Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 62

Archive 55

←

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

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

---

Add Donato Bramante

A man who was vital in designing the St. Peter's Basilica.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
2. Support "He introduced Renaissance architecture to Milan and the High Renaissance style to Rome, where his plan for St. Peter's Basilica formed the basis of design executed by Michelangelo. His Tempietto (San Pietro in Montorio) marked the beginning of the High Renaissance in Rome (1502)..." Dimadick (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).

# Support --Thi (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Neutral now. Bramante is common name in the encyclopedias, but the quota is full. --Thi (talk) 09:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I don't think he fits the bill. There's too many more important people missing. We can't have two people for the same thing (Michelangelo); Leon Battista Alberti is the better option out of the pair. GuzzyG (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Neutral not sure; seems about as vital as others on this list but GuzzyG's point is a good one. J947 ^(c), at 05:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 Serge Gainsbourg for Brigitte Bardot

We clearly have too many (four) French-language musicians. We list none Italian-language musicians (I mean better option would be 2 French representants vs 0 Italian than 4 French vs 0 Italian) despite fact Italian music recently also is popular and have quite notable personalities. Four French musicians maybe would be enough for French Wikipedia or Wikimedia list but certainly not for English Wikipedia because of there are a lot of notable English-language musicians who are missed at this level. I think that French Brigitte Bardot would be reasonable swap with Serge Gainsbourg. Brigitte Bardot was model and actor. She was symbol of sexapil in 50's and 60's. She also is much more notable than Isabelle Adjani who is already on the list. Gainsbourg when was trying to be more notable and popular, has used Bardot's reputation to promote his the most important song Je t'aime... moi non plus.

Support

1. Support As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)).

Oppose

1. Oppose Gainsbourg fits and we do not need any more french actors and we do not need a model when we are missing vital fashion designers first. Also Italian music is represented by composers. Japanese and Korean music are the next languages which need music representation, not Italian. GuzzyG (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Serge Gainsbourg is considered one of the most influential pop musicians. Also, we already list a few models. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose as per GuzzyG and my analysis. J947 ^(c), at 05:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Strongly Oppose as per GuzzyG's post InvalidOStalk 13:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

These two people are not representants for the same categry but some time go there were discussion to swap Luciana Aymar with Sequoyah so I have made speciffic nomination for swapping.

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

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

---

Swap Samuel Goldwyn for Louis B. Mayer

Mayer has a claim of being the most powerful man in Hollywood during his time. MGM was more vital then paramount. Mayer has greater vitality then Goldwyn and is more important to film history.

Support

1. Support As nom GuzzyG (talk) 11:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal of Goldwyn I'm not sure Mayer > Goldwyn is true. Goldwyn made the Atlantic 100 most influential Americans of all time, and Mayer did not. There were only two Hollywood moguls on the Atlantic list: Goldwyn and Walt Disney. pbp 19:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

Remove Eusebio, Michel Platini

Based on discussion above: alternative suggestion. If we remove Eusebio and Michel Platini both it will be it will clear enough from context that Mia Hamm and Lev Yashin are on the list only due to fact that Mia Hamm is Woman and Lev Yashin is goalkeeper. It will be not insultoing for anyone from UK. In that case on the list among players who never won World Cup we will have only: Johan Cruyff, Ferenc Puskas, Di Stefano, Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo. These five players are the only players who for sure deserve for inclusion despite fact that they never won world cup because of: 1Cruyff has been regarted as: "Greates European player of the century" 2Puskas, Di Stefano, Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo are the only players in history who have been played on world-class level after 30 year old age. They had extremly long time best peak at his career. Pele Dawid2009 (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. Support As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

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

---

Remove Dire Dawa

Low population relative to other cities we list (most Level 4 cities have at least a population of 1 million or so), and there is also nothing internationally significant about the city (such as being a national capital or listed as a GaWC world city) that warrants Dire Dawa to be listed at this level. We don't list more significant cities such as Austin, Texas or Dongguan. Reader interest is also low: Dire Dawa is one of the least viewed Level 4 geography articles.

Support

1. As nom. feminist (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose one city to make things diverse isn't that outrageous. it's chartered status makes it significant. GuzzyG (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose 3 cities for Africa's second most populous country is reasonable when smaller African countries have more cities. I'm not against adding Austin and Dongguan is a part of the Pearl River Delta which I support adding at this level. Dongguan was removed here. Gizza ^(t)(c) 21:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

I guess people wanted Ethiopia, a country of over 100 million people, to have more than one city?  Carlwev  15:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah we did, but on reflection it was a bit silly to not base it upon vitality but rather on unrepresentation. J947 ^(c), at 22:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove The Jazz Singer

It is basically a silent film with few moments of synchronized sound. Level 5 seems better place for this film.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose This film is the reason silent film no longer exists, so oppose. Way more vital then Star Wars etc. GuzzyG (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose agree with GuzzyG and J947. Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 05:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

• Comment – The nomination makes no sense whatsoever. There is no reason why a silent film is automatically less vital than one with sound. No opinion on the proposal itself. J947 ^(c), at 03:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Sound film is more general article. The film was not such technical breakthrough as it is usually assumed. It was neither the first sound film nor the first film with talking sequences. If it hadn't been the first feature-length film to have pre-recorded dialogue, something else would have been. The melodramatic film itself is not significant any more. --Thi (talk) 07:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Batting (cricket) and Bowling (cricket); remove Cricket World Cup

I don't think we can doubt the great difference in importance here.

Support all changes

1. Support as nominator. J947 ^(c), at 22:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Support two changes; oppose one

Neutral

Support one change; oppose two

1. Support removal, oppose additions. Batting and bowling are covered sufficiently by the main Cricket article. There is no need to list them separately. As far as the Cricket World Cup, that is less vital in my opinion than the World Series, which isn't listed at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

   I could support a swap between the World Series and Major League Baseball.

2. Support removal, oppose additions --Thi (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Support removal, oppose additions I doubt Crickiet require representation by sub-topic at this level. Honestly I would remove Cricket World Cup and Rugby World Cup. We have littly too many recreation/sport related articles (if we compare them to other article listed in Every day life). Crickiet World Cup and Rugby World Cup has less pagewatchers combinetly (197+121) than Capoeira does (349) even despte fact Capoeira is level 5 article. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

   You're now relying on the number of pagewatchers a page has? This isn't a statistical showdown. J947 ^(c), at 10:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

   It sounds like you're just sifting through statistics until you find one that suits your opinion (e.g. on page views an opposite result happens (well CWC coming up soon but still)). J947 ^(c), at 20:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose all changes

1. Oppose unless wholesale changes are made to all sports. The subtopics of all sports on Level 4 are either forms of the sport (e.g. alpine skiing, rugby sevens) or the majorournaments, leagues or competitions (Tour de France and Super Bowl). It doesn't make sense to change this when·passing (association football) hasn't replaced English Premier League. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

   I was thinking that too but cricket has IMO got the greatest difference between aspects. The Cricket World Cup only represents ODIs and batting and bowling are very prominent aspects of the sport. I would support an overhaul (I can't consider Viv Richards more vital than batting, or Sydney Barnes the same for bowling) and as I've said above this would be an ideal first domino to topple (or, I suppose, baseball as well). Apart from in baseball there is no equivalent to the absolute vitality of batting and bowling. And I for one couldn't consider either as of same importance as passing. J947 ^(c), at 01:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

   It may be better to replace it with different forms of the game (Test cricket, One Day International] and Twenty20), much like how rugby has union, league and sevens, and skiing has alpine, slalom, cross-country and jumping. The three main skills of batting, bowling and fielding and discussed in the general article which isn't the case with biographies. Test cricket in particular is a highly viewed article (more popular than many listed sports) over the last 3.5 years or so [1] [2] [3]. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

   Yeah that might be good. I'd refrain from T20 or T20I due to how recent they are, but ODI and most definitely test cricket could be options. J947 ^(c), at 18:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

Remove Shyness

At this level, I don't think shyness adds anything more than what's already discussed in the extroversion and introversion and anxiety articles, both of which are listed and are the technical terms used in psychology. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Shyness is very distinct from introversion. Since we don't list either social anxiety or social anxiety disorder as this level, I think shyness is needed here. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

I feel like intrapersonal relation articles are more important than the current representation here. I believe this is another attempt to remove articles from this section with its overflowing quota, which was what I tried to do above too. However I believe the best way to go is to move the quota here up again. Anyways I sympathise with your arguments Gizza and it is fairly weak in this list. Overall I don't have a proper opinion here, so neutral. J947 ^(c), at 02:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove The Goon Show

The quota is full and the other listed radio program, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, is more famous.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Honestly, Peter Sellers is more important than The Goon Show. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

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

---

Remove Wheel and axle

It is identical to Lever.

Support

1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 17:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Support Not absolutely necessary subject at this level. --Thi (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)).

Oppose

1. Oppose. The two don't look identical to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose They aren't the same thing. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Discuss

The two machines aren't completely identical, because you push the "lever" in different directions, but the formulas are identical. The two machines take the same effort to elevate an object. wumbolo ^^^ 20:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 Lajos Kossuth

Political reformer who inspired and led Hungary’s struggle for independence from Austria. (Britannica)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Support He was the most influential Hungarian nationalist. However, he should be in the "Rebels, revolutionaries and activists" section. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 07:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Support though I do agree with GuzzyG that a swap with Sándor Petőfi would be ideal. Orser67 (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Only if he's swapped with Sándor Petőfi two figures on a relatively small country and it's revolution seems over the top. GuzzyG (talk) 11:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: That would be reasonable. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 periodization

A fundamental topic in historiography.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

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

---

Add 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état

Support

1. As nom. This event is no doubt vital at this level because it contributed to long-lasting anti-U.S. sentiment in Latin America--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose: I can see the argument for the Iranian coup d'etat, but there are definitely far more important non-level 4 historical events than this one. There may even be more important U.S. interventions in Latin America than this one. Orser67 (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

Add Byzantium

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Support having originally raised this discussion at #Add Constantinople. J947 ^(c), at 18:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose seems unnecessary with Constantinople at Level 4 and Istanbul at Level 3. Orser67 (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose Per Orser. It would be better a different historic city instead of what is essentially Istanbul a third time around. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

Add Jerusalem Delivered and Orlando Furioso

Two most famous poetic works of Ludovico Ariosto and Torquato Tasso, who are not listed in the People section. Ariosto is called the greatest Italian poet after Dante. "[Tasso's] work was widely translated and adapted, and until the beginning of the 20th century, he remained one of the most widely read poets in Europe."

Support

1. As nom. --Thi (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

We are well over quota at this section. When we have Great Pyramid of Giza at the level 3, probably we should include Giza pyramid complex ahead of them

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

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

---

Add Snow leopard

We list every other extant species in the Panthera genus.

Support

1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 19:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Weak support per my comments at #Add big cat. J947 ^(c), at 19:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
4. Support. It's an important species of cat that many readers will probably be interested in, and we are currently under quota in this section. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
5. Support per above and related discussion. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
6. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)).
7. Support per nom GuzzyG (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

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

---

Add comfort women

Support

1. As nom. It is illogical to include Nanjing Massacre but not this article, which is more vital, since the comfort women system used in WWII by Japanese military inspired the same system during the Korean War by the South Korean government and that after the truce by the same government.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. We're already over quota in the history section by 6 articles, and I'm not seeing 6 articles currently in the history section that are less vital than this article. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose it's called a term in the lede yet would belong in this section. Rreagan makes a good point (not 6, 7) and it seems overtly niche. J947 ^(c), at 18:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. Not at this level. --Thi (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

add History of sport

History of sport describes human activity for thousands years. This is more vital article than any random top important sport-person (James Naismith, Muhammad Ali, Jesse Owens etc.) and more vital than any random historical game (senet, pachisi etc.).

Suport

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
4. Support even if we are over quota i believe general overview articles of main forms of art/entertainment are a necessity at this level. GuzzyG (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
5. Support, yes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

1. @Dawid2009: The word "dscribes" in your nomination text should be replaced with "describes".--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

add History of games

Game studies are more vital than Sport studies (like Wikipedia's own statistics shows) so if we decide to add History of sport, history of games most obviously should be already listed. Games historically had traditional, religional, and philosophical importance.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
4. Support even if we are over quota i believe general overview articles of main forms of art/entertainment are a necessity at this level. GuzzyG (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
5. Agree with nom. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

1. @Dawid2009:The word "vitala" in your nomination text should be replaced by "vital" and "to" should be added next to "decide".--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Rupee

What makes rupee more important than peso, franc, or dinar?

Support

1. As nom. feminist (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Support. Not vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
4. Ruble is currently not listed, rupee is no more vital than ruble, there are still some articles which are indeed vital at this level but not listed (e.g. Ani and Russian Armed Forces), and this list is currently full.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
5. Support per above. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Rupee was once more valuable than US$. Besides, rupee has been used in Russia, which is the largest country in the world.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC) removed the vote (sorry, I thought that rupee is ruble, the currency currently used in Russia).--11:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

The article is the generic rupee, article about all past and present currencies with that name, or widely similar names, it is not the article on Indian rupee which would make sense to include, if anything. For example we do not list the articles for generic dollar or Pound (currency).  Carlwev  13:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Hypericum, the St. John's worts

Hypericum is a genus of 500 flowering plants in the Malpighiales order that is commonly referred to as St. John's wort. These plants are found in practically every temperate region of earth, and every continent aside from Antarctica. There are several dozen cultivars and ornamental plants in the genus that are grown in moderate for their large, yellow flowers. In addition, many of the species in the genus, especially its type species Hypericum perforatum, have been and still are used in folk medicine as well as to treat mild depression, and the essential oils extracted Hypericum species have made the genus grow in popularity over the last decade.

The article is comparable in importance to many of the other non-monocot plant articles included, and if it were required that an article be removed to make room, I would argue that having nine articles in the Asteraceae not including itself, none of which are Level 3 articles, is somewhat overkill. However, the Biological and health sciences section is still five articles below its target, and I believe this article is a worthy inclusion to bring that number one closer.

Support

1. Support as nominator. Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 18:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 21:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
4. Support It is a genus that can be found on most continents. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
5. Support per nom GuzzyG (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
6. Support – It isn't too vital just as a plant, however the monograph and traditional medicine usage push me to believe that this is vital (not that those are the main components of its vitality). J947 ^(c), at 22:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 Spiritual practice

The quota is over in Philosophy and religion section. This article lists spiritual practices in different religions. Meditation, prayer and other activities are already listed. This article is probably not vital and necessary at this level.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Support. As the nom says, we're over quota and this article is less vital than the individual practices also listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Support After thinkink about it more it is too technical article just like Religious text. We can not have such technical/generic article when things like Natural philosophy or Society of Jesus are missed and we are over quota. I would also consider swap few fictional characters for Women in the Bible because of we removed vital creature Ares and we do not list Child Jesus. In my sense quota for religion anyway should be at least increasted later or earlier for at least +5 articles. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
4. Support This article is little more than a list of spiritual practices. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
5. Support seems to be a catch em all article to list, many loosely related things. We list spirituality and several of the practices. Maybe a bit to general, and in danger of becoming a long list, if not list like already. We don't list things like legal practice and Religious practice is just a redirect to religion.  Carlwev  19:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The article is similar to spirituality but if we list performance art despite fact we have performing art on higher level we should keep spiritual practice too. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: remove Hay, add Animal feed

We generally list the most general articles over more specific articles at higher levels. Hay is a type of fodder, and fodder is a type of animal feed, so I think animal feed is the article we should list at this level.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

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

---

swap Ignacy Łukasiewicz for Ludwik Łazarz Zamenhof

Ignacy Łukasiewicz is weakest inventor at this level and maybe generally weakest scienciefists. This Polish man for sure is not worth being at this list. Ludwik Łazarz Zamenhorf is a social scientist and this Pole is considered the father of Esperanto language so in my opinion he would be good choice to be replaced with Łukasiewicz.

Support

1. Support As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal, oppose addition Łukasiewicz is perhaps the least influential inventor listed. However, Esperanto does not require a representative. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Support removal, oppose addition per Susmuffin GuzzyG (talk) 08:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Support removal, oppose addition per above. --Thi (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
5. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)).
6. Support removal, oppose addition per Susmuffin InvalidOStalk 13:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The removal, since he built the world's first modern oil refinery.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Slovakian Juraj Janosik is not less known in Poland than this Łukasiewicz and even Janosik likely is not nearly vital at this level (we even do not list Slovakian language). And BTW on that basic I think that we nodoubtly have too few languages at society and far too many articles relted with education at society. Whad do you think?

Neutral. Zamenhof posted the first and most widely known attempt to make a global language, and is a fairly well known figure in terms of this list. Łukasiewicz created many well known things (modern kerosene lamp, modern street lamp, in general many things related with oil, so that means things in a now growing and controversial industry...). I'm even going to say he's the Edison of oil. Both the opposing arguments that make me fall here can be found in other's comments. In general I'm really not sure at all about either of them, so neutral is my position at least for now. J947 ^(c), at 02:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Syracuse, Sicily

Syracuse was one of the two most prominent Greek colonies in the Italian Peninsula.

Support

1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
4. Support – it equaled Athens in size during the fifth century BC... Yep. J947 ^(c), at 18:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
5. Support per above supports. Jusdafax (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

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

---

Add Online encyclopedia

General article, more vital than Wikipedia which listed at society section.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Encyclopedia is more important article. This and List of online encyclopedias are both mainly lists. --Thi (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Thi, and Wiki covers it well. There is pretty much only one successful specimen of this, so we shouldn't list the catch-all. J947^{'s public account} 23:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

   Actually didn't realise that Wiki isn't here. That could be an addition. J947^{'s public account} 23:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

3. Oppose, encyclopedia is enough. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

Swap Jean Marais for Jean Gabin

Gabin is legitimately one of the key actors in french film history. Marais is known mainly for his connection to Cocteau; big difference in vitality. Gabins in more wikidata languages too.

Support

1. Support As nom GuzzyG (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Support as per nom. J947 ^(c), at 05:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 05:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Marais is best known for his connection to Cocteau. Meanwhile, Gabin was one of the most influential French actors. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 06:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

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

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

---

Remove J. D. Salinger

The Catcher in the Rye is Salinger's only important work.

Support

1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Either the novel or the writer can be removed. --Thi (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Support the book is vital, not the biography of it's author. GuzzyG (talk) 09:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
4. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
5. Support his magnum opus is sufficient. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
6. Support: as above, the book is the historically important thing, and the author only important because of that one book. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 17:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• Salinger has published a large number of short stories and a few novellas, but The Catcher in the Rye is his only published novel. I am not certain what kind of reputation his other works have. Dimadick (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap Thomas Gainsborough for Leon Battista Alberti

We are at the limit basically and i am proposing a swap. Now that we are adding Constable; Gainsborough is no longer necessary, he's not really super influential or super vital to worldwide art history. Alberti on the other hand is seen to have "epitomised the Renaissance Man" ideal; a very important architect and mathematician.

1. Support As nom GuzzyG (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Support addition. Britannica calls him as the foremost theorist of Renaissance architecture. "His versatility can only be compared to that of Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) and Michelangelo (1475-1564); however, these two lived in a later time and were able to build on Alberti's basic ideas." [4] --Thi (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Support removal Gainsborough is not an artist of top level importance - hardly much more important that Reynolds, his great rival. But, while Alberti had diverse talents, I'm not convinced he really achieved enough to warrant inclusion. Even his architecture was hardly ground-breaking. Neljack (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
5. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)).
6. Support removal as per Neljack. J947 ^(c), at 05:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
7. The addition, since Alberti, a polymath, was not only a highly prominent artist but also made great advances in mathematics.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal. The Blue Boy, The Painter`s Daughters and the portrait Mr. and Mrs. Robert Andrews are famous paintings. --Thi (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
2. The removal, since this is the English Wikipedia, and he is credited (with Richard Wilson) as the originator of the 18th-century British landscape school.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 Ursula K. Le Guin

We already list the "Big Three" of science fiction, Ray Bradbury and Philip K. Dick.

Support

1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 19:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Le Guin was not only a science fiction author. Her Earthsea novels are among the most respected modern fantasy books. Asimov, Heinlein and Dick can go. --Thi (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Guin being the only woman means she wouldn't and should't be the first to go here it should be Dick. I agree on Thi's suggested removals and was about to nominate some soon. But the modern writers on this list is filled with genre fiction, which is not bad but when we're missing writers such as Tennessee Williams and Eugene O'Neill i think it's a problem. The "three foremost playwrights of 20th-century American drama" is more important to have on here then the big three of science fiction. Also writers like J. D. Salinger and Thomas Pynchon whose main novels are on this list in the art section, also whose main biographies are completely unimportant to history due to their reclusive nature need to be removed considering people like Aldous Huxley got removed because his book was listed and people like Harper Lee are not on for that exact reason. I'd argue people like Ayn Rand are more notable then Margaret Atwood too. Writers like Ivo Andrić should be on over Ivan Cankar. Surely Norman Mailer, Truman Capote, Philip Roth, Henry Miller, Sinclair Lewis, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, and Pearl S. Buck deserve to be on here more then some of the recluses with no actual biographical importance/science fiction writers. Writers like Jean Genet, Dario Fo and Alfred, Lord Tennyson are missing too. I think the coverage of literature should be managed on here where we cover authors like Salinger with his book in the arts section but have the bios section have authors notable for their whole career. Either way the modern writers section needs a rehaul the most. GuzzyG (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose She was also a fantasy writer, a poet, and a screenwriter. Dimadick (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

Remove Thomas Pynchon

Pynchon is primarily known for a single novel.

Support

1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Support If it makes room for other writers. Either the novel or the writer can be removed. --Thi (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Support the book is vital, not the biography of it's author. GuzzyG (talk) 09:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
4. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
5. Support I agree he is no one-hit wonder, but we have too many American authors and have to make some tough choices. We don't list Philip Roth, Cormac McCarthy or Don DeLillo, other contemporary American novelists of similar stature. Neljack (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

   @Neljack: Which authors would you remove? ―Susmuffin ^Talk 06:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

   @Susmuffin: It is easier to say that Americans are disproportionately represented than to decide which ones should be removed. But Jack London, H. P. Lovecraft and Raymond Chandler strike me as some possible candidates for removal. Neljack (talk) 09:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

   @Neljack: I would suggest that we keep Lovecraft and remove the other two. If we have to remove a horror author, then it should be Stephen King. Also, you may be interested in some of my other suggestions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 00:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose While I am far from a fan, the premise is inaccurate. Pynchon has written 8 novels, and The Crying of Lot 49 has received its share of praise.: "The novel is often classified as a notable example of postmodern fiction. Time included the novel in its "TIME 100 Best English-language Novels from 1923 to 2005". Dimadick (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

• @GuzzyG: I agree that Pynchon should not be on this list. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Philip K. Dick

Also Kurt Vonnegut and Thomas Pynchon wrote psychedelic social satires. They were better prose stylists and Dick had to write his novels quickly.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Support we have too many science fiction/genre authors and he's the least vital. GuzzyG (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
4. Support We already list the "Big Three" of science fiction, Ray Bradbury, Ursula K. Le Guin, H. G. Wells, Jack London, C. S. Lewis, Mary Shelley, Jules Verne and H. P. Lovecraft. Of the aforementioned list, I would only keep Bradbury, Wells, Lewis, Shelley, Verne and Lovecraft. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

   @GuzzyG: How do you feel about my suggestions? ―Susmuffin ^Talk 03:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

5. Support per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

I'll put my reply here, so we don't clog up the nomination and so we can discuss it further if need be.

1. Jack London should be the first removal, we list one of his works aswell The Call of the Wild.
2. H. G. Wells, C. S. Lewis, Mary Shelley, Jules Verne and H. P. Lovecraft are obvious keeps in my opinion. Ray Bradbury i wouldn't be sad if he got swapped with Fahrenheit 451.
3. I'm not so sure being apart of the big three merits automatic inclusion, Robert A. Heinlein looks weak on this list. We don't have the "big three" of 20th century American drama Eugene O'Neill, Arthur Miller and Tennessee Williams, drama is more important to literature then science fiction in many ways historically and Wikipedia especially is skewed towards science fiction and other genre works. We don't list Norman Mailer, Truman Capote, Cormac McCarthy, Philip Roth, Gore Vidal, Thornton Wilder, or Henry Miller all of whom represent a area of American literature not covered on this list, unlike science fiction.
4. I opposed Ursula K. Le Guin's removal, only because she should not be the first to go, but if we remove some of this backlog then yes. Writers like Gertrude Stein have played a more defining role in literature then Le Guin. If we needed another area specific author Patricia Highsmith would be better then Le Guin.
5. The big question is about Raymond Chandler and Stephen King, do we need a non Agatha Christie detective writer, (we have Arthur Conan Doyle, but honestly he's the definition of one hit wonder, just like any other writer we have removed for the same reasons. If we list Doyle, there's no excuse not to list Ian Fleming or J. K. Rowling or any other of the type, but i suspect heavy backlash.) and do we need a modern horror author or a second horror author to lovecraft? (Although Bela Lugosi, Boris Karloff, Tod Browning or F. W. Murnau seem as just as big horror worthy people, but yet again the actors are covered by the one hit wonder rule, Sean Connery and Alec Guinness are also actors of this variety though, but they won a academy award so they're in via a loophole as being known for more then one thing). Chandler and King rest purely on the question if their movie contributions push them over the edge, but if Arthur C. Clarke is notable for Stanley Kubrick making his work popular then the same standard should be held for keeping King on this list.
6. The only other question needing figuring out in modern American literature is how far do we take this one hit wonder rule? Do Herman Melville and Nathaniel Hawthorne count, since we list the work's aswell?

Those are the only problems in the modern American literature section in my opinion. I think we should aim for 250 or even 240 writers as a whole, i just can't see writers being 100 articles more notable then art/music. GuzzyG (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

1. I agree.
2. Asimov, Clarke and Heinlein should be removed.
3. I was beginning to have second thoughts on Bradbury.
4. That seems reasonable to me.
5. Chandler should be removed. He is clearly less important than most of the other American authors. King is the most prominent living horror author, but that is probably not enough. Also, we should avoid listing too many living people.
6. I am not sure if we are ready to answer that question.

We could remove approximately ten authors. Your quota is reasonable. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Some observations on the writers.

• Robert A. Heinlein is in part known not for his own work, but on his influence on other writers and the genre as a whole." "Heinlein has had a pervasive influence on other science fiction writers. In a 1953 poll of leading science fiction authors, he was cited more frequently as an influence than any other modern writer. Critic James Gifford writes that "Although many other writers have exceeded Heinlein's output, few can claim to match his broad and seminal influence. Scores of science fiction writers from the prewar Golden Age through the present day loudly and enthusiastically credit Heinlein for blazing the trails of their own careers, and shaping their styles and stories."
• Arthur Conan Doyle was not a one-hit author. Besides Sherlock Holmes, he was the creator of Professor Challenger and the co-creator of the lost world genre of fantasy (in our article he shares the credit with H. Rider Haggard and Rudyard Kipling). On a lesser note, the Brigadier Gerard series by Doyle has received its own share of film adaptations.
• H. P. Lovecraft' impact involves the Lovecraftian horror sub-genre, which is mostly a mix of horror and science fiction. "Lovecraft refined this style of storytelling into his own mythos that involved a set of supernatural, pre-human, and extraterrestrial elements. His work was inspired by and similar to previous authors such as Edgar Allan Poe, Algernon Blackwood and Lord Dunsany.
• Herman Melville owes much of his modern fame on Moby-Dick, but the book sold poorly and did not become popular until the 20th century. Otherwise, he is better known for the famously cryptic short story Bartleby, the Scrivener (the main character inexplicably sinks into apathy and depression, and there have been numerous interpretation of the story and its events) and the popular, but incomplete Billy Budd.
• Nathaniel Hawthorne's Gothic fiction novel The House of the Seven Gables is probably his most famous work. It outsold The Scarlet Letter, and reportedly "caused a sensation" when printed in England. It has received many film adaptations, and is considered a major influence on Lovecraft and Lovecraftian horror. "The novel was an inspiration for horror fiction writer H. P. Lovecraft, who called it "New England's greatest contribution to weird literature" in his essay "Supernatural Horror in Literature". Seven Gables likely influenced Lovecraft's short stories "The Picture in the House", "The Shunned House" and novella The Case of Charles Dexter Ward." Dimadick (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Tennessee Williams

Cleary one of the most notable playwrights of the 20th century.[5] "He wrote several award-winning plays, including The Glass Menagerie, A Streetcar Named Desire, and Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. Known for gritty characters and heartbreaking themes, these plays combined poetic language with dramatic flair and are recognized today as American classics." [6]

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 03:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Dimadick (talk) 09:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
5. Support pbp 23:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
6. Support He was one of the most influential playwrights of the 20^th century. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

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

---

Add Patrick Modiano

Nobel author. Good representative of modern French literature. As the Los Angeles Review of Books says: "Modiano writes short, easy-to-read novels with big themes: memory, loss, identity, seeking. They are easily approachable and satisfying to read." [7] "If one studies French literature, one can't avoid Modiano."[8]

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Modiano is not as influential as François-René de Chateaubriand, Germaine de Staël and George Sand. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose I agree with Susmuffin that Modiano is not the most vital French author we don't list. I find Sand a particularly surprising omission from the list. Neljack (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

I think we have too many French writers already and more important Nobel writers like Eugene O'Neill, Ivo Andrić, Dario Fo, Giorgos Seferis, Miguel Ángel Asturias and Halldór Laxness are missing. But i'm open to what other people think. GuzzyG (talk) 09:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Asturias would be good addition, also Julio Cortázar and César Vallejo. I am skeptical about Fo's inclusion if Italo Calvino and Eugenio Montale are not listed. I think that Commedia dell'arte should be at this level first. --Thi (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

swap Jacques Brel for Rene Goscinny

Like I said in my above comment, we have too many French-language musicans. French Rene Goscinny is good option to be replaced with Jacques Brel because of we have too few comic writers (comics are listed at the level 3 and the comics do not have dedicated category for people at the level 4 so it is not fair while some fields such like latin music have their own categories for people here). We also list Asteriks while it is not the only notable Goscinny's work. Very important Goscinny's works is Le Petit Nicolas because of it is consider as "National French Fairly Tale" (Le Peitit Nicolas for French, it is something like Pippi Longstocking for Swedish or Pinocchio for Italian). Another important his work is also Lucky Luke which has been translated into various languages.

Support

1. Support As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal, oppose addition French musicians are overrepresented when we don't have any for Korea or Japan. Goscinny is not a more vital writer then Plautus or Livius Andronicus. Also to add on, COMIC people are WAY too over-represented all ready. Escher/Hergé/Kerby/Lee/Seuss/Tezuka/Beardsley/Disney/Miyazaki are the only VITAL to world history comics/animation/illustration people. GuzzyG (talk) 08:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Goscinny was the creator or co-creator of Asterix, Lucky Luke, Iznogoud, and Le Petit Nicolas. He was posthumously inducted to the Will Eisner Award Hall of Fame, and has been among the most influential writers of European comics. I think comics in general are under-represented. Dimadick (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Support removal, oppose addition The list contains other French musicians and Asterix is listed. --Thi (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
5. Support removal, oppose addition Asterix does not require a second representative. Furthermore, we have reached our limit for this section. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
6. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)).
7. Support removal; oppose addition per other comments. He only did half the work of Asterix and the comics category is good as is. J947 ^(c), at 05:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
8. Support--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

These two people are not representants for the same category but some time go there were discussion to swap Luciana Aymar with Sequoyah so I have made specific nomination for swapping.

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

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

---

Add Zhuang Zhou

One of the most influential Chinese religious figures of all time.

Support

1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

He's not listed because the book he wrote is, just for clarification. GuzzyG (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Donald Trump

I think that Donald Trump's Wikipedia article should be a Level 4 Vital Importance article, since he is the current US president, a multi-billionaire, and has already enacted numerous policies that have a large effect on the United States. It is currently only Level 5 Importance, but there are many Level 4 Importance articles that are much less known and aren't on issues that have as much of an impact as Trump. BobRoberts14 (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

Support

• Support I nominated this page because I believe it should be raised to Level 4 Importance. BobRoberts14 (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14 This user has been indefinitely blocked. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

1. pbp 13:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Support - Responding to ping. Of course he should be Level 4. His article is clearly vital at that level. The nomination is correct and should be enacted, regardless of one’s personal opinions of him. Jusdafax (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Support - Though long-term historical importance should be the prime consideration for vital articles, I do think we should take into account present-day power and, to a lesser extent, reader interest. As the current leaders of the two most powerful and influential countries in the world, I would argue that it is vital that Wikipedia contains quality articles on both Trump and Xi Jinping. When each leaves office, a new discussion could take place regarding whether they still belong on the list. Orser67 (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Leaning oppose. The only one-term president on the list at all is John Adams, who was a founding father. Most of the policies that he has enacted have been enacted by other presidents before him, who are also not on the list. Being a billionaire is not particularly relevant to the category of political leadership, and there are many other billionaires who are far wealthier than Trump who are not even on the list for business people. bd2412 T 21:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose over quota, too many more important people missing in a more diverse bunch of fields other then over represented American politics and if we do have another American politician it should be Jefferson Davis. GuzzyG (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose It is far too early to determine Trump's influence on American and global history. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose: Being the current US president is actually a drawback, because that means the article is "incomplete" by its nature: it is about his presidency up to this day. We don't know yet what else he will do, or the consequences of his recent actions. Cambalachero (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose: It may be that Trump will earn a place on that list, particularly if he wins a second term and implements ore far-reaching reforms. But let's not be hasty. He could still be a one-termer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
6. Oppose for the reasons given above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
7. Oppose Frequently in the news, but he has not had a long-term impact yet. Dimadick (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
8. Oppose I'd add Xi Jinping, president for life, to the list first. He has had a larger impact on the world than Trump. feminist (talk) 03:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
9. Oppose to avoid recentism bias, and per those above. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 17:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
10. Oppose Recentism. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Historical importance has nothing to do with being the current leader of a country, being a multi billionaire and being famous. What has he done to change history? In your original thread on the Trump page itself, you compared him with Adi Shankara, if you can't tell the difference between someone who "He is credited with unifying and establishing the main currents of thought in Hinduism" and Trump himself, then i can't help you. There's so many people missing from this list like Peter Abelard, Roger Bacon, Giordano Bruno and Ernst Chladni for example, who have had more of a impact on the world then a current politician. GuzzyG (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Most of the people who you just listed haven't had as much of an effect on the world as Trump has. This is not about whether or not his policies are good, since I disagree with many of them, it's about whether or not he is important. He banned transgender troops from the military, affecting thousands of people. He placed tariffs on 200+ billion dollars in Chinese goods, disrupting trade and generating 10's of billions of dollars in government revenue. He appointed two Supreme Court justices, both of whom will have a lasting impact on US law. He signed the Tax and Jobs act into law, which will increase the federal deficit by as much as one trillion dollar, but also cause economic growth and reduce taxes for most Americans and businesses. The list goes on and on. He has already had a lasting impact, good or bad, on many people throughout the world, and will continue to for the rest of his presidency. BobRoberts14 (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

Trump is not the originator of most of those policies, however. Other presidents have enacted bigger and more impactful tariff regimes, appointed more Supreme Court justices, enacted proportionally higher tax cuts, grown the economy more, and engaged in more divisive social policies. bd2412 T 21:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Those other presidents' policies are no longer in effect. Trump is the current president, and most of his policies are still affecting the world. Even though he has done less than many presidents, they are not as "important" because their policies no longer have an effect on the world today, and most of their policies have been replaced to some extent. BobRoberts14 (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

Consider the fact that George W. Bush's policies led to full-scale wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that we are still fighting the war in Afghanistan over fifteen years later, while the war in Iraq spilled over to surrounding regions, leading to the formation of ISIS and the destabilization of Syria, both of which we are still dealing with. Bush also enacted most of the economic policy agenda that Trump is carrying out (other than the tariffs), so most of the policies for which Trump is taking credit are merely continuations of a previous administration's policy ideas. Furthermore, even with all that, I would not consider Bush to be as high up on the list as Ronald Reagan, who is also not there. bd2412 T 22:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whose "ideas" they are, what matters most is who enacted them. Also, if that is true, Ronald Reagan should definitely be Level 4 Importance... BobRoberts14 (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

Both Bush and Reagan are listed. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

That's what I thought, I was just confused because they said they weren't listed there. BobRoberts14 (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

My mistake - I was looking at the early America's section. bd2412 T 10:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok let's dissect the people i have linked;

Adi Shankara: "consolidated the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta. He is credited with unifying and establishing the main currents of thought in Hinduism."

Peter Abelard: Britannica says "best known for his solution of the problem of universals and for his original use of dialectics." other sites "He is known as the finest academic brain of 12th century by a number of historians." "was the preeminent philosopher of the twelfth century and perhaps the greatest logician of the middle ages. During his life he was equally famous as a poet and a composer, and might also have ranked as the preeminent theologian of his day had his ideas earned more converts and less condemnation."

Roger Bacon: "He was the first European to describe in detail the process of making gunpowder, and he proposed flying machines and motorized ships and carriages. Bacon (as he himself complacently remarked) displayed a prodigious energy and zeal in the pursuit of experimental science; indeed, his studies were talked about everywhere and eventually won him a place in popular literature as a kind of wonder worker."

"His linguistic work has been heralded for its early exposition of a universal grammar.

"He is sometimes credited (mainly since the 19th century) as one of the earliest European advocates of the modern scientific method inspired by Aristotle and by Alhazen"

Giordano Bruno:

"whose theories anticipated modern science. The most notable of these were his theories of the infinite universe and the multiplicity of worlds, in which he rejected the traditional geocentric (Earth-centred) astronomy and intuitively went beyond the Copernican heliocentric (Sun-centred) theory,"

"Bruno proposed versions of metempsychosis, polygenism, panpsychism and, renouncing Christian emphases on human imperfection, advocated a morality that exhorted individuals to perfect their intellectual powers."

Ernst Chladni: " father of acoustics, included research on vibrating plates and the calculation of the speed of sound for different gases. He also undertook pioneering work in the study of meteorites and is regarded by some as the father of meteoritics." "pioneers of experimental acoustics. His research on different kinds of vibrations served as the basis for the scientific understanding of sound that later emerged in the 19th century. "

If you cannot understand how these people have had more of a overall effect on history then Trump, then i do not what to say. Pure recentism. Most of the presidents not listed like Bill Clinton have done more. This isn't just fame, it's importance. Comparing Alain Delon in the other thread you started who is one of the most dominant European actors to a American politician is false equivalency, compare another American politician to Trump if you have to but also argue why Trump is more important then figures like Jefferson Davis and if you say both should be listed; then argue why American politicians deserve more representatives the Roman leaders who had a much longer and important role then America has had so far on history. GuzzyG (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Someone's effect on modern day people is also important when considering if they are an "important person". The people you listed are not current figures, they affected the world many years ago, and although they had significant contributions, Trump has still done more (not talking about Bill Clinton, but some of the scientists), and he is still currently enacting policies. BobRoberts14 (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

• Re:BD: James K. Polk and John F. Kennedy are also on the list, the former as a one-term president and the latter as a half-term president (but, in fairness, I have supported Kennedy's removal). This in addition to Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun, none of whom ever served as President at all. I would personally rate Trump ahead of Jefferson Davis; Davis is a ways down on my list of people I'd consider for Lv 4. pbp 13:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

In the political figures section, we currently list twenty-six Americans and twenty Romans. There are six early modern Americans and twenty modern ones. Meanwhile, the Roman political figures are divided between fourteen Ancient Romans and six Byzantines. There are also a few military figures who were also political figures. They include five Romans and four Americans. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Midnightblueowl, Cambalachero, DaGizza, Jclemens, FreeKnowledgeCreator, Iamozy, Jusdafax, Betty Logan, Anythingyouwant, RekishiEJ, Rreagan007, Neljack, PointsofNoReturn, Thi, and Carlwev: All of you participated in the last discussion on this subject. Also, User:BobRoberts14 is now User:LilBillWilliams‎. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 02:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, but User:NeilN decided to ban me from modern American political articles indefinitely because of something I said at my user talk page, and I assume that ban precludes my saying much here. So I’ll just incorporate my previous comments by reference. Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

No American president should be made Level 4 (or higher) during his lifetime, let alone his tenure in office. Too recentist. But thanks for asking. Jclemens (talk) 03:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm between neutral and weak oppose for now. I'd wait until the next election. Not all two-termers are vital but if Trump becomes one he probably will be. Out of all missing recent topics, I believe the Syrian Civil War is the most vital by far. The election of Trump, Brexit, etc. were all influenced by the Syrian War too. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

"No American president should be made Level 4 (or higher) during his lifetime, let alone his tenure in office." The only currently living persons among them are (ordered by time of birth): Jimmy Carter, Donald Trump, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama. So, you feel that everyone else is fair game? Dimadick (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• User:LilBillWilliams has been indefinitely blocked. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add History of paper

Not less vital than Cai Lun because of Cai Lung probably popularised paper just like Ford popularised cars. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 07:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Paper is enough. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Paper is enough. --Thi (talk) 07:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose Paper is already listed. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

Add History of astrology

Actually astrology i vital only historically. Astrology was very important for philosophy and religious' of acient people.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 07:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. astrology is enough. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Astrology is enough. --Thi (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose Astrology is already listed. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose per above and we already have history of astronomy. Early astronomy and astrology were intermingled. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

People don't seem to like this one, I was reading about the general topic and Archaeoastronomy is another article that caught my eye as maybe better for level four, if not both would definitely be level five.  Carlwev  19:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Cleveland or Cincinnati, add Columbus, Ohio and Illinois

Neither Cleveland nor Cincinnati have over 400,000 people, but Columbus is creeping up on 900,000 and Illinois is the most important state in the Midwest by far, and IMO the subdivisions section is lacking in terms of the US. Two cities in Ohio and Pennsylvania yet neither are included with Illinois is a stride ahead of them and not included? Anyways, I know Cleveland and Cincinnati are probably more likely to be spoken about, but Columbus does have double the population and is the capital. —J947 ^(c), at 04:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Support addition(s)

1. Support (Illinois) as nominator. –J947 ^(c), at 04:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

   Changing to support the addition of Illinois only. J947 ^(c), at 18:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

2. Support addition of Illinois. --Thi (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Support addition of Illinois. feminist (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Support addition of Illinois. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
5. Support addition of Illinois.  Carlwev  20:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose addition(s)

Neutral (all)

Support removal concept

1. Support as nominator. Not sure which one should be removed though. J947 ^(c), at 07:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose removal concept

1. Weak oppose removing Cincinnati. The Cincinnati metropolitan area is the largest MSA in Ohio, ahead of both Cleveland and Columbus. To be fair, all three cities are pretty comparable in size and reader interest. Alternatively, I can support remove both Cincinnati and Cleveland. feminist (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Support Cincinnati as removal

1. Support --Thi (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Support GuzzyG (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Support (nom) as per below. J947 ^(c), at 19:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Support Cleveland as removal

Discuss

Illinois' removal: Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_20#Keep_Illinois. J947 ^(c), at 04:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Cincinnati is the biggest metropolitan are of the three. Cleveland and Columbus are about the same size. See List of metropolitan statistical areas. Also Illinois before Pennsylvania? Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Just like to say the metro areas have different—non-vital—articles. I certainly do not think that all of that should be discounted against the main articles, but in these cases city proper is slightly more or about the same regarding the level of comprehensiveness. And of course in city proper Columbus' population is significantly larger than the other two C's, with nothing close to nearing that in metro. My support is weaker now though. I'll get around to explaining your other point soon. J947 ^(c), at 03:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Columbus may be more populous now but Cleveland has historically been more populous. In 1970, Columbus had a population of 539,677, Cincinnati had a population of 452,525, and Cleveland had a population of 750,903. I'm not wholly sold on this proposal, but if I were removing something, it would be Cincinnati. pbp 13:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Palace Museum

how is National Palace Museum level 4 and Palace Museum level 5. that doesn't make sense. Viztor (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom Viztor (talk) 08:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose the Palace Museum in Beijing is part of the Forbidden City, which is already in Level 4. feminist (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose per feminist. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose The Forbidden City is already listed. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 02:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment

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

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

---

Remove Physics (Aristotle)

While ago this discussion has been closed and was not touched but I am going to restarted it. If we decide remove physics; number (3) of Aristotele's books still will be plenty. This is vital but unnecesary when we are well-over quota and we even do not include De revolutionibus orbium coelestium.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Support per above and my previous nomination. --Thi (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Support per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
5. Support We do not need to have four books by the same author. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 02:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

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

---

Add Natural philosophy

Support

1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Astonished this wasn't listed already. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Natural philosophy was the study of nature before modern science was developed. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
5. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

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

---

add Fertility rite

Fertility rite (in some foreign Wikipedias describes as: Firtility cult) is extremely foundational/influential concept for various traditions, specifically between winter and spring (for example Easter eggs, Easter Bunny and also Mummers play, Krampus, etc.)

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Fertility rites have been a major historical trend throughout multiple religions, ancient and modern. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Support good suggestion. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
5. Sure. feminist (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not really convinced. Only 12 language versions, although the numbers are not very important. Both the Culture and Religion sections are full. --Thi (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

add Idea

Idea is enough vital at this level (reasons in section about Imagination)

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Seems vital enough to list at this level, though I would probably add it to the philosophy section, since it seems to be written more as a philosophy article. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Yes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Weak support for now, well at least until Thi provides a rationale for opposing. Also, I concur with Rreagan. J947 ^(c), at 04:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
5. This term is used interchangeably with concept in colloquial contexts, yet they are no interchangeable in formal ones. Now that concept is listed, there's no reason why idea can not be listed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 'Idea' has different meanings and the article is actually an extended disambiguation page. Concept and Platonic realism (or Problem of universals) are listed in the Philosophy section and Creativity, Cognition, Thought etc. in Psychology. Innovation is more vital article and not listed. --Thi (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

   Suppose it kind of is an extended disambig in a few ways. I think the part which Dawid is focusing on here is the anthropology and social sciences section. Meme is linked in there and is listed here at VA4, linked kind of as a subtopic of that. It's a varying page which could be significantly improved to undisambig this, but that's what the main goal of VA is. Innovation sounds like a good addition. J947 ^(c), at 08:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 Support group and Secret society

Probably not vital at this level.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Secret society is not needed when we have conspiracy theory. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
4. Support Secret societies are generally only referenced by conspiracy theorists. Support groups are better discussed by the other articles in that section. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose secret society As Dimadick points out, secret societies and conspiracy theories are not symbiotic. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose - Both are vital at L4, in my view. Jusdafax (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose we have Freemasonry, and could add Secret handshake too. wumbolo ^^^ 18:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Discuss

• I'm neutral, though I expect both removals will pass. These are both weak articles and have overlap with existing articles, but I'd support both of these being on a mythical 20k article list. I expect the 50k list will have to suffice here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• secret societies have little to do with conspiracy theories. They are various organizations which conceal the identities of their members from non-members. While some of these were political organizations such as the Carbonari and the Know Nothing party, others were simply fraternities and clubs. Dimadick (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Gender equality and Women's rights

Two high-importance articles related to human rights.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 07:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Of course! —J947 ^(c), at 18:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Support These articles should have been listed years ago. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
4. Support women's rights, as I would ultimately like to see that article swapped for women's suffrage at level 3. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
5. Thought they were there already. I agree that Women's rights should be swapped with Women's suffrage at Level 3. feminist (talk) 07:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
6. Support one, but not both. There is too much overlap to include both.Viztor (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
7. Strong support for gender equality: feminism is a modern series of movements/ideologies whereas gender equality applies to any society from history with a conception of gender—as far as I know, all of them. Support women's rights: a broader scope than sexism and an essential part of human rights. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 17:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose gender equality. We're already well over quota in this section and I don't think both are needed since we also include other related articles such as feminism and sexism. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

Add Folk taxonomy

When we list Race (human categorisation) as more subjective terminology of Biological anthropology (which is already on the list), we should consider addition of folk taxonomy. This concept also explain why for example German Wikipedia and Polish Wikipedia intentionally do not have artiles about Elephant or Monkey. It is something useful to knowlage. It should be on the level 4 or level 5 IMO. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

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

---

Add Bipedalism

This article covers Walking and Jumping. Possible addition to the level 3 when we have primate there, because of it is essential issue to human evolution.

Support

1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose;

Discuss

1. @Dawid2009:Bipedalism is already listed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
   1. @RekishiEJ: I automatically assumed that Bipedalism is missed hen we do not list walking and jumping. Since you were nomination walking to level 3, wha do you think to add bidepalism there and later jumping and walking to level 4? We can have featured article about such things when we have so much specific and redudant topics in every day life. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
      1. @Dawid2009:Walking is already listed, while jumping isn't.--RekishiEJ (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Terence

Influential Roman comedy writer. His acient wording "I am human, and I think nothing human is alien to me" is nearly known just like Cogito, ergo sum by Descrates. In my opinion he is littly more vital than like Ennius.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Not particularly popular in contemporary history, but much studied during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. "Due to his clear and entertaining language, Terence's works were heavily used by monasteries and convents during the Middle Ages and The Renaissance. Scribes often learned Latin through the meticulous copying of Terence's texts. Priests and nuns often learned to speak Latin through reenactment of Terence's plays, thereby learning both Latin and Gregorian chants. Although Terence's plays often dealt with pagan material, the quality of his language promoted the copying and preserving of his text by the church. The preservation of Terence through the church enabled his work to influence much of later Western drama." Dimadick (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Support As vital as Plautus. --Thi (talk) 08:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
4. Support He was one of the most influential Roman playwrights. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
5. Support This is a example of actual literary influence, certainly not a popular Jack London type. GuzzyG (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

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

---

Remove Blue cheese, Cheddar cheese, Mozzarella and Parmigiano-Reggiano

Okay, they are all vital, but because the list does not contain popular types of tea and coffee, these four types of cheese should be removed as well. Besides, there are some vital topics still not included in the level 4 list while it is currently over quota.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Support As you say, cappuccino and latte are not listed. Nor is black tea, green tea and types of cooking oils (palm oil, olive oil, etc.) and types of chocolate. What makes types of cheeses different from other types of food and drink? Also mozzarella is probably redundant to pizza. It can be eaten other than on pizza but it's rare. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Support different types of cheese can go on level-5. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
4. Support The main article is already listed. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 02:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
5. Support per above. --Thi (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
6. Support Mozarella is covered by "Italian cousine" and Pizza. The others are not vital. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

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

---

Remove Jack London

We already list The Call of the Wild. Also, we list too many American authors.

Support

1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Support I knew not to bother with American writers, but i think one of the biggest problems with this list as it is, is that when people like London or Alec Guinness are nominated for deletion oppose votes bring up other works of the person, but they never argue why when we are over quota someone like London and many other of our over represented modern writers are more important to list then people like Roger Bacon or Peter Abelard and why does writing The People of the Abyss make London more vital then someone like Abelard who is described as "the keenest thinker and boldest theologian of the 12th Century", to ignore 12th century intellectual history on a list that's supposed to cover all of human history in favor of another modern American writer seems odd, but you'll never get a answer. Same with Ray Bradbury, nominate him saying Fahrenheit 451 is his main recognized work (true) and people will oppose saying "im partial to The Illustrated Man more" but never acknowledge that Bradbury is thus being judged as more important then dominant intellectual people from centuries we do not cover in favour of keeping modern American writers of which we list 39 total and 10 genre authors (Asimov, Bradbury, Chandler, Dick, Heinlein, King, Le Guin, Lee, London, and Lovecraft) not even including our bloat in our europe/uk sections or the fact writers like Kazuo Ishiguro are listed on the main reason he won a award 2 years ago. "But his life story is famous" shouldn't ever be a valid reason to make London (or people like Alec Guinness) as more important then people like Bacon and Abelard, but this is the crossroad we're at and have to decide on at this point of this list. I used to be more in favor of this list covering a more modern variety of modern things, but with the level 5 list, this list should become more strict and less modern now. Especially if the level 3 list has gotten stricter on arts/music/film by removing Dali/Chopin/Hitchcock etc. I'm more in favor of covering missing science articles like Joseph Banks on this list now then modern stuff. GuzzyG (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Support London is a significant writer, but the excessive number of American authors on the list requires some tough choices to be made. GuzzyG makes some good points about the sort of people we don't have - Abelard and Bacon are striking omissions. Neljack (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. The Call of the Wild can be removed instead. London wrote many other works and his life story is famous. --Thi (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Agree with Thi. (I'm partial to the The People of the Abyss and The Iron Heel, myself.) El_C 23:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose. The Sea-Wolf is another enduringly popular work by London, and viewed as an early study in psychopathy. Dimadick (talk) 06:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose We do indeed list two many American authors, but London is one who should be retained. pbp 15:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Thi. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

Remove Kiri te Kanawa, add Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau

Dame Kiri te Kanawa is undoubtedly a great singer, and as a New Zealander I am biased in her favour, but not even I could argue that she is one of the 9 greatest opera singers ever.

To replace her, I propose the great German baritone Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, who revolutionised lieder singing, as well as being an acclaimed singer of opera and sacred music. Leonard Bernstein described him as the most significant singer of the 20th century,[9] and others agreed.[10] He was, in Leon Botstein's words, "arguably the most famous, respected, and versatile singer of the second half of the twentieth century."[11] In Germany he was called "Der Jahrhundertsänger", which translates as “singer of the century” or “hundred-year singer" - though it has been said that "neither translation does justice to the air of veneration the term connotes" and that he was "a social phenomenon and a symbol of postwar Germany."[12] We also currently don't have any representative of the lower male voices (baritones, bass-baritones or basses). Neljack (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal Caruso, Callas, Sutherland, Pavarotti and Domingo are nearly always on the lists of greatest classical singers, other choices depends on what one likes to emphasize. --Thi (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
4. Support per Guzzy, and Kanawa isn't widely known even in NZ. J947 ^(c), at 04:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau was one of the greatest singers of the 20^th century. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 06:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

"other choices depends on what one likes to emphasize" maybe, which is all the more reason why this swap should pass, considering this is a area of opera singers we do not cover and thus should emphasize, we can't honestly just have 8 opera singers considering it's importance. More Comics people then Opera? GuzzyG (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Thi: Frankly I think Fischer-Dieskau would rank ahead of Sutherland and Pavarotti if you polled critics (FWIW, he came second in a Classic FM poll of critics of the greatest singers of the 20th century). Sutherland has plenty of detractors for her poor diction and limited dramatic ability, while Pavarotti's critical reputation - despite his fame and though undoubtedly a great singer - is not quite at the level of his fellow tenors Domingo and Caruso. Fischer-Dieskau, however, is almost universally acknowledged by critics as one of the most important classical singers of the century. Neljack (talk) 09:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Previous removal nomination for Kanawa here. J947^{'s public account} 00:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: remove John Wycliffe, add Pope Pius V

We certainly should have Pope from Counter-Reformation time. John Wycliffe made similar contributions to John Calvin so we do not need him on this level when we list so many protestants. When we list so many people who are notable in context Protestant views on Mary but not Cult of Mary I think we should list at least Pope from Counter-reformation time who introduced full form of Hail Mary to Roman Breviary, for some ballace. Developing Cult of MAry is strongly associated with Counerreformation time,

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC) 14 August withdrawn removal

Oppose

1. Oppose John Wycliffe was the founder of Lollardy in the 14th century, a major influence of Jan Hus and the Hussites in the 15th century, and an ideological ancestor to the Reformation in the 16th century. Pius V does not have that much of an impact. Dimadick (talk) 07:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose John Wycliffe was a highly influential predecessor to Protestantism. Meanwhile, Pope Pius V was not as influential as the listed popes. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose Influence of John Wycliffe. Also Leo is the better add for 16th century pope. Finally, I again take issue with "so many Protestants" when we only have 13 of them for a half-millennium of Protestantism. pbp 15:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

• Even though the removal has been abandoned, I still oppose this proposal because I feel that Pius V is the wrong add for a pope of this era. I'd prefer the Leo that excommunicated Luther, and, yes, I am aware that Leo had little to no theological brilliance, just world influence. pbp 19:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: remove Johnny Weissmuller, add Duke Kahanamoku

Johnny Weissmulller and Duke Kahanamoku had similar career significance. Weissmuller had also impact for Popular Culture and perhaps is even littly more vital but not for this list when we list Tarzan but not Jungle Book (as parent article for for other archetypical feral child: Mowgli) on this level. When we do not list American Talles as general parent article for missed folk heroes whose vitality is more near to Jack the Ripper than American Football people I belive we could swap Weismuller for someone?. Beyond that Duke Kahanamoku is also considered as "Father of Surfing" so if we decide swap eismuller of Kahanamoku we will have figure who was pionnier of sport and we will ecape from overrepresentation of Tarzan.

If problematic fact is that Duke Kanamoku is notable in two sports (Surfing and Swimming) we can eventually move people from Multiple sports to other sections.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Weissmuller was added here. J947^{'s public account} 00:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add 1953 Iranian coup d'état

Support

1. As nom. This event is no doubt vital at this level because it was the first United States covert action to overthrow a foreign government during peacetime (according to the lede).--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Don't see why this coup has significance comparable to say the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand or the First Sino-Japanese War. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per above. --Thi (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose We are over the quota in this section. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose it's the 1979 coup (listed as Iranian Revolution) that is of critical importance at this level. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

Add Antarctic

Vital just as Arctic. Antarctica is pair with Arctic ocean; Antarctic is pair with Arctic.

Support

1. Strong support As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Unnecessary at this level. Arctic Ocean is paired with Southern Ocean. Arctic is paired with Antarctica. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Rreagon's rationale. - Sdkb (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
3. Weak oppose per Rreagan, but might be vital enough at this level. J947 ^(c), at 04:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Rreagan007. --Thi (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

Add The Little Mermaid

Andersen was poeth and author. He was one of two major figures in The Danish Golden Age (along with Søren Kierkegaard). His the most famous creations were even showed/used (actually as main topic) for dozen of minutes in documentaryfilm about pscychoanalyse and had significant influence on English literature (especially fiction in Victorian Era). Including his one work to level 4 also is not any western bias because of his fairy tales are more appreciated in Far East and Eastern Europe than in the West nowdays. Article about Tales created by Andersen is list so including one title is better option. If I would have to choose one important Andersen's work I would choose The Little Mermaid. This literary work was inspiation of The Little Mermaid (statue) and according to information in that article is is the most iconic statue along with Manneken Pis, Statue of Liberty, Christ the Redeemer (statue) and Merlion.

Support

1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose We are over the quota in this section. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose Not at this level. --Thi (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

Add De rerum natura

Influential poetic work by Lucretius. "... theories of the atomic structure of matter and the emergence and evolution of life forms – ideas that would eventually form a crucial foundation and background for the development of western science. In addition to his literary and scientific influence, Lucretius has been a major source of inspiration for a wide range of modern philosophers..." (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) [13]

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

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

---

Remove Superhero

After thinkink about it more it is redundand to Fictional character and we already list several Superheros but we do not list Villain and Supervillain.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose General article about superheroes is needed, specific examples are not as vital. --Thi (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose We need a general article on the concept. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose Dimadick (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
6. Oppose as per above. J947 ^(c), at 04:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

@Thi, LaukkuTheGreit, Susmuffin, GuzzyG, Dimadick, J947, J947 Public, and Purplebackpack89:, I found in the archives contigent that Superhero is part of Stock character and if Zorro was partly influential for Batman, Batman should be removed as well. Most of you were oppose to add stock character and oppose to add superhero. Also most of you were oppose to add Zorro, what do you think about general discussion again? Dawid2009 (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

We could just do hero, that's a thought, but I think superhero is a very good representative of comics. I'd support a removal of superhero for hero and superhero fiction. J947 ^(c), at 21:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add UFO

Parapsychology is listed among science, UFO Religion is listed among philosophy section on level 5. We need general article about UFO on the level 4 and probably in art section. Extraterrestrials in fiction is vital maybe just like Death (personification) or Ghost (Common fictional creature(s)).

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Honestly on the same level as Bigfoot to me, either they both should go in or none. GuzzyG (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Wedding reception

More vital than Harvest festival and we list on level many less vital topics than Wedding reception (for example games which nowdays are not played but were known centuries ago).

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Too specific at this level. Wedding is more important. --Thi (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose – Hardly important here. J947 ^(c), at 22:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose Wedding is already listed. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

Remove Playing card and Tarot

Redundand to Card game. We do not list other game-related specific thigs like chess piece, chess theory, soccer equipment football formation, bowling (cricket), goalkeeper, Asana, Swimming style. I do not think can be mre vital thing than something like Passport which got removed.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Too specific things at this level. --Thi (talk) 08:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Support removing playing card. Neutral on tarot which has significance more for its association with the occult and divination than being used as playing cards. Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
4. Support the first removal, neutral on the second The playing card is as important as the chess piece; they are both quotidian objects. Meanwhile, the Tarot is important for its association with the occult. I would be inclined to support its removal if we exceed the quota. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 15:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
5. Support playing card removal as it is an object designed only for use in a game. Oppose tarot removal as its function is different to that of a game item. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 17:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose both: pbp 14:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

Add Machine translation

Important topic for future generation. Something futurable.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Translation is enough. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose More general AI-related articles such as Turing test, machine learning and technological singularity would be better candidates for promotion.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose Translation is already listed. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 03:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose Until it gains more widespread usage, I just don't think it's vital enough for level 4. - Sdkb (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose per above; too early. J947^{'s public account} 00:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

Add Cargo

Pretty significant concept in daily life. feminist (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator. feminist (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Support cargo itself (how it is handled, labelled, stored, carried, leased, owned, etc.) is the vital concept. Not the transport used to move it. Having said that, cargo makes more sense as a subtopic of logistics or supply chain management within Business and Economics than Transport. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
3. Support Dimadick (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  16:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
6. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)).
7. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
8. Support Even though Cargo is technically a more narrow term than Freight transport, as it refers to the stuff being shipped rather than the process of shipping, because the stuff being shipped could be anything, the article primarily consists of the process. For whatever reason, information about freight transport has coalesced in the Cargo article rather than the Freight transport article (and not just as a fluke, as evidenced by the other languages), and thus I'd expect it's the more common search term used by readers, too. To best serve them, therefore, it's the article that's most vital. - Sdkb (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I think Freight transport would be a better choice. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

   I see your point, Freight transport does cover a somewhat broader topic, but Cargo has more language versions. feminist (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

   The number of language versions is irrelevant here, since this list is specifically for the English Wikipedia. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

   They are basically two names for two similar things, so you'd expect the smaller one to have an equivalent in more languages. J947 ^(c), at 23:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

2. Oppose in support of Rreagan's alternate proposal Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 16:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
3. Weak oppose —J947 ^(c), at 04:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

• It looks like we may be adding cargo ship to the list, which will create even more overlap with cargo, thus making it even less necessary to list at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Note: We currently list Logistics, which has some overlap, at level 4 in Society. - Sdkb (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Freight transport

Alternative to the cargo nomination above. It's abroader article and is more consistent with the other transport articles that are listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
4. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)).
5. Support Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 16:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
6. Support as broadest; albeit slightly tentatively. J947 ^(c), at 04:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose in favor of Cargo, per my rationale there. One is definitely necessary, though, and I wouldn't mind seeing more than one term related to logistics added overall. - Sdkb (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Sdkb. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

Swap: remove Karl Barth, add Heraclitus

Heraclitus is a very important figure in the context of dialectic, in my opinion he is more essential to history of philosophy than even someone like Ferdinand de Saussure. However I suggest to swap him with Karl Barth, because of we have too many protestants on this list. Karl Barth made similar contribution to Protestantism like John Calvin to Protestantism what John Calvin. We have so many people who are notable in the context of Protestant views on Mary but not Veneration of Mary in the Catholic Church.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC) 14 August 2019 withdrawn proposal of removal
2. Support Heraclitus has had an influence on the works of Plato, on Stoicism as a philosophical movement, and the Church Fathers. Christianity derives its concept of the Logos from the works of Heraclitus. Dimadick (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Heraclitus is one of the famous names in the ancient Greek philosophy. He is in The School of Athens (and in The Philosophers' Football Match). --Thi (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
4. Support addition, neutral on removal Heraclitus was one of the most important Greek philosophers. However, I share GuzzyG's concerns regarding Karl Barth. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
5. Support addition Heraclitus was highly influential, but I agree with GuzzyG that Barth should not be the next religious figure to go. Graham probably should be. Neljack (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
6. The addition, since he and Parmenides are commonly considered to be two of the founders of ontology.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
7. Support addition, neutral on removal Heraclitus is important and there's alot of other missing philosophers too. GuzzyG (talk) 05:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
8. Support addition and support removing Graham instead. Relative to Catholicism, other Chrstians and people of other religions, Protestantism is indeed over-represented. Even if the overall number of religious figures go up, Protestantism doesn't need 13 articles. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
9. Support. Heraclitus was the philosopher of his generation, possibly of his century. His ideas on the Logos were formative to that concept in Christianity. His ideas are credited with giving rise to the enduring schools of thought of both Stoicism and Pandeism. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The removal, since Karl Barth was featured on the cover of Time on April 20, 1962 and Pope Pius XII regarded him the greatest theologian since Thomas Aquinas (It is quite unusual for a Catholic clergyman to highly praise a Protestant theologian) means he is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal of Karl Barth or of Billy Graham I believe my comments below and in related threads explain my reasoning on this. I think if Heraclitus is added it should be at the expense of another social scientist or philosopher, not a religious figure. pbp 19:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

I would support this but it needs deciding if Barth had less of a influence on the development of 20th century religion then Billy Graham, Dietrich Bonhoeffer or Desmond Tutu, of which i'd say he might be more notable then all 3. GuzzyG (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: I would support the removal of Billy Graham. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Susmuffin:I would too, but with the resistance Jack London is getting there's no way Graham would be removed. Yes, he had a major role in American evangelism and dominated a nationwide poll and was friends with presidents but he is up against every other Christianity related figure and saint. I'd even say women like Thérèse of Lisieux should be represented more then Graham, who was mainly a one country based figure. Religious people should be included based on their international impact, considering the size of religion. If i had to choose a one country based religious person from America it'd be Charles Taze Russell, Jim Jones, Ellen G. White or L. Ron Hubbard who represent areas we don't cover from American religion or anywhere else on this list. Jonathan Edwards covers Graham's area in my opinion. Why Graham when we don't list Southern Baptist Convention? Also Graham's vitality rests on fame, popularity and "being the most admired" person over many years, yet we don't list Diana, Princess of Wales who is exactly the same, yet more international. Graham is like the Bob Ross of religion. Very popular and famous but no strong influence on anyone other than Televangelism and certainly no strong international influence other then some rallys in London which is not influence. Also historically Charles Coughlin may be more vital in Graham's area. GuzzyG (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I've said this before, but I'll say it again: I will support retention of Billy Graham on this list. Billy Graham and Jonathan Edwards are separated by more than two centuries and are completely different in almost every respect aside of being American. One of the major developments in 20th century religion was its connection to radio, television and stadium-sized revivals, of which Billy Graham is the best example. Southern Baptist Convention probably should be added at this level, but this level should also contain a Baptist person of some sort; again, Billy Graham being the best example. In my opinion, Billy Graham is easily one of the five most influential American religious figures, regardless of faith. I also disagree with the comment made above that we have too many Protestants on this list. Protestantism spans 500 years, many countries, and many different denominations and we have only 13 protestants on the list. Religious figures are under-represented on this list. Finally, to add Heraclitus, I believe we should instead remove a social scientist rather than a religious figure. pbp 15:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Peter Abelard

Peter Abelard was one of the most prominent thinkers of his age. The Chambers Biographical Dictionary described him as "the keenest thinker and boldest theologian of the 12th century". Furthermore, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy said that "He is, arguably, the greatest logician of the Middle Ages and is equally famous as the first great nominalist philosopher." Abelard was the most respected philosopher of the time and is still considered one of the foremost thinkers of his age. His theological viewpoints were deeply controversial. He was involved in many debates and conflicts with his peers. These disagreements eventually caused him to be temporarily excommunicated by the Catholic Church. He was also known for his correspondence with Héloïse. Their love affair has attracted a considerable amount of attention over the last few centuries. In the period following the French Revolution, they were celebrated as "forerunners of modernity". Honestly, I am surprised that Abelard was not already listed, as he was one of the most influential philosophers and theologians to ever live.

Support

1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Good add pbp 20:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Large impact. "Abelard was an enormous influence on his contemporaries and the course of medieval philosophical thought, but he has been known in modern times mainly for his connection with Héloïse. Only one of his strictly philosophical works, the ethical treatise Scito te ipsum, had been published before the 19th century, in 1721. It was only with the publication by Cousin in 1836 of the collection entitled Ouvrages inedits d'Abelard that Abelard's philosophical work began to be studied more closely. Cousin's collection gave extracts from the theological work Sic et Non ("Yes and No") which is an assemblage of what Abelard saw as opposite opinions on doctrinal points culled from the Fathers as a basis for discussion. The collection also includes the Dialectica, and commentaries on logical works of Aristotle, Porphyry and Boethius. Two works published by Cousin and believed at the time to be by Abelard, the fragment De Generibus et Speciebus (published in the 1836 collection), and also the psychological treatise De Intellectibus (published separately by Cousin in Fragmens Philosophiques, vol. ii.), are now believed on upon internal evidence not to be by Abelard himself, but only to have sprung out of his school. A genuine work, the Glossulae super Porphyrium, from which Charles de Rémusat gave extracts in his monograph Abelard (1845), was published in 1930. The fascinating hypothesis of Abaelard‘s influence on Menasseh Ben Israel and Spinoza has been developed by Robert Menasse and first published in his essay „Enlightement as Harmonious Strategy“ edited by Versopolis in 2018." Dimadick (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
4. Support obvious importance. GuzzyG (talk) 05:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
5. Support A surprising omission from the list. Neljack (talk) 06:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
7. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
8. Support as per above. J947 ^(c), at 21:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

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

---

Swap: remove Huldrych Zwingli, add Giordano Bruno

While John Wycliffe made similar contributions to John Calvin and he is not vital for this level when we list so many protestants. I suggest swap him for Giordano Bruno who was important thinker/philosopher and also critically important figure during scientific revolution. He would fit if we decide have either of Copernicus and De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. We have so many people who are notable in context Protestant views on Mary but not Veneration of Mary in the Catholic Church.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC) 14 August withdrawn removal of Zwingli.
2. Support Zwingli is an ideological ancestor of Calvinism, but Bruno's ideas on cosmology were groundbreaking for his era. "He proposed that the stars were distant suns surrounded by their own planets, and he raised the possibility that these planets might foster life of their own, a philosophical position known as cosmic pluralism. He also insisted that the universe is infinite and could have no "center"." Dimadick (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Bruno is for example in Britannica Guide to 100 Most Influential Scientists. --Thi (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
4. The addition, since his death was used by some commentators as a basis of conflict thesis (although he was in fact executed for his religious and philosophical views rather than his astronomical views) means that he is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
5. Support addition, key figure in modern movements surrounding Pantheism, Pandeism, and Deism; influence and martyrdom led him to be a focus of the second Cosmos series. Some things now known true to science he envisioned long before any means to even properly suspect them. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The removal, since the lede of the article which states that "His legacy lives on in the confessions, liturgy, and church orders of the Reformed churches of today." means that he is no doubt vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Zwingli was a key figure of the Reformation, often cited with Luther and Calvin as one of its three key leaders. Despite Bruno's originality as a thinker, his influence has not been so great. Neljack (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal Zwingli is easily vital enough for this list. If you want to drop a Protestant, drop Melanchthon; he's mostly notable for being Luther's sidekick and lacks the influence of Zwingli. Except don't, because I'm disappointed at the number of Protestants who are on the chopping block right now: Barth, Zwingli, and perhaps Billy Graham. Plus Wycliffe who was a simpatico to the Protestants. pbp 15:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

Add Georges Cuvier

Father of paleontology.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 11:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
6. Support as per nom. Also is vital for establishing the well-known link between anatomy and paleontology. J947 ^(c), at 03:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
7. Support He proved that organisms can go extinct. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 08:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Previous nomination here. J947^{'s public account} 21:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Anders Celsius

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Support. Famous scientist. --Thi (talk) 10:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Important astronomer. "His research also involved the study of auroral phenomena, which he conducted with his assistant Olof Hiorter, and he was the first to suggest a connection between the aurora borealis and changes in the magnetic field of the Earth. He observed the variations of a compass needle and found that larger deflections correlated with stronger auroral activity. At Nuremberg in 1733, he published a collection of 316 observations of the aurora borealis made by himself and others over the period 1716–1732." Dimadick (talk) 09:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
4. Weak support – Obviously has a famous last name, but as Guzzy has said, it isn't everything. His influence in astronomy is probably enough to push him over the boundary with the temperature scale, however. Scientists IMO are underrepresented on this list, but still unsure. Surprisingly concise article for someone like him. J947 ^(c), at 03:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

   He's more vital than Fahrenheit, so if we have one of them it should be him. Thinking aloud. J947 ^(c), at 03:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

What separates him enough to other scientists whose names are used as units like Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit, Heinrich Hertz, Samuel Pierpont Langley or Sir George Stokes, 1st Baronet that are also not on the list? A famous last name isn't everything. Not seeing enough importance here for a straight add when there's many people missing and we're over quota. More like a one hit wonder scientist whose namesake invention is more vital then the man and in which we already list. We do not need both in my opinion. GuzzyG (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Although Anders Celsius has been best known for the eponymous temperature unit, actually inventing this unit is just one of his significant accomplishments.--11:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Arizona

Arizona is 14-th most poulated State in USA and 20-th wealthiest State in USA. It is also place where is Grand Canyon and Colorado river.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We do not need to list another American state. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 06:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose agree with Susmuffin but in any case there are 5-10 more important states than Arizona not listed. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose there are more important states listed. Looking at that section, is a bit odd that we list the South, Midwest, West, and New England as regions, but not the Northeast more generally. - Sdkb (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

   I concur. J947 ^(c), at 21:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

4. Oppose – IMO we should swap a few US cities for US states, but ahead of Arizona there's Pennsylvania, Colorado, Michigan, and a few roughly equal to Arizona. I think we should just add the first three in swaps. J947 ^(c), at 03:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose Not the first state I would add if I were to add another. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

Add North American Cordillera

More broad article than Rocky Mountains. It deserve toi be listed at least on level 4 list.

Support

1. Strong Support As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Previous discussions relating to this and a similar article: 1 2 3. —J947^{'s public account} 23:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Performance art

Covered by Performing art. Too technical article, similar to Spiritual practice which got removed.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose All major forms of art should be included, a completely different, unique form of art is not comparable to "spiritual practice" either. GuzzyG (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose The two articles have a similar title but refer to very different concepts. Performance art is a specific (albeit wide-ranging) genre, involving artists like Marina Abramović. Performing art, on the other hand, is an umbrella term covering all theatre, dance, etc. - Sdkb (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose Performance art is specific form of art. --Thi (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

Move Pokemon to fictional characters

In the archives I found contigents ([14]) where some editors have [agreed] each other that [[Pokemon] are not vital as [[video game] but colud fit as character/franchise. If we decide move Pokemon to art section with characters from popular culture will be dominated by characters from Japan (Mario, Pokemon, Godzilla, King Kong) and we will have only two characters from west which are both from Walt Disney Company. On that basis I suggest to remove Godzilla and King Kong

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose the article is based on the media franchise, not the characters of the franchise. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose per DaGizza and the media franchise itself is almost certainly more vital than as a character or the video game. J947^{'s public account} 23:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose The franchise is more important than its characters and creatures. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

@Purplebackpack89: In the archives I found your comments where you said: "I am not sure any title is vital" (about video games i context of level 4) and you were also supporting Naruto instead Naruto (character) on level 5 (in sense you said Naruto is one article which should be on level 5 among chracters; while just franchise is listed among characters in art section (not everyday life), not the character article).Oops, I did not noted/I-just-forgot that Naruto Umuzaki is listed among characters. I was thinking about fact that we already have Hello Kitty on the level 5 depite fact either of Hello Kitty and Pokemon are mentioned in List of highest-grossing media franchises and I also was going to my point that I was sceptical several months ago about listing characters when we have already franchise in society section because of German Wikipedia even does not indlude individual characters among 2000000 topics. (However I still think Pokemon better fits to art section obviously) Dawid2009 (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC) What we should do if people do not support moving Pokemon to Every day life? Quite honestly I even was going to do it as WP:BOLD (as pikatchu as subsection is on level 5). This discussion does not make many productive sense' when people even do not read the list (ping @DaGizza, J947, and Susmuffin:), until put the vote (and one user put vote after dozen days just due to fact someone other just gave vote). Dawid2009 (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

FWIHW there were at least two times discussions about these problems: here and here. If opposers says that Pokemon is article about franchise, not Pokemon (characters) I can as well says that Pokemon is not about article Pokemon (video games) and we do not list anyy franchises in every day section but we list plenty franchises in art section and society section on level 5. I think that article about franchise should be priritized because of article about chracter is list but after thinkink about this list veeeery long=, finally I consider tht we should list franchise about James Bond instead James Bond the character and put Pokemon next to Mario in art ection (due to we list Hello Kitty and ikatchu in art section on the level 5). Problem with listing Pokemon among video games is fact that if we consider Pokemon puly as video game it is not among top 3 video gzmes of all time and we do not list franchises in every day life ection. @Carlwev: where you would put Pokemon (I ping you because of you were participating in recent discussions about confusing franchises with fictional characters)? Dawid2009 (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The article is about the media franchise and very little of it is about the character. We shouldn't put media franchises in the character section. Also, the reason why people often vote directly after another person is because the discussion shows up in the history and so renews interest of the discussion. J947 ^(c), at 21:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove X-Men, add Stock character

We have more than enough superheroes and we are over quota. We do not need X-men when we do not list specific types of characters just like Villain. Is suggest swap it for Stock character. Stock character is wie topic which lo cover archettypal things like Fool (stock character).

Support

1. Strong support As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal, oppose addition We have enough superheroes. --Thi (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Support removal--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
4. Support removal, oppose addition We are over the quota in this section. Also, we do not list villain. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
5. Support removal, oppose addition GuzzyG (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
6. Support removal oppose addition – Addition not needed at all. J947^{'s public account} 22:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

X-men was added here, and proposed for removal here. Some discussions about stock character here and here. J947^{'s public account} 22:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Friendship

Seems to me to be a quite important topic. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom Hyperbolick (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

This is already listed at level 4 and also level 3 also, within everyday life, family and kinship I think.  Carlwev  20:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Windows Versions

Can someone with more expertise in computing weigh in on whether the fact that we currently list Windows 95 but not XP, 10, etc. is appropriate? - Sdkb (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

It was added without discussion [15] --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 04:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@John M Wolfson: Would you be able to weigh in? - Sdkb (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Windows 95 was the first "modern" version of Windows, being able to fully supplant DOS and introducing the taskbar and Start button, among other innovations. I might have been a bit optimistic in making it Level 4 but I certainly think it's appropriate for at least Level 5 alongside XP. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think we should have any versions of Windows at this level. Windows the OS in general is the only part of Windows that is vital at Lv 4. pbp 22:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Just to let you guys know, Sdkb has removed it, which is a fair decision for now. J947 ^(c), at 05:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Karl Drais

He invented prototype of bicycle but he is not more vital than History of cycling, History of bicycle and his invention: Draisine. He was very generational inventor/influential person, less vital than Łukasiewicz who we removed. Łukasiewicz at least caused that Whaling was no longer needed in industry. Drais gets less hits on German Wikipedia than Friedrich Ludwig Jahn. There are many much more not listed notable people (Even though William G. Morgan) and people whose impact is not generational, just like Ray Tomlinson.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. - Sdkb (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
4. Support just not vital enough, level 5 is perfect for him. GuzzyG (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Support We are over the quota in this section. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 03:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

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

---

Add Gerolamo Cardano

He is author of Ars Magna (Gerolamo Cardano). In my opinion this work is more influential than something like The Color Purple and other less vital works than The Color Purple which we list.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Support one of the most influential mathematicians of all time. --Thi (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Quite a polymath, in addition to his mathematical achievements. Neljack (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

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

---

Add Joseph Banks

Leading botanist who studied mainly the flora of Oceania and from his lede "He is credited for bringing 30,000 plant specimens home with him; amongst them he discovered 1,400" and "He is credited with introducing the eucalyptus, acacia, and the genus named after him, Banksia, to the Western world. Approximately 80 species of plants bear his name. He was the leading founder of the African Association and a member of the Society of Dilettanti which helped to establish the Royal Academy." In his legacy section it lays out how many places/islands are named after him in multiple continents. Huge scientific impact of which more of is needed on this list.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Weak support looking at other entries and the article. J947 ^(c), at 23:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

   To elaborate: as a New Zealander I think that he's probably the 3rd most important and well known coloniser (for the lack of a better word) in my home country, and the other two are both probs top 4000 (James Cook, Abel Tasman). It's a hard choice but I think he should be on here. J947 ^(c), at 03:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

3. Support per nom. Jusdafax (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Dimadick (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I prefer adding History of botany to this level. --Thi (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

   I'd prefer both. J947 ^(c), at 03:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

Swap: remove Paradigm, add Thomas Kuhn

Thomas Kuhn IMO is influential just as Karl Popper.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Both Paradigm and Kuhn's main work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions are listed. Kuhn was not as versatile thinker as Popper, who was one of the main philosophers of last century and wrote about philosophy of science, ontology and social philosophy. --Thi (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Kuhn is probably less vital than Popper, but Popper should also be removed. He is a less important philosopher than several modern philosophers we don't list, such as W.V.O. Quine, Saul Kripke and David Lewis. The whole list of modern philosophers is quite strange. How did John Dewey, A.N. Whitehead and Isaiah Berlin get on the list ahead of more important philosophers? Being famous is not the same as being philosophically important. Neljack (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

   Al-Kindi and Al-Farabi are also missing. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

3. Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Removal of Kuhn here. J947^{'s public account} 00:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

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