacific Ocean theater), which is represented by Mao. Second, Churchill's role in WWII was rather more than symbolic. That doesn't make him the greatest Briton, nor does it make him more vital than FDR or Meiji or de Gaulle, all of whom were also leaders of global significance. But unlike Chaucer or William I, his legacy is not confined to his impact on British history. Cobblet (talk) 08:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I'll also note that he was the main anti-Gandhi in the years leading up to Indian independence, which gives him some significance outside of the war, albeit not as great as his wartime significance. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Here's how you coatrack "world" importance for Churchill; importance in Africa because he fought in the Second Boer War and was in the Battle of Omdurman; importance in Asia for being the leader of the UK during the Battle of Singapore and being the main Anti-Indian independence figure, affecting Oceania (and Asia) with a role in the monumental Gallipoli campaign, major role in Europe (and history) for convincing his foreign secretary as prime minister to get in line in the War cabinet crisis, May 1940 with the support of the leader of his party Neville Chamberlain and importance in the Americas because of Leonard Jerome - also as a world renowned author as a Nobel Prize in Literature winner and a big time painter too Winston Churchill as painter - a jack of all trades, one could say.
But after all of this, Kwame Nkrumah, Shaka and Mansa Musa are all better for coverage of Africa than him (or Songhai Empire or Mali Empire). Emperor Meiji is still a better explanation of the larger role of the Pacific war and the build up of Japan (Mao was never involved in things like the Cairo Conference and it would be wrong to have him as the sole Pacific war person, i would love any professional encyclopedia to claim that). I would think Mustafa Kemal Atatürk would be a much better overall figure to cover for modern Turkey than any connection Churchill might have to a important campaign. We cover the Euro war with Hitler and Stalin and obviously Hernán Cortés was a much more (unfortunately..) successful figure in a anti-Indigenous campaign that severely changed the history of another continent. If we had to have another laureate it'd be Jean-Paul Sartre and another painter it'd be Raphael to finish the trilogy of the Italian masters. Churchill has his reach in alot of things, but every single one there is someone more important than him in. (Roosevelt for the War - America just has Lincoln as it's war symbol so there's no need for a massive Roosevelt push, of which Churchill has become the modern UK's symbol but as Arthur Wellesley shows this is not such a strong claim). Everything Britain had a larger role in outside of Europe with the world war (loss of it's colonies by Japan etc) is much better covered by the British Empire article, if he had to struggle to convince his foreign secretary to do something (and the cabinet/leader of his part) than it shows that he had checks to his dominance (unlike Hitler/Stalin who had a more direct impact on events) and the better representation would thus be the Empire itself.
William the Conqueror was a foreign national who invaded and completely changed the landscape of the country - the main country of the language of this project and thus being important to it (which gets cited alot for figures like Wagner or Disney). Abraham Lincoln's importance is just as confined to one nation, with no strong claim to importance in any other countries direct history and unlike Lincoln, William existed in a time when strict nation states were not as clear as they were in Lincoln's time. It's outright ludicrous to say someone regarded as the "father of English literature" is just relegated to British history when English is spoken by people on every continent and that's where his importance lies (to the language). William's and Chaucer's importance is tied to a much stronger tent pole than Churchill - of which he has many people to contend with (Hitler/Stalin/Roosevelt/Japan etc). The Crusades is just as important as World War II in the grand scheme of things (and the Religious nature of them lends greater importance) and yet figures like Pope Urban II, Richard I of England, Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor, Godfrey of Bouillon are all relegated to the level 4 list and worse figures like Saladin when nominated seen as less important than a opera composer. So if NO crusades figures are worthwhile today for this list - one has to wonder whether 3 World War II figures are going to last. As we're still close to the effects of WWII though, 3 is a reasonable number but than it must be Roosevelt or Meiji (or both too) - but there's no room for Churchill. There's just no clear path for him. Henry VIII is more important than Elizabeth and Peter the Great is more important than Catherine but we include Elizabeth and Catherine to include a wider range of figures and Roosevelt and Meiji is a wider range than having all 3 of Churchill/Stalin/Hitler. It took a bit to add Socrates because of the overlap with Plato - i don't see how 3 Euro WWII leaders is any better. It's not a matter on if Churchill is important it should be a matter on if it's adequate coverage to cover him and two other Euro WWII leaders when his spot could be used for a wider range (mainly the other side of the war). GuzzyG (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I hear what you're saying, but I'd still take Henry VIII over William I. I'd also take Urban II and Saladin over William I – to me the Crusades are more significant than the Norman conquest of England. I don't find it necessary to list Chaucer when English literature and at least six English writers are listed, and we're not listing foundational figures of literatures that are completely unrepresented on the list (e.g., Rumi or Ferdowsi), or rulers who invented a writing system as part of their nation-building efforts, such as Sejong or Ram Khamhaeng. The number of English writers already listed also makes me think that Hildegard of Bingen is a better choice than Chaucer. Lincoln is one historical figure whose symbolic importance I would not discount; and the ending of the slave trade certainly had some consequences outside the US. Coming back on topic though, I agree listing all of Churchill, Stalin and Hitler is in a way suboptimal, particularly if it turns out that's the major obstacle to putting FDR on the list. I'm more likely to support the swap of Franklin for FDR if this proposal is successful. Cobblet (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I have a resolution not to vote on People proposals while I'm here, but in spirit, I do think Saladin would be a really good swap for Churchill. And since a lot of people are discussing other leaders of the Middle Ages, he's definitely not the most famous Medieval figure nowadays, but I'd just like to toss Frederick II of Hohenstaufen out there as a suggestion. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5–0. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Remove Market (economics)

So this was the one last economics proposal on my list, and it originated from this proposal on Marketing.

If you link-hop from the earlier proposals Cobblet mentioned, the Market article has been swapped in & out a couple times already, so it arguably has a history of being borderline for this level.

More importantly though, I don't think it particularly adds much since other articles already provide good coverage from several angles:

  • Supply and demand addresses the core of the theory more precisely & concisely
  • Trade is a more general concept that includes market mechanisms
  • Retail provides much better coverage of actual physical markets & shops
  • Other articles like Business, Marketing, and Finance address how actual market participants act
Support
  1. Support as nom. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. Per nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  4. Support. Too much overlap with other listed articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  5. Support It is kind of dictionary-like at this level per above rathern than an article with encyclopedic substance like the others mentioned. Gizza (talk • voy) 02:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 8–0. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2021 (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 Phoenicia

There was some discussion about this earlier today so I thought it could warrant its own section. --PaleoMatt (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. Nom
  2. Support. Highly influential ancient civilization whose influence spread throughout the Mediterranean region, founding other ancient civilization centers such as Carthage. The legacy of their impact on human civilization is demonstrated by their writing system being the historical basis for most modern writing systems today (and fun side note, I'm pretty sure it's where the word Phonics comes from, which is a superficial indicator of the importance of Phoenicia to modern linguistics). Rreagan007 (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    Fun folk etymology, but unfortunately "phonics" comes from "phon-" (c.f. "telephone", "microphone"), which is from an Indo-European root for "sound/to say". – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    Darn it! Well, I did say that I was "pretty sure", but I'll take your word for it that I'm wrong in this case. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    Funny enough though, I think it is pretty widely accepted that somehow the phoenix is related to them (no idea how exactly). --Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support The history of the ancient Levant is neglected. This fixes that. Cobblet (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  4. Support per all. Carthage is at Level 4, but we wouldn't need to promote it with Phoenicia's addition. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  5. Support, though there's maybe not as great a historical record of them, they're in the background doing all sorts of things in Classical Mediterranean culture. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  6. Support per above Gizza (talk • voy) 22:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  7. Support per unanimous support as of this posting. Jusdafax (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  8. Support per all. Interstellarity (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5–0. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Remove Taiwan

Taiwan may be central to a dispute with China but in general it is quite small compared to many countries currently not here at Level 3. Is Taiwan really worth being at Level 3 over countries like Algeria, Sudan, Malaysia, Ukraine, Netherlands, Peru etc.?

Support
  1. Support as nom. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. Per nom. Not as notable as the Koreas, Japan, etc. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support Only vital because of a geopolitical dispute, not a major country on enough dimensions like GDP, population, area, etc. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 01:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  4. Support reluctantly. Not particularly vital to the English Wikipedia relative to other countries that are not listed at this level. It is relatively small compared to most other countries listed and mainly notable due to geopolitics. Though, the same arguments could be made for Israel. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  5. Support per Bzweebl and Rreagan007. Interstellarity (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Hokusai and Frida Kahlo

WITHDRAWN
This will clearly not pass. Interstellarity (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

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


I have recenly proposed some musicians to create a more diverse list, but proposals such as Umm Kulthum and Ravi Shankar have failed. While I am not against including people from different parts of the world, I think these two people don't quite make the cut for the influence needed for a level 3 article. Interstellarity (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. Nom.
  2. Support. I agree. These two people are not among the ~130 most vital biographies on the English Wikipedia. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Strong oppose If we don't add a woman musician or a non-Western musician, we need representation of both women in the arts and non-Western arts even more. In particular, the arts of Asia and Latin America absolutely deserve to be represented on the list. That is why Kahlo has been kept here. And really, no excuses need to be made for Hokusai at all: he was simply as globally influential as any of the other artists listed. Van Gogh in particular owed a lot to Hokusai and should be removed first. Cobblet (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Cobblet --PaleoMatt (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Kahlo per Cobblet, neutral on Hokusai. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  4. Strong oppose If the goal in the music section is diversity and that didn't succeed, taking away Art's diversity isn't the solution. Frida Kahlo has the most pageviews in all languages of any painter listed not named Da Vinci (and thus every painter), she's clearly a predominant painter in today's culture and it holds up even more when painters are not big in mass culture - but Kahlo is. They're both supremely important to the history of art. It'd be a mistake. Hokusai is one of the big influences on Claude Monet, Monet should go first, him and Van Gogh overlap to a extent. I am fine with every artist listed as is, there's not much work needed here. (except swapping Wagner/Monet for Frank Lloyd Wright/Sarah Bernhardt to cover every major cultural base today and then it'd be good) GuzzyG (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
This proposal will likely not pass given that it earned 5 oppose votes. Interstellarity (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2021 (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 Greece

Greece probably doesn't have much influence today, but it has a long history spanning 4,000 years. It's probably the most influential country not listed in human history. I recognize that it doesn't have a big population and economy, but Greece is home to philosophers, mathematicans and more. Another country we list that has a small population is Israel and I think that is listed also because of its long history. Interstellarity (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. Nom.
  2. Support - Very important country in history and we have less important countries listed on this level like Israel and Taiwan.PaleoMatt (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. --Thi (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  4. Support as country articles are some of the most important articles for any encyclopedia, and Greece is a more important country article to have listed than at least a couple of the countries we currently list at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Ancient Greece, Ancient Greek philosophy, and many Ancient Greek philosophers and mathematicians are already listed. Cobblet (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. Ancient Greece takes care of all the important information. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. Israel is listed, if I'm not mistaken, due to its present influence in geopolitics and its status as a homeland for the Jews, and also because we don't list much of its ancient history. I don't know how Taiwan got on this list since we already have China, but maybe it's due to the inter-China dispute. As others have said, Ancient Greece is sufficient, not to mention Byzantine Empire. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, reluctantly as someone that's part-Greek. On top of what everyone else pointed out, we also currently have Greek language and Greek alphabet. Greece today actually does still punch above its weight more than some people may realize (like in shipping), but as a contemporary country, it isn't particularly large or influential. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Athens in cities is the much better add and the much more important article (and Baghdad or Damascus, if Richard Wagner and Walt Disney are listed for being apart of western culture than they're certainly not more important than Athens. Switzerland, Sweden and the Ukraine are the only other Euro countries i would support being listed here. For diversity reasons, Sudan, Kazakhstan, Algeria, Peru, Venezuela, Chile, Morocco, Iraq - by a range of metrics or stuff like Mali Empire or Songhai Empire would be much more needed articles than modern Greece. Ancient Greece is enough, but Athens should certainly be in the city section - and while Singapore is a city-state - it should be moved to countries and the article is more a country one than a city. GuzzyG (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Discuss

Previous discussion here. Cobblet (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Unanimous support for addition. Interstellarity (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2021 (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 Henry VIII

Given there is some discussion regarding adding Henry VIII, I think this is a good time to propose it's addition which I previously proposed less than a year ago. Interstellarity (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Previous discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_16#Swap:_Remove_Elizabeth_I,_Add_Henry_VIII
Support
  1. Nom
  2. Support Per my previous comments, I can support what is essentially a swap of Winston Churchill for Henry VIII. Cobblet (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. Sure. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  4. Support. Per my comments in the previous nomination, he's more vital than Elizabeth I, so he should definitely be listed at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  5. Support - per all above. - PaleoMatt (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  6. Support His Dissolution of the Monasteries alone had a great impact in English history. Dimadick (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
I am closing this early since it is not likely to pass. Interstellarity (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove The Beatles, add Martin Luther King, Jr

In the FAQ linked above, it states that all people in level 3 are dead. However, two members of The Beatles are still alive, maybe warranting that article for level 4 instead. I have no doubt that, at some point in history, it will be moved back up to level 3, but I'm just trying to stay consistent with the guidelines set above.

MLK Jr, however, has pretty firmly planted his place in history as one of (if not the most) important Civil Rights Activists in American (world?) history. At the time of writing, there are over 1000 streets in America named after him, 26 statues/memorials around the world (8 of which are international), multiple museums that prominently feature him, and he's the only American that was not a president to have a national holiday name after him. ChipotleHater (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
  1. The Beatles as a group is listed, not each individual Beatle (living or dead), so the no-living persons rule is not violated. As for MLK, we already have Nelson Mandela. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 11:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per John M Wolfson -- PaleoMatt (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose removal per above, neutral on MLK being added. Jusdafax (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. We already list Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi at this level, who have a more global significance. King is more isolated to the U.S. in terms of significance. And in terms of American leaders, FDR is more important than King, and he isn't listed at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  5. Oppose addition per Rreagan007, oppose removal for practical reasons. --Thi (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Neutral
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
I am closing this early since this is not likely to pass. Interstellarity (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Remove one of Tanzania or Kenya

I get diversity is important with geography, but for East African purposes we already have these two countries, which border one another and neither of which IMO is as vital as the Netherlands, as well as Ethiopia. I'm slightly partial to removing Tanzania since Kenya is better known in Western culture, but I can see how Zanzibar swings this towards Kenya. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom, see above. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose for now... I'm willing to be swayed on this but I think both countries are large enough in their own right to remain on the list. May be ironic since I am the one who proposed we add the Netherlands but I think both Kenya and Tanzania are more vital. If consensus was made to remove one of these two though I would pick Kenya. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  2. Strong oppose Saying we need only one of Tanzania or Kenya for "East African purposes" is like saying we only need only one of the UK/France/Germany/Spain for "Western European purposes". The population of East Africa (as defined by the UN geoscheme) exceeds that of the entire European Union (which FWIW is also listed). Listing three East African countries is absolutely reasonable when we list five EU countries and two EU cities, and I would in fact support listing a fourth – Uganda is the most populous country in the world not currently listed, according to UNWPP projections for 2021. Cobblet (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  3. Strong oppose per Cobblet, geographic diversity is essential and we should be representing more people than a bunch of countries cluttered in one area. I would also support Uganda per Cobblet, although Algeria and Sudan are listed above it by population here [25] and are not included. We need more countries, more than what is represented here - to have double the biographies of countries and cities combined is also odd. I would prefer Algeria and Kazakhstan to cover the top 10 countries in land mass, Uganda, Sudan, Ukraine, Iraq and Peru to cover areas we lack and to balance out the coverage we have. Maybe Venezuela, Morocco and Ghana. Places like Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, Greece, Republic of Ireland and New Zealand might seem more important and are perennial noms but we already cover their area in a way we don't the others. Even regions like the Caribbean, Central America and Polynesia should be included to cover regions that a country itself may be to small to cover. Netherlands might seem to have more overall importance due to how the modern world is structured, but we should be aiming for a more total coverage regarding everything than a cluttered coverage focusing in one area. GuzzyG (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  4. Oppose More countries are needed. --Thi (talk) 07:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  5. Oppose For better or worse, countries are the foundation of contemporary human society. We should add more, and I think most of GuzzyG’s suggestions are good. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 01:20, 11 March 2021 (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.

Presidents of the United States

This list only includes only two presidents of the US: George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. I was wondering how many presidents we should have at this level. I would personally go no more than 3. We could add Franklin D. Roosevelt since he is considered to be one of the top 3 presidents. If one gets taken out, I would probably go with taking out Lincoln although I think he might be too important to remove. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this. Maybe we can use the discussion to talk about how many leaders from other countries we should have. For example, the UK has Elizabeth I and Winston Churchill. Interstellarity (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times. Search for FDR in the archives, for instance. I should also point out that the US has three political leaders including Franklin, and Russia is the only other country with three (Catharine the Great, Lenin, Stalin). Cobblet (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@Cobblet: I definitely don't think we should go over 3 leaders. I would probably support removing Benjamin Franklin in favor of FDR. There was a discussion in the archives regarding adding FDR back in 2014 and one on removing Franklin in 2019. I think enough time has passed sine then to revive that discussion. There weren't many participants in that particular discussion so we could revive that discussion if we wanted to. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on a swap of Franklin in favor of FDR. Interstellarity (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't particularly care which third American politician we pick. Good arguments can be made for either. This is a list of 1000 articles that should have high-quality articles, not the 1000 most important high-quality articles to have. Cobblet (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I could see having 3 presidents. FDR fits well with Stalin, Hitler, and Churchill, though I am reluctant to remove Franklin. That said, Lincoln's not going anywhere; Tolstoy called him the greatest statesman of all time, as an example of his international repute. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Please see nom below. Interstellarity (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1–3, not added. --Rreagan007 (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Benjamin Franklin, Add Franklin D. Roosevelt

There are three Americans on this list Washington, Lincoln, and Franklin. I strongly feel that Washington and Lincoln should stay on the list. I think FDR would make a better choice for this list because he is considered along the lines of Washington and Lincoln, one of the country's greatest and most influential presidents. As mentioned above, arguments can be made for and against the removal and addition. Interstellarity (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. Nom.
Oppose
  1. Oppose. We already list Stalin, Hitler, and Churchill. We don't need another WWII leader. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    Au contraire, those plus FDR are the canonical major WW2 leaders with the Grand Alliance, not including "minor" leaders such as Mussolini and de Gaulle, and he thereby might be conspicuous in his absence. Even failing that, he did the New Deal and is the only American president to go beyond two terms. I'm overall neutral on this thing (Franklin was the "first American" and invented a lot of stuff, after all), but there's more to FDR than what is credited. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 10:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    Four is still too many to list at this level in my opinion. Would you be willing to remove one of those three for FDR? I think Hitler and Stalin are absolutely essential. Churchill I think is generally overrated as a leader, so I'd consider removing him. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Franklin removal - Franklin is listed as an inventor, not as a president, which of course he never was. Removing him is a really bad idea, even if it means gaining FDR. Read the Franklin article. Jusdafax (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose While I think Roosevelt is much more important than Washington, Benjamin Franklin's studies on electricity have had a much larger impact than either of them. Dimadick (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Discuss

Discussion should be moved here before it overwhelms that sectiohn; but i agree with Reagan. Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin were the most powerful leaders of the Allies and WWII was not just Europe. FDR covers the Pacific War the best. Stalin and Hitler cover the Euro side and FDR covers both sides; the Commonwealth was involved in the Pacific, but not to the level of the US; for a balanced coverage of the war FDR covers it better than Churchill. Might be a bold claim; but i don't think Churchill is more important to English history than William the Conqueror or Geoffrey Chaucer either, who we both lack. I'd also support Emperor Meiji to cover Japan's rise, which would cover their role in WWII. The only issue is Teddy is far more known than FDR and Churchill is more known than both; but i think a bold swap of Churchill for FDR would be the best for our coverage of WWII. We also don't list a leader for the US in the 20th century, arguably at it's peak which seems odd. GuzzyG (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

If we have to choose a medieval British writer for entry, I would choose Geoffrey of Monmouth over Chaucer. He He is the main source for British mythology and the Arthurian legend. I agree that Churchill is not the most important figure in British history. Dimadick (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1–4, not added. --Rreagan007 (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Area & Volume, Add Size

So even though I'd like to see the Math section beefed-up some overall, I do think some of the Geometry articles could be consolidated.

Since Area & Volume are pretty much analogous concepts, it seems like a waste to list both of them. Instead of just choosing one though, why not subsume them under the very basic concept of Size? We do something similar with Shape already.

Funny enough, that article's not even listed under Level 5, and at just a first glance, it's pretty good for a Start-rated article. It seems to do a pretty good job of hitting all the mathematical concepts, even if very briefly for now.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per my comments in the previous nomination. Also I will oppose the addition of any article that's not on level 4. Cobblet (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
    So that previous discussion is interesting because I wasn't originally going to suggest this one. There's a more precise article on Magnitude (mathematics), but it's much barer (it only even mentions area / volume once) and I took Shape as a precedent that the more basic, every-day article was preferred.
    I'll go ahead & leave this up for a little while in case there's a lot of interest, but maybe sticking with Area & Volume for now is the way to go, despite the redundancy. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Measurement covers Size. --Thi (talk) 10:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
    That is true that Measurement touches on size, but it looks more complementary to the mathematical concept of Measure (mathematics), which is too esoteric for this level. The Size article isn't ideal, but it does discuss the mathematics some, plus it's definitely the most basic & common form of the concept. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. Leaning oppose. I wrote the size article primarily in an effort to capture the more direct human experience of the term. I suppose there could be better interconnectedness between the concepts. BD2412 T 17:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
    Well, I have to say, I don't think you (or whoever added the bottom part) did a half-bad job of discussing the math, especially for what's supposed to be the start of an extremely accessible topic. Though it's pretty clear this will fail, I'm going to let it run down just in case people want to talk more about how the articles could connect better, like you mentioned.
    It's a tricky consolidation to address. There's a clear general topic (Measure), but it's too advanced. There's a more accessible topic (Magnitude), but it's arguably a more historical inverse of Measure (map numbers to geometric objects, rather than vice versa). Then there's Size, which is clearly accessible, general, and nails the intuition. Plus while it's not a rigorous concept itself, it could easily discuss all the math at a basic level. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. I think area and volume are important enough concepts on their own to merit inclusion. I would also note that Size isn't currently listed at Level 4 (or Level 5, though I might add it there myself). Rreagan007 (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Discuss

The person who wrote the article previously proposed adding it here. Cobblet (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5–2, added. --Rreagan007 (talk) 05:31, 16 March 2021 (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 William the Conqueror if Churchill removal passes

Removing Churchill looks at least possible to pass, so we should have a replacement for English/British history. My main suggestion here is William the Conqueror, as he is the last person to date to successfully and hostilely invade and conquer England and begins English/British regnal numbering. I'd be fine with other additions such as Henry VIII, Chaucer (but not any other writers given that we already have a lot), English Civil War/Cromwell/one of the Charleses, or even (to a lesser extent if Churchill doesn't make the cut) Disraeli/Gladstone/one of the Pitts. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. Per nom and above comment. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. Support. I also support adding Henry VIII. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support Highly influential ruler. Dimadick (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  4. Support we have a 400 year gap in between Charlemagne and Genghis Khan. Which William and Saladin would cover perfectly. Henry VIII is important but it's more important to lower this 400 year gap and the 800 year gap between Augustus and Charlemagne (with Emperor Taizong of Tang and Constantine the Great) than to double stack two English monarchs in among others of the time period (Catherine). I would support Henry though since it looks he'll pass, cause he would fit - i just do prefer covering the time period gap more. GuzzyG (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  5. Support - He helped establish the England as we know it. Interstellarity (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per comments above, but I'd support adding Henry VIII if Churchill does get removed. I was previously too negative on listing both Henry VIII and Elizabeth I – it wouldn't be much different from listing both Caesar and Augustus and both Lenin and Stalin. Cobblet (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Addition of Henry VIII is going to pass. 100 biographies and 50 countries would be more suitable. --Thi (talk) 08:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1–4, not added. --Rreagan007 (talk) 06:38, 16 March 2021 (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 Language family

This one's pretty straight-forward. There was a clear consensus to keep Indo-European languages listed, but that means we have a specific instance of a concept introduced before the concept itself.

We have the slots free & this is one the basic objects of comparative linguistics.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. The general article on Language covers this concept sufficiently. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Rreagan007. It's simply not the case that this list always contains a concept along with a specific instance of that concept. None of the professions used as headings in the People section are listed at this level; Great Barrier Reef is listed before coral reef; various international organizations are listed without any broader article on international relations; Chinese characters appears on this list but logogram is not even on level 5; we list all sorts of biological taxa without listing Taxonomy (biology); etc. Cobblet (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    These are all good points; it probably just still feels odd to me to see only the IE family listed without a related article to situate it. We do list more IE languages, but that alone doesn't convey why it's singled out.
    In those other examples, I imagine it's relatively common-knowledge how they're uniquely notable, or for the people, their category is just part of their biography. I guess the history section of the IE article itself explains its special place in linguistics, plus the other headers show it's one of many instances.
    Anyways, this proposal may just come from a weird aesthetic quirk of mine when I look at the list, but I'll let it run down in case it brings up more discussion. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Cobblet. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Dawid2009 (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
3–5, not added. Cobblet (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2021 (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 Tim Berners-Lee

This could be a controversial nomination since this person is still living. People on the level 3 represent the pinnacles of their fields. For example, Alan Turing is the pinnacle of the computer field while Berners-Lee represents the Internet. At this point, I think it's clear when Berners-Lee's legacy is. If you oppose this nomination, would you support this nomination when Berners-Lee passes away? Interstellarity (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support nom.
  2. Support I don't think him still being alive matters, the creator of the World Wide Web is definitely worthy of a place here in my opinion. - PaleoMatt (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support Computer scientists are underrepresented, given the importance of their field. Dimadick (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Since he's a living person. I may or may not support it when he passes away, but I personally think Elon Musk would be a better choice if all goes according to his plans. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I don't think that another computer scientist besides Alan Turing is really needed. --Thi (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose living person. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. While I'm not totally opposed to adding a living person, I don't think this person's accomplishments make him the most important person alive today. And if we were to add him as the only living person listed, that's basically what we would be saying. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per above. If Mendeleev is considered to be redundant to the periodic table as discussions below suggest, Berners-Lee is likewise redundant to the World Wide Web/internet. Gizza (talk • voy) 06:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Neutral
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5–1, added. --User:PaleoMatt (talk) 11:42, 25 March 2021 (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 Netherlands

This was proposed in 2019 however not much was said against the inclusion so I'd like to propose this again. The Netherlands may be a small country however we already have Israel at Level 3 which has a smaller population AND economy (I'd actually consider removing Israel at this level since I think Jerusalem is enough coverage but that's for another time) and Saudi Arabia with a smaller economy. The Netherlands certainly has a lot going for it despite being small, being the home of Europe's busiest seaport in Rotterdam, and the Hague is home to multiple intergovernmental organisations and the International Criminal Court, Amsterdam is also a popular tourist destination. Many influential artists (Rembrandt, Vermeer, van Gogh, Mondrian, Escher), philosophers (Erasmus, Spinoza, Descartes) and inventors (Huygens, Leeuwenhoek) have come from or did much of their work in the Netherlands and it has been a major player in world trade for centuries thanks in part to its past control of the East Indies. It is also important as an early modern democracy and being one of the most progressive countries in the world. Similar to some other former colonial empires, it also still holds overseas territories in the Caribbean. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  2. Per nom; its founding of modern capitalism is sufficient for this list IMO. Ideally we'd have a removal to go along with this, but I'm fine with a raw addition for now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support per previous nomination. --Thi (talk) 07:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  4. Support. I think its historical importance is enough to warrant inclusion despite its relatively small size. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  5. Support per all. Interstellarity (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not more important than Taiwan which was just removed. Taiwan has a bigger population and comparable GDP (smaller in nominal terms, larger in terms of PPP), and is a similarly progressive and democratic country. Cobblet (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
    Actually, it's more important historically. Taiwan's history is generally covered by China, Japan, and Western imperialism in Asia, while the Netherlands has a unique history that includes founding the modern stock market (think Tulip Mania), escaping its own doom from floods, establishing what became New York City, and colonizing Indonesia. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
    The Taiwan Miracle is not covered by any of the articles you mentioned. Dutch mercantile history is covered by other articles on the list, including, of course, Western imperialism in Asia. You're also ignoring Taiwan's current geopolitical importance. Cobblet (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
    I don't think the Taiwan Miracle is necessarily worth inclusion in this list (any more than, say, those of the other Four Asian Tigers), otherwise we'd have stuff like Ireland due to the Celtic Tiger. Its geopolitical situation is a better argument; upon further reflection I'd say the main reason fellow geopolitical affair Israel is still on this list (despite some mulling to remove it lately) while Taiwan isn't is that Israel is more culturally unique as the Jewish homeland while Taiwan, despite its indigenous tribes, is largely Chinese (of course, there's probably some Anglocentric/Americentric bias at play as well). I don't know what that says about the Netherlands, just an interesting observation on my end. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
    Ireland is an irrelevant comparison as both Taiwan and the Netherlands have substantially larger economies. Yes, Taiwan has never reached the same kind of historical importance than the Netherlands did during the 16th and 17th centuries; but aspects of that period of Dutch history are covered in Renaissance, Age of Discovery, European colonization of the Americas, Western imperialism in Asia, Reformation, and Scientific Revolution. Dutch cultural achievements are represented by Van Gogh and Rembrandt. To list the Netherlands on top of all that while not listing a country with a larger population and comparable influence in global politics and economics is blatant Western bias. I opposed the addition of countries like Taiwan and Malaysia because I don't think listing smaller countries with industrialized economies should be our highest priority. But if we're adding the Netherlands, I'd support adding both those countries, as well as the UAE. Cobblet (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PARTIAL PASS
Theocracy removed 5-1. --Thi (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Theocracy, Add (Oligarchy or Republic)

I definitely think that Theocracy should be removed because it doesn't seem to be that important in history. I think Oligarchy and Republic are good choices. Interstellarity (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. Nom.
  2. Support swapping Theocracy for Republic. --Salvabl (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support removing Theocracy. Cobblet (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  4. Support removing Theocracy. --Thi (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  5. Support adding Oligarchy: I feel this is actually the strongest of the 3 changes; besides sociology articles on class & political power, we don't seem to cover government by elites (hereditary, wealthy, etc.) There's also the subtlety that oligarchic facets cut across other forms of government. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  6. Support adding Oligarchy Far more enduring than either theocracies or republics, and one of they key aspects of human civilization. Dimadick (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  7. Support removing Theocracy -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose both additions. A republic is just any non-monarchy. The term oligarchy is used to characterize either certain forms of authoritarianism (which I note is not on level 4) or democracies with serious inequalities. Given we list social equality, and we also list dictatorship, I'm not sure the article on oligarchy adds a lot to the list's coverage of politics. Cobblet (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose additions. Republic is not as important as democracy and Oligarchy is not as important concept as democracy and dictatorship. --Thi (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose removal & adding Republic: even though it's unusual in current times, I think Theocracy (or theocratic institutions at least) is pretty common historically, maybe even the norm? It's also another political category that cuts across the usual rule by one/few/many. As for Republic, I would support adding it with more slots, but for now, we already cover several specific republics indirectly, plus common republican ideas like Political party & Constitution. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3, not swapped. --Thi (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Human behavior, Add Behavior

I think behavior in all organisms is fundamentally more important than behavior in just humans. Interstellarity (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. Nom.
Oppose
  1. Oppose Behavior is not even listed on level 4. Only ethology is listed there. Cobblet (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Human behavior is about human social psychology and anthropology, Ethology would belong to Biology section. --Thi (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose both per above -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Discuss

@Cobblet: Would you support moving Behavior up to at least level 4? Interstellarity (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Not if everything behaviour could cover is already covered by human behaviour and ethology. Cobblet (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, swapped. --Thi (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Dimension, Plane, & Polyhedron; Add Solid geometry Three-dimensional space

This is another consolidation I think we could do of the Geometry section. My main reasoning for this is that since we avoid advanced topics at this level, there's no need to generalize beyond 2 or 3 dimensions yet:

  • For Dimension, we already include Space under the Physics section & several 2D topics
    • Solid geometry will cover 3D, and there's no need to explicitly address higher-dimensions at this level
  • For Plane, the concept only starts coming into play when you talk about things in 3D
    • Whether that's embedding, analysis, or generalizing some properties of lines to higher-dimensions, the specific operations probably aren't that vital
  • For Polyhedron, we already list Polygon (their analogue), plus they're not necessarily more important than other solids or surfaces

The only downside I can see is that the Solid geometry article definitely isn't very far along. That doesn't take away from how central the topic is though.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support. Both Dimension and Three-dimensional space seems fine. Polyhedron is weakest article. --Thi (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  4. Support per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  5. Support per all -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Solid geometry is not on level 4. Three-dimensional space is though. If that is proposed as the addition instead, then I can support the proposal as a whole. Cobblet (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a really good find; I went ahead & updated the proposal for it instead. At first, the name made me think it might focus only on the space itself, not geometric solids, but it has a really good survey of surfaces, polyhedra, etc. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED/NO CONSENSUS
3-3, not added. --Thi (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2021 (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 Leaf

Surprised this isn't here already being an important part of plant anatomy, arguably more so than flower which is already listed here. PaleoMatt (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. -PaleoMatt (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. Plant is at Level 2, so sure. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support, it's a pretty basic thing & we have the room for it now. The only issue I see is it pushes Science one article over exactly 200; I'm not sure if anyone was targeting that count exactly. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I think listing photosynthesis is sufficient. Cobblet (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Leaf and photosynthesis have too much overlap for this level. --Thi (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Cobblet and Thi. Jusdafax (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
2-4, not removed. --Thi (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Remove Greek alphabet

So I know some of you would like to add even more about Greece, so you may not like this. But in my recent proposal on Indo-European languages, there was discussion on how having both Greek alphabet and Greek language is probably redundant at this level.

My thinking is that the Greek language is still pretty influential through much of the world's vocabulary for science, technology, medicine, philosophy, etc. The Greek alphabet, however, is much more of a niche topic today; at least in the English-speaking world, outside of occasional references in Christianity and math shorthand, it seems to pretty much be a novelty (e.g. fraternity names, crossword puzzle clues).

Unlike listing both Latin and Latin script, the only living language that still uses the alphabet is Modern Greek; its other child alphabet, Cyrillic script, is also more widely-used. And if you want to look at it historically, it's technically just an adapted Phoenician script, so only a few aspects of it are uniquely Greek innovations.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. Support Swapping this for a non-Indo-European language would be a good idea. Cobblet (talk) 06:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The first western alphabet, still used widely in mathematics and fraternities, not to mention in such concepts as "alpha male" and "alpha and omega". – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    By that logic, English alphabet, English punctuation, Arabic numerals or Hindu–Arabic numeral system, Glossary of mathematical symbols, and Currency symbol should all be individually listed, since they're all used more widely than Greek letters. In particular, Hindu-Arabic numbers were the first base-10 positional notation system. Cobblet (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    The English alphabet is just the Latin alphabet with a few tweaks, far more a trivial difference than Latin and Greek. The mathematical symbol glossary is a glossary/list and thus by custom disqualified. I would support Arabic numerals in one article or another, and am quite frankly gobsmacked they're not already on here. Currency symbols are subsidiary to their respective currencies. It's not just widespread use, it's also widespread use and identity. Even though we use the Latin alphabet and its variants, the Greek alphabet still has a role to play in Western culture in the uses I have described above, and is on the same level in terms of impact as Latin and Cyrillic. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per John M Wolfson --PaleoMatt (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Historically significant. Dimadick (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Discuss

Perhaps we should make this a swap with Phoenician alphabet, given its historical importance for modern writing systems. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding Phoenicia must surely be a higher priority than anything more specific on the Phoenician language. Cobblet (talk) 06:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Hmm perhaps, but we currently list Greek language and Greek alphabet but not Greece. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Surely you are aware that Ancient Greece is listed. Cobblet (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
True. Phoenicia is probably a good candidate to add to the list given their importance in the ancient Mediterranean region, spawning other important civilization centers like Carthage. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
In my view, given what else is present on the History list, it's a much better choice than adding the Spanish Empire. Cobblet (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2021 (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.

(talk) 06:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

FAILED
I am closing this early since it is not likely to pass. Interstellarity (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2021 (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 Mary, mother of Jesus

Seems pretty obvious in my opinion. Mary is likely the most famous, most influential woman to have lived. She is a central figure in Christianity as well as in Islam, with both religions hailing her as the greatest woman to have ever lived. She is one of the most widely studied Biblical figures, and the subject of a broad swath of religious writing and dogma (e.g. Catholic Mariology). Mary is one of the most prominent subjects of art in the Western world (e.g. Madonna (art)). Since we could use more women on this list, I think that Mary is an obvious choice, especially since our French-language counterpart also lists her. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.
  2. Support although we already have Jesus (who would admittedly be a Level-2 biography if we had such things) and Paul the Apostle, Mary has appeared on toast (and other forms of visions) far more often than any other figure in Christianity. My main qualm is that Mariology is primarily a Catholic phenomenon; her presence in Islam tends to compensate for that IMO. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. The "most influential woman to have lived"? Besides giving birth to Jesus (who is already listed) what else did she do in her life that was so influential? Rreagan007 (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Her biography is sufficiently coverd by the article of Jesus and Greek mythology would be wider subject of art. --Thi (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above. Gizza (talk • voy) 07:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  4. Oppose We already have so many Christianity figures and it's unjustifiable to list more when we have only one for Islam (missing Ali) and have no strict Judaism representatives (like Maimonides); i'd even prefer a modern NRM figure or theologian like Karl Barth than another old Christianity figure and for someone more recent than Martin Luther to be added. Even a modern Hindu figure like Ramakrishna or Swami Vivekananda would be better than Mary. GuzzyG (talk) 06:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  5. Oppose She isn't that important and we should be prioritising figures of other religions if we are to add any more. PaleoMatt (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Neutral
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.

Leaders of democracies

Of the twenty-eight men and women that we list as the world's most influential political leaders, only three of them (George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Nelson Mandela) were leaders of democratic governments. I feel as though this is a significant underrepresentation of one form of government, especially given that democracy is the most popular system of governance today. We recently removed Winston Churchill from this list. I believe that this was a mistake; although Churchill was arguably a more minor player in the Second World War compared to Stalin or FDR, he is an extremely well-known democratic politician whose influence as a cultural icon and political symbol is pervasive through much of the Anglosphere. In the past four years, Churchill is only passed by Adolf Hitler as the most looked-up World War II leader. Churchill's pageviews also far surpass those of others on this list, such as Catherine the Great or William the Conqueror. However, since he was recently removed, I'm not going to lament his absence any longer.

An excellent addition to this list would be Franklin D. Roosevelt, who alongside leading the United States during the Second World War also orchestrated the establishment of much of the United States' welfare state. I would normally suggest swapping either Lenin or Stalin for FDR. We may also wish to add women leaders, such as Corazon Aquino or Margaret Thatcher. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

  • We recently had a discussion on swapping out Franklin for FDR, but that failed. I'd support a swap with Lenin, however, as we already have Stalin. The reason we don't list that many democratic leaders is that democracy, while currently the most popular form of government, is fairly recent (not including ancient Athens, which we cover with the Socrates-Plato-Aristotle trio, though we might be justified in adding Pericles), and female leaders of democratic governments even more so. Thatcher is the unlisted half of "Thatcher-Mandela", but covering her at this level probably seems a bit much given the recency of her legacy and the fact that we neither list Churchill (currently) nor Reagan. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the removal of Churchill was a mistake, and even more of a mistake was adding BOTH William the Conqueror and Henry VIII... but since this is so recent I'll leave that here. I do think FDR being added would be a good choice to add potentially to replace one of the English kings. I think there really is a current problem with the list of politicians we have in that many feel there is some (such as FDR) which really should be added but also none of the ones listed feel like they should be removed. We do have some which could be viewed as less important but they generally are women which need coverage on the list. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I thought one of the reasons for removing Churchill was basically to make room for adding FDR. I don't really see why anyone else needs to be removed from the list just to add him. As for Henry VIII and William I, they are both more important than Elizabeth I, so if you want to remove an English monarch, it should be her. She's also less important than other English/British monarchs that aren't currently listed, such as Alfred the Great (in terms of actual accomplishments) and Queen Victoria (in terms of cultural significance). Rreagan007 (talk) 06:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I would be fine with a Victoria/Elizabeth swap. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
On the contrary, I would argue Elizabeth I is history's most influential English monarch. Her successful repulse of the Spanish Armada marked the preeminence of the English on the seas, set the Spanish Empire on its decline, and consequently secured England's position as the foremost colonizer of North America. People give Henry VIII credit for shifting England away from Catholicism and towards Protestantism, but the religious situation was still incredibly shaky during and after Henry's reign. It was Elizabeth's Religious Settlement that forever wed England to Protestantism. We should also not forget to mention Elizabeth's patronage of the arts, which allowed authors like Shakespeare, Marlowe and Jonson to flourish. These men are titans of the English cannon today, and their works were born out of the social and political environment developed during Elizabeth's reign. She is whole leagues ahead of Victoria in terms of her influence, and I would argue that her influence on English and British history is greater than any other political leader, including both Henry and William. She absolutely merits her place here -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

This is just how history turns out if we go by "dominance" and "impact". Democratic leaders have checks to their power and normally co-operate with other members of government while authoritarian governments are a single person. Washington is listed because of the war, same with Lincoln and Mandela more for his activism and status as national hero more than political policy as a president. This is what stops any modern scientist from likely being a contender as they work in teams or collab more often, taking away the singular dominance figure. Bringing up Churchill's pageviews compared to William the Conqueror is ludicrous. I've checked pageviews (and document them down) of every person on every level of this list (and many others listed on my personal 50k list); this is normal, contemporary figures always outdo old figures. You wouldn't say Churchill is more important than Jesus, despite having more page views? You wouldn't say Ted Bundy is at Churchill's level because he has 7 million [26] less pageviews [27], either - funnily enough having 9 million more in English, or Pablo Escobar with 60 million more. [28].

Lenin and Stalin are no-gos for removal for me. We barely have any 20th century thought leaders (only Freud, who is contentious and to some discredited) and Marxism–Leninism is one of the main ideologies of the 20th century. That's more of a hard/actual impact influence on global thought than either Churchill or FDR made and Stalin is the primary Allied figure in Europe in WWII. Thoughts and ideas last longer than any government policy and this is Lenin's primary influence, in thought. John Maynard Keynes, Simone de Beauvoir and Bertrand Russell would be the only other options, but they don't have as much name recognition with the general public and i would prefer Hugo Grotius or Pāṇini first. Either way, i can't agree to drop another 20th century thought leader when we have so little. It's just like Caesar/Augustus - sometimes these things happen. This is exactly like having both Ben Franklin and Washington. If Lenin goes than i don't see how Franklin stays.

Any concerns about William the Conqueror fall apart when considering he filled a multi century gap between Charlemagne and Genghis Khan and that means more than having multiple WWII leaders, as it's probably better to cover every period of history rather than one century. By my count we have 10 figures from the first millennium; Augustus, Charlemagne, Jesus, Paul the Apostle, Muhammad, Adi Shankara, Jabir ibn Hayyan, Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, Li Bai and Abu Nuwas. If Churchill was still here (and we added FDR), we'd have 4 figures for one war in one century, nearly half the people we cover for one whole millennium. Either way, that's a bad job. Churchill is the weakest so he was removed. It's that simple. More people from this kind of era (like Maimonides) should be added over more 20th century people, but removing one of the thought leaders is seemingly not the right choice either. It means we'd have more filmmakers than people involved with 20th century thought. We probably have to dissect this whole list - but it needs to be done in consideration of everything else - or it just creates a worser bias. GuzzyG (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Also to anyone who knows how pageviews operates, Churchill is massively boosted by The Crown (TV series). Just like Escobar is by Narcos; Netflix has a massive pull worldwide and is a big pull in bringing in pageviews. In this case - as shown by Peter Townsend (RAF officer) - a minor figure boosted by The Crown and having 14 million pageviews [29], to the point he beats out Carl Linnaeus [30], but it's a bold claim to figure Townsend more important than him. Pageviews are useless for this kind of thing. One would hardly call Donald Trump at 339 mil [31], Elizabeth II at 232 mil [32] or Cristiano Ronaldo at 200 mil [33] the three most important people in history - despite having the highest pageviews and only ones off of the top of my head over 200 mil. (Controversy/The Crown/Every week stats check). GuzzyG (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I mentioned Churchill's view count only to support the point that he is an extremely well-known leader, not to suggest that we should base our list on page views alone (or that they should be a major factor). I agree with your point about 20th century thought leaders, though I still maintain that having both Stalin and Lenin on this list is excessive. Between the two, I would opt for axing Stalin. Lenin's role as the Soviet Union's founding father as well as his creation of a distinct Leninist ideology eclipses Stalin's legacy as a war leader. Stalin also has a foil in Mao. FDR's role not only in guiding the U.S. through WW2 but also in creating much of America's welfare state and ordering the construction of nuclear warheads makes him in my mind the democratic leader of the 20th century. As for other thinkers, I would honestly be willing to replace Freud with Keynes, given that the latter's work was hugely influential in 20th-century economic policy. In economics, Keynes is arguably a peer of Smith in terms of influence -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 01:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I think we can keep both Lenin and Stalin, much like we have both Caesar and Augustus, and all three of Socrates-Plato-Aristotle. Stalin is often viewed as a counterpart to Hitler in the West with his purges, while his Russian legacy is still vastly important due to WW2. I don't see a particularly convincing removal from the Politicians to make way for FDR (though I do think he should be in), but I think Dmitri Mendeleev is the weakest member of the overall People List, being as he is solely remembered for the Periodic Table, which we list on its own. (On a tangent, I'd also support a swap of Niels Bohr for Max Planck, but that's another debate). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 11:51, 26 March 2021 (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.
Withdrawing since we are almost at capacity for people.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Dmitri Mendeleev, Add Franklin D. Roosevelt

Per the discussion above. Mendeleev is known solely for inventing the periodic table, which while vital to modern-day chemistry we already list on its own, and is in my opinion the weakest person on this list. In addition, we already list Antoine Lavoisier (and to a lesser extent Marie Curie) to represent the chemists and if we absolutely needed another we could put Linus Pauling.

FDR, on the other hand, can rightfully be considered one of this list's main snubs, akin to not having Michael Jackson until recently. Like MJ, he's probably going to keep being proposed and suggested until he's eventually added. While his WW2 involvement is not significantly more prominent than the removed Churchill, he founded the modern American welfare state with the New Deal and, having defined American politics for at least the next several decades if not up to this day, is considered one of the "Great Three" American presidents alongside the listed George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. The previous swap failed not so much because he's not important as much because Benjamin Franklin was too important to remove. Mendeleev, while certainly Level 4 material, is less important than either figure (especially on the English Wikipedia) and can go to make room for both. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  2. Support removal History of chemistry would be more useful at this level. --Thi (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support I was originally set on removing one of Stalin or Lenin, but I think that this is a reasonable choice. The Periodic Table is already on our list, so we do not need Mendeleev since the table is his only real achievement of renown. I will say that I think, of all the sciences, Christiaan Huygens is missing, and I would be amenable to seeing him added in the future – Zelkia1101 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Strong oppose The arguments for removing Mendeleev are ludicrous. By the same logic, let's remove Darwin because evolution and natural selection are listed, Faraday because electromagnetism and redox are listed, and Gutenberg because printing is listed. Let's remove Linnaeus since Taxonomy (biology) is not even listed. Come to think of it, let's remove George Washington now that we've listed the American Revolution. The only "pure" chemists on the list are Lavoisier and Mendeleev, and replacing either of them with someone like Huygens when we have plenty of other physicists and astronomers makes no sense. Replacing the only Russian scientist on the list with a fourth American stateman is similarly senseless. It's worthwhile to consider adding history of physics, history of chemistry, history of biology, history of astronomy, history of psychology and the like; but removing seminal figures of those fields (I'd rank Mendeleev no less highly than Maxwell, Darwin, Copernicus, or Freud) in order to do that is unjustifiable when we're simultaneously considering adding a third American president. Cobblet (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
    The difference between Mendeleev and Darwin or Faraday or Gutenberg is that the latter men are known beyond one specific discovery or field of interest. For instance, while Darwin is primarily known for his work on evolution, he is also known for his work on human sexuality, geology, and the evolution of emotion. Darwin published significantly more than Mendeleev, and as I mentioned his scholarship stretched more vastly than Mendeleev. Diddo for Linnaeus or Faraday. George Washington is known for his achievements beyond the American Revolution. Mendeleev is known for just one thing, the periodic table. While his discovery of it is undoubtedly important, his name on this list is redundant since we already list the periodic table. There is a better case of Cai Lun on this list than Mendeleev. If you feel like chemists are underrepresented, we could always add Linus Pauling instead of Huygens, though I am partial to the latter as he is much, much more influential -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 12:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
    The periodic table is just one component of Mendeleev's legacy. Mendeleev wrote over 500 publications,[34][35] including not only Principles of Chemistry, which introduced the periodic table, but also Russia's first textbook on organic chemistry,[36] as well as on subjects as diverse as aeronautics, meteorology, agriculture, economic policy, and education.[37] He is acknowledged as the primary intellectual force behind Russia's industrialization in the late 19th century,[38] particularly with respect to modernizing its oil industry;[39] with introducing the metric system to Russia; and with persuading the Russian government to build the world's first polar icebreaker.[40] Mendeleev's contributions extend far beyond his work on the periodic table. That these things are not commonly celebrated in the West does not change that fact. The list needs people to represent industrialization outside the West far more than it needs a third American president. Cobblet (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
    I agree with Zelkia1101. I'm not saying we should remove Mendeleev solely because his work is already listed, but because he is also fairly obscure outside of that work and never reached the same level of impact/popular consciousness as all the other people you've listed. While I'm not going to insult or belittle it, suffice it to say that I highly disagree with your assessment of Mendeleev as on the same level of Maxwell or Darwin, much less Copernicus. When I think of Maxwell or Darwin, I think respectively "the electromagnetism guy" or "the evolution guy". I do not think with Mendeleev, "the chemistry guy" (much less "the chemistry guy"), I (and society writ large) just think "oh, the guy who invented the periodic table", which while important is inadequate for this list. As has been repeated, if we must have another chemist, there's always Linus Pauling, who wrote the book on the chemical bond and was the only person to win multiple non-shared Nobel Prizes. Perhaps that's a better swap target? (EDIT: Upon further reflection, I note that Chemistry is a valley between the peaks of Physics and Biology. There are a lot of "all-time greats" for Physics (Newton, Einstein, Galileo, etc.) as well as to a lesser extent Biology (Darwin, Pasteur, etc.), but Chemistry doesn't have a lot of "greats". I can see how Mendeleev might be used to fill in that role, but the only two figures that I feel are appropriate, with more substantial contributions and "people knowing who they are", would be Lavoisier and Pauling, making me feel even more confident with a Pauling swap.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
    I'm not surprised somebody who thinks that 'Chemistry is a valley between the peaks of Physics and Biology' and 'doesn't have a lot of "greats"' thinks that inventing the periodic table is "inadequate for this list". But I'm surprised such a person would claim to speak for "society writ large" and the "public consciousness". The periodic table is the single most universally recognizable graphical representation of scientific knowledge, and Mendeleev's prediction of undiscovered chemical elements based on gaps in his table is one of the very best known examples of the predictive power of scientific theory. You're entitled to express your personal opinion to the contrary, but you certainly do not speak for all people, least of all those who consider chemistry the central science. Pauling is not a bad choice for the list, but his unscientific vitamin C advocacy rather tarnishes his legacy in my view. And while it's nice that Pauling wrote the book on chemical bonding, Mendeleev wrote the book on chemistry. Cobblet (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
    Without prejudice to your other comments (with which we essentially have no choice but to agree to disagree), excluding Pauling due to his Vitamin C activity doesn't quite sit right with me; it's almost like excluding Newton due to his creationism, or Henry Ford due to his antisemitism (I understand these are imperfect analogies, but hopefully you get my idea). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
    Creationism and alchemy were accepted components of the natural philosophy of Newton's time, and Newton didn't influence millions of people into taking up the same beliefs. Ford's anti-Semitism doesn't change the fact he revolutionized American industry. But if you're going to nominate Pauling because you specifically think his legacy as a chemist is greater than that of Mendeleev's, you have to consider the impact of his failures in that area along with his successes. I daresay "society writ large" and the "public consciousness" is far more aware of Vitamin C and the Common Cold than The Nature of the Chemical Bond. Should the list of scientists include the man responsible for the single most high-profile example of quackery in history? He's right up there with Lysenko in terms of being remembered for widely disseminating bad science. Cobblet (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet -- PaleoMatt (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per Cobblet. Science is already decently well represented on this level. The only people i'd support the additions of under science are Francis Bacon, James Watt and Florence Nightingale or one of Wernher von Braun or Sergei Korolev because achievements in space is one of the main areas of human achievement we miss and astronauts are unpopular here....(along with Aviation, but Wright brothers are similarly unpopular here). The only area we don't cover well is social science, with Cicero, Pāṇini, Sun Tzu, Hugo Grotius, John Maynard Keynes, and Simone de Beauvoir being my choices to make that section more rounded (20 would be a good number). Also Islam could have another place with Ali and Judaism could use Maimonides, since Christianity has multiple. Hernán Cortés would be good to cover hard military leaders (with Joan) - same with Saladin. Either way, i strongly believe in covering things we don't cover over the things we cover and would similarly support covering journalism, entertainment and sports (level 4 areas we dont cover here) before we cover more scientists. GuzzyG (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Withdrawing as we are near capacity with people.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:59, 4 April 2021 (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 Linus Pauling and Ronald Fisher

In the above discussion of Mendeleev, it was noted that there are only two chemists on this list: Lavoisier and Mendeleev. This is largely because unlike Physics or Biology, Chemistry doesn't have a whole lot of "great figures" that have shaped its history and are embedded into popular consciousness. I suggested removing Mendeleev as he's known only for inventing the periodic table and is conspicuously obscure outside of that achievement, a view I still hold.

Might I suggest we put Linus Pauling, either in his place or alongside him? While he might suffer from the same "obscurity" problem, his achievements are far more than an organized list of elements. Pauling is the only person other than Marie Curie to win Nobel Prizes in different subjects, and the only person to win multiple non-shared prizes, and multiple retrospectives have called him among the top 20 scientists of all time. Within Chemistry, Pauling "wrote the book" on the chemical bond and invented the concept of electronegativity, explaining why certain bonds are covalent and others ionic. He also introduced the concept of orbital hybridization, bridging the gap between quantum physics and the molecules that you and I know and interact with. His work, among other things, inspired Watson and Crick to work on finding the structure of DNA. If Lavoisier is the Newton of Chemistry, then Pauling should well be the Einstein.

I'm also taking this opportunity to propose, more for discussion than an expectation that it'll pass, Sir Ronald Fisher, a man who pioneered the modern synthesis and brought Darwinism back from the grave in the early 20th century. He is a towering figure in both statistics and biology, introducing such techniques as ANOVA that are still used to this day (I should know, I studied Biology in undergrad). He is given the sobriquet of "the greatest of Darwin's successors", which is not unreasonable given such contributions to Biology as the sexy son hypothesis. That said, he's not quite as "great" as Darwin or Pasteur, and I see him as a sort of edge case. While I think he's still stronger than Mendeleev, I can understand that if he's added he'll still be in the "weaker" half of the scientist/inventor list. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support both As nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose both per my comment above. TLDR; Francis Bacon, James Watt and Florence Nightingale are the only scientists i'd support. GuzzyG (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Not as well known figures as Newton, Darwin or Curie. --Thi (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Discussion

I don't really know if we should be suggesting additions without swaps right now as we are very close to 1,000 articles listed, especially biographies with how many are being suggested and some suggestions to lower the number of them at this level. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

This is my main hang-up. We are too close to 1000, and I would prefer swaps above pure additions. Furthermore, I can get behind Pauling, but not quite Fisher, as the scope of his achievements is in my opinion too narrow to be included (and much of him is already encompassed by Darwin). I honestly think there is a stronger case for Norman Borlaug than Fisher -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Borlaug, having saved a possible billion (yes, with a b) people from starvation through his work, is also a decently strong candidate were we not near capacity. I could indeed see him above Fisher, if only for that. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Closing, even with a conflict of interest, as this is unlikely to pass.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:42, 7 April 2021 (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 Protist

We already cover the majority of organisms. The only category of organisms that we miss is all the eukaryotic organisms that are not animals, plants or fungi. I think if a swap is desired for this article, it should probably be with Algae since organisms like Paramecium are not considered algae, but they are considered protists. Interstellarity (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
  1. Already covered by eukaryote, not particularly well-known outside of biology or vital to a college-level layman understanding thereof, and the case is weakened by its being a paraphyletic grouping. (I am aware we do cover several paraphyletic groupings, namely fish, reptile, and algae, but those are well-known in the popular vernacular and useful to describe the world around us for the aforementioned college-level layman.) I would oppose a swap with algae since the latter is useful to an understanding of plants. I would perhaps add embryophyte to the plant section instead, but that might be getting too niche for this list.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose An essentially deprecated taxon. Cobblet (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Used in old encyclopedias but not in modern scientific classification. --Thi (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Too informal and covered by eukaryote. PaleoMatt (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Neutral
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
This will clearly not pass. Interstellarity (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Mecca, Add Baghdad

Mecca is probably the city that we have listed that is the weakest and I think is the most likely to be removed. Baghdad doesn't have as much significance today as it did historically, the reason I think this is a good city to add is because it was the capital of the Abbasid Caliphate and it was once the largest city in the world. Interstellarity (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
  1. Mecca is literally the Mecca of Islam. Its holiness places it on par with Jerusalem IMO.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Mecca is the holiest place in Islam, the 2nd largest religion in the world. It is a lot more important than Baghdad. PaleoMatt (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose addition Iraq or Abbasid Caliphate are more vital. --Thi (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  4. Oppose removal give religious significance. Might consider moving it to the religion section, tho. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  5. Oppose removal As a life-long Iznogoud fan, Baghdad seems like an iconic setting for fiction to me. But Mecca and Medina are the birthplaces of Islam, and Mecca is the destination of the annual Hajj. Its historical impact as a city outranks many of the world's megacities. Dimadick (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Neutral
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
This will clearly not pass. Interstellarity (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove (Beijing or Hong Kong), Add Shanghai

Another city that was once the largest city in the world that is not listed is Hangzhou, however, we already have two Chinese cities on the list (Beijing and Hong Kong. I think the best possible addition to the list could be Shanghai. This would bring the total Chinese cities on the list to be 3, which I think is too much. I would support either a removal of Beijing or Hong Kong for Shanghai. I'm assuming Beijing is listed because of its historical significance while Hong Kong is more recent due to it being a financial hub of the world. Interstellarity (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support addition and removal of either one. Interstellarity (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  2. Support removing Hong Kong IMO Hong Kong is not vital enough to be listed as a vital article, especially since Beijing is already listed. While Hong Kong's prestige as a center for trade is commerce is noted, I think we can do without it given the cities we already have. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support addition, neutral on removals With a population of about 26 million people, Shanghai is China's most populous city. In List of largest cities, we rank Shanghai 3rd on the planet, only outranked by Tokyo and Delhi. It has been an important financial hub since it became a treaty port in the 19th century. In the article Global city, it shares the rank of "Alpha +", with Beijing, Dubai, Hong Kong, Paris, Singapore, and Tokyo. The only two cities which outrank her in this list are London and New York City. in the Global Financial Centres Index, Shanghai ranks 3rd in the world, outranked only by New York City and London. In the List of cities by scientific output, Shanghai is ranked 5th in the world, only outranked by Beijing, the New York metropolitan area, Greater Boston, and the San Francisco Bay Area. I think the lists indicate Shanghai's global impact. Dimadick (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I wouldn't consider Hong Kong Chinese for the intents and purposes of this discussion, due to the two systems (however respected it may currently be in Beijing). In any event, we're supposed to have only one city per country on here. Shanghai is possible, but I think Beijing is more relevant on here due to its historical significance.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per John M Wolfson PaleoMatt (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose swapping Beijing for Shanghai Beijing is China's cultural, political and in many ways historical center. I do not think a swap with Shanghai is warranted. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  4. Oppose removals Important cities from cultural, political and economical viewpoints. --Thi (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per above.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Neutral on which one should be removed. Interstellarity (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2021 (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.
I'm closing this discussion early since this is unlikely to pass and there's a discussion on Green Revolution below.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:25, 10 April 2021 (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 Norman Borlaug

I've withdrawn my two previous proposals (for the FDR/Mendeleev swap and Pauling/Fisher) in light of our nearing capacity (Pauling and Fisher aren't that essential with our squeeze) and because I think this proposal is better. If you oppose this, at least hear me out.

Human living standards have exploded since 1950, especially in the developing world, and other than the technology involved and possibly Information Age/Decolonization, we don't really have an article on here to account for that. Borlaug made a lot of it possible in a most basic sense. An agronomist, he first worked in Mexico to improve its wheat yields until it became a net exporter of wheat. He then did the same for India and Pakistan until they too were self-sufficient and had food security. At the end of his career he attempted to extend his work to Africa. His work kicked off the Green Revolution, of which he is known as the "father". This all sounds rather tame and inconsequential until you note that Borlaug's work saved a billion people from starvation. Yes, a billion as in 109 human lives saved from starving. Noting that "you can't build a peaceful world on empty stomachs and human misery", he is one of only five people in history to win all three of the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the Congressional Gold Medal.

More importantly for this list, I think there's no one else quite like him who could go on this list, which means that at the margins we'll get more by adding Borlaug than we would by adding someone else. (Of course, I do think Borlaug is worthy of this level with his achievements in a vacuum, else I wouldn't be proposing him.) I think these marginal considerations allow Borlaug to beat out other such contenders as FDR (who I agree "should" be on here in a vacuum but whose niche is already filled to a degree by Washington and Lincoln) or most other scientists (I can't think of any major post-1950 scientists who are deceased except for Francis Crick, Stephen Hawking, and Carl Sagan, and of those only Sagan is unique enough IMO), and for me squeaks him in as a raw addition. He certainly beats out Jonas Salk in my book; while polio was (and unfortunately still is in Afghanistan and Pakistan) a menace, everyone needs to eat.

The main issue other than capacity I can see with adding Borlaug is that he might not be that well-known in Western culture. A general rule for this list is that if someone isn't learned about by students in their culture (in this case Western culture) by the end of secondary school, then he/she/etc. doesn't belong on here. Many of my own family members don't quite know who Borlaug is. That said, I remember learning about Borlaug in 6th grade (late primary school, for non-Americans), so I think the tide is turning. Once again, I can understand if this is at best an edge case, but please give this some serious and genuine consideration. If you oppose Borlaug based on capacity, would you support him if he were swapped with someone else?  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Dimadick (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Vital means something central in encyclopedia, not only important. Most heroes don't get the credit they deserve anyway. --Thi (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
    We aren't supporting Borlaug just because he was a good person or a hero, though he certainly was. We are nominating him primarily because he represents a field of study and a kind of achievement that is not represented on this list. Beyond our listing of agriculture, we have no one or nothing to represent agronomy or horticulture, or the massive boons both fields have been for the human species in the past few centuries. Borlaug has no real analogue in human history, and therefore his achievements are both monumental and sui generis. That more than secures him a place on this list -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Thi. Not a central point to an encyclopedia and Green Revolution should come first. Both space exploration (Yuri Gagarin and Neil Armstrong) and aviation (Wright brothers and Amelia Earhart) are just as much central to modern human history and are not covered by articles and they are just as up there with agriculture (especially space). If Noether and Godel are unknown, than so is Borlaug. He gets beaten by both in NGrams; [41]. He comes with a benefit of easy Reddit style promotion of "did you know he saved a billion lives!" too, which while obviously important - means he should be beating people like Noether who don't have such a easy promotional push because of the more technical maths accomplishments. Comparing him in NGrams with a bunch of top figures from fields that are generally considered niche and tabloid and with a true central encyclopedia entry like the Wright brothers for comparison, he ends up beaten by Hulk Hogan and PewDiePie and among the others [42]. Doing the same test, but with other added 20th century scientists like Alexander Fleming (arguably much more important) or Ernest Rutherford, they atleast beat alot of the pop culture subjects. [43]. NGrams nearly always supports science over niche pop culture and i'd expect a American scientist of this level with easy pop culture pushes to beat Hulk Hogan. If this passes, there's no excuses for Verghese Kurien to not be level 4 anymore. We have other 20th century scientists, but not 20th century thought leaders but Freud, this is where the additions should be. Sagan might be famous but i would still put Ptolemy and Johannes Kepler above him in Astronomy and with Galileo Galilei and Nicolaus Copernicus, his area is already well covered, being a famous popularizer of science isn't enough on it's own IMO. TLDR; would put Alexander Fleming over Borlaug at the very, very least. GuzzyG (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    Without prejudice to the rest of your oppose, or to Borlaug, and now that there's a bit more room, I would support Bertrand Russell while we're on the topic of 20th-century thought leaders. I'm personally shocked he's not already on here tbh.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    Russells result is as atleast highter than tabloid subjects in book mentions, [44], but we have so much 20th century people that i wouldn't support him if Borlaug gets in - it's already pushing the limit. GuzzyG (talk) 02:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    I don't consider Russell more vital than several other well-known 20th-century philosophers and would oppose adding any of them. Listing contemporary philosophy is enough. Cobblet (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    This section shouldn't get so long, but just wanna quickly say i agree with Cobblet, (which is why ive never nominated any 20th century philosopher, just saying 20th century thought is less covered than science). Ludwig Wittgenstein is too close imo to Russell and the duo of Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir (and French intellectuals in general), were arguably more in style than British, but any of these names stand closer to Freud and Mary Wollstonecraft and would look less out of place than Borlaug's does next to Newton, Curie, Darwin or Einstein. Even surely sciences like geology with James Hutton would be better (and more proven to history). Turing represents the computer, which already kinda represents second half 20th century science. Does Borlaug truly fit in a list of 21 top scientists that will permanently last in history? He's not even the most notable/deserving Nobel peace prize winner for this list, yet alone science winner. GuzzyG (talk) 05:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    I don’t think you’re being very fair to Borlaug. That he saved one billion lives is a commonly cited factoid, but his work and his achievements expand far beyond the end result of his actions. Borlaug is associated with pioneering dwarfing, disease-resistance in wheat, as well as transforming the harvest season in much of the developed world. The domestication of plants and animals, along with horticulture and agronomy, is not covered on this list as much as it should, since it is arguably ‘’the’’ seminal development of human history. Borlaug’s contributions to the field are extremely important, even if they are not as well known or understood. I will add that they are not that well known because they primarily affected the developing world, whereas Gödel and Noether’s scholarship centered around scholarship done in and by the West. Alexander Fleming is essentially famous for one thing—penicillin. I could see us listing that. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose In brief: I'm sympathetic to the argument that agricultural science deserves representation. I strongly disagree with the other opposing !voters who believe that agriculture is not "central" to human existence. But I dispute the key assertion this proposal is based on: that Borlaug "saved a billion lives." Scholarship from the past decade indicates that assertion is, in short, hyperbole. (Free summary here; paywalled review article here.) There are other unlisted scientists, from Edward Jenner to Fritz Haber to Karl Landsteiner to Joseph Lister, for whom similar claims of saving lives (although Haber also developed chemical weapons) might be made with more plausible merit; moreover, we already list Pasteur. This doesn't take away from the fact that the plant varieties developed by Borlaug and others after him caused massive changes in how agriculture was practised in many developing countries. But characterizing that impact with a total number of lives "saved" is misleading (although good PR for agribusiness) and obscures the environmental, social and economic legacy of those changes. That legacy was not something Borlaug could singlehandedly foresee or control, and it would be better covered in Green Revolution, which ought to already be covered as part of history of agriculture. Cobblet (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    Other voters don't believe that agriculture is not central to human existence. Biography of one scientist is probably not vital at this level, compared to Green revolution. It should come first, as it has been said. --Thi (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    I agree with Thi, Agriculture is central (which is why it's level 2 and it's as essential as some other missing sciences we don't cover with a biography); Borlaug is not - especially when i thought we agreed to cut down the figures listed down to like 120, (Which is why we cut Elvis, Churchill, Poe, Rumi, Hitchcock, Chopin, Heisenberg, Hildegard of Bingen, Kurosawa, Pericles, Hemingway and many others - why i still would cut Wagner, Disney and Monet!). Which is why i disagree with both Borlaug and Milton - these additions counter everything i thought was happening with this list. I'll disagree with any nomination that isn't thought out and respective to diversity in field and century, another 20th century scientist (or English language author) does not fill that and Borlaug is no Einstein, Darwin or Pasteur to bypass my belief in that. GuzzyG (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per all above, I was originally in favour but I'd now prefer an addition of Green Revolution - PaleoMatt (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Discuss

Should he really be listed ahead of the Green Revolution? Cobblet (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I would say so. His contribution to world food surplus is concrete, whereas the "Green Revolution" is a more vague term to describe the projects chiefly undertaken by him. Borlaug was the face of the movement, and it is to him that its successes are mostly ascribed. Ideally we would have an agronomist or agriculturist on our list, whereas I think we have enough seminal events from the late modern period. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
As Zelkia1101 said earlier, one of them should be on here. I'd be fine with listing the Green Revolution instead, but I have a slight preference for having a post-1950 biography that isn't a politician or pop-culture icon.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
Interstellarity (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Remove Poland

I think Poland is one of the weaker countries we have on this list since we already list Russia. I think listing one Eastern European country is enough considering Poland has been heavily influenced by Russia. Interstellarity (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support per nom. I get the feeling this isn't going to pass, I have several Polish-American friends, and Poland does have some identity separate from Russia (see the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and also German influence), but I do agree that it's always seemed weak in my view.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Strong Oppose we shouldn't be removing any countries (I'm in favour for aiming for 50 and shortening the amount of biographies we have) and Poland is definitely not the weakest we list, it is one of the 20 largest economies in the world and is in the top 50 population wise. Representing eastern Europe with only Russia is ridiculous just because it is the largest. Poland is large enough to stand as its own force politically, culturally, and historically to be vital for this list. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 02:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 10:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Swapping Poland for Ukraine is at least debatable, but removing Poland after we just added the Netherlands makes no sense. Cobblet (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Poland is one of the five large countries in the EU, and there's a substantial gap to number 6 on that list (Romania at about half Poland's population; we also list the Netherlands which is number 7). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Neutral
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Abstract algebra added, 4-1; Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2021 (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 Abstract algebra

One more math proposal for now. So there wasn't a consensus to add specific algebraic objects, but with several Geometry topics being consolidated, how about adding the field of Abstract algebra?

Like I mentioned in a different proposal, it may not be taught in public schools much (at least not yet), but it's everywhere in contemporary math and the basics are pretty accessible. Honestly, to leave it out would be a bit like leaving Theory of relativity out of the Physics section.

Support
  1. Support as nom. -Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  2. Support I agree we could use another article on modern pure mathematics on the list and this is probably the most obvious choice. Cobblet (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support Per above Dawid2009 (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  4. Support Changing to support since we are getting more space and I think I underestimated its importance. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Seems to me the perfect example of Level 3,5 article. More important than some other articles but not as popular and well-known concept as school algebra. Theory of relativity is listed over Special relativity and General relativity. --Thi (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
    Not trying to change your mind, but just to clarify, abstract algebra only comes under the overall field in the most general sense of studying symbols & structure. It's not just a generalization of the same techniques in school algebra (as general relativity is to special relativity). It's a totally new framework with its own concepts, and school algebra is just one of the many things it explains. So it's more like relativity extends Newtonian physics to incorporate findings from electrodynamics & other fields. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Discuss
PARTIALLY PASSED
Malay language added 7-3; Portuguese language not removed 6-4 Cobblet (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2021 (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.

The discussion above is closed. 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 Portuguese language, Add Indonesian language Malay language

One more proposal coming from the discussion on Indo-European languages. Multiple people expressed support for representing one or two more language families somehow, and there seemed to be interest in not over-weighting specific Indo-European languages as much.

Of the ones we currently list, I think Portuguese may have the fewest reasons to single it out for Level 3. We already have 3 other Romance languages (Latin, Spanish, & French), and the lion's share of its speakers are already represented by listing the country of Brazil.

Compared to the other ones I'd consider, Bengali has more speakers (in a previous British colony), Russian is one of the 6 UN languages and represents the Slavic branch alone, and German may represent fewer people but probably has a deeper history of interaction with English (via literature, science, trade, immigration, & history).

As for which language to add, Indonesian actually has several reasons to recommend it:

  • It's the common language (if not always the first language) of the 4th most populous country
  • According to our list of most-spoken languages, it's #10
  • It represents an entirely distinct language family (Austronesian languages)
  • There's also a significant amount of history between the country and the English-speaking world, especially in the 20th century
Support
  1. Support as nom. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. Support removal per this and previous discussions. --Thi (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support both (removal and addition) per nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  4. Support removal. I was unsure about the removal, but we probably don't need to list both Iberian Romance languages, and Spanish is the more important one. I'd support removing Bengali as well. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  5. Support removal and addition per nom. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 08:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  6. Support addition per comments below. Cobblet (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  7. Support addition Per previous nominations and my comments. Malyasia also as country potentially could be swapped with Singapoore. Dawid2009 (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  8. Support addition Per what has been said here. PaleoMatt (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  9. Support removal per above comments -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  10. Support addition per above. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition. I don't think we need to be adding any more languages at this level, and nothing about this one seems particularly vital to the English Wikipedia to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose addition I would add for example Malaysia first. --Thi (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. Strong oppose removal of Poortogese language. Poortogese language deserve representation. Huge population and dominance in South America. Sputh America is represented almost nowhere on this list, even among people which are too overrepresented (IMHO) on the Level3. How it can be less vital than Russian language if already have far more speakers?? Especially if I can read about (my first language family) Slavic languages in in Indoeuropean languages?Dawid2009 (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    Hi there, I just wanted to let you know that I totally understand where you're coming from. Personally, I just wanted to remove the IE language family link & maybe Greek alphabet, but I thought I should put down these proposals that came from the earlier ones.
    Part of why I've tried to avoid voting on things like specific languages, people, or history is because it gets even more subjective. Like I implied above, another reason for suggesting Portuguese simply comes down to, for topics like these, that we do factor in that it's the English VA list (not a universal one). I could be totally wrong, but it's just my impression that Russian (on top of being one of the 6 UN languages) would have a lot more English-readers looking for info than Portuguese.
    I totally agree with you that South America could probably use more representation overall; I wonder if more history & geography topics are a better way to do that though. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  4. Oppose addition per above comments. Neither Malay or Indonesian are vital enough for addition.-- Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  5. Oppose removal I think we should have both Portuguese and Malay languages on the list. I would have stuck with Indonesian language (the more-spoken) instead of Malay, but feel adding either would be an improvement. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  6. Oppose removal especially with the list being five articles under quota. It's reasonable to list the most widely spoken languages of countries which have over 200 million people. Cobblet (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  7. Oppose removal per above. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Discuss

I don't see a need to remove any of the currently listed languages. But we are not providing a balanced overview of linguistic diversity when 10/13 of them are Indo-European languages, even though fewer than half the world's population speaks one of them as L1. Adding a couple more languages to represent other major language families such as Austronesian makes sense. I think Malay is a better choice than Indonesian though – compare how we list Hindustani rather than Hindi and Urdu. A previous nomination failed. Cobblet (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I would be fine with adding Malay, and I'd like my support !vote to be construed in that light. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
You learn something everyday. I genuinely didn't realize that Malay was so wide-spread and Indonesian is just a national dialect of it. It clearly makes more sense for the proposal. Since everyone that's supported the add so far specifically mentioned Malay too, I've updated the proposal. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with user:DaGizza in previous discussion that Greek language is weakest language on the list. For that matter Latin language was much more influential but Greek was still quite significant. See for example pt:Deus/Deus. I also agree with Cobblet that current list of languages with Malay in addition would be ok. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
If anythong has overlap on this list then not Roman representation among Indoeuropean languages. We shoukld rather remove Englush literature or at least handful or at least handful of English writers from last 200 years. How can Englush literature have +6 overrepresentations if Poortogese language has to bre removed just because Spanish language on the list has more nativespeakers than English? Literature is level 2 article, meanwhile language is 1. Dawid2009 (talk)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Passed 5-2.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:16, 21 April 2021 (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 Arabic numerals

This is by far the dominant number-writing system (i.e., using 0-9 instead of Roman numerals), and I think should be listed in its own right as it crosses language/script barriers, being used in languages that use Latin, Cyrillic, Greek, East Asian scripts, and perhaps many others. Even if we end up removing Greek alphabet, I think this should go in the "Writing" section of "Society and social sciences". – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. Support, I actually agree with Thi's point that we already indirectly cover them some, but they are also distinct from numbers themselves. I'm not necessarily opposed to putting them down as a writing system under Society either, but would prefer under Math. Besides wanting to see the Math section grow a little, you arguably can't separate the characters from the arithmetic on them. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support An influential number system. Dimadick (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  4. Support Arguably as important as some scripts on this level PaleoMatt (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  5. Support Arabic numerals are the most popular and influential decimal system by far. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. We already list Arabic, which covers the numerals. And since modern Mathematics uses these numerals, all of the Math articles that we currently list (such as Number) cover this indirectly. I don't think listing this article separately at this level is necessary. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Number and History of mathematics covers this. --Thi (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Discuss

It's currently listed under Mathematics on level 4 though. Cobblet (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

While I still think it's mainly Level 3-worthy as a writing system (i.e., how the numbers are written, rather than the numbers themselves), the section isn't too terribly important at this point. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

In the opposing comments, replace Arabic numerals, Arabic, Number, and History of mathematics with Greek alphabet, Greek language, Alphabet, and Writing. Hmm... Cobblet (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Please elaborate on what you mean by this. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
The same kind of arguments put forward by the opposers here are ignored by the same participants in the other discussion. Cobblet (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Well I haven't made up my mind about removing the Greek alphabet yet, but I'm leaning towards its removal, especially if Greece is added. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PARTIAL PASS
6–3, added; 2–3, not removed. --Rreagan007 (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove James Joyce, Add John Milton

I'm somewhat surprised not to see John Milton on this list already. Milton is one of the forefathers of English poetry, and his epic poem Paradise Lost is considered by many critics to be the best English-language work ever penned. Beyond his influence as a poet, Milton was an avid republican during Cromwell's rule as well as a free speech advocate. Milton was celebrated by many prominent English-language poets, among them William Blake, and he is often considered an equal to, if not better than, William Shakespeare. Joyce, while important, does not stand as tall in the history of literature as Milton. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.
  2. Support addition, neutral on removal while I think we have a bunch of English writers as it is, Milton should definitely already be one of them. I think Joyce has some importance in modernism, but don't know if that secures him a spot on here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support, as between the two, Milton is the more vital. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  4. Support addition, Milton is definitely vital for level 3 but so is Joyce. PaleoMatt (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  5. Support addition, neutral on removal Per the main article on him, Milton popularized blank verse, "probably the most common and influential form that English poetry has taken since the 16th century". He coined many neologisms, and his vocabulary inspired imitators such as James Thomson, Alexander Pope, and John Keats. While his religious attitudes were already considered outdated by the Romantic poets, his works were used as poetic models by the likes of William Wordsworth, John Keats, and Mary Shelley. The Victorian authors inspired by Milton included the realists George Eliot and Thomas Hardy. In the late 20th and early 21st century, Milton was influencing new works by Philip Pullman. Milton has had a much more enduring legacy than James Joyce, or Modernism as a literary movement. Dimadick (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  6. Support addition. Rreagan007 (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Having Kafka and Tagore as the only 20th century authors is not ideal and having less 20th century writers than 20th century musicians even more so, Joyce is all over 20th century literature. Atleast Chaucer would represent a different era. Milton is obviously important, but we can't list everyone and he just does not fit. The only thing wrong in the literature section is Voltaire should be moved to thinkers and Victor Hugo added to writers in his place. GuzzyG (talk) 06:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I think Matsuo Basho would be more important addition in poets. Joyce was also a short story writer and Anton Chekhov or Poe are not at this level. Dante wrote the most famous Christian epic and in my opinion it would be more important to add Torquato Tasso to level 4. --Thi (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Thi. Cobblet (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Neutral
Discuss
My recollection is that James Joyce had three novels in the top 10 on the list of top 100 novels of the 20th century. RJFJR
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
It looks Meteoroid won't pass, but I'll nominate Meteorite since there seems to some support for it. Interstellarity (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2021 (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 Meteoroid

Common topic in popular science. Meteors (shooting stars) are among the most famous astronomical phenomenons. This concept is closely connected with Meteorite. Meteor or Meteorite is listed among main articles in my encyclopedias.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC) Support also Meteorite. --Thi (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Prefer meteorite as they are more important in science once they have fallen, and we already have comet and asteroid for when they are in space. Note to discussion closer: consider this a support for meteorite if that's what the nom is changed to.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose meteoroid is not vital enough, especially for a cold addition with no swap. I may be partial to meteorite, as John suggested, but I would prefer to see it swapped with some other article as we are nearing capacity. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 10:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above PaleoMatt (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Too much overlap with Asteroid which is already listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, added. --Thi (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2021 (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 Hormone

Important topic health and medicine, one of the main articles in those encyclopedias I have had access. Often used concept in everyday discourse (melatonine etc.). [45]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  2. Includes such important topics as estrogen, testosterone and anabolic steroids, and adrenaline.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. Surprised this isn't already here honestly. PaleoMatt (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  4. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  5. Support - Interstellarity (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Carbohydrate, lipid and nucleic acid are more vital classes of biomolecules, although sugar and DNA are listed. Cobblet (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
No support for the nomination. Interstellarity (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2021 (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 Properties of water

Water is (rightfully) listed at Level 2, but that article is a general overview of its role on Earth and in the biosphere and human society. Water as a chemical ("oxidane", "hydrogen hydroxide", etc.) is covered by Properties of water, which provides a more detailed look on hydrogen bonding, its slight color, its polarity and consequent "universal solvency", and its extremely high heat capacity. This is at heart a list of the 1,000 articles that are most "urgent" to have on an encyclopedia; the general water article provides a good overview of "what water is", but the properties of water article more specifically lists its chemical importance, which we would be remiss to exclude if we're including carbon dioxide as water is by far the most studied chemical compound.

The best argument I can come up with against its addition is that the properties of water article could be seen as more an "appendix" to the main water article, which while somewhat reasonable I ultimately find unconvincing; as long as it can pass AfD and is not a redirect or disambiguation, it's fair game for this list IMO.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Per below. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose To me this is like saying that we need to list planetary habitability at levels 2 or 3 (in fact, it's not even at level 4) because it explains the factors that make Earth (which is at level 1) suitable for life as we know it, or that we need to list control of fire by early humans here because it explains the technological importance of fire which is on level 2. IMO the parent article in each case already provides enough of an explanation for why that particular aspect of the topic is vital. It does not make sense to list an article specifically explaining why water is the universal solvent on Earth when we do not list solution, and there is little chance of us listing that when we do not even list solid, liquid or gas, or related topics such as fluid mechanics or condensed matter physics. Another way to think about it is to realize that all of water's unique properties stem from the strength of its hydrogen bond. That article is absolutely necessary at level 4, but IMO is too specific and technical for level 3. Cobblet (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per above. --Thi (talk) 09:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. We already list both Water and Drinking water at this level. There isn't room for a third article dedicate to water. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Discuss

We already have rain and snow (and steam engine), and I'd rather add ice or steam before the awkwardly titled properties of water. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't entirely oppose removing one of rain or snow, but in any event I think ice or steam are just respectively solid and gaseous water; indeed, there is already steam engine for the latter. I think both would be surpassed by having solid, liquid, gas, or phase (matter), none of which I just found out are on here. Nevermind, we already have state of matter, and ice and steam are just different states of water. And as said in the nom, awkward title/"appendix"ness is in my view no reason to exclude an article if it improves a layman understanding of the world around us.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    There's also Acid–base reaction and dam (and sea, lake, and river). And Nutrition (which kind of includes water). I don't think there's a need for another separate "water in chemistry" article. Maybe something about a Chemical solution or solvent? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    Drinking water is also at level 3. Cobblet (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    And Glacier. --Thi (talk) 09:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Withdrawn, a wider-ranging discussion at #Discussion: Overrepresentation of writers is more likely to improve the list than a stand-alone vote here. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Remove Rabindranath Tagore

From the article lede of Rabindranath Tagore: "his "elegant prose and magical poetry" remain largely unknown outside Bengal". Sure he has a Nobel Prize, but so do over 100 other people, and we only have 21 writers on this list. Better suited to the level-4 list.

Support
  1. as nom User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  2. Support. Not vital at this level per my comments in the previous discussion. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per recent discussion. A list of 120+ people that does not include a single cultural figure from South Asia is not a list that adequately represents the world we live in. Cobblet (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    I was under the impression that Mahabharata was still listed when I nominated this. I agree there's a need for something other than Vedas from the Indian subcontinent, I just struggle to believe this is the article to have. Would Indian literature make sense as a swap? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    We don't list any literatures besides English literature which is about English-language literature. Listing literatures by region is not a road we should be going down on level 3. I don't understand your struggle. Tagore gets over three times as many page views as John Milton, and also more page views than William the Conqueror,[46] the two people we most recently added. The Mahabharata is represented by Bhagavad Gita. Cobblet (talk) 02:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Tagore's contributions to his region's literature and culture are noteworthy and important. He is an important cultural and literary figure who represents his region well. If weare really in the business of pruning the writers list, we ought to be getting rid of Dickens and Abu Nuwas (or swapping him for Rumi). -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 6:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per others. Interstellarity (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
Interstellarity (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2021 (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 Meteorite

This article is a better choice to add than Meteoroid. Interstellarity (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. Nom.
  2. Support Admittedly I might have a conflict of interest since I've taken classes on the matter, but meteorites are a good complement to asteroids; the latter show a "map" of the early Solar System, whereas the former show a chronology since they can be timed from a lab.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Not particularly vital at this level. Just looking over the Earth Science section at Level 4, there are a number of other articles listed there that I would upgrade to Level 3 before this one. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose we have asteroid and comet which feels like enough. I might prefer meteor shower over meteorite but can't make an argument for that inclusion at this level. Chicxulub impactor (though the article structure there isn't finalized) might also be interesting, as the most famous meteor is the one that caused the Cretaceous extinctions; I can't make an argument for that inclusion at this level either. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose No reason given for why we need to add another astronomy article. We do not have room to add every concept that is a "common topic in popular science", to quote the previous nomination. Cobblet (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Neutral
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.

Add Green Revolution

PASSED
Added 7-1 Cobblet (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2021 (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.

Since it seems like Norman Borlaug won't pass, and since various people have mentioned that they would prefer adding the Green Revolution over him, I have decided to go ahead and nominate it here. See the above entry on Borlaug for information on why this event is vital.

Support
  1. Support as nom -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  2. Sure, per the above discussion.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support - per above and earlier discussion in the Norman Borlaug proposal. Gizza (talk • voy) 00:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  4. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  5. Support Can go under History of agriculture Dawid2009 (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  6. Support - Interstellarity (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  7. Support per everything from this discussion and the last. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I don't think this is a very good article to list at this level. Most of what the article covers are already covered by various other articles already listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Discuss

I added wikilink above to Norman Borlaug nomination which is now in the archive. --Thi (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Remove Strong interaction and Weak interaction, add Sulfur and Phosphorus

PARTIAL PASS
7–0, added; 1–4, not removed. --Rreagan007 (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2021 (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.

Sulfur and phosphorus are two chemical elements common on Earth and in life. The strong interaction and weak interaction are only part of particle physics and are best discussed in this level as part of some other topic.

Support
  1. as nom User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  2. Weak support additions Sulfur and phosphorus are indeed the last of the CHONPS elements, which are the "building blocks" of life. Nevertheless, I might be looking from the inside as a biologist on them, and I can understand if a layman understanding of the world around us would not be significantly improved by adding these two elements compared to, say, lead.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support additions Not only are sulfur and phosphorus absolutely vital in the context of biochemistry, they are important in other areas of chemistry as well. Phosphorus is a limiting nutrient in freshwater ecology (see phosphorus cycle) and phosphate in the form of guano (historically) or apatite (nowadays) is one of the most heavily mined minerals due to its use in fertilizer. Many important metal ores are sulfides, and sulfuric acid is such an important industrial chemical that its production used to serve as a proxy measure for a country's overall industrial output. Cobblet (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  4. Support additions Among main articles in encyclopedias. 150+ language versions in Wikipedia. --Thi (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  5. Support additions. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  6. Support additions-- Zelkia1101 (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  7. Support additions -- PaleoMatt (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removals The weak and strong forces are two of the four fundamental forces, all of which are listed. I don't see us removing Gravity or Electromagnetism anytime soon, and I feel uncomfortable listing some but not all of the group. The strong force is important in building stuff like the atomic bomb, while the weak force, despite being quite weak (heh) to our understanding of the world around us, still has a role to play in atomic decay and the resultant radioactivity.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removals I'd consider the strong and weak nuclear interactions just as vital as any of the subatomic particles we list. In fact, the first particle physics article I'd consider removing is photon because of the overlap with electromagnetism and light. Cobblet (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose removals Dawid2009 (talk)
  4. Oppose removals Rreagan007 (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Discuss

Lead would probably not be my choice for another metal. I might go with calcium: everyone understands its biochemical importance, and it's also hugely significant industrially – it's in concrete, lime, gypsum (e.g., drywall), and plaster for example. But twelve chemical elements is probably enough, and CHNOPS plus five metals and silicon would be a fairly representative mix. Cobblet (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I nominated this as a swap because I thought other contributors would want to keep "Science" at a round quota of 200 articles. If people don't object, this can be split into two proposals, I feel Sulfur/Phosphorus clearly have consensus to be added once it hits 15 days. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

There are some other science articles I'd consider removing. I've already mentioned photon above. I don't think day and year are absolutely necessary – in particular the latter overlaps with calendar. Having all of classical mechanics, momentum, Newton's laws of motion, force, theory of relativity, quantum mechanics and even orbit makes it perhaps unnecessary to list motion. Tornado seems less vital than the unlisted drought or wildfire, although we do list famine and fire. Cobblet (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree that year is probably expendable with Time and Calendar etc. on the list, though I won't nominate it for removal myself. I also agree that Classical mechanics overlaps with Newton's laws of motion but am not sure how to fix it. I haven't thought enough about the weather topics to have public opinions yet. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
SNOW PASS
8–0, removed. --Rreagan007 (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Remove Journalism

I think there is too much overlap between news and the production of news to warrant listing both at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  2. Support I had for long time on my it to nominate for removal Dawid2009 (talk)
  3. Support Journalism is absolutely integral to modern life, but we do have to cut a few articles and journalism is sufficiently covered by News and Publishing in my opinion -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 6:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  4. Support per above -- PaleoMatt (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  19:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  6. Support. I agree that there's too much overlap with other listed articles at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  7. Support per nom. News, Publishing, and Mass Media have too much overlap. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  8. Support - Interstellarity (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
No support to add. Interstellarity (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Remove Fyodor Dostoevsky and Franz Kafka

German- and Russian-language literature both have two representative on this list (Kafka/Goethe and Dostoevsky/Tolstoy respectively) while other languages only have one: French (Voltaire), Chinese (Li Bai), Japanese (Murasaki Shibiku), Italian (Dante Alighieri), MENA (Abu Nuwas), Spanish (Miguel de Cervantes), and Latin (Virgil). Out of the four Tolstoy and Goethe are by far more vital and influential, so we can safely remove both Dostoevsky and Kafka, as we really only need one representative of these languages.

Support
  1. Support as nom -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I think German- and Russian-language literature have had a somewhat disproportionate impact on at least Western literature, so their overrepresentation is justified. Kafka is a good representative of the surreal, such that there is the word kafkaesque. Ditto for Dostoevsky, who wrote Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov, among others.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Why are we picking on other world literatures when we have five writers listed from Britain and Ireland in addition to English literature? Dostoevsky and Kafka get significantly more page views than Milton. Cobblet (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    This is an English-language version of the encyclopedia, and therefore English language authors are going to be over represented in comparison to other authors. Milton’s influence on English literature is far more profound than either Dostoevsky and Kafka, and he is commonly listed as the second greatest English-language author behind Shakespeare. His popularization of blank verse as a medium of English narrative poetry has had a far greater impact on literature than either Dostoevsky or Kafka who, while important, do not rise to the level of this list. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    The inclusion of English literature means that it is already overrepresented relative to other literatures, even if we were to list as few as three English-language authors (ancient Greek is the only other language with three). It would be fair to list twice as many English-language writers as writers of other languages if English literature could fairly be said to be at least twice as influential as the literature of any other language; but I don't see a case for that argument. English literature should suffice to cover technical innovations like Miltonic verse whose influence is limited to English-language writers. It's natural that the "editor of several volumes of Milton Studies and coeditor of Milton's Legacy in the Arts" considers Milton second only to Shakespeare, but we simply do not have room for everyone's favourite English-language author. Cobblet (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    The number of English-language authors on this list is, in my opinion, already satisfactory regardless of the inclusion of the English literature article. We have Shakespeare the Playwright, Milton the Poet, Austen the Satirist, Dickens the Novelist, and Joyce the Modernist, with Twain being added in order to represent the United States. Of these five I will still contend that Milton and Shakespeare are the strongest. If your complaint is that Milton’s influence is too narrowly focused on the Anglosphere, then you ought to support removing Austen or Joyce first. The English literature article scant covers Milton’s innovation in verse or rhyme, and as a general rule I prefer biographies over overview articles like English literature as the former are more popular with users. None of this is to mention Milton’s legacy as a pre-liberal thinker, his defense of free printing in Areopagitica and his advocacy for religious toleration greatly inspired tinkers like John Locke. To drive home my point, most English-language universities have whole classes dedicated to Milton and his work, while Dostoevsky and Tolstoy tend to be taught in one Russian literature class. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose mainly per John M Wolfson's well-put explanation. Once again these nominations fail to realize that most figures on this list effect far more than their narrowly assigned designations. Dostoevsky's influence on philosophy, psychoanalysis and existentialism is profound. Kafka in the same manner. This checklist of nationalities was a helpful thing to keep in mind before, but is now getting obsessive and unproductive. Believe it or not, not every country has had the same impact on every field... Aza24 (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  4. Oppose These authors are influential in general culture. Kafka also represents Jewish literature. --Thi (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_17&oldid=1137398122"