Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 63

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

→

Archive 70

The following discussion is closed. 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 Ctesiphon

Ctesiphon was the capital of the Parthian and Sasanian empires.

Support

1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 09:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Orser67 (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
4. Support per nom Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
6. Support, somewhat tentatively. J947 ^(c), at 03:46, 11 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.

---

Add Black comedy

Black comedy is popular in English-speaking world and Humour is level 3 article.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Black comedy is one of the most influential types of comedy. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 16:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
6. Support as a good representative of the current day. J947 ^(c), at 04:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Note: Comedy is listed here at level 4, but I just nominated it for level 3. - Sdkb (talk) 17:30, 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 Commedia dell'arte

In my opinion it is littly more vital to history of Italian literature than The Adventures of Pinocchio or Orlando Furioso.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Support But it is not only important to Italian literature. Its stock characters and plot were adapted into works by authors in several countries, including such derivative authors as William Shakespeare, Molière, Carlo Goldoni, Pierre Beaumarchais, Carlo Gozzi, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Gaetano Donizetti, Ruggero Leoncavallo, Richard Strauss, and Igor Stravinsky. Dimadick (talk) 07:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Clearly influential. --Thi (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Its stock characters and themes were used by many different playwrights from many different countries. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 16:31, 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.

---

Swap: Add The Jungle Book

When we list either of Johnny Weissmuller and Tarzan, IMHO we should have at least general article for Mowgli - another important archetypical feral child.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Support. I think it's a vital work at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I'm afraid it has not aged very well. --Thi (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose We are over the quota in this section. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 16:36, 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.

---

Swap: remove Great Expectations

We can not have two creations of Dickens on this level and I do not see how Great Expectations is more vital than David Copperfield. There are more influential works just like Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Essays and also more popular just like Guiness World Records.

Support

1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Support We only need to list one of Dickens's works. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 15:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
5. Support per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
6. Support per Gizza. J947^{'s public account} 00:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Great Expectations was added here. J947^{'s public account} 00:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

In the archives I found many discussions where Great Epectation was considered as the most essential Dicken's work, more vitl than Christmas carol and David Copperfield. After thinkink about it more I will ask: What do you think about removal of Chrismtas Carol instead? I am really not sure Christmas Carol should be ahead of Nativity Play and I do not see why Christmas deserve any more coverage/representation than Easter. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The nomination is incorrect, there's actually three Dickens novel's listed, including A Christmas Carol all of them should be removed except Copperfield. Only supremely important influential people like Shakespeare should have more than one work listed. GuzzyG (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

We currently list only two Dickens works: "A Chritmas Carol" and "Great Expectations", David Coperfield is not listed (I doubt any pure writer other than Sheakspeare had ever more than two works listed). I intentionally nominated Great Expectations because of firstly I though A Christmas Carol is the one we should have but after reading some discussions in archives I assume it can be even more vital than either of David Coperfield and A Christmas Carol. J947's link is not the only where was contigent that Great Expectations should be keep Dawid2009 (talk) 10:22, 19 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 Carmina Burana (Orff)

Carmina Burana is best known for its prologue and epilogue. We are over the quota in this section, and this cantata is one of the least important works on this list.

Support

1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Support level 5. --Thi (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Support one of the least important works on this list. GuzzyG (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
4. Support A popular and well-known work (or at least part of it is), but not really that significant in the scheme of classical music. Neljack (talk) 07:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
5. Support per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• @GuzzyG: While this is a bit early, it is likely that the above proposal will pass. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:33, 26 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 Cult of personality

Recent and relatively unknown topic partially covered by populism. J947 ^(c), at 21:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. J947 ^(c), at 21:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose a tad specific but I believe it's a useful article in understanding how totalitarian regimes work. In the present day it is most applicable to North Korea but cults of personality have been present worldwide for a long time. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Added here, didn't realise it was that recently added. J947 ^(c), at 21:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Human fertilization

We already list Fertilisation and Infertility.

Support

1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 09:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Support good find. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. This is covered enough by other articles that are already listed. Human fertilization isn't really any different from fertilization that takes place in other mammals. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Opposeper above. Human process doesn't make it that much different.Viztor (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose Seems already covered. Would be good for level 5. - Sdkb (talk) 18:27, 8 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 Mobile Internet

One of more important inventions in human history. Statistically Wikipedia is often read by Mobile Internet.

Support

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

Oppose

1. Oppose Not distinct enough from Internet to warrant inclusion on Level 4. - Sdkb (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Sdkb. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:56, 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 Article (publishing) and Diary

At least vital just like Blog and Academic journal.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Support at level 5, not level 4. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Article (publishing). Too specific for level 4. - Sdkb (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

I'm neutral about Diary. I think it might belong in Arts/Literature/Basics. There are some roughly similar importance things listed there (e.g. Prose, Saga) and some relegated to level 5 (e.g. Storytelling, Memoir). - Sdkb (talk) 20:22, 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 Joseph Campbell

He is considered as the most influential mythograph of the 20th century. My last nomination was failed but it was due to fact I did not proved cogent and accurate rationale.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Joseph Campbell has had much influence on the study of comparative mythology and on several writers of the 20th and 21st centuries. Dimadick (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose He is primarily known for a single book. Furthermore, the concept of the "hero's journey" is more important than the man who studied it. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Note: according to the talk page templates, Joseph Campbell and The Hero with a Thousand Faces are not yet listed in Level 5. --Thi (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

   We've decided to get a bot when L5's close to finished to add the talk page templates, rather than waste time doing it ourselves. J947 ^(c), at 03:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Campbell is listed here and the hero's journey concept here, at level 5. The Hero with a Thousand Faces appears to not be listed. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 19:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Previous nomination here. J947^{'s public account} 21:43, 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.

---

Remove Margaret Atwood, add Ayn Rand

Atwood's prominence stems from a single novel. Meanwhile, Rand developed a philosophical system.

Support

1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Support if it's acknowledged she created a philosophical system, then she's certainly one of the most famous women philosophers to the everyday public (atleast in america, which if we have american football players this should count). Obviously she has a bad reputation and some people might be iffy but certainly not more so then Blackbeard, people with bad reputations can be vital too. Shes certainly one of the only authors on here who have strong influence on a section of their countries politics. GuzzyG (talk) 09:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Support addition probably one of the most influential American women in literature. feminist (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
4. Support addition due to Rand's popularity. I'd have to look into Atwood more to determine how vital she is. - Sdkb (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Rand is not vital at this level. --Thi (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal Atwood is not a one-hit wonder. Among her other novels, Alias Grace and The Blind Assassin have won a number of literary awards, and several other were nominees for awards. Dimadick (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal Atwood is more than one single novel. feminist (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
4. (Not sure what section to put this in.) Oppose removal; support addition: Atwood is not only famous for The Handmaid's Tale (I'm dubious that it was even her most famous work before the 2017 TV series). As for Rand, we currently list 66 philosophers so we can definitely make room for her—many of the current entries look less significant to human history than the person responsible for objectivism, Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 17:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose Rand may have, in some sense of the word, created a philosophical system, but hardly any philosophers take her seriously as a philosopher. Her literary reputation stands no higher with literary scholars and critics. Of course, she is popular and influential in some circles, but there are plenty of very popular authors with terrible critical reputations that we don't list. And Atwood is far from a one-hit wonder. Neljack (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

@Thi: Due to Bilorv's vote, it looks like the total was 5-2 in support of adding Rand. Sdkb (talk) 17:33, 21 September 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 Alexander I of Russia

This man should no doubt be added since it is he that made Russia the strongest army power in Europe.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Support An obvious omission. --Thi (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Alexander I was one of the most successful Russian monarchs. During his reign, Russia repelled Napoleon's invasion, established a personal union with Poland and annexed Finland. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
4. Support "Called an autocrat and "Jacobin", a man of the world and a mystic, Alexander appeared to his contemporaries as a riddle which each read according to his own temperament. Napoleon Bonaparte thought him a "shifty Byzantine", and called him the Talma of the North, as ready to play any conspicuous part. To Metternich he was a madman to be humoured. Castlereagh, writing of him to Lord Liverpool, gives him credit for "grand qualities", but adds that he is "suspicious and undecided"; and to Jefferson he was a man of estimable character, disposed to do good, and expected to diffuse through the mass of the Russian people "a sense of their natural rights"." Dimadick (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 23:21, 1 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.

---

Remove Klaus Kinski

I am not sure if the list need an example of German actor now when Level 5 exists. Previous nomination. I think that European directors are more needed: Erich von Stroheim, Alexander Dovzhenko, Josef von Sternberg, Roberto Rossellini, Luchino Visconti, Jiří Trnka, Pier Paolo Pasolini, Alain Resnais, Andrzej Wajda, Carlos Saura, Krzysztof Kieślowski, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Lars von Trier and Pedro Almodóvar.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. STRONG OPPOSE Sports people clearly go as first. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose alot of the actors are bad choices but a swap will work. these three shouldn't be on the list but the likes of Richard Burbage, David Garrick, Rudolph Valentino, Douglas Fairbanks, Dilip Kumar, Meena Kumari, Nargis and Zhou Xuan should be. Entertainers is way too low in proportion to athletes and it cannot get worse. GuzzyG (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose Not a valid argument for exclusion. Dimadick (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Weak oppose on this one per comments in the previous nomination. J947 ^(c), at 05:31, 14 September 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.

---

General comments

Just going to put a few thoughts here about the mad influx of articles to this section:

• Please put the proposals in the appropriate sub-categories Dawid, rather than just putting them in the main body.
• My thoughts are that history deserves more articles in total.
• About 'history of country' articles: If there is to be a redirect on this list, I'll put forward History of Ancient Greece. Also I'm debating within myself whether history of Iraq or history of Mesopotamia deserves to be on this list (and back to before: History of Ancient Greece or History of Greece?

I think we should have these sorts of 'general comments' sections, just to put thoughts in, kind of similar to WP:VPI. J947 ^(c), at 05:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Frankly I think the biggest problem we have at section: "society and social sciencies" where we have plenty universitetes and very few languages. It makes no sense when we list one Norwegian and one Danish at level 3 but we do not list these languages at the level 4 even despite fact language is level 1 (I tried courage to remove it from this level and it wasas failed) . At the level 5 the most uncomplete sections related with Bioloby (just like animals etc.) I would consider swapping universitetess for languages (just like we year ago swapped a lot of sport figures for other notable people) and cut for examplet 1-2 % of taxons articles for more related with history (in this way we will have better chance to complet sections with taxons at the level 5 I think). We are well under quota at technology section but it is fair if we consider what articles are missed in this category, for example: Machine translation, Ebook, Parchment, IT infrastructure, Astronautics, Human-powered transport, Online encyclopedia, Passport, Identity document, Kick scooter, Mobile Internet and more. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Magellan

Should Timeline of the Magellan–Elcano circumnavigation or Magellan's circumnavigation be the listed page? The previous page title is now a redirect to Ferdinand Magellan. power~enwiki (π, ν) 13:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I would rather list the latter. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:30, 18 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 history of philosophy

Since nowadays philosophy is considered to be vital at level 1, it is absurd to list history of atheism (atheism is vital only at level 3) and History of economic thought but not this.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Support. 22:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Support The page should be restored (currently a redirect). The two areas are far too expansive to be combined into one article. Endymion.12 (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
4. Support – Obviously a vital topic. This list is about (sub)topic areas that deserve to be covered by expansive, good quality articles. There have been a fair few redirect nominations in the years, that communicate rough split opinion among contributors here. J947 ^(c), at 03:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
5. Support General article is needed. --Thi (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose This is a redirect page. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 01:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose Per WP:WTAF. Something like "history of legal though" would be better choice Dawid2009 (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

As it stands at the moment history of philosophy is just a redirect to a section of the philosophy article. History of philosophy would stand a good chance of being a stand alone article......In fact looking into it right now it was a stand alone article until a matter of months ago. [[1]]. I can't find the discussion about it, I'm not going through all the archives. It appears to have been disagreed upon in 2016 to as to whether it should be an article or not as well. Although it appears to be a good suggestion on the surface, and I'm not sure if it's a set in stone rule, we seem to try and avoid redirects in general.  Carlwev  19:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• I would change my vote if this redirect page becomes an article. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:15, 17 September 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 George Town, Penang for Penang

Penang is usually discussed in the context of the state, not its capital city. There is significantly more search interest for the State of Penang over the city, and the state has received many more page views than either George Town or Penang Island. It's clear that Penang is the more important article here.

Support

1. As nominator. feminist (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Nom's rationale sounds reasonable to me. - Sdkb (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
3. Support. Not to be considered on the same plain as other regions due to nom's statement, perhaps best under 'Islands'. J947 ^(c), at 04:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

   Actually, I think Penang should be placed under Regions and country subdivisions, in the same way as how Galicia, Texas and Fujian are listed. feminist (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

   It does seem best but I could easily imagine a discussion in the next few years on removing Penang passing unanimously because it's not as vital as other regions. That it's an island gives a good alternative option to half-signify its there instead of George Town. J947^{'s public account} 23:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

   Sure, that sounds reasonable. feminist (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

4. Support per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
5. Support ok. --Thi (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

George Town was added here. J947^{'s public account} 23:35, 12 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.

---

Add Western Europe and Mediterranean Basin

Western Europe, Mediterranean Basin and Eastern Europe are important for this list when we list Scandinavia. We list also either of Carribean Sea and Carribean.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Western Europe without a doubt but surely there's a better article than Mediterranean Basin. J947 ^(c), at 03:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Western Europe per J947. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Western Europe, oppose Mediterranean Basin Western Europe is one of the most important regions in the world. However, the Mediterranean Basin is redundant to the Mediterranean Sea. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Western Europe Because Eastern Europe is going to be added. --Thi (talk) 18:11, 24 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 Eastern Europe

One of the most vital if not the most vital missed region for this level. It was duscussed on level 5 talk page and even on level 3 talk page that we need to list more regions on level 4.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2019
2. Support as culturally significant as a region. More vital than New Britain by a long shot. More vital than most entries here, probably. J947 ^(c), at 03:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
4. Eastern Europe is quite significant especially compared to stuff like Western United States. feminist (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Western Europe has been suggested. They are both highly important regions in the world. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I don't see why it's any more vital to list at this level than Western Europe, Northern Europe, or Southern Europe. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

   Oppose Western Europe is not listed. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

   ...and it's nominated the section above here. Both are very vital in a cultural perspective, and you can't just say no to one because the nominator didn't put it in the same proposal. J947^{'s public account} 01:25, 17 September 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 Canberra for Adelaide

Larger city with a longer history.

Support

1. As nominator. feminist (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Support addition Adelaide also deserve for featured article if it is more vital for people from Oceania. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Support removal If the capital is restricted to a small zone and for government buildings only, then it could be well covered already in the respective country article. What's the need for an extra article? Viztor (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
4. Support removal per Viztor mainly. There isn't anything in Canberra that makes it vital beyond what is already mentioned in Australia#Nationhood. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal Capital of the Australia is not enaugh vital at this level? Dawid2009 (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

   Isn't Adelaide more significant? feminist (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

2. Oppose We generally list national capitals. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal Canberra
4. Oppose addition Adelaide isn't really a major city anymore. It's the Australian equivalent of Detroit, being a car manufacturing city which is now suffering economically after all of the factories have closed. I would add more physical geography from Australia before adding any more cities. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Other

1. Weak support for removal, neutral for addition. Canberra is nothing but a capital. It was made to be a capital. It has less residents than Katowice, which is a definite removal. It has no history aside its development and the government. It has a barely international airport, a stopover on one route. It has no metro. It isn't the host of a gigantic government like Washington D.C. It doesn't have cultural significance. A bit likewise, Adelaide has nothing either. Nothing but more than a million residents, a little history, and an international airport. Which makes me neutral upon Adelaide. J947 ^(c), at 23:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose removal, weak support addition Swapping Canberra with Adelaide because of Adelaide being larger and older than Canberra would be like swapping Washington D.C. with New York City for the same reasons. Of course, NYC is already on the list (and at level 3, even), but my point still stands. However, with Adelaide containing >75% of the population of the population of South Australia, I wouldn't say it can't be on the list. InvalidOStalk 12:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Support addition, neutral for removal. Adelaide is the only major Australian city not listed as a level 4 vital article. Interstellarity T 🌟 13:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
4. Support addition, oppose removal. Canberra's capital status means it should be included, despite it being otherwise uninteresting. Adelaide is on the same level as Brisbane and Perth, so should be added. Also, keeping with Australia, New South Wales should be replaced with Northern Territory, as then every state/territory is either included or has its capital included, but not both. Calbow (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
5. Support addition and oppose removal, since a/the capital of a country is no doubt vital at this level (thus Canberra is vital at this level), and Adelaide was the third largest city in Australia until the post-war era.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

I am pretty sure Adelaide would be slightly more important than Canberra, yet I would slightly doubt either's inclusion on this list. –J947 ^(c), at 05:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_54#Add_Canberra: My nomination of Canberra, interesting arguments here. J947 ^(c), at 05:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

And wow, right above that is me nominating Adelaide then withdrawing. I'm going to say Neutral for now. –J947 ^(c), at 05:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that if a country (or any other subdivision) has five or more cities on this list or the VA5 list, at least one of them should be the capital. Thoughts? pbp 18:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Agreed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Another related nomination is found here. J947^{'s public account} 23:44, 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 Fictional universe

Currently we have a lot of deltalic related subjects at the level 5 (for example 200 specific articles related with video games) despite fact that fictional universe is not listed at the level 4.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 07:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Support Seems like a pretty vital concept in terms of understanding how fiction works. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
4. Support, from looking at it the article has a wide-encompassing meaning. –J947 ^(c), at 05:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
5. Support Fiction has more importance in the long-run than many "historical" subjects with minimal cultural impact. Dimadick (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
6. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)).
7. Support as per Presidentman and J497. InvalidOStalk 13:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
8. Support core component of modern fiction. GuzzyG (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
9. Support This is one of the most important concepts in modern fiction. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 16:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC) Literary critics are usually interested about other concepts (Glossary of literary terms). --Thi (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

   Any reason? J947 ^(c), at 23:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

2. Oppose. This article is more narrow in scope and less vital than Setting (narrative). Rreagan007 (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
   1. @Rreagan007:This argument is invalid since the level 4 list has MS-DOS but not DOS, which is broader.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC) fixed the argument a bit 14:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
      1. @RekishiEJ: It's not invalid at all. We do have a general consensus of including the more general articles at the higher levels, but there are exceptions. As such, the burden is on you to give a good argument as to why this article should be an exception to our general rule. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

• I withdraw this nomination becaue of I have found in archives [removing Underworld. Underworld has been removed due to fact the article technically remind list but IMO fiction/popular culture can not deserves for better representation than mythology/religion/folklore/oral tradition. However actually this nomination properly should be passed while ago but we are well over quota at this section and I think we can still discuss it for consensus Dawid2009 (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC) I chaned my opinion again, because of we also list things like Fictional character or Superhero. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• I see that there is also Fantasy world and Worldbuilding. I'm not exactly sure what the distinctions are, but I agree we ought to have something relating to the general concept listed at this level. - Sdkb (talk) 17:22, 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.

---

Swap: remove Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film), add Grimms' Fairy Tales

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs are listed probably due to fact it was first notable animation film in history and is mentioned in Academy Award for Best Animated Feature. However the only animation film which is mentioned is List of films considered the best is Pinocchio (1940 film); this film is only three years younger and got it award in next order. Anyway I think we do not have enough room for specific animation films (and we list Donald Duck and Micky Mouse which are more important in context of Walt Disney Company). Grimms' Fairy Tales is much more important because of it is collective system of plenty fairy tales (including Snow White) which later were influential for popular culture and many animated films. Grimms Brothers were reschearers of western folklore and they made some places just like Hamelin more famous. They never wrote anything singandwlly (they were not poets just like Andersen but researchers of western folklore) but their vitality also is not limited only to their fairy tales. Jacob Grimm also checked origin of word the Ēostre/Easter so adding their work and giving them overrepresentation IMO would not be bad.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Support High-impact work. "The Grimms believed that the most natural and pure forms of culture were linguistic and based in history. The work of the Brothers Grimm influenced other collectors, both inspiring them to collect tales and leading them to similarly believe, in a spirit of romantic nationalism, that the fairy tales of a country were particularly representative of it, to the neglect of cross-cultural influence. Among those influenced were the Russian Alexander Afanasyev, the Norwegians Peter Christen Asbjørnsen and Jørgen Moe, the English Joseph Jacobs, and Jeremiah Curtin, an American who collected Irish tales. There was not always a pleased reaction to their collection. Joseph Jacobs was in part inspired by his complaint that English children did not read English fairy tales; in his own words, "What Perrault began, the Grimms completed". W. H. Auden praised the collection during World War II as one of the founding works of Western culture. The tales themselves have been put to many uses. Adolf Hitler praised them as folkish tales showing children with sound racial instincts seeking racially pure marriage partners, and so strongly that the Allied forces warned against them; for instance, Cinderella with the heroine as racially pure, the stepmother as an alien, and the prince with an unspoiled instinct being able to distinguish. Writers who have written about the Holocaust have combined the tales with their memoirs, as Jane Yolen in her Briar Rose. Dimadick (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Support per above. --Thi (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
4. Support addition --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
5. Support addition GuzzyG (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal Being rated by critics as the best does not override supremely groundbreaking movies, without Snow White there's no Pinocchio. GuzzyG (talk) 14:05, 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.

---

Swap: remove The Death of Socrates, add De revolutionibus orbium coelestium

The Death of Socrates is famous creation but not more essential to human history than De revolutionibus orbium coelestium by Nicolaus Copernicus.

Support

1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
5. Support as vital in our modern-day understanding of the universe. J947^{'s public account} 23:54, 4 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.

---

Swap: remove Saga, add Storytelling

Saga is too culturally specific and overlaps too much with Legend (which we list here). Storytelling is an important and widely practiced human practice. Sdkb (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Sdkb (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal. The list contains many individual works of world literature and some of the sagas could as well be among them. --Thi (talk) 06:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Saga was added here. J947^{'s public account} 00:13, 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.

---

Swap: add Song, remove Singer-songwriter

Too technical for this level. We are over quota and I do not see how it is more vitl than Music band. Name of the article which is sugested to removal is so specific that some big wikipedias even do not have this article (due to complication in translation).

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Support. Singer-songwriter is not absolutely necessary concept and Song is more general. --Thi (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Song is clearly more basic and important. Neljack (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
6. Support This is one of the basic forms of music. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
7. Support Dimadick (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
8. Support Song is clearly vital, singer-songwriter clearly less so. - Sdkb (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
9. Support —J947 ^(c), at 04:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
10. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
11. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Previous nominations here. J947^{'s public account} 00:18, 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 Lullaby

It is one of the oldest music- generes of all time. We list christmas carol as another folk genere but even Silent Night as either of Lullaby and christmas Carol honestly is globally the most famous Christmas Carol but perhaps not the most famous Lullaby (Greensleeves and Brahm's lullaby got comparable and less seasonal popularity).

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Support I'm in favour of the general trend towards replacing songs with genres. Lullaby is a good choice. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
4. Support We should represent the basic genres of music. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Dimadick (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
6. Support Universal and important genre of music, even though it doesn't receive as much attention from adults. - Sdkb (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
7. Vital. J947^{'s public account} 22:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
8. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 02:49, 28 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 White Christmas (song)

We are over quota at this section and something need to go. We certainly do not need to list White Christmas when we have already author of the song and christmas carol on this level. Christmas Carol do not need overrepresentation when we do not list centuries things like Nativity play/Nativity scene, Christmas tree or Lullaby which has longer oral tradition.

Support

1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Support per nom and my previous nomination. --Thi (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Support We also list the song's most prominent singer. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 15:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Don't see a need for so many singles at this level. Many of the "specific musical works" are among the least vital art articles and we're over quota by 3 in Arts and 16 overall. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
5. Support not vital enough, best selling/most famous isn't enough if people like Marilyn Monroe are not on the level 3 list, if it does not apply there, it shouldn't apply here. On that note Carmina Burana (Orff) and The Death of Socrates are the next weakest links on the arts page and should be nominated next. GuzzyG (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
6. Support. I'm not sure we should have any specific songs on this list, when we don't even have the article Song. bd2412 T 02:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
7. Support Song is indeed a bizarre omission. Neljack (talk) 07:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
8. Support per Guzzy. Opposers are unconvincing. J947^{'s public account} 22:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - biggest selling individual single in history at over 50 million. Total sales over 100 million in all versions. Song awarded an Academy Award and still popular around the world despite being released many decades ago. Only song in history to be at the top of the U.S. sales charts in three different years. Listed in the article as behind only Over the Rainbow on the Songs of the Century list. Clearly vital at level 4. Supporters are unconvincing. Jusdafax (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Being the best selling single in history means that it is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal due to its best selling status.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

If best selling makes something historically important, will you all support Avatar (2009 film) on the list? Or god forbid Avengers: Endgame? I mean if one form (single) has its best selling thing, then some artform thats more important needs its best selling titles too right? How about the Salvator Mundi (Leonardo), since paintings are more important historically too? We have to be consistent on this list and if best selling singles are so important, then best selling things more important then singles need covering too. How does being second on the songs of the century list make a song vital if number one Over the Rainbow is not on this list? GuzzyG (talk) 01:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Previous nomination here. J947^{'s public account} 22:07, 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.

---

Remove Guantanamera

There are still too many articles on songs when more basic music articles which you would expect to be in an encyclopedia before songs are missing, like song itself and famous genres. A patriotic Cuban song isn't vital at this level. We already have a well known music genre representing Cuba (salsa music). Even the Cha-cha-cha (dance) is more vital.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Support – Really surprised it's on here. J947^{'s public account} 01:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
3. Support I am also surprised that this song is listed here. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 02:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 07:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. With Guantanamera and White Christmas about to be gone, it leaves modern music at 10, which is a decent number. I'd say Heartbreak Hotel does not belong, but i believe if a artist is on the level 3 list, they should have one work on the level 4 list. Only people missing would be a work from Frida Kahlo, Louis Armstrong and Charlie Chaplin (the last of which is a big mistake imo). Obviously we could use more art movements, genres, styles etc; but i think our individual works section is pretty much covered. GuzzyG (talk) 01:23, 5 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.

---

Swap: remove Don Juan, add Zorro

Zorro is more vital to Spanish-language world than Don Juan.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal Mozart's opera Don Giovanni is the best-known version of the legend and it is listed at this level. --Thi (talk) 10:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Support "Being one of the earliest examples of a fictional masked avenger with a double identity, Zorro inspired the creation of several similar characters in pulp magazines and other media, and is a precursor of the superheroes of American comic books. Bob Kane has credited Zorro as part of the inspiration for the character Batman, which was created in 1939." --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
4. Support removal, oppose addition We already list the most prominent depiction of Don Juan. Meanwhile, Zorro is simply another pulp character. Why should we list a pulp character when we do not list the magazines themselves? ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
5. Support removal, oppose addition GuzzyG (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
6. Support addition, oppose removal Zorro is a high-impact character. "Being one of the earliest examples of a fictional masked avenger with a double identity, Zorro inspired the creation of several similar characters in pulp magazines and other media, and is a precursor of the superheroes of American comic books." Dimadick (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition. Zorro is one of many pulp characters. --Thi (talk) 10:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Don Juan is more universal of a character. @Thi: I think I'd rather keep the character and delete the Opera. pbp 19:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

• Honestly, I am surprised that Zorro was suggested before Conan the Barbarian. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:14, 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.

---

Replace University of London with University College London (UCL)

Having the federal University of London rather than UCL is, in US terms, like having the University of California rather than UC Berkeley. UCL is not only the largest college of the University of London (awarding its own degrees) and a major international research university, it was also the first secular university-level institution in England and predates the federal university by a decade. The relative scale of the two institutes is demonstrated by their relative budgets: £1.3B for UCL (one of only three £1B+ universities in the UK, the other two being Oxford and Cambridge) and £175M for the University of London. There is little doubt that UCL is the more important of the two both now and in terms of its history and that, following the example of Berkeley, it should be included here rather than the central federal body. Robminchin (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robminchin (talk • contribs) 06:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
2. Support removal The institution's constituents are more vital than the overall body. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
3. Support as proposed. feminist (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
4. Support The University College London has a longer and more prominent history than the body that is currently part of. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 03:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
5. Support removal Per my comment below. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
6. Support removal Perhaps universities are overrepresented at this level as Dawid2009 says. --Thi (talk) 11:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
7. Support removal; on second thoughts UCL can't rival Oxbridge in most aspects, unlike LSE and Imperial College which are specialized, yet it would probably be a stretch to list both LSE and IC at this level. feminist (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose swap I feel like UCL may be worthy of inclusion, but, at this point, I would rather swap with the London School of Economics (also part of the University of London). - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose KCL, Imperial, and LSE have at least similar reputation and importance in academia. You cannot reduce the University of London to UCL. I prefer removing University of London than adding UCL, or swap it with the Russell Group.T8612 (talk) 08:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose addition We are over wuota at this section and have far too many univertities while have far too few languagrs at this level. We even do not list Catalan language despite fact Cztalan Wikipedia for very long time was one of the biggest Wikipedias. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

One related discussion here. J947 ^(c), at 23:27, 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 Roots (1977 miniseries) add Reality television

One of the least vital articles in a section where we are over the quota. We don't list Miniseries either. Roots has no worldwide vitality and if being one of the most viewed shows translates to vitality, we would have M*A*S*H (TV series) listed. Television shows needs to be cut to 6 i think. This is a start. Reality television should be listed over Roots or 60 minutes, it's had more of a effect internationally both on culture and in television history. Game show is listed and all though it did have an impact on early television, i think reality television has had more impact on culture as a whole. Ken Jennings or Bob Barker have never had the culture impact as Ryan Seacrest or Kim Kardashian, so even though it's a "recent" thing, it's established itself as one of the defining modern features of television programming more so than genres we list like game shows. Alex Haley is more vital than his miniseries too.

Support

1. Support As nom GuzzyG (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Support While I despise the genre, reality television has had a massive influence on modern culture. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 02:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
3. Support removal Star Trek seems to be now remembered more often than Roots. --Thi (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC
4. Support as Susmuffin said. J947 ^(c), at 19:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 02:43, 28 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 60 Minutes

We should not list two tv news programs from the same country and Meet the Press is more vital to television history. Nearly all of our television coverage relates to the US. Today (American TV program), CBS Evening News, ABC World News Tonight and Face the Nation are all on the same level as 60 minutes. If we had to list another American broadcast it should be Guiding Light as it's the combined longest running drama broadcast in world history.

Support

1. Support As nom GuzzyG (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 08:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
3. Support We are over the quota in this section. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
4. No worldwide importance. J947^{'s public account} 20:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
5. Support per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 21:58, 27 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 Life (magazine)

A defunct magazine. I see Photojournalism as more general article.

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 Photojournalism is not listed. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
4. Support, anyone keen for a swap? J947 ^(c), at 20:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
7. Support feminist (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This magazine is vital, since it was once the American equivalent of Punch, featured some of the greatest writers, editors, illustrators and cartoonists of its time, has published some vital journalistic photos and serialized some figures' memoirs, and contributed to journalism substantially.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal That magazines today wield less cultural influence than they once did doesn't change their important history. Being defunct isn't an argument for removal, per WP:Recentism. I Support addition of photojournalism as a massively influential subfield of journalism. - Sdkb (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Swap with Photojournalism

1. Support swap Photojournalism is a basic type of journalism; it is far more important than a defunct magazine. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Support swap GuzzyG (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Support swap – The subject is vital, unlike the magazine. J947 ^(c), at 04:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
4. Support swap feminist (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

• @J947, DaGizza, and Thi: I added a swap option to this proposal. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Thi: I read this as consensus to swap with photojournalism, or at the least moving toward that consensus, given that it's been the predominant choice since it was introduced part way through the !voting. Sdkb (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• If you read closely its addition actually has 5–0 support anyways, as to further your point. J947 ^(c), at 04:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I noticed now that Sdkb:s vote includes support for addition. Corrected and photojournalism added. --Thi (talk) 06:50, 26 September 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 Birth

The discussion about whether to add this article to Level 3 is ongoing, but to not have it at Level 4 seems like a simple oversight. It's an obvious candidate. - Sdkb (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Sdkb (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Life is vital at level 1, and death is vital at level 2, so birth should be considered vital at level 3.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Strong support Historically and culturlly vital. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
4. Support although Childbirth is already included. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
5. Support--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
6. Without a doubt. J947^{'s public account} 23:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

BTW the L3 proposal has failed. J947^{'s public account} 00:01, 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 Passerine for Tinamou in Basic 10

It seems nuts to have tinamou (46 species found only in Central and South America) rather than passerine (largest order of birds, 6600 species on every continent, one of the most diverse orders of vertebrate) as one of the "Basic 10" for the Birds section. I'd suggest we switch these. MeegsC (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom MeegsC (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Agree Craigthebirder (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
3. Tentative support. Passerines are a far more important topic concerning birds and tinamous is covered by Palaeognathae. However, if the aim is ten articles covering important aspects of birds I would consider songbird over passerines (perching birds). Which captures the essense of birds more, bird song or perching?   Jts1882 | talk  06:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
4. Support but MeegsC generally swapping is meant as swapping one article off the list for another one to go on the list. J947^{'s public account} 00:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
5. Support in principle, but just get rid of the "Basic bird articles" header (see comments below). Plantdrew (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• Passerine is already listed, just not under the first basic 10 bird articles but further down in its own section along with song bird. We could discuss moving existing articles about. I agree passerine is more vital than tinamou.  Carlwev  03:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Carlwev: that's why I suggested swapping them. ;) MeegsC (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• If tinamous are removed from the basic ten they need to be placed somewhere else. They belong with the ratites, although are not ratites, so that section needs renaming Palaeognaths. The position of Palaeognaths as a basic ten topic might also be reconsidered. Is the importance because it is the primary taxonomic division in birds (rather abstract) or that it contains the large flightless birds (of popular appeal). If the latter, ratites or flightless_birds might be the more vital topic. A basic ten with birds of prey, songbirds, flightless birds and seabirds seems more consistent. Alternatively, if the taxonomic divisions are important, Palaeognaths, Galloanserae and Neoaves should be consider basic ten topics. Neoaves should certainly be in the 118 articles.   Jts1882 | talk  06:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jts1882: I did suggest we keep tinamou at level 4, just not in the "top 10"! MeegsC (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• There's nothing particularly "basic" about the 10 "basic bird articles". Flamingo, loon, penguin and tinamou are the only representatives of their orders in VA4, and the listed birds are otherwise arranged by order. I can see not wanting to create sections headers that will only have a single entry, but it's misleading to suggest that these 4 birds are somehow more vital/basic. "Basic bird articles" is a grab bag of entries that don't fit elsewhere. Just get rid of the "basic birds" section header (or create section headers for orders with single entries; I don't care much either way). There is already one order section header with a single entry (Apodiformes). Hummingbird is in the "basic" list but should be moved to Apodiformes. Plantdrew (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

There are already several section headers for plant orders with a single entry. Plantdrew (talk) 20:20, 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.

---

Remove Cubit, add Anthropic units

The cubit is ancient as hell, but has also completely fallen out of modern usage. Other such body-based measurements like palm (unit) are not listed as vital, and they shouldn't be. However, the general concept of anthropic units is important, and so we should list that instead. That article is currently massively undeveloped, but flagging it as vital would help a lot with expansion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal. Cubit has no business being listed at this level. It's not currently in active use in any meaningful way and is primarily of historical interest. It should be dropped down to level 5 where other historical measuring units are listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

   Agree that it's fine at level 5. And thanks for fixing the nomination. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

3. Support removal Cubit is not in use. --Thi (talk) 08:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Support removal. The nomination is more thorough this time. I agree that proposals shouldn't come up again after a short period of time if the arguments are the same but that isn't the case here. Cubits are no more vital than palms which was just as common historically. But list-like or disambiguation pages aren't vital too so I oppose anthropic units. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
5. Support removal As per Rreagan007. InvalidOStalk 00:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
6. Support, but, even though this doesn't seem to be the prevailing opinion, only if Anthropic Units is added in its stead, as I think the topic has Level 4 importace. Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 01:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Cubit is a very important historic unit and per what J947 said about anthropic units pbp 15:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Cubit has important historical significance. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

   No more than any other ancient units. It's only claim to fame is pretty much being used by the ancient Jewish tribes of the Bible. There's nothing special about cubits, that doesn't also apply to palms, hands, the general concept of arms width (like fathoms/alds), the fingers, or pretty much anything in List of human-based units of measure. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

3. Oppose I stand by my previous statement in the older discussion. The cubit has great historical significance and the article anthropic units is currently almost entirely devoid of meaningful content. –Katolophyromai (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

   @Katolophyromai:The whole point of this list is to highlight the articles that are most important to improve, so the fact that the anthropic units article is in bad shape is completely irrelevant to whether or not it should be listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

   I actually stand by that judgement often (#Add winter sport) but this is an article consisting of three articles. And only one of the three fits what Headbomb was referring to (and now there's going to be a mammoth discussion about no applicable rationale for addition. Sigh.). J947 ^(c), at 18:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

4. Oppose I think cubit is histororically significant, and view "anthropic units" as a neologism. Dimadick (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose addition per my comment below. J947 ^(c), at 21:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
6. Oppose addition --Thi (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

At the moment anthropic units is practically a disambig page, so unless someone splits the measuring meaning out I can't support this. J947 ^(c), at 01:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I was going to support the removal but there's a very recent discussion about removing Cubit: Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_59#Remove_Cubit. J947 ^(c), at 01:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@J947: And now we're having a new discussion about it. Do you think it belongs in the list or not? Rreagan007 (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Reading that discussion I pointed out above makes me neutral. J947 ^(c), at 20:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to echo J947's concern. I continue to be of the opinion that articles shouldn't be proposed for addition or removal if an addition or removal proposal has failed in the past year. I remember when this project was six years younger we sank a ton of time into repeated proposals about the merits of Harry Potter and I'd like to avoid anything approaching that mess. pbp 15:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

There was a proposal last year for a 1-year rule, and it failed to gain consensus. So as of right now there is no such rule. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dimadick, Katolophyromai, and Presidentman: This proposal may interest you. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 15:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Natural resource and Resource

Natural resource has been talked about at Level 2 even (under 'Add Metal') and I figured that resource is good in complementing it. It is a bit dictionary-like but sufficently important in my opinion. Not sure if this the right section though, also courtesy ping to Dawid2009 for ideating it.

Support

1. Support as nominator. J947 ^(c), at 07:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  07:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Natural resource. --Thi (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Natural resource per nom. - Sdkb (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
6. Support Natural resource. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Resource. --Thi (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose. These feel more like dictionary words to me. The different resources and natural resources that are vital are what we should list. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose Resource, since seems like a dictionary word. - Sdkb (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose Resource. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:57, 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 News media

We have quite overlap beetween Telecomunication and Mass media. News media is more diffrent article from Telecomunication than Mass media so it potentkially could be candidate to level 3 article. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Media culture and history of journalism are important areas. --Thi (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
4. Support but probably belongs in the "communication" section, not the technology section. - Sdkb (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 10:38, 8 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.

---

Swap: Remove Funicular, add Cable car (railway)

They are both types of cable/rail transport, but cable car is more vital. I'm honestly not sure we need either one listed at level 4, but if we are going to have one it should be cable car.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal --Thi (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Support removal Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
4. Support removal Too obscure a mode. Covered by Cable transport. - Sdkb (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
5. Support removal per Sdkb's alternative article. J947 ^(c), at 04:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition --Thi (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose addition Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose addition Covered by Tram, and also by Cable transport. - Sdkb (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose addition —J947 ^(c), at 04:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

I'm not wholly sure it should be cable car instead of funicular. Normally both or none is the approach taken for these sorts of things. Right now I'm leaning towards neither but I'm nowhere near sure. J947 ^(c), at 21:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 Shintaro Katsu

Not as famous as Toshiro Mifune or Setsuko Hara. For example in Pantheon project person is considered to be famous worldwide, if the biography has 25 language editions.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Weak support, see my comment. J947^{'s public account} 23:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. STRONG OPPOSE Sports people clearly go as first. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose alot of the actors are bad choices but a swap will work. these three shouldn't be on the list but the likes of Richard Burbage, David Garrick, Rudolph Valentino, Douglas Fairbanks, Dilip Kumar, Meena Kumari, Nargis and Zhou Xuan should be. Entertainers is way too low in proportion to athletes and it cannot get worse. GuzzyG (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose Fame does not equate to significance or impact. Dimadick (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Was previously nominated for removal here. The thing about language editions is that is doesn't really indicate worldwide interest. All it often indicates it that they have some hardcore fans (across the globe, or sometimes just google translated... badly). Also I don't really like the argument that only takes into consideration the section it's in. As with Guzzy, I would prefer a swap but that doesn't mean it's an oppose from me, it simply means that the next time an actor is proposed we'll have to take recent removals into account. J947^{'s public account} 23:54, 10 September 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 Claudette Colbert

The list has plenty of other stars from the golden age of Hollywood.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Weak support, see my comment at #Remove Shintaro Katsu. J947 ^(c), at 05:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. STRONG OPPOSE Sports people clearly go as first. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose alot of the actors are bad choices but a swap will work. these three shouldn't be on the list but the likes of Richard Burbage, David Garrick, Rudolph Valentino, Douglas Fairbanks, Dilip Kumar, Meena Kumari, Nargis and Zhou Xuan should be. Entertainers is way too low in proportion to athletes and it cannot get worse. GuzzyG (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose Not a valid argument for exclusion. Dimadick (talk) 17:01, 8 September 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.

---

Halve the number of actors and actresses

Okay, all of the actors and actresses listed are no doubt vital, but are they really more vital than Zeno of Elea, Posidonius, Alcuin, Guido of Arezzo, Bartolomeu Dias, Matteo Ricci or Alexander I of Russia, which is currently not listed? Besides, it is illogical to have 32 actors and 32 actresses, while having only 30 explorers and 30 businessmen (I think that this list should contain more such figures, e.g. Samuel Colt).--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

To me the areas that could get cuts are journalists, modern writers (174 of them! Almost triple the number of actors and actresses) and some genres of musicians. Psychologists are also over-represented compared to other types of social scientists like economists. Some of those suggestions are quite good Rekishi, particularly Dias. Robert Fisk, a journalist notable for interviewing Osama bin Laden, shouldn't be in before someone whose achievements started the Age of Discovery and changed the world forever. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@DaGizza: Who would you remove? ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we we list too many actors. However, I am not sure if the section can be reduced by half. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I think we should remove a dozen or so from this section, but quite honestly the sportspeople section is the one that should be halved. J947^{'s public account} 23:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The sports figures section is one of the most bloated parts of the list. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

100% agree about sportspeople. Let's make that happen! - Sdkb (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

If we lose a dozen actors and half the sports section we have to reexamine the point of this list (which articles are the most vital to improve to our MODERN readers, not a purely "greatest" technical list). Tupac Shakur should be higher priority to be featured than Guido of Arezzo in any modern encyclopedia. Judging by importance to the world; religious people, politicians, ancient greek philosophers and scientists should cover every spot then; we need balance to modern culture as well. Clark Gable has no real effect on history's trajectory, but his article is vital to have featured. The only bad thing about the sports quota of 100 is that it's more than entertainers total, it should be equal. I completely agree with DaGizza, journalists, psychologists, modern writers and rock musicians need cutting, but noone wants to get rid of the sci-fi writers, that's the real problem with the modern culture section. I think we need to set quotas by section. These names are flashy but what makes Samuel Colt different to John Browning, Mikhail Kalashnikov, Oliver Winchester, Richard Jordan Gatling or Daniel B. Wesson. Firearms should be listed, inventors maybe not. Food businessman like Henri Nestlé or Henry Luce are the two missing businessmen. But again, businesses should be in before their founders and expeditions before explorers, which is why they're low. The only two things that are bad about our entertainer's section is the fact we're missing pre recorded entertainment figures like Joseph Grimaldi, Ira Aldridge, David Garrick, Marie Taglioni, or Thomas D. Rice and we need to remove our reliance on the single country based AFI list, they don't cover silent film or anything else; Claudette Colbert isn't more vital than Rudolph Valentino for example.. But the key point of this list is popular names combined with influence rather than just the most influential/technical, it's why we list people like Houdini over Jean Eugène Robert-Houdin or Capone over Lucky Luciano. Because even though Houdini/Capone are the less influential, they're very common pop culture names and they had some influence so they're more vital to have featured. But i contend that entertainers should be at 100 covering pre recorded entertainment history. I don't think entertainers need cutting, sports i can agree, for example why does Basketball have a modern figure in Lebron James but not American football with Tom Brady or any other sport. The main problem with the athletes is we focus too much on team sports and tennis. We need more Olympic sports like fencers, equestrians, sailors and people like Kanō Jigorō. But if Lin Dan isn't getting votes, that's clearly not going to happen. If any section is underrepresented it wouldn't be businesspeople, explorers, scientists or religious people it'd be painters/craftspeople/designers in my opinion. GuzzyG (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe Lin Dan would be getting more votes if he wasn't pitted against Mark Spitz. Maybe pit him against a tennis player. As for LeBron vs. Brady, let me ask you this: who is more well-known outside North America? I'm almost certain it's LeBron, because basketball has a much higher profile in Europe, Asia and Africa than American football does. As for creating quotas, put me down as in favor of that. And to your comment "religious people, politicians, ancient greek philosophers and scientists should cover every spot then", I believe that the number of spots they cover shouldn't be reduced from what it is now. pbp 17:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe not halve sportspeople, but we could easily cut the category down to 70/75 and disperse the spots throughout people. It is absolutely unreasonable to have more sportspeople than entertainers, when entertainers have had far more of an impact on popular culture. I understand the point about businesses rather than businesspeople completely, but I don't think the same applies for explorers and expeditions. Most important explorers are known for more than one well-known expedition and often the expeditions can be summarised in the explorer's articles—which TBH, can be all they need. Also, to further pbp's sentiment, being from New Zealand I have no idea who Tom Brady is but definitely know who LeBron James is. And I don't really think that painters and such outside of the top two to three thousand articles have that much impact on the world. Just my opinion. —J947^{'s public account} 21:54, 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 Jefferson Davis

Is it acceptable that this list does not contain the president of Confederate States of America, who was a vital figure in the American Civil War, while relatively obscure persons, e.g. Emma Goldman and Nestor Makhno are listed?

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Ineffectual leader, but Davis has had a relatively long legacy. "Many historians attribute some of the Confederacy's weaknesses to the poor leadership of Davis. His preoccupation with detail, reluctance to delegate responsibility, lack of popular appeal, feuds with powerful state governors and generals, favoritism toward old friends, inability to get along with people who disagreed with him, neglect of civil matters in favor of military ones, and resistance to public opinion all worked against him. Historians agree he was a much less effective war leader than his Union counterpart, President Abraham Lincoln. After Davis was captured in 1865, he was accused of treason and imprisoned at Fort Monroe in Hampton, Virginia. He was never tried and was released after two years. While not disgraced, Davis had been displaced in ex-Confederate affection after the war by his leading general, Robert E. Lee. Davis wrote a memoir entitled The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, which he completed in 1881. By the late 1880s, he began to encourage reconciliation, telling Southerners to be loyal to the Union. Ex-Confederates came to appreciate his role in the war, seeing him as a Southern patriot. He became a hero of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy in the post-Reconstruction South." Dimadick (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose According to the article he is widely viewed as an ineffective wartime leader. --Thi (talk) 09:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose He was overshadowed by Robert E. Lee. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose Several American figures I'd add before I added him. Lee is enough to represent the CSA at this level. pbp 12:21, 31 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 Stonewall Jackson

Of all generals of the CSA, Robert Edward Lee and Stonewall Jackson have been best-known, yet currently the latter is not listed unlike the former.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Per the main article: Military historians regard Jackson as one of the most gifted tactical commanders in U.S. history. His tactics are studied even today. His death proved a severe setback for the Confederacy, affecting not only its military prospects, but also the morale of its army and the general public. After Jackson's death, his military exploits developed a legendary quality, becoming an important element of the ideology of the "Lost Cause". Dimadick (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I think that William T. Sherman has been more often referred as more influential general. --Thi (talk) 09:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose We do not need to list a second Confederate general. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose Grant and Lee is sufficient American Civil war personnel at this level. pbp 12:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

I'd prefer William Tecumseh Sherman if we had to list another general from this war. (Although i am not so sure we should). John J. Pershing should be our next American military figure. GuzzyG (talk) 14:24, 29 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 Leeds for Belfast

Northern Irleand require reresentation. Leeds seems be weakest city from U K which hasa comparable vitality to Belfasast. However I am not sure swapping is the best choice. United Kington probably should have more cities than France as this is list tairoling to English towards and these two countries represents the same continent for the diversity.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Support addition, oppose removing Leeds. The Leeds–Bradford metropolitan area is the 4th largest in the UK by population. It should be kept on the list. feminist (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
3. Support addition, oppose removing Leeds per above. The capital and largest city in Northern Ireland is needed at this level. --Thi (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
4. Support per nom - I came here to propose exactly the same thing. As a regional centre for the entirety of Northern Ireland, Belfast is clearly of equal importance to the other UK national capitals and its city-limits size does not tell the whole story. Assuming one city has to be removed in its place, Leeds is the logical choice. It is not on a par with the great conurbations of Birmingham and Manchester, and belongs more with Sheffield and Bristol in terms of importance. As an aside, the requirement to gain five !votes in favour seems a bit of a high hurdle here, given this has been running for nearly six months now. This should clearly be effected with the unanimous consent for addition of Belfast already.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

   The five-vote criterion (because it is a vote here, sadly) IMO isn't such a big bar. Obviously, it looks like the community is unanimous; but knowing it there are definitely people wondering about this one. Is Belfast covered by Northern Ireland? Quite possibly. If it has less than 5 supports and has been open for that amount of time it is generally an indication that the community is not sure about the proposal. J947 ^(c), at 18:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

5. Support addition, oppose removing Leeds  Carlwev  18:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The UK has 9, France 8, looking at the list. I doubt those totals should change, apart from UK down one. It's more than enough for the UK. J947 ^(c), at 05:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@Rreagan007: suggested to add New Zealand ahead of Peru at the level 3 despite fact New Zealand represents completly other region than Peru does, meanwhile France and UK are on the same continent. If New Zealand is more important to English Wikipedia even despite fact it represents much younger (+much smaller) continent than South America I think United Kington should have 25% more cities when both countries represents Europe. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I must say that I completely disagree that Peru is more vital than New Zealand. It has a far longer history, far more people, and I'd take a guess that even if we read the tailored to the English-language Wikipedia that strictly, there'd be more English speakers in Peru than in New Zealand. After all, it is a global language. J947 ^(c), at 20:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Belfast was previously nominated here. J947^{'s public account} 23:42, 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 Batman, add Stock character

Based on previous discussion and my comment here. Batman is not more vital than Zorro or Superhro. Stock character is more vital than all these three.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose If the list contains superheroes at all, it can have all the most famous characters: Batman, Spider-Man and Superman (and Wonder Woman). Batman is both pulp hero and superhero. --Thi (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Thi's argument. Batman's creation was influenced by many characters from the pulp magazines.: "Kane and Finger drew upon contemporary 1930s popular culture for inspiration regarding much of the Bat-Man's look, personality, methods, and weaponry. Details find predecessors in pulp fiction, comic strips, newspaper headlines, and autobiographical details referring to Kane himself. As an aristocratic hero with a double identity, Batman had predecessors in the Scarlet Pimpernel (created by Baroness Emmuska Orczy, 1903) and Zorro (created by Johnston McCulley, 1919). Like them, Batman performed his heroic deeds in secret, averted suspicion by playing aloof in public, and marked his work with a signature symbol. Kane noted the influence of the films The Mark of Zorro (1920) and The Bat Whispers (1930) in the creation of the character's iconography. Finger, drawing inspiration from pulp heroes like Doc Savage, The Shadow, Dick Tracy, and Sherlock Holmes, made the character a master sleuth." Dimadick (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose Batman has had a massive influence on popular culture. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 19:09, 4 October 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 Adventures of Pinocchio

The Adventures of Pinocchio is the most trandlated book of all time (except Bibble). And it was inspiration for Pinocchio (1940 film) which is the only animeted film mentioned in List of films considered the best. In my opinion when we list Harry Potter we should have Pinocchio too. Pinocchio is even mentioned in Jungian_archetypes#In_popular_culture meanwhile Harry Poter is not. The problem is also fact that we list Pinocchio and The Adventures of Pinocchio on level 5.

Support

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

Oppose

1. Oppose most translated is like best selling. doesn't make something automatically vital. GuzzyG (talk) 14:05, 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.

---

remove Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film)

We have far too many films. When we are going to add video game industry (it is reasonable because of we have fw articles related to industry just like fishing industry) I think we should swap cinematography with film industry due to overlap with filmmaking. We can not have so much films when we list only handful of video games (I do not think we need more) and we do not list clearly influential architectural buildings like: Giza pyramid complex, Notre-Dame de Paris, Christ the Redeemer (statue). Beyond that if we decide add Grimm's Fairy Tales we will have extremally overlap beetwen many articles (these two, Aesop, Perlaut, some fictional characters listed in arts and some mythical characters listed in religion section) while we do not list for example Pinocchio (not mention to fact that the film arguably is not more vital athan Pinocchio (1940 film) and is less vital than History of animation). Walt Disney is listed on the level 3 because of we swap some directors for history of film and Disney is the only filmmaker who does not make any overlap with history of film (in sense he is the only notable filmmaker who made constribution outsine hitory of film but in general he is not one of two the most vital film directors in history)

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Example of animated film is not absolutely necessary. Wizard of Oz represents fairy tale or fantasy films. --Thi (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Why is there so much disdain for animation on this project? pbp 23:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Each major genre should have a film on this level. Yes, that includes Deep Throat (film) too. GuzzyG (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose We need at least one animated film. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:32, 7 October 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 Tariff

We don't list Value-added tax, Flat tax, Dividend, Public finance and Revenue service, all of which are more vital than tariffs.

Support

1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 12:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose throughout human history, tariffs have been an extremely important source of revenue collection. Articles like free trade, mercantilism, protectionism, etc. can all be seen as subsets of the article on tariffs, since all ultimately concern how/whether to apply tariffs. The tariff article is far more important than e.g. flat tax and value-added tax, and is comparable to other level 4 vital articles like sales tax, property tax, and income tax. Orser67 (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
2. @Orser67:But tariff is just the most commonly used way to implement protectionism, and tariff has not always been meant for it.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

   Protectionism, at least in modern parlance, usually applies to policies specifically designed to protect domestic agriculture/industry/etc. Tariffs are the key component of protectionism, but historically they have also been used by some countries primarily for revenue collection rather than a conscious strategy of protectionism. I think if tariff was included as a subset of another article, it should be trade barrier or international trade. Orser67 (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Swap with Protectionism

1. Support We should include a more general article on protectionism, as it is the economic policy of restricting imports from other countries. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Support per below. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Support The general ideology is more vital than the specific mechanism. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
5. Oppose. We have neither Free trade nor Mercantilism. wumbolo ^^^ 21:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
6. Support More vital topic. --Thi (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Discuss

I would support a swap with protectionism. Tariffs are just one mechanism but something is needed on resistance to free trade and globalization. I also don't think that revenue service is more vital. There are many types of government agencies and revenue services don't stand out. Dividends and public finance are good suggestions though. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I would support that swap as well. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@DaGizza and PointsofNoReturn: I have added a swap option to this proposal. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:07, 25 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 Homophobia

We list Racism and Sexism at level 3. For the next level down here, I think it'd be appropriate to add Homophobia, given the number of people it has impacted throughout history. - Sdkb (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. - Sdkb (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Culturally important nowadays. And likely to get more and more so. J947^{'s public account} 23:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
3. Support I am surprised that this was not already listed. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 01:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
4. feminist (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:35, 7 October 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 Pencil case, Eraser and Fountain pen

If we are going to add László Bíró who is inventor of pen I think we should include all these three articles. Things which are useful in everyday life should have representative even if these ones are too obvious. here there ere suggestions to add door and wall on level 3.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Support eraser pbp 18:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Pencil case: not at this level. Fountain pens are now rare. Eraser is the most interesting suggestion. --Thi (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose pencil case pbp 18:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose common or everyday objects are not vital for that reason alone. Otherwise we would be adding toilet paper, toothbrush, stapler, nail clipper, comb, keychain, placemat, bucket, drink coaster, towel, can opener, backpack, coat rack, drinking straw, mattress, watering can, cushion, desk, facial tissue, etc. There are hundreds of these types of articles. And I didn't propose adding door or wall at Level 3. Only compared them to arch. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose These are quotidian objects. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 19:13, 4 October 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 Jeremy Bentham

One of the most influential philosophers. Founder of utilitarianism, important ethical theory. His ideas had considerable influence on society.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Jeremy Bentham made major contributions to the fields of ethics, ontology, logic, political economy, judicial administration, poor law, prison reform, international law, education, religious beliefs and institutions, democratic theory, government and administration. These contributions continue to be featured in discussions of utilitarianism. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Support was going to nominate him myself. GuzzyG (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Surprised he is not listed already. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

References

The discussion above is closed. 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 Sociobiology

Vital topic. Even though founder of sociobiology is more vital than some sport people whose we list on this level.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 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 Giovanni Bellini

"Few artists in the history of painting can match the contribution of the Venetian, Giovanni Bellini. Bellini can be credited with bringing a humanistic quality to his religious and mythical scenes. He was also at the vanguard of developments in oil painting and, having dispensed of the egg and water tempera method, he used oil paints to evoke a heightened sense of scenic ambience. Whereas the painted landscape was generally viewed with a stuffy distain by the artistic elite, Bellini treated it with a respect and attention to detail that brought it, though much later, a new generic credibility. And, quite apart from his own magnificent contribution to the canon of the Renaissance, he tutored Titian who, remarkably, even surpassed his grand and graceful Venetian master." (The Art Story) [2]

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per comment below on the Klimt nomination. I think we have the right amount of artists , no more straight additions just a swap on a very rare basis of clear notability over the other. GuzzyG (talk) 14:36, 28 September 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 Tiberius Gracchus, add Cato the Elder

Cato seems to me more famous. "Cato the Elder was one of the most important figures in the history of the Roman Republic. He was a member of the Republican elite, and he made a huge contribution to the politics and culture of Rome. Cato was a much-admired figure in his day and right throughout Roman history because he was seen as the embodiment of traditional values." (Dailyhistory.org) [3] "Cato was and remains famous as an author as well. He was a historian, the first Latin prose writer of any importance, and the first author of a history of Italy in Latin. Some have argued that if it were not for the impact of Cato's writing, Latin might have been supplanted by Greek as the literary language of Rome". He was the one who ended every speech he made with the line “Carthage must be destroyed".

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC) Swap Tiberius Gracchus with Gracchi per consensus. --Thi (talk) 11:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
2. Support addition, swap Tiberius Gracchus with Gracchi Cato the Elder was one of the most prominent Roman statesmen. Meanwhile, the Gracchi are generally discussed as brothers. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Support addition, swap Tiberius Gracchus with Gracchi per Susmuffin. GuzzyG (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Support addition, swap Tiberius Gracchus with Gracchi Gaius Gracchus was no less vital than Tiberius Gracchus, yet the list can not contain too many figures, and we frequently hear about Gracchi.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
5. Support addition, swap Tiberius Gracchus with Gracchi Neljack (talk) 07:54, 16 October 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 Sophie Scholl

Example of European activists. (Many figures in this section could also be listed as politicians or soldiers). "Sophie Scholl has become an important symbol of anti-Nazi resistance in Germany. - In a poll to find the greatest German, Sophie and her brother were voted to be fourth. Amongst the young generation, under 40, they were the most popular." (Biographyonline). "The Scholl siblings are still honored for their courage. Their names adorn schools in nearly every German city, and public squares and streets across the country have been named after them." (Deutche Welle) She is in Walhalla memorial as the only representative of the second World war era. Sophie_Scholl#Legacy.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Dimadick (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Support not on this level. there's more prominent revolutionaries/activists. even someone like Jack the Ripper is more vital. GuzzyG (talk) 14:43, 28 September 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.

---

About Ulysses S. Grant

Currently this man is placed under "Military leaders and theorists", however he should be placed under "Politicians and leaders", since after the American Civil War he was elected the president of America.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that, actually. It's at least arguable that his role as the top Union general during the last couple years of the Civil War, as well his earlier record of success in that war's Western Theater, is more important/notable/significant than his later service as president. Orser67 (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

That's the reason he's in the military section. He's better as a representative of the civil war than a president. Keep him in the military section. GuzzyG (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I Agree with Orser67 and GuzzyG. --Thi (talk) 18:12, 21 November 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: add Gustav Klimt, remove Jean Giraud

The Kiss is "one of the world’s most recognized and beloved artworks". [4] [5] Klimt was not just popular decorative painter, but highly original artist. "Klimt’s style made him the innovator and major contributor to the emergence of Austrian Modernism in art." [6] Photos of Klimt's paintings are so common in popular art history books, that it is impossible to ignore him at this level. Jean Giraud's name is not well known outside of the comics world and he is not as essential at this level as Hergé.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Removal per comment below.GuzzyG (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Addition. Although I haven't read the article on Klimt the nominator's argument still convinces me very much, and world history textbooks often mention him.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Addition per comment below. GuzzyG (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Removal Giraud was a highly influential artist, while Klimt was an artistic dead end. "Many artists from around the world have cited Giraud as an influence on their work. Testament to this was the publication of two special homage issues of the French comic journals Casemate (Hors Série 3) and dBD (Hors Série 09) a month after Giraud's death. The with the original "Chihuaha Pearl" album cover endowed 84-page Casemate issue featured, aside from an elaborate in memoriam overview of Giraud's life and career, testimonials from 89 predominantly European comic artists, who often had their testimonials accompanied with their own Giraud/Mœbius-themed art made for the occasion. For the 96-page dBD issue, which came in two cover variants, "Giraud, mort d'un géant" ("Giraud, death of a giant") and "Mœbius, Adieu à l'immortel" ("Mœbius: Farewell to an immortal"), over 100 comic artists, this time added with international overseas artists, contributed art as tribute to the deceased artist. Dimadick (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Removal, since he was a vital figure in Franco-Belgian comics, and the list should no doubt contain at least two figures of it. Moreover Dimadick's argument is very convincing.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

While Giraud should be swapped for someone like Lotte Reiniger, we should be strict on this list and the nomination rationale makes it seem the painting is more notable than the man. Theres other "The Kisses" with just as strong of a notability case like The Kiss (Hayez) and The Kiss (Rodin sculpture). If Giovanni Bellini isn't getting votes, i don't see how Klimt makes it through. How is he more vital than any other missing painters we list like Andrei Rublev, Alphonse Mucha, Egon Schiele, Amedeo Modigliani, Mary Cassatt, Giorgione, Paolo Veronese, Fra Angelico, Filippo Lippi, William Holman Hunt, John Everett Millais, Dante Gabriel Rossetti, John William Waterhouse, Frederic Leighton, Lawrence Alma-Tadema, William-Adolphe Bouguereau, Thomas Hart Benton (painter), Grant Wood, Francesco Hayez, Mark Rothko, Roy Lichtenstein, Jean-Léon Gérôme, David Hockney, Winslow Homer, Sidney Nolan, Jean-Michel Basquiat, Francis Bacon (artist), Lucas van Leyden, Andrea Mantegna, Rogier van der Weyden, Cimabue, Duccio, Apelles, Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot, Jean-Antoine Watteau, Paolo Veronese, Tintoretto, Thomas Couture, Gilbert Stuart, Anton Raphael Mengs, Thomas Gainsborough, Joshua Reynolds, Russell Drysdale, Thomas Eakins, Lucian Freud, Josef Albers or Ivan Aivazovsky all painters of a similar or higher rank and reputation. How about pioneering art writers like Giorgio Vasari or John Ruskin? How about other kinds of artists like William Morris, Peter Carl Fabergé or Eugène Viollet-le-Duc? I don't think Klimt is on a level that's required for this list. There's far too many people not just artists AND we're over quota by alot too. GuzzyG (talk) 14:34, 28 September 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 V. S. Naipaul, add A House for Mr Biswas

The article mentions that some aspects of Naipaul's fiction and especially his travel writing have been criticised, but perhaps many agree that A House for Mr Biswas is Naipaul's most significant work, "one of the imperishable novels of the 20th century". [7]Previous proposal to remove Naipaul.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Naipauls more important than his book. GuzzyG (talk) 11:23, 16 November 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 Robert Fisk, add László Bíró

Robert Fisk is not vital journalist just as Walt Whitman to be listed among 2000 the most influential people in hitory of world. Laszló Biró is vital for being either of journalist and inventor of pen. I am surprised Biró is not even listed on the level 5 yet. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal The list contains Edward R. Murrow, who was also war correspondent. --Thi (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Support removal, oppose addition Fisk is one of the least important people on this list. However, Brió is an obscure figure who invented a quotidian object. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Support removal per my earlier comments on Fisk. Neutral on the addition. Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
5. Support removal, oppose addition we're way over quota and he's the weakest. Biro would barely make the LVL 5 list. John J. Loud also has just as much of a claim. Weaker inventor and engineer than the likes of Louis Le Prince, Robert H. Goddard, Ralph H. Baer, Rudolf Diesel, George Washington Gale Ferris Jr., Stephanie Kwolek, Charles Wheatstone, John Wilkinson (industrialist), David Unaipon, George Pullman, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, John Smeaton, Benjamin Holt, Rowland Hill, Igor Sikorsky and Richard Arkwright who are all not listed. GuzzyG (talk) 09:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal - Fisk is vital, in my view. His reporting from the Middle East has resulted in numerous journalism awards and other honors. I regard him as the Edward R. Murrow of our generation, and perhaps even more highly. I strongly object to removal. Jusdafax (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

While I don't want to weigh in specifically on Fisk/Bíró yet, I do think we should note just how few journalists there are in proportion to the impact they've had on the world. While we need to get the people section overall down to quota, the 16 journalists are dwarfed by the 175 writers (a category with mostly fiction rather than nonfiction), and by categories like actors/actresses (64 total). We currently have about as many rock musicians and association football players as journalists. I'd much rather make cuts elsewhere. Sdkb (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Writers, actors, rock musicians and soccer players all have big international impact, journalists mainly have small impact on one country. Journalists are mainly routinely influential, like garbagepeople, they're just doing their job. Astronauts don't get onto the level 3 list for the same reason. We should have 10 journalists, only the extremely influential. (Alexievich, Attenborough, Bly, Cronkite, Hearst, Lippmann, Murrow, Pulitzer, Thompson, Wintour; if you ask) GuzzyG (talk) 09:31, 16 November 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 Birgit Nilsson, add Kirsten Flagstad

Flagstad and Nilsson were both Wagnerian sopranos, so they are easily comparable, but Flagstad is regarded by most critics as the greatest Wagnerian soprano ever.[8] Rudolf Bing called her "the greatest soprano of this century" and he was not the only one to hail her as "the voice of the century" Desmond Shawe-Taylor wrote of her in the New Grove Dictionary of Opera: "No one within living memory surpassed her in sheer beauty and consistency of line and tone."[9] Neljack (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Ok. --Thi (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Previous nomination regarding the removal of Nilsson here. J947^{'s public account} 00:05, 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 Lucretius

Lucretius wrote one of the most influential books ever written. [10] Critic Harold Bloom lists him among ten "geniuses" of world literature. [11] Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "...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..." [12]

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Support RekishiEJ (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
3. Support A very surprising omission from our list. Neljack (talk) 07:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Dimadick (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 11:33, 16 November 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 Saud of Saudi Arabia

I think he was not as influential as his father, king Ibn Saud, or his successor Faisal of Saudi Arabia. "He continued his father’s program of modernization... Domestic affairs, however, were overshadowed by a crisis in the administration... Saud had neither the ability nor the inclination to cope with these problems, and he so mismanaged the financial affairs of the state that he was forced to reconstitute the council of ministers and give full executive powers to Fayṣal as its president... [13] In 1964 he was forced from the throne and replaced by Faisal.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Support He was a weak king. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Support I don't see the need to have him, his father, and his brother Faisal. Orser67 (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Not one of the more important Saudi kings. A strange inclusion on the list. Neljack (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. Also Faisal can go too, one politician is enough to represent Saudi Arabia. We need to be strict and there's many more important African nations missing. GuzzyG (talk) 08:35, 13 November 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 Ani

Support

1. As nom. Because it stood on various trade routes, was one of the biggest cities on earth, and is a widely recognized cultural, religious, and national heritage symbol for Armenians, it is no doubt vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Support - Agree that this should be added at this level. Jusdafax (talk) 23:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose It just doesn't seem to rise to the level of long-term significance necessary for a city to be included at this level, and it's relatively close to a good number of Middle Eastern cities that are included. Orser67 (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Previously nominated here. J947 ^(c), at 05:56, 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 Virginia

The fact that it was Britain's first colony in North America means that it is doubt vital at this level.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Not the next U.S. state I would add. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 21:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose I'm hesitant to add U.S. states at this level in general, and I don't think we need more of them. I wouldn't be heartbroken to see New York and Illinois go — they're populous, but they don't have an identity distinct from their region or form their own region, as could be said for Texas, California, or Florida. I'd rather we start considering regions like Appalachia, Deep South, West Coast of the United States, or East Coast of the United States. Sdkb (talk) 03:48, 13 November 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 King Kong and Godzilla

I do not see how King Kong and Godzilla are not more vital modern east creatures than Hello Kitty. I think we also should move Pokemon from video game section to fictional characters because of in the archives we can find contigents where users have agreed each other that Pokemon (as) is not vital to history of video games but could fit rather to section with fictional characters where we list James Bond.

Support

1. As nom
2. Support Famous popular culture references, but Level 5 will suffice. --Thi (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Clearly more notable than Hello Kitty. But still not enough. GuzzyG (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 20:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

King Kong was added here. Godzilla was added here. Other discussions: 1. J947^{'s public account} 22:14, 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 Craft

Fundamental topics for human's creativity

Support

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

Oppose

Discuss

Note: We already list Handicraft at this level. - Sdkb (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Craft was removed here. J947 ^(c), at 23:15, 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.

---

Swap: Remove Hovercraft, add Submarine

There seems to be some fuzziness about whether moderately popular types of marine vehicles belong at level 4 or level 5. For instance, of tugboat and riverboat, which is a VA4 and which is a VA5? (A: the latter is a VA4.) We don't list sailboat (I guess since it overlaps with sailing) at VA4, but we do list barge. You get the idea. That said, I think hovercraft ought to fall on the VA5 side of the spectrum, and submarine on the VA4 side. This isn't just about their importance in warfare (where, idk, maybe they're about equal), but rather the extent to which they occupy the public imagination and appear in popular culture (where submarine has a clear advantage). - Sdkb (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. Sdkb (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Submarine is already listed under military tech [14], I suppose the majority of their use is military rather than transport. In fact sunmarine was previously in the 1000 list but was removed in 2018 [15]. The boat articles can be discussed, and maybe improved upon, I quite like having hovercraft though. I am interested in this section, I got sailing [16] sail [17] and sailing sport [18] added a while back, we also do not cover general idea of rowing or perhaps oar, although we do list canoe. Sailboat may not be listed at level 4 only level 5, but we do list Sailing ship.  Carlwev  17:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Oops, my bad! If someone could mark this proposal as withdrawn by nom, I'd appreciate it (I'm not sure how to do so). And yeah, let's certainly continue the conversation. Sdkb (talk) 18:14, 4 November 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 H. L. Mencken

I don't think he is more vital than his contemporaries Theodore Dreiser, Ford Madox Ford, Sherwood Anderson, Sinclair Lewis or John Dos Passos.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Sinclair Lewis is clearly more important than Mencken. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Support not as important as writers from his era like Eugene O'Neill who atleast carries actual influence on a field. Mencken's just a famous commentator in his day. We need to be more strict we're over the limit. GuzzyG (talk) 09:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
5. Support per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

While I don't want to weigh in specifically on Mencken yet, I do think we should note just how few journalists there are in proportion to the impact they've had on the world. While we need to get the people section overall down to quota, the 16 journalists are dwarfed by the 175 writers (a category with mostly fiction rather than nonfiction), and by categories like actors/actresses (64 total). We currently have about as many rock musicians and association football players as journalists. I'd much rather make cuts elsewhere. Sdkb (talk) 20:38, 11 October 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 Hans Eysenck

I think that he is not any more that essential in this level. Eysenck made significant scientific contributions, but Britannica describes him briefly: "Hans Jürgen Eysenck, German-born British psychologist best known for espousing controversial views; he held that genetic makeup might be responsible for IQ differences between whites and blacks and that smoking had not been shown to cause lung cancer (b. March 4, 1916--d. Sept. 4, 1997)." [19] Steven Rose writes in Lancet: "...he might have remained only a minor public figure had it not been for his 1971 intervention into the fierce arguments over race and intelligence... Playing with Fire is an apt title for Buchanan's thorough account of Eysenck's controversial career.... the frequent charges against him of manipulating or overinterpreting his (or rather his students') data, his inflammatory entry into the race/IQ controversy, his acceptance of large sums of money from the tobacco industry for research aimed at circumventing the link between smoking and cancer... My own view, as a sceptic about the merits of factor analysis, psychometry, and heritability estimates, is less charitable—not to the man, but to the research field itself, which I suspect that history will judge to have been a blind alley, although one with its roots in the eugenic preoccupations of the past century and with hugely undesirable social consequences." [20]

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Support psychologists should be at 20 and he's the weakest. GuzzyG (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Support He was best known for his controversial views on race and intelligence. To be honest, it does not appear that he made any significant contributions to his field. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
5. Support. He may however merit a level 5 entry, since he was rather widely cited even before the recent controversy, through one could debate whether controversial scholars that are proven wrong merit an entry here. I recently wrote about his co-author, Ronald Grossarth-Maticek, but I don't think he even merits a level 5 inclusion (he was added there a day ago or so, which I challenged, which in turn brought me here...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
6. Support The recent inquiry concluded that no less than 26 of his papers were unsafe. It is evident that he engaged in unscientific, perhaps even fraudulent, methods. Neljack (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
7. Support Hyperbolick (talk) 20:34, 25 November 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 Herbert von Karajan

We don't list Georg Solti who is one of the most awarded conductors and who has the most grammy awards so why do we list the best selling? Two conductors is enough and we're already overrepresented in 20th century classical music.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Because Karajan was a more influential and highly-regarded conductor than Solti (who didn't even make a list of the 20 greatest composers voted by fellow conducts a few years ago). I would avoid placing weight on Grammys when it comes to classical music - they are not taken seriously in the field. I would say Gramaphone Awards are more prestigious. If I had two spaces to represent conductors on the list I would choose Toscanini and Karajan. Karajan was certainly a more important conductor than Bernstein, though I suppose Bernstein had other strings to his bow. But I don't see how three conductors is too many - if anything we should have more. Conductors are major figures in classical music, but we have fewer conductors than pianists. If we reduced them to two we would have the same number as we had cellists. That would not reflect the relative importance and numbers of famous performers in those two categories. Neljack (talk) 08:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Philburmc (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose Karajan is among the most notable conductors. --Thi (talk) 19:03, 19 December 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 Merlin, add Aesop's Fables

King Arthur logically/naturally should be the only character from King Arthur's on this level. Merlin is far less vital than King Arthur and his significance is comparable to Tom Thumb who outside King Arthur's is also known in Tales of Mother Goose (which covers plenty famous fairy tales, including Cinderella). I very strongly support remove Merlin and I support addition of Aesop Fables which are much older archetyp and had influence on other general archetypes suxh like Big Bad Wolf.

Support

1. As nom. I strongly support especially remival because of we do not need two characters from the same genere. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal. Merlin is not as vital as King Arthur. However Aesop is listed in the People. --Thi (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

   I think Aesop's Fables should be before Aesop himself. In eventuality it's the only thing that makes him famous and the article about the fables is probably more important. J947^{'s public account} 23:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

3. Support removal per Thi. Neljack (talk) 12:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
4. Support removal per Thi. GuzzyG (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
5. Support removal. Changed my mind since 5.5 years ago. I may support a swap of the fables with Aesop. Gizza ^(t)(c) 21:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Previous discussions about Merlin. J947^{'s public account} 23:59, 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.