Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Latest golf additions

The latest additions to the golf section (currently the last 5) seem to me to be poor choices. They're all near contemporaries of each other, all male. No sign yet of JH Taylor. Nigej (talk) 07:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Floyd (1942), Irwin (1945), Crenshaw (1952), O'Meara (1957), Stewart (1957). All male Americans. Nigej (talk) 08:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

First 30. 22 men: 1821 Old Tom Morris, 1833 Willie Park Sr., 1851 Young Tom Morris, 1870 Harry Vardon, 1870 James Braid (golfer), 1892 Walter Hagen, 1902 Bobby Jones (golfer), 1902 Gene Sarazen, 1912 Ben Hogan, 1912 Byron Nelson, 1912 Sam Snead, 1929 Arnold Palmer, 1935 Gary Player, 1939 Lee Trevino, 1940 Jack Nicklaus, 1949 Tom Watson (golfer), 1955 Greg Norman, 1957 Nick Faldo, 1957 Seve Ballesteros, 1970 Phil Mickelson, 1975 Tiger Woods, 1989 Rory McIlroy, 8 women: 1918 Patty Berg, 1923 Louise Suggs, 1935 Mickey Wright, 1956 Patty Sheehan, 1970 Annika Sörenstam, 1974 Karrie Webb, 1981 Lorena Ochoa, 1988 Inbee Park. Year of birth given before name. Ernie Els is an obvious choice. Nigej (talk) 11:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Interesting to compare with Wikipedia:WikiProject Golf/Core Articles, although this hasn't been updated since 2014, which contains 31 golfers (23 men, 8 women). The golfers in Core Articles that are not included here are (correct me if I'm wrong): Bobby Locke, JH Taylor, Peter Thomson (golfer), Kathy Whitworth, Babe Didrikson Zaharias. Nigej (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I was going through an inventory of this myself before those guys were added. I could definitely support adding Els and Whitworth. I'd support adding another British golfer (Taylor? Colin Montgomerie?) and another Asian golfer (Thaworn Wiratchant?) Mark O'Meara isn't in the Top 50 on List of golfers with most PGA Tour wins so I'd drop him. Payne Stewart has one more major but only 11 Tour wins so I'd drop him as well. FWIW, Didrikson is VA 4 and 5 under "multiple sports" because she also was an Olympic medalist in track and field. pbp 19:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, give me a few minutes to respond. I watch every golf tournament every weekend that I can, so I am not just adding on a whim. Although I do agree we can drop O'Meara, I felt dicey on that one. Ok, I will reply again in a bit, thanks. dawnleelynn^(talk) 20:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Personally I would definitely go with Taylor, Els and Whitworth. Billy Casper is a possibility, prolific winning worldwide. Irwin and Bernhard Langer, partly based on prolific seniors careers? Vijay Singh? No obvious Asian candidate. Nigej (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree Els has completed enough of his career to include him. I would agree to Whitworth. I think you are underselling Payne Stewart, as his career was shortened by an airplane accident. If you read his article, he's quite notable and his potential can be considered; he is notable for more than just numbers. There's two statues of him. There's an award named after him. Stewart was a popular golfer with spectators. On the 10th anniversary of Stewart's death in 2009, Golf Channel presented a special program to remember his life. On the first day of the 2014 U.S. Open, Rickie Fowler wore plus fours and argyle socks in tribute to Stewart. He's in the hall of fame and the top 50 list. Et cetera. Removing O'Meara (and possibly Stewart) does not give you three, so who else did you mean to replace? I initially didn't think about removing Crenshaw, Floyd, or Irwin since you didn't mention them, but if one of them has to go, it would be Floyd, even though I just saw a special on him during the U.S. Open. I think Irwin and Crenshaw are clearly notable. I hear about them all the time when watching golf. Irwin is designing courses now as a second career. Crenshaw is widely regarded as one of the best putters in history. And it almost sounds like you want to drop all of the ones I chose? dawnleelynn^(talk) 20:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

One obvious criticism of the extra 5 is that they are all male Americans from a certain era. I think we need a broader spread than that. Indeed my first thought was that I personally wouldn't have chosen any of the 5 and the author(s) of the WP:GOLF core articles thought likewise. JH Taylor, as one of the Great Triumvirate (golf) is surely essential. Nigej (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, there are plenty of articles in this vital article list that aren't on that WP:CORE list. [[1]] And I don't think we should be selecting our list based solely on another list. And yes, I was trying to pick notables who have finished their career and/or contributions to the sport as per is being done in most other people categories unless an individual is especially notable such as Tiger Woods. What is Rory McElroy doing in this list really? The last time this section closed for quota, no one was adding people to it. It had a few spots open and so I added Phil Mickelson right before it closed and GuzzyG added a couple more to it to close it out with Tom Watson and Harry Vardon. Where were all of it you then? Now if there's a diversity or an era issue, that's different problem. But no one has to say those four guys I picked (not O'Meara) are not qualified to be on this list just to get their picks on it. Obviously, the PGA views these guys as very notable since they feature stories about them during tournaments. So, it seems some one has an agenda to get all of the golf wikiprojects picks here too? I just read up higher. Hmm, either you want people from that wikiproject list or you want people from other countries, which is it? dawnleelynn^(talk) 21:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC) p.s. I can relate to the desire to want foundation entries, that's not just in golf but in other categories too. I have to go out, but I'll be back later, hope we can compromise and come to a reasonable decision. From a fervent golf fan, dawnleelynn^(talk) 22:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I only became aware of this list relatively recently when tags started being added to articles. At that time there was (I think) a list of 25, later expanded to 30. I'm a little surprised that nothing was mentioned at WT:GOLF which would be an obvious place to go for advice (or maybe I missed it). Actually I was very happy with the list of 30 with the exception of JH Taylor and didn't comment at the time. The late additions of Michelson, Tom Watson and Vardon were excellent choices (although Vardon would have been in my top 5 or 10). As to diversity, I think the 25/10 male/female split is about right. I think we also need a balance of different eras and a world view if we can. To me the first 30 had that but the 5 additions don't - just my view. I'm sure the (US)PGA/PGA Tour do regard the 5 you give as very notable but I suspect a world/historical perspective would lead to a different 5. As you say McIlroy is perhaps dubious. If him why not Jordan Spieth, for instance? But then I've no idea how the list is meant to develop over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigej (talk • contribs)

Yes, they have the ability to go to the various wiki projects, some of that has been done. But I know they want participation from more than just one source. Also, I believe the idea is to get people who have mainly finished their contributions to their sport, with the exception of course, of exceptional people like Tiger Woods. That's why I pointed out McElroy, he's got a long way to go in his career. I see the lists, the ratings, etc. but I also watch golf about every weekend it is on. I watched the entire final round of the U.S. Open last weekend. You find out a lot about the pros, both past and present, that way. And they do talk about who are the most popular with the fans. You may be right about historical perspective leading to a different view on four that I picked, guess we will find out someday, but I disagree on Payne; it's not just the PGA that is holding him in high regard 20 years later, as the links show; it's also fans and pros. In fact, next year will be the 20th anniversary of his death; watch and see what happens. Practically every year something happens that memorializes him. At any rate, to keep the balance you speak of, we would need to choose one male American golfer. So I propose we keep Payne, you pick two golfers and Purplebackpack89 picks two. dawnleelynn^(talk) 15:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Nigej Purplebackpack89 Might you two be interested in this compromise I posted earlier yesterday? dawnleelynn^(talk) 19:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed I am. User:Purplebackpack89 and me seemed to agree on Els and Whitworth (somewhere above) and I'm very keen on JH Taylor. Payne Stewart makes 4. So leaves AN Other. Nigej (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nigej:@Dawnleelynn: I suppose I could be talked into it. I'm not 100% sure on who should get the final slot but I do somewhat feel it should be a woman or an Asian or a Pac Islander to balance things out. The 34 as currently proposed would have 7 Brits, 2 other Europeans, 2 (South) Africans, 2 Australians, an Asian, a Mexican and the rest Americans. 8 women and the rest men. pbp 20:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Make it 9 women now with Whitworth. What about Se Ri Pak? Female and Asian. "Perhaps the greatest tribute to her career to date came in a column by Golf World writer Eric Adelson in 2008, who called Pak "a pioneer... who changed the face of golf even more than Tiger Woods." When Pak came to the LPGA in 1998, she was the only Korean player. Ten years later, she was one of 45 Koreans on tour". Nigej (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Nigej Purplebackpack89 Yes, I proposed I keep one, Stewart. And then each of you take two, you can work that out however you want. That makes five. Perhaps I didn't make that clear enough. I think you had a good point about a well-rounded selection of American men, women, foreign, and different eras. That's important. And we'll see what happens with Stewart; he's hugely popular to fans and pros; but when voting time comes, it could go either way. I hope in future that we could work together and with no need to criticize each other's choices. If the quota goes up again, I'd hope we would work together then too. Good choices can come from many sources. Thank you. One of us should remove the Vital Article templates also. dawnleelynn^(talk) 20:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Stewart is bigger than you realize. On April 18, 2017, Tiger Woods introduces first public course, a tribute to Payne Stewart: [2]. Payne Stewart would have been 58 today. [3] He's Rick Fowler's favorite golfer. Justin Rose also paid him a tribute per that article. Not everything is just about numbers. dawnleelynn^(talk) 01:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC) [4] dawnleelynn^(talk) 02:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Hey and lists vary depending where you go. This list of 25 top players puts Raymond Floyd at 15. Just to say who decides the best varies and the ones at the top vary. [5]. dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

This list of top 15 from the PGA puts Nicklaus ahead of Woods. [6] Also Palmer doesn't usually make it to 1 or 2 in most lists. But he is a fan favorite, that's why they called him the King. He helped take golf into the mainstream back in the day before the general populace watched it on television. He's number 1 as far as the fans are concerned. That's what I mean when I talk about notability not always being based on statistics or just on statistics. His contributions to the sport are enormous and go way beyond his golf game. dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Nigej Purplebackpack89 Someone else might fill in that golf hole if you leave it open too long. Also, here's a splash of reality for you. Do you ever check hits an article gets with the Pageviews Analysis tool? Out of my 5 picks and the 3 you inserted yesterday, guess who gets the most? Stewart with 1,323 per day average. Els comes in second with 898 average per day. I should have checked that before when I first thought about adding. O'Meara only had 139 per day; I probably would not have added him due to that. And a golf icon like Mickelson gets 5,681 per day. Also, you wouldn't expect a foundational pick like Taylor to get a lot of hits, but he's there for history's sake so popularity is not relevant in his case, 39 hits average. Food for thought. dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I still fancy Se Ri Pak as noted above. Yes, I do look at page hits. A while back I signed WP:GOLF up to the "popular pages" monthly survey: Wikipedia:WikiProject Golf/Popular pages. Quite interesting but more to do with popular culture sometimes. Paige Spiranac wouldn't I think make many it on many lists as a leading golfer. I did find this https://www.thealltimegreatestgolfers.com/ which has (from 18 down) Casper, Singh, Thomson, Locke, Langer, Vardon and fits in quite well with my ideas. John Ball Jr. at 28 which hadn't occurred to me. Nigej (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Nigej Thanks, these lists are very interesting, especially the page hits list. There is some variation in what I got running the hits myself, but it is still very useful. And yes, the lists have to be taken with a grain of salt, as you say popular culture... And also always remembering that we are looking for golfers that have pretty much finished their contribution to the sport most of the time, so some list members should be ignored. Anyway, good stuff, thank you very much. dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Arts/Albums choices

I'm troubled at what's listed there. Who listed Born to Die there? What makes that one so special? Sure, it's great and successful, but there are far better and more iconic choices out there. So far it hasn't even gone past double platinum in any country. For a pop record, that's not much of anything special in comparison to other options. I don't even like Lana Del Ray, so I might just be trapped under a rock here, but I don't see what makes this vital.

Classics like Hootie and the Blowfish's Cracked Rear View (1994, recently a double diamond record in the US), Oasis' (What's the Story) Morning Glory (1995, I guess you'd call it a Diamond in the UK, most internationally successful Britpop record all-time) Pearl Jam's Ten (1991, most commercially successful grunge album, even though it is arguably less influential than Nevermind), and Linkin Park's Hybrid Theory (2000, the single most successful 21st century-release heavy metal album of any type) reach far beyond Born to Die. And the latter three are both GAs. Yet they are omitted and this one is listed. I am confused. At the very least, I would think this calls for the latter three to be added, but honestly I don't think Born to Die is anything special.

Upon a second look, it seems a VA tag was never added to the article I'm questioning, it's just in the list. dannymusiceditor ^oops 4:18 pm, Today (UTC−4)

The list at this point is almost certainly additions by one or two editors; some will certainly be removed. I'd recommend WP:BOLD-ly making changes at this point; if there's disagreement we can discuss/vote here. Regarding the VA tag; I'm a bit behind on adding tags (semi-automated as page moves make it too difficult to fully automate). power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Some removals of American military leaders

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

---

I think the right number of American military leaders is between 50 and 55. (I believe the quota for all of human history is 300, so that's 16-18% of the quota for all of human history from anywhere in the world.) I recently removed some low-hanging fruit and swapped in a few omissions. I also created User:Purplebackpack89/USMil to parse out how the list breaks down by conflict and time period. One thing I noticed is that special forces were very heavily represented, but, prior to the recent changes I made, the Air Force was barely represented at all. But I'd like to run some of the next round of removals by you. pbp 14:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

This group definitely seems overrepresented. I will support all of them, except the two I have actually heard of. I might be convinced either way with those. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I Would suggest one thing with this level 5 list. As almost any articles can get added by anyone at anytime, as well as removed I would suggest a different approach than the other levels, at east for now. I would suggest any article that is raised in discussion, only need over 50% of votes to be removed, after all if a particular article were suggested for adding like at other it would need over 66.66% of people to want it in. So here if 49% of people want an article in but 51% of people don't it would seem silly to keep it, considering it was probably added with no discussion to start with. Not sure what to say about exactly 50-50 cases but still at least in cases that are slightly one way should go the majority way. Not sure if we should keep the 5vote minimum either, if one person adds an article on their own, which they can, then 4 people express a want to remove it, and no one else ever comments, it would seem silly to keep it. Carlwev  17:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Personally i think basing a list made in 2018 on one made in 1994 is a bit off. Also Albert Pike was added to represent freemasonry, so i would disagree with the outright removal. Bowe Bergdahl and Tillman were the current relevant to culture additions, and people regarded as the "Father" of something should be self explanatory. I think these discussions should have waited until later on when the list is completed for more perspective. I will think about voting, when i am less restricted on time. I hope to see the desire to cut all of the "excessive" European WWII generals and soldiers too. Weird that the "diversity" is expected to be fixed by removing the "fathers" of bits of the military that would not be covered. (the different special forces, friendly fire, 21st century currently active generals (the ones not in a book from 1994.) I think we can try and have more covered then a book that old, if not, what's the point of our own list, why not just copy them? GuzzyG (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The 21st century is still going to be covered. Petraeus, Franks and Karpinski are being kept even though they're not in the 1994 book. And while Bergdahl and Tillman are notorious, I have a hard time thinking of them as influential. If we are going to have five American military figures from the last 17 years, Bergdahl and Tillman wouldn't make my top five. We also need to caution ourselves about recency bias. pbp 01:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

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

---

Remove William B. Travis

We have Bowie, and Crockett and Houston under politicians, to represent the Texas conflict pbp 14:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 14:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
2. support ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
3. support --Vamanospests (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
4. support. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. He's a significant historical figure and is vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose Should have waited until the list is completed (Quota could be updated, or some other thing). But Travis is clearly vital.
3. Oppose he seems to be on the list of "Texas founding fathers" all of whom are likely vital at this level. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 Richard Marcinko

Overemphasis on special forces. Doesn't have an article in my World Book. pbp 14:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 14:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
2. support ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
3. support --Vamanospests (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
4. support. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Since special forces are now considered vital by all military powers on earth, the American public is becoming more and more interested in them after the 911 Incident, World Book only contains 50,000 articles (this list should contain 100k ones), and he founded SEAL Team Six, he is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Discuss

• @RekishiEJ: There hasn't been any consensus to expand VA/5 above 50,000. Also, both this and your argument for Clark smack of recentism. pbp 17:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Purplebackpack89: Yes, there hasn't been any consensus to further expand the quota of the list, but in my opinion there are indeed 100,000 vital articles. And speaking about recentism, I think that a man who founded a special forces of a military power is no doubt vital at this level (since special forces are now becoming more and more important).--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Charles Alvin Beckwith

Overemphasis on special forces. Doesn't have an article in my World Book. pbp 14:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 14:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
2. support ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
3. support --Vamanospests (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
4. support. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The man who helped to establish the Delta Forces is no doubt vital at this level. Although World Books does not include him, he should still be kept due to the fact that in the future this list will contain 100k articles, and the man who helped to create a special forces which belong to a military power should be include.--RekishiEJ (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Discuss

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 Holland Smith

Overemphasis on special forces. Doesn't have an article in my World Book. pbp 14:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 14:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
2. support --Vamanospests (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
3. support. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Mark W. Clark

We have over a dozen American WWII personalities and he seems like one of the least important pbp 14:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 14:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
2. support ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
3. support --Vamanospests (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
4. support. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 Curtis LeMay

We have over a dozen American WWII personalities and he seems like one of the least important pbp 14:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 14:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
2. support --Vamanospests (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
3. support. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I wanted to push out the need to vote on these as long as possible, but that's apparently failed. Based on the current quotas, I believe this (somewhat odious) person is sufficiently vital. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 Wesley Clark

The last 30 years is overrepresented. pbp 14:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 14:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
3. support --Vamanospests (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
4. support his 2004 campaign wasn't that important, and neither was his earlier military service. I'd guess he's around 80000 on the hypothetical list of notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. America is currently one of major military powers on earth, and is the only naval superpower, thus any one who is the commander of a U.S. military operation (excl. a disaster relief) should be included. As Clark commanded Operation Allied Force in the Kosovo War during his term as the Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO from 1997 to 2000, he is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Discuss

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 Jim Mattis

The last 30 years is overrepresented. pbp 14:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 14:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
2. Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
3. support --Vamanospests (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
2. Weak oppose due to his service as SecDef. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
3. oppose. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 James Longstreet

We have five other Confederate generals and he seems like the least important. pbp 14:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 14:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
2. support ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
3. support --Vamanospests (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
4. support. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. The importance of the Civil War in American history makes this number of Confederate general appropriate, and Longstreet is vital. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose Longstreet was generally blamed for the loss at Gettysburg, and thus the entire war, by many Southerners for years after the war ended. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
4. Oppose - per Rreagan and Presidentman. Jusdafax (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

Things that make people vital unquestionably

I've been thinking we should have a mini guideline where we list things that would make someone vital enough to be on here instantly.I have thought of:

1. Every lead academy award winning actor and actress. (and Triple Crown of Acting winner).
2. Every nobel winner??
3. Booker Prize winners (one was removed during the australian writers removal...)
4. American president.
5. British monarch
6. If the "case studies" section remains i think the oldest, tallest and heaviest person should be listed and if the title changes we should just swap the person.
7. Poet Laureate of the United Kingdom

any other ideas? GuzzyG (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps every Kennedy Center Honors recipient. Probably every Chinese monarch or premier. pbp 23:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

some amount of Olympic gold medals; Congressional Medal of Honor (I don't know many of those get given out per year); Miss America; do we want to establish any hall of fame awards; Presidential Medal of Freedom dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The inventors of things considered important or even vital (e.g. a paper bag or plastic bag).--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. But if it's a person known for only one invention, would we only need the article about the invention? Makkool (talk) 11:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, an inventor who is vital at this level should not be known only for one invention.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

American presidents and British monarchs are clearly vital. Other lists can be used for inspiration. I recommend checking printed sources: encyclopedias and biographical dictionaries. --Thi (talk) 07:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Czars, leaders of the USSR and presidents of Russia are no doubt vital. Psychologists whose studies substantially altered the world (e.g. Evelyn Hooker changes the way psychologists and psychiatrists think about homosexuality, which in turn changes the public's attitude toward homosexuality) are also vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

American presidents and British monarchs are clearly all vital for the English Wikipedia, but I'm very hesitant to say that all members of other groups are automatically vital. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know for other fields, but in science there are too many Nobel winners for everyone to be considered vital. For example, in Medicine alone there are more than 200 Nobel laureates. Besides, scientists themselves are not usually on the same level of importance as their discoveries. I do think the scientist section is in urgent need of a guideline, though. Most of those currently listed there are even more obscure than the less known Nobel winners. Esiymbro (talk) 04:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• For Roman Catholic religious leaders, one thing I think makes you vital is being a Doctor of the Church. I have added all of the Doctors of the Church to VA/5. Most are at religious leaders currently (except for VA/4 and VA/3 articles that were elsewhere), but further examination may warrant some of them being moved to Philosophers. pbp 23:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The head of the DSM (of a particular version) force (e.g. Robert Spitzer), since DSM has worldwide influence, not just America.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Nobel winners, U.S. Presidents, and British monarchs. RekishiEJ makes a good point about Russian leaders as well (though probably not all Tsars are vital). Case studies seem good to me. Not sure about the Academy Award winners and I definitely don't see the vitality of every British Poet Laureate. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Filmmakers, photographers, and their works

Given that there are 280 filmmakers and 56 photographers listed at this level, and that this 5:1 ratio represents the relative importance of film to photography, does it follow that there should be roughly 41 photographs listed to correspond to the 203 films? And likewise with the medium in general (9 articles for photography to film's 44)?

	Film	Photography
Creators	280	56
Works	203	41 (proposed)
Medium	44	9 (proposed)

Qono (talk) 04:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Level 4 and Level 5

I have a small doubt. What actually is the difference between Vital articles level 4 and level 5?

@Adithyak1997: Level 4 articles are a higher priority to get to VA than Level 5 articles, but there are fewer of them. pbp 04:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: Thank you Adithyak1997 (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Move non-fiction to appropriate sections:

Non-fiction is for some reason listed here, under the Arts and it should be moved to the appropriate section. "Literature" and "arts" typically refers to works of fiction, not non-fiction. And in any case, the Arts section is a bit over-crowded and many others are under-populated.

Each topic should get its own "Non-Fiction" works section. Most of them are actually philosophy books so they would go to the underpopulated Religion and Philosophy. Plato's Republic, and On Liberty would go there. Others are actual religious texts, such as the King James Bible, or works of religious philosophy, which would also fit better in that section.

Others are works of history both ancient and modern. Tacitus, Herodotus, etc would go to History under Non-fiction. Principia Mathematica would go to Physics, and On the Origin of Species would go to Biology. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Support: non fiction should not be confused with fiction, although separating out history books written in the past from fiction/literature is not as easy as Harizotoh makes it sound. Catrìona (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Long Comment: I am thinking about this and have not made up my mind. The limit of each section is a topic that can be discussed. Whether certain things should be in one section or another, should the Bible be a work of literature or a Christianity topic, is an issue that should be discussed. Whether some sublists are too big or small should be discussed are there too many tennis players, not enough popes or what ever.....

But the limits are only set by us and are completely arbitrary really. Imagine for arguments sake the articles listed were all the perfect ones, and we were just rearranging where they were, (ignore the imaginary numbers) if we took out 50 history books 50 religious books and 50 science books from arts into history, religion and science, it wouldn't mean we would need to remove 50 topics each from religion, science and history, then find 150 more things to add to arts to fill the void, and keep the numbers the same the first obvious choice would be: just adjust the total for each section accordingly. It's not as silly but similar to saying people are too crowded, but there are not enough maths and science articles, so lets move all mathematicians and scientists out of people into science to mathematics and it solves the problem. If any attention was paid to the lists' contents when the section limits were set/suggested they were done with the contents in mind. Eg do we want to have 150 works of literature or 200? depends on whether we are including non-fiction or not in that or not, and this may have been addressed. It's not like we can say, these specific books, paintings and albums do not look vital lets remove them, perhaps there are too many art things listed.....then next week say no hang on, now we have moved the non-fiction books out of art there is more room now, the Dark Side if the Moon can stay now because of this reason, but we do have to remove horizontal gene transfer now out of science to make room for Darwin's Origin of Species, this sounds a bit silly. Or saying.. I might of supported adding Jehovah's Witnesses, it's quite important and the religion was under populated, more religions should be listed, however the section is now more full due to it including Hindu texts and editions of the Bible, so we can stop looking for more religions to add, and I won't support Jehovah's Witnesses any more because of this. We either think there are too many of something listed or not enough, just moving something to another area for that reason is just hiding the issue. An article is either vital or not, it should not be effected by whether or not other article are included in the same section or not. The section limits were either completely arbitrary or paid attention to the contents of each section, or a bit of both. We moved all "History of...." articles to history and out of other sections, because we thought having them together made sense, maybe people might look for history of agriculture or history of medicine in history; we didn't do it because there were too many agriculture and medicine topics, and not enough history topics, that wasn't relevant. We might have even increased the history quota after to compensate, but I can't remember, it was a while ago; we might not have even had quota limits then.  Carlwev  18:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Bible and other religious texts go to religion. Theology goes to religion. The Phil + religion section's max size can be expanded if needed. If Phil and religion get too big they can be split into their own sections. Right now there's only 750 Phil/religion articles so it's not like it's a massive one. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Move Television to Arts:

Television is currently listed under "Society" and mass media. Mass media should only list news media, and works of fiction should be listed under arts. Right now, a comic is listed under arts, but a tv show about that comic would be listed under society. Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment I have similar concerns about games, especially video games, which are currently listed under everyday life. The latter at least are creative works, and some video games have become multi-media franchises.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Support the proposal by the way.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Support -- television is a type of cinema, and the proposal eliminates ambiguity in the case of made-for-TV movies. Catrìona (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment, I do believe that news media makes sense to be placed in society or somewhere else. Television dramas clearly belong in Arts. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Many modern tv shows are appreciated for their storytelling, but historically television has been the form of entertainment. It is more practical to have all tv shows in one place than to pick up some shows and call them art. --Thi (talk) 08:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Support and long comment.... I support this but I would like to voice my views and thoughts.

• • It would make more sense if the change was implemented to TV shows on level 4 also, so the same way of listing is kept the same on different levels if possible, which it should be
  • When you think about it. Films are listed under arts, there are some stylistic differences between a movie and a TV show, but they are essentially the same and both art. They both have a written script, both have actors that are filmed, both are edited, both may have effects and come under cinematography, many directors, actors, writers and other crew work accross TV and Film without it being considered a different medium. Some franchises have both TV shows and Movies with the same cast and sometimes production crew, it is not so different that the Movie is art but the TV not, eg Star Trek, X-Files, Star Wars, Simpsons and many many more. Telefilms, and the fact Cinema released films appear on TV later blur the line even more.
  • The fact that some TV shows are factual or at least non-fiction entered my head. A Fictional show may be easier to view as art than a documentary, gameshow chatshow or news show, but there are factual cinema releases too although uncommon. But look at it another way, all books are listed under art, whether fiction or non-fiction. The dictionaries, encyclopeidas, scientific and historical books are all under arts, so a few non-fiction shows among the fictional TV shows should not really be a problem, they are still, written, edited and some of them scripted, similar to other shows and movies.
  • The fact one is thought of of art and the other as media is an odd one. Media can include books and movies too, so to include movies and books in art, but TV and radio shows in media outside of art is strange.
  • The fact that TV sets and broadcasting is a technology should not effect anything, it has not been a problem with other media. Individual books, movies, songs are in art, but articles about speakers, recording devices, camera, projector, printing press and TV set are in Technology, it does not effect other media so should not effect TV shows either.
  • I support the move of TV but I would include Radio shows, to similar to TV shows to have separate, or music based, when music is also in art.
  • I would move Video game to art also - whether one likes them or not, they are created, there is artwork, writing creativity and designing involved, you don't have to like them. Like movies music and literature, the aim is creating something to entertain others and expression as opposed to creating something of actual value like food or tools.
  • I would have the section include all arts and entertainment, what's the big diffence? Many things are both art and entertainment some are 100% both, the line between them, if there is one, for some things is finer than the line between other things in social sciences and everyday life. Acrobatics, some kinds of dance, ice skating, gymnastics, dressage, pro wrestling, bull fighting are all performing arts that people watch for entertainment, but are all also sports as well, putting sports and games in art and possibly calling it art and entertainment makes sense and takes away the argument to whether, iceskating, videogames, bullfighting are sports or games or performing arts, if they at least on the same page.
  • The only thing I'm not 100 per cent sure on is news, although a written account as/in a book about an event 10, 100 or 1000 years ago with or without personal opinion, would be a work of non-fiction in literature arts. But a written account about a similar event that happened yesterday as/in a news paper or magazine with or without opinion may or may not be considered non-fiction literature, it feels different. Although news is a semi scripted and edited show, and many journalists also write books, so the line is still blurred, but it is less clear cut than acting in TV dramas being art.
  • Sorry for rant, I brought this up before and supported it, and I'll do it again. Maybe this should be addressed at level 4 too if people support it

 Carlwev  17:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Weak Support - a show like Meet the Press should probably stay under Society, while Fawlty Towers seems like it should be under Arts. If the fiction/non-fiction split discussed below happens (and once the details are sorted out, I will probably support that), this should also happen; otherwise I'm neutral right now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

News media should probably get its own section in society, while television dramaas and comedies get moved to arts. Right now if you write a book, that gets turned into a comic, then a tv show, then a movie, all would fall under "arts" vital articles, yet the tv adaption would go to society. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Horse trainers

As I discussed in an earlier post, montanabw and I are polling the horse wikiprojects for additional help in filling out the horse categories. I had an expert on steeplechase give me some information today, but they also asked me where are the horse trainers? All I could find was the Sports Figures section category, Equestrianism, which has 5 articles that are filled with 4 articles on jockeys and 1 on dressage. This section has a tightly controlled quota. But we might get 200 more according to the new proposed quota. Possibly could a couple spaces be made available for horse trainers? If we are going to have race horses, we should have at least a couple trainers, not just jockeys. See Bob Baffert for example, in the hall of fame, trained this year's Kentucky Derby and Preakness winner Justify, also 2015 Triple Crown winner American Pharoah. I don't know how this usually works when it is possible a role may have been overlooked. Just asking. Thanks! dawnleelynn^(talk) 03:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I was planning on doing horse trainers before, i just did not have the expertise, but if the quota rises, we would for sure have room for about 5 trainers and maybe the project could come up with 3 more equestrian sports people and 2 more jockeys?. Sports business is missing alot of potential adds. Equestrianism has a long history so 15 articles, (10 in sports and 5 in sports business) is not alot to ask for. The only person not listed that i had in mind was Charlotte Dujardin. GuzzyG (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

That is good to hear. I am sure that the horseracing wikiproject would be happy to help and would definitely have their opinions on the trainers and jockeys, etc. I will post another message there soon, because it does take some time to elicit the feedback from everyone. I posted the first message May 3 and I'm just now getting a response as to who they all think is the greatest steeplechase horse; I've three confirm the same horse since yesterday, Arkle.

Arkle is OK with me. I defer to the collective wisdom of WPHR on that. Montanabw^(talk) 20:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's the problem: "Horse trainers" is like "sports coaches" -- racehorse trainers are the tip of the iceberg, there are many other kinds of trainers and historically, the "dressage masters" are far more significant than racehorse trainers in the worldwide scheme of things. Plus we have jockeys, who are the athletes who take the most risks. For atheletes, jockeys are obvious picks for racing, but in horse land, rodeo is a totally different sport, as is "Olympic Equestrianism" (to say nothing of Polo) -- really, just as we have different categories for soccer, basketball, baseball, and American Football, horse sports or "equestrianism" really is multiple sports. My personal take is that we split off horse racing from equestrianism in general (except for the individual horses, perhaps. Racehorses are mostly the ones who get famous). Montanabw^(talk) 20:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Vital articles on trainers and riders

I was thinking about the above, and not sure if this is for sports or something else, but I think that we do want to have separate categories for Rodeo athletes, jockeys and other equestrians. Also maybe split horse racing trainers from "riding masters" and other trainers/coachers/scholars of riding in general. So here are my thoughts, FWIW:

1. Rodeo I think we got. Dawnleelynn has a list of five highly notable individuals, no worries there. She's the go-to.
2. We should list 3-5 jockeys and 3-5 horse trainers, ask WPHR for nominations. Eddie Arcaro has to be on the list, though! Probably also a Brit (or Frankie Dettori, who is technically Italian) and if we want to add a woman, Julie Krone is probably our gal (the only woman to have one one of the triple crown classics, she won the Belmont)
3. I think that an Equestrianism section needs to be kept and needs to be mostly focused on the Olympics... almost everyone famous for pure riding ability outside of racing and rodeo rode on an Olympic team. I looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_medalists_in_equestrian and related articles. and I think I figured out who the top 5 riders are there (though they have coaches, these folks also basically train their own). I'd probably pick one each from Jumping, Eventing and Dressage, and then 1-2 of the others. I'd pick Reiner Klimke and Charlotte Dujardin in Dressage, Mark Todd (equestrian) for Eventing, and for Jumping, hoo boy, so many choices, probably William Steinkraus (he also trained and wrote a books) and Hans Günter Winkler, who was like the golden boy of the golden age of jumping back in the 1950s.
4. For the backup, I'd say we gotta find a spot for Alois Podhajsky because though he only got a bronze in Olympic Dressage (it was 1936 Berlin and the German judges had issues with Austrians, among other things), he's like the most famous dressage guy in the world because he saved the Lipizzaners in WWII (technically, George Patton did, but it was because of Podhajsky's bringing the horses to his attention)
5. But in equestrianism, one probably needs to list historic trainers/writers like Kikkuli (the first horse trainer we know of in the historic record), Xenophon (sometimes called the father or horsemanship); François Robichon de La Guérinière, Antoine de Pluvinel, William Cavendish, 1st Duke of Newcastle (maybe one of those preceding three, if so pick Guérinière); François Baucher, and Federico Caprilli (definitely Caprilli at least, for the dawn of the modern age, he was the father of the modern forward seat). In modern times, maybe some of the more notable teachers like Nuno Oliveira (dressage), George H. Morris (jumping), Helen Crabtree (Saddle seat riding) and... man for western, maybe Ray Hunt (horse trainer) for having the most influence. (All but George Morris are dead now, so no drama there, and Morris is, well, unquestionably notable and unique... and like 80 years old. ) We could add Podhajsky in the trainer category instead of the riding category, I suppose; he also wrote a bunch of books, and he probably is more a trainer than a sports figure.

Or, feel free to ignore all of the above. But if these categories are created, those are people who should go into them. Montanabw^(talk) 18:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

We have five athletes at the moment Eddie Arcaro, Reiner Klimke, Lester Piggott, Bill Shoemaker and Steve Cauthen. We should definitely have women so Krone is a definite, Dujardin would've been on if there was 6 but i did not know for sure. Given the long history of equestrianism i think we can fit them all in, the vote on raising the quota would have to pass first, however. Thanks for the recommendations, we really need more recommendations from in-house experts on the subjects here, my basic research doesn't compare to expertise, obviously.GuzzyG (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Guzzy, I still have some recommendations coming in at the two articles I posted in WikiProject Horseracing talk page. One message I posted for horses and one for horse sports people. montanabw knows this, so it's not a conflict or anything. I'm getting recommendations for race horses and steeplechase horses which montanabw and I can handle adding to the category. As far as the people go, she had not seen the list of five yet that was already in the equestrianism category. I have since sent it to her. Obviously, she has pointed out a few that you already had in the list, so that is good. We are just spending some time sorting since the quota hasn't been raised yet. We are not in a hurry. I am getting a larger response now over there now, and that's really great. I am no expert either, so I am happy we are getting response from the editors who actually work on these articles. The lead editor who brought Secretariat to FA status and wrote articles on Triple Crown horses has been very involved. Also, an editor from Britain has been getting involved, with the steeplechase recommendations as well as others, a sport that started over there. According to montanabw, he has authored or been involved in 1,000s of articles. Not to forget montanabw herself edits horse articles, her article on California Chrome is incredible. Also, we are still sorting through whether to add some more horse breeds. Thanks for your help here, it's great. dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

GuzzyG, I think the feedback has stopped on my message in the WikiProject Horse racing. This is what I got there, it's pretty much all modern horse people.

• Tony McCoy 20-time champion jump jockey in Britain and rider of more 4,000 winners. ---Bcp67
• Bob Baffert possibility because he trained American Pharaoh and Justify, who just won TC, so now he has trained two TC winners, only the second trainer to win 2 TC races. --Myself and Jlvsclrk
• The other trainer to win 2 TC is "Sunny Jim" Fitzsimmons James E. Fitzsimmons ==Jlvsclrk
• John A. Nerud, a breeder --Jlvsclrk
• European side, Vincent O'Brien, for trainer and for role in the foundation of Coolmore Stud. Count him higher than any American trainer --Jlvsclrk
• Federico Tesio, only man to breed, own and train two undefeated champions that went on to become outstanding studs. Count him higher than any American trainer --Jlvsclrk
• As far as O'Brien and Teslo, great suggestions. O'Brien as a great jumps and flat trainer and instrumental in establishing the Northern Dancer bloodline in Europe. Racing Post readers voted him the most influential racing figure of the 20th century in a poll a few years back. Tesio for his breeding and influence on the bloodline, especially with Nearco. --Bcp67
• For other equestrian sports, I'd suggest Anky van Grunsven: hard to argue with three consecutive gold medals! --Jlvsclrk

Well, that's the feedback from the others. These editors all know each other and montanabw. She's reaching back further for some of these trainers; I know we can't add all of these. dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• For dressage, far better —and less controversial—people than Anky (who faces animal abuse accusations due to her advocacy of Rollkur.) Alois Podhajsky, Reiner Klimke, Charlotte Dujardin, all the folks I mentioned above. I do think we need to know a) how many slots we get, and then b) if we can split the racing into a separate group (ditto rodeo) or if we have to include them with other equestrian sports. Montanabw^(talk) 20:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

GuzzyG p.s. I think Tony McCoy is the only steeplechase jockey mentioned if we want to have a jockey from that venue. dawnleelynn^(talk) 19:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC) I just had another editor who is very knowledgeable about Steeplechase agree that Tony McCoy is the best choice for a steeplechase jockey. He did mention another jockey, Ruby Walsh. "Ruby Walsh has more wins than any other jockey at the Cheltenham Festival. Tony McCoy is probably a better candidate as he is retired, and Ruby Walsh is still active (currently injured)." dawnleelynn^(talk) 21:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

dawnleelynn Sorry for the late reply, i have had some tragedy recently and will step back abit from these lists and work on my own 50k bio project in my sandboxes for now (i'll return in a month or two, probably) , but i will deal with this tomorrow, just wanted to let you know i haven't been ignoring you. GuzzyG (talk) 05:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

GuzzyG Hey Guzzy, I am happy to hear from you, but oh so sorry about the circumstances. Thanks for letting me know about your absence. No worries. Come back when you are ready. But do know that your presence is missed, at least by me. Thanks for pinging me, take care. dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Removing articles

I just happened to notice that military leaders section has gone from 631 articles when I last updated the counts a few weeks ago to 597 today. I haven't gone through to see which articles were removed, but I would just strongly encourage people not to remove articles until we are closer to the quotas in each section. Sometimes it's obvious that an article doesn't belong, but it can often be very difficult to judge exactly which articles should be removed until the list is closer to completion. If there is any doubt, please err on the side of inclusion for now. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, many of those articles were not removed, but moved mostly to criminals, for crimes against humanity, terrorism, or espionage. No one objected to my section above stating that I was going to move them, so I went ahead. I realize some of the moves may be controversial and I'm willing to discuss them, but if the significance of a subject is related to running a concentration camp, organizing rear area death squads, spying etc. rather than military operations, I listed them under criminals instead. The Miscellaneous section is also underpopulated. Catrìona (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense. Like I said I didn't go through the history to see which articles were removed (or moved). It just jumped out at me that there was such a large drop in the article count. I wasn't really aiming this comment at you but as a general comment to everyone when thinking about removing articles to err on the side of inclusion rather than removal at this stage. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Oceania and Caribbean political leaders

There seem to be far too many leaders of small island countries from Oceania and the Caribbean. I removed all 5 leaders for Grenada. Having 25 Australian PMs from the 20th century seems excessive, and many of the people from smaller countries (Kennedy Simmonds or Lucina da Costa Gomez-Matheeuws) are certainly not vital at this level. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Australia should have at most 20-25 total, and 15-20 for the rest of Oceania. We could probably due to lose a few from the Caribbean, but, by contrast, we're light in Central America. At some point, I think we should scope out quotas by region and time period. pbp 04:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I've missed out on alot of discussions because i am extraordinarily busy and will be for another week, but this step is a joke, on a list of our size every country should have one representative, and Australia's is almost certainly not excessive, we're 1000 under quota and you're removing people, just like the military section. But whatever, this and especially the level 4 list have went down-hill anyway, since most of these additions have been criticized and i have been the major contributor, i'll retire and make my own 50k list in my sandbox, for my pleasure and where i can actually list people from atleast every field that exists, split by sub-genre, regional diversity, race diversity and gender diversity and where people like Himmler are not listed as criminals (he should be one, but alas majority of the people in the "crimes against humanity" section will forever be categorized historically as military figures not criminals, also on what planet does an encyclopedia list Jesse James not as a rebel but a "terrorist"?). Maybe when i finish my list and compile the statistics in my excel sheet i will come back to these lists, with some suggestions. But if the idea is to have 100 politicians from one country and leave some with none no matter how small, then no i am out. There has to be atleast one person from every country listed on a 15k list and politicians are the safest bet. GuzzyG (talk) 05:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how having 5 people from Grenada is at all reasonable under any theory and expect consensus will agree with me, if you dispute those removals feel free to start a discussion to re-add the figures. I also disagree with the claim that every country needs a leader; would you support that every US state needs to have a governor/senator on this list? Every province of India or China? power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Grenada certainly doesn't need 5, but perhaps one might be fair. pbp 13:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I won't object to adding one back, and even two might be OK if there's a good argument as to why those two are the two most vital. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

New section under criminals for war criminals

Currently Reinhard Heydrich and Adolf Eichmann, Nazi architects of the Holocaust, are listed under "law enforcement." This is misleading, as the Holocaust was accomplished extra-legally. I propose a new subsection under criminals for war criminals/criminals responsible for genocide, which would be appropriate for some Nazis including Heydrich and Eichmann, as well as modern leaders known mostly for crimes against humanity, such as Ratko Mladić. Mladic is currently listed under military leaders - he was thought to be a mediocre general and is best known as the person responsible for the Srebenica massacre and other war crimes. Catrìona (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea. I would prefer keeping all military personnel and political leaders under those respective sections. Getting into debates about who should or shouldn't be labeled a "war criminal" could get messy. Are William Tecumseh Sherman and Abraham Lincoln war criminals? They certainly did things that were extra-legal and unconstitutional to civilian populations that by modern standards would certainly be war crimes. Even things that the Allies did during WWII could be called war crimes (i.e. Bombing of Dresden in World War II, Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Internment of Japanese Americans). Should Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, and Dwight D. Eisenhower be labeled as war criminals? Rreagan007 (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I am also reticent. I'm worried we're over-categorizing, and, as Reagan noted, who's a war criminal and who isn't is very subjective. pbp 20:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

As I tried to say in the other thread, I think a conservative test is "Did they have any independent military significance other than committing crimes against humanity?" I would be wary of false equivalence between military leaders who committed (alleged) war crimes in the course of legitimate military operations (especially if the (alleged) crimes were beneficial to the military situation in any way), and those who run death camps or death squads to no military purpose. Probably the most egregious example is Franz Stangl, who never participated in a military operation or fired a bullet in anger, but nevertheless was convicted of the murder of 900,000 Jews in extermination camps. It would be misleading to classify such a person in the same category as military generals who conducted actual warfare.

A related but separate issue: Esterhazy would not be notable except for his role in the Dreyfus Affair. Why put him in a separate category than civilian spies just because he was in the military? It doesn't make sense to me. Similarly, military and civilian test pilots have much the same function and should be in the same category. If we listed Roland Beamont as a significant test pilot, he should be in the same category as Chuck Yeager and Eric Brown even though most of his significant test piloting was after he left the RAF.

Part of the issue is that, since the section is titled "Military leaders", I assumed that the people in the section should be significant for their role as military leaders—they made a significant contribution to the theory or practice of warfare or led crucial military operations. I still think that we should use that criteria for military leaders, and move those who are significant for other reasons into different categories. If that isn't the consensus view, than the section should be renamed "Military personnel." Catrìona (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you're taking things a little too literally, but I have gone ahead and moved that subsection to military personnel. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

References

New section under criminals for terrorists

Move Osama bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others to "Criminals, terrorism." I think this is more accurate than rebels/revolutionaries, because the focus of their activity is large scale mass murder, ie terrorism, rather than working towards a change in the social order. Catrìona (talk) 02:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem with trying to make this type of distinction is the old saying that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Rreagan007 (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Nevertheless, there are some figures described on Wikipedia and in reliable sources as "terrorists", and others for whom that appellation would be WP:FRINGE. If they belong to an organisation classified by the UN as terrorist, or are themselves described by RS as terrorists, IMHO they should be classified as terrorists. Otherwise, we have a problem of deciding which are radicals and which are mass murderers. Catrìona (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The motive for the killing is what would separate a mass murderer from a radical. But yes, there are obviously some gray areas. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

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

---

Should every country be represented in the politicians/leaders list?

@GuzzyG: believes every country should have representation on the politicians and leaders list, while @Catrìona: has made edits that suggest opposing such a position. Let’s try to nail down a hard-and-fast consensus on this issue. I’m offering a number of alternate proposals on required representation. pbp 17:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

All 195 countries should have representation

Support

1. Support Does not matter how old they are, there's only 195 and we have the space, an encylopedia with a 15k limit should have a person from every country to fully account for everyone. Someone like Hammer DeRoburt may not be vital to the world, but to his country he is very vital and that's what should matter. GuzzyG (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Support Every current world leader is vital. Certainly more than every U.S. state capital. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. If every country has someone who is vital, they will be included, if they don't, then they won't. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose many of the small Caribbean/Pacific island countries have no figures notable at this level. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
3. Sovereignty does not guarantee the significance of its politicians. feminist (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Discuss

Countries over 1 million should have representation

Per List of countries and dependencies by population, there are currently 156 countries that meet this criteria: 14 in N. America, 10 in S. America, 39 in Europe, 49 in Africa, 47 in Asia, and 3 in Oceania.

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose. 1 million is an arbitrary number. If every country has someone who is vital, they will be included, if they don't, then they won't. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose as an example, there's no need to include somebody from the post-1991 Republic of Macedonia just because it's a new country as-of then. The way this is phrased, it is unclear whether people from the region before the country was founded would count for "representation". power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
3. Arbitrary. feminist (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Discuss

Countries over 2 million should have representation

There are currently 146 countries that meet this criteria: 12 in N. America, 10 in S. America, 37 in Europe, 43 in Africa, 45 in Asia, and 3 in Oceania.

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose. 2 million is an arbitrary number. If every country has someone who is vital, they will be included, if they don't, then they won't. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose as an example, there's no need to include somebody from the post-1991 Republic of Macedonia just because it's a new country as-of then. The way this is phrased, it is unclear whether people from the region before the country was founded would count for "representation". power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
3. Arbitrary. feminist (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Discuss

Countries over 5 million should have representation

There are currently 119 countries that meet this criteria: 10 in N. America, 9 in S. America, 27 in Europe, 36 in Africa, 36 in Asia, and 2 in Oceania.

Support

1. pbp 17:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. 5 million is an arbitrary number. If every country has someone who is vital, they will be included, if they don't, then they won't. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Arbitrary. feminist (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Discuss

Countries over 10 million should have representation

There are currently 89 countries that meet this criteria: 6 in N. America, 8 in S. America, 16 in Europe, 31 in Africa, 27 in Asia, and 1 in Oceania.

Support

1. Support the best counter-example is the very new South Sudan, but I assume there is some figure in the Sudanese civil war to include. For most other countries of this size, this is trivially true. Mathematicaly, if we have 600 modern political leaders, countries with 1/600th of the world population might reasonably expect to have one entry. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. 10 million is an arbitrary number. If every country has someone who is vital, they will be included, if they don't, then they won't. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Arbitrary. feminist (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Discuss

No country should be guaranteed representation

Support

1. Support. If every country has someone who is vital, they will be included, if they don't, then they won't. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
2. There is no necessary correlation between the population of the country and the significance of its politicians. feminist (talk) 11:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

General discussion

• I’m not a particular fan of EVERY country being guaranteed representation. There are some that are only 50 years old or less, and some that have less people than the city of LA. pbp 17:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: I do not recall making any statement about whether all countries should have representation on the Vital Articles list. However, I tend to agree with your comment here. Catrìona (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've slightly reworded my comment pbp 17:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• No matter how small a country is if people think founding and leading a independent country to independence does not make you vital, then i am not going to bother with these lists as it's lost all credibility. hosting a television show can get you on the level 4 list but founding a independent nation of 10k people can't get you on a list of 2.3k politicians, yawn. The only reason you think they're not vital is because the articles are small because the media does not write about them because they wouldn't get money. You can romanticize George Washington because that's 300 million that'll eat it up but what's the point of doing that with a founder of only 10k? It's all perception, just like with other fields i have added that are inevitably gonna be removed to inflate the more publicized fields. What's the difference between Rugby and American Football? The level of coverage makes AF more vital seeming but we are an encyclopedia and shouldn't base ourselves of commercial interests and we should accurately be covering history. Funnily Britannica [7] has these "non vital" island people and i assume others would too. People like Ed Sullivan fade and get replaced in history, founders of independent nations have much, much more lasting power. Eric Gairy is not going away any time soon and will outlast most of the pop culture figures on the level 4 list. GuzzyG (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This goes to a fundamental question of what makes an article vital enough to list on the English Wikipedia vital article lists. Is there a point in listing some leader from Nepal that almost no English speaker has ever heard about and will probably never care enough to even read the first sentence of their bio? I personally don't think so. But the Nepali Wikipedia should list lots of them on their vital articles lists. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @GuzzyG: I'm disappointed that you are considering quitting this project. I would urge you to start a discussion about Gairy and others who you feel should be added back. pbp 14:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Military removals by Catrìona

First the military section is under quota by over a hundred, so there's absolutely no need for removals and the common courtesy is normally to start a vote. Removing the most successful fighter ace Erich Hartmann is probably the worst removal. But Roza Shanina, Audie Murphy, Alvin York, Paul Hausser, Günther Rall, Cathal Brugha, Eddie Rickenbacker and Fiorenzo Bava-Beccaris all deserve a vote. I am gonna stop contributing because i am sick of these cuts under quota and without a vote especially on such obvious keeps of Hartmann, Rickenbacker and Brugha. GuzzyG (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Also while we're at poor removals, why was Claudia Severa the earliest known literature of a Roman woman, removed? Does not matter how "significant" the literature was, it's still a historic milestone, we need ancient women writers. Let's not even get started on Al Jolson being removed who should be on the level 4 list. Mind blowing. People are just adding their favorites and ignoring the voting procedure for removal. GuzzyG (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

GuzzyG, I was acting based on power-enwiki's comment that "The list at this point is almost certainly additions by one or two editors; some will certainly be removed. I'd recommend WP:BOLD-ly making changes at this point; if there's disagreement we can discuss/vote here." First of all, I was also concerned about the overrepresentation of Nazi military leaders (even after I moved several of them to "crimes against humanity"). In addition, perhaps you and I have a different perspective on what makes a military person "significant." I don't think that fame or decorations should qualify anyone for inclusion; we should focus on military leaders who have made a significant contribution to theory or practice of warfare. In my opinion, those I removed don't meet that criteria, but if you disagree, by all means start a discussion. Catrìona (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not trying to say that all of those I removed are not significant, just that they should not be listed here. For instance, Murphy and York are probably significant as "pop culture icons" (socialites?) Murphy could easily be classified under "actors." But to suggest that he is a significant military leader, I respectfully disagree. Catrìona (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you're overthinking this. Military people should go under the military section if that is what they are best known for. Listing York under socialites and Yeager under inventors is just convoluted and confusing. And you really shouldn't be removing articles at this point. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with GuzzyG that some of the removals are ones I would've opposed. I in particular oppose the removal of Chuck Yeager, the pilot who broke the sound barrier. I would urge him to start discussions on those people. And I would encourage us to adopt some sort of quota by country and by time period for military leaders just as we have for sports figures. pbp 15:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeager was not removed. I listed him under inventors, because he did not contribute significantly to military operations, but was significant as a test pilot. This is parallel to Buzz Aldrin and other astronomers, who are listed under Explorers despite being in the military. Catrìona (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Chuck Yeager wasn't an inventor, he was a pilot. If he's not under military men, he should join Aldrin in explorers. pbp 17:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I would support an 'explorers' classification for Yeager and other test pilots. Pushing the envelope is a form of exploration. Catrìona (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

He was a military test pilot so I think the best place for him is under the military people section. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

This is why we shouldn't really be removing articles at this point. I agree that these shouldn't have been removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Add Six Flags to Entertainment/Amusement Park vital article list.

Six Flags is an amusement park corporation based in the United States, with properties in the US, Canada, and Mexico. It is the largest amusement park company in the world, based on the number of properties owned, and is ranked seventh in terms of attendance. It competes with other vital articles such as Busch Gardens. Its global importance to the entertainment industry should be shown by making Six Flags a vital article. Thank you AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

You can add it yourself by editing the list directly. feminist (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88: Added. I find it extremely odd how it was not on the list previously... Zingarese talk · contribs 17:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Zingarese: Thank you very much. AmericanAir88 (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

50% done

In keeping with the tradition of posting milestones on the talk page, as of the current count we have crossed the 30k article total, and are 50% "done" in creating the Level 5 list. There's obviously still a lot to be done but we're making good progress. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Musicians from the English-speaking Caribbean

Musicians from the English-speaking Caribbean are at the moment underrepresented. Apart from Bob Marley who is L4 vital and Rihanna, there seems to be no expansion of music from the region, and therefore very limited coverage of reggae, calypso, ska, dancehall, etc. For instance Lord Kitchener and Toots and the Maytals are missing as is Sean Paul, who is more famous than some of the very recent pop stars on the list. Since the region has a distinct musical tradition, it may be better for the Anglo-Caribbean to have its own distinct subsection like Latin or Flamenco. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

They got listed under "world music" and 16 is more then enough for Reggae offshoots. I squeezed in Kitchner and Toots but as of now there's no space for Sean Paul who is more pop-dancehall crossover famous more then a specialist like Vybz Kartel etc GuzzyG (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Bot tagging of L5 articles

I have a bot (PowerBOT (talk · contribs)) which can tag L5 article talk pages with the {{Vital article}} template, as long as there is a consensus to do so. Is there consensus to tag all these pages? power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

As GuzzyG has done a large number of these, and Feminist is using AWB to do these, I'll assume there is consensus for this unless discussion suggests otherwise. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Good idea, but would a BRFA be needed? feminist (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I see a BRFA has already been approved, so there should be no concerns here. feminist (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I did a BRFA for the L4 list, but felt I needed some local consensus for the L5 list before making thousands of bot edits. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not mind at all. It would take some of the scrutiny of my back. Would it be possible to change the template to include a "Other" section for the people listed in Misc that are not jurist/law enforcement/criminals/businesspeople/explorers? GuzzyG (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Right, I need to request that an admin update that template based on the sandbox. I'll do that in an hour or two, once I'm done with some bot editing of other topics. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: I am in favor of it, but the categories I am working currently appear to be ignored for tagging so I am not sure they need it? The page Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Animals section does not appear to be included when it comes to the articles in its categories being tagged. But yes, definitely agreed for other categories I may work in.

Also, will the bot add and remove the tag in conjunction with the addition and removal of the article from the Vital Article category? dawnleelynn^(talk) 03:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I think everybody has been working from the top of the list, and nobody has gotten to Animals yet for tagging. I'll try to do it this week. The bot can handle additions, removals, and level changes (moving from level 5 to level 4). power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Thank you for responding. Now that makes perfect sense. I am not in any hurry; I just wanted to understand the process. I am sure I will yet move some cattle and horses in and out of the horse breed, individual horse, and individual cattle categories a little while yet. I don't know what the deadline is for this stage of adding names to categories is though. I am very happy to help the project in any way I can, not just with the knowledge I have in the areas where I work in rodeo. I am part of the Equine and Agriculture WikiProjects. As time permits, I will see what other categories I am knowledgeable about that I can contribute to. I did contribute to some other areas already like football and golf. I was surprised to find Phil Mickelson wasn't in the golf category, for example. I watch almost all of the golf tournaments all season long, but I don't write about golf in WP. But I know there are other ways to get involved besides filling in categories, so think of me... dawnleelynn^(talk) 22:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

BRFA Note

Hello all, a BRFA (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SSTbot 4) for tagging related to this discussion is currently in trials. See the trial run here. If you have any comments on the trial run prior to this going ahead, please leave them at the BRFA page. Pings to those that previously commented in this section: @Power~enwiki:, @GuzzyG:, @Dawnleelynn:. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Add importance indicator to every article

In addition to quality, an importance indicator could be added to every article. This would be helpful for identifying anomalies, either with its inclusion or importance. Seems like User:Bot0612 could be modified to do it automatically, like it does for quality. It would take the MAX of all project importances. Is quality done with MAX or MIN? It could use a square icon, in contrast to the circles/stars for quality. Largest square would be Top, followed by High, Mid, Low, Bottom, and NA as a dot. First letters are distinct, but would be confusing and hard to tell at a glance. Numbers wouldn't work with them being numbered in the outline already. Maybe one distinctive color that fades to white. Alternative would be to do stats of quality/importance, like any other WikiProject assessment page. This would help globally, but not as much by category. Is there a page that has this already? StrayBolt (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. The fact that the article is listed as a Vital Article is the only measure of importance we need here. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• We pretty much already do that with Template:Vital article. The level (1, 2, 3, 4, and now 5) at which something is listed indicates its vitality/importance to us. pbp 00:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a way to validate the two methods of selection. While they are not independent, I would expect a very high correlation between Vital and Top. If they are not both, then there is likely a problem somewhere and they shouldn't automatically (without thought) be made Vital nor Top. I think the number of unique Tops is still higher than the 50K allotted for Level-5, but I have selected a few non-Top (debatable). And some articles may not be in any project (that would be interesting too). The Vital template is used for maybe half now, but if the new bot to automatically add/remove that template gets running, we might loose another set of data. Perhaps the just non-Tops could be collected and an anomaly list is occasionally created. I was looking at the bot source code yesterday for the update count issue. StrayBolt (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Months and times of day

Where should articles like February and Afternoon be placed? feminist (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Aren't these more dictionary words.Nigej (talk) 07:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

They seem to be dispersed throughout to various areas... here’s times of day and I can’t seem to find listings for days of the week or months but there’s measurements of time. redsparta ••• talk to me 07:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh OK, so times of day are already listed. Thanks. feminist (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I placed months under Technology#Navigation and timekeeping. feminist (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

As a follow up, i was thinking about adding days of the week. I don’t recall seeing them anywhere, so I don’t think they are already included, but I’m not sure the best place for them. redsparta ••• talk to me 10:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and added them under Navigation and timekeeping. I think that's the best place for them. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Move Academic journals under Education?

Pinging User:Headbomb, who added most of the academic journals. My view is that they don't really reach a large audience compared to most forms of mass media; in fact the Mass media article doesn't even contain the term "academic journal". Would "Education" be a better way to describe them? feminist (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The solution would be to expand mass media to discuss academic journals, rather than shift them to education. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that academic journals as a topic are closer to mass media than education? feminist (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm hardly suggesting it, that's flat out what they are. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

"Modern" vs "21st century" politicians/leaders

Is there a specific reason as to why "21st century" politicians and leaders are classified differently from "Modern" ones? This distinction isn't made at level 4 or any other subsection of people. 21st century has only 89 articles so I don't see why it should be a separate section, especially since I would consider the 21st century to be "modern." - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• Agree. 21st century should be merged back into Modern. There's no point in a separate heading for the past 18 years. I'd have brought it up if you hadn't. pbp 03:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
• I made the change to parallel a similar change I made at the History sub-page, also splitting "Modern" into 19th and 20th century. Grouping modern-day figures with Napoleonic-era figures isn't terribly useful to readers or editors of the list. It's also much easier to enforce limits on the number of current figures with this level of separation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with you about grouping contemporary figures with Napoleonic-era figures. However, I feel that the more appropriate solution should be having 19th-century separate from "Modern", which should be consist of the 20th and 21st centuries. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I do intend to split Modern into 19th and 20th century; I'm back from vacation and will try to do so tomorrow. I don't see any benefit to debating a merge of 20th and 21st century until that's done. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Sounds good. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Concur with Power. 89 articles is plenty for a viable section, and systematic bias in these lists is a real concern. Catrìona (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

After doing the split, perhaps the correct time-frame split is 1815-1945 and 1946-current? The large number of leaders of countries that gained independence post-WWII will all be grouped together then. As almost every country was involved in WWII, there may be fewer edge cases to determine who were post-WWII political figures rather than post-1900. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I like that idea. Those dates certainly seem reasonable. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I can get behind that pbp 22:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I've started doing this (for Oceania), I'll continue in about 3 hours. Please ping quickly if you object. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Families/Dynasties/Houses

Do you think we should have them at this level? If so, how many and where? pbp 18:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps Imperial House of Japan? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Video game coverage

I find coverage under the "video games" section somewhat spotty. There are some high level articles ("history", "culture") but others seem a bit arbitrary or specific ("Retrogaming"? "Video game crash of 1983"? "Speedrun"??).

What level of detail within a topic is the maximum expected for "vital" articles? Also, if we include game genres, shouldn't we cover at least the most important or defining from the category? I miss some essential ones.

I don't know how the quota is to be fulfilled; I've included a few that seem relevant, and I could add the video game articles I think are more significative and still missing. Diego (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• The video games section needs work. I'm of the opinion that it's bloated. After all, we're talking less than half a century of history here. Also, there are some franchises that have multiple vital video game titles. With the possible exception of the Mario franchise, I think each franchise should be limited to one vital title. pbp 15:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I feel ~100 articles would be enough here, with 50 games/franchise and 50 non-games articles. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I'd go even lower: 60-70 pbp 16:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that most if not all franchises should be trimmed down to one article. As for Diego Moyas's edit summary, "Puzzle video game" is already included, and "Shoot 'em up" is a subgenre of "Shooter game" which is a subgenre of action "Action game", which is included.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I've given an expansion (and select removals) to the section to make sure we start with a strong basis, so that we trim fat, rather than miss out on the good stuff. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Was LucasArts adventure games removed for a specific reason? They were hugely influential on the genre. It's also rated high-importance on the video games project. See also this article. If you're against the article for some reason, then The Secret of Monkey Island (or the series article) at the very least should included.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 20:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Not particularly no. I just thought it weird to include a pseudofranchise spanning 1986-2000 rather than the actual franchises. I'd prefer the Monkey Island series personally.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Process?

Is there some kind summary of the process by which these decisions are being made? I've been seeing a lot of dubious taggings at article talk pages.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Copied from WT:WPMATH: "Level 5 is a recent expansion to vital articles. Right now it's basically a WP:BOLD wildwest. Once it's got its critical mass of articles, I suspect there'll be an actual process in place. If anything egregious is missing, add it, if something completely silly is added, remove it." Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Addition proposal Stamford Raffles

I propose we add Stamford Raffles, who is regarded having a vital impact in the formation of Singapore and the British Malaya as well as his other duties as a statesman. He could be added to Politicians and leaders section. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC) (please  mention me on reply; thanks!)

Do it. (Support) pbp 23:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done with this edit. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Breaking the power-of-10 sequence

I realise that there are some good reasons to halve the number of articles (e.g. the level of importance becomes no longer high enough to call "vital", general unwieldiness), but I do find it slightly aesthetically displeasing that level 5 has 50,000 rather than 10⁵ = 100,000 articles. Double sharp (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that eventually this list will contain 100,000 articles, just as the largest printed encyclopedias do. If we set the quota now to 100,000 it won't do any great harm. The subquotas prevent from listing e.g. 10,000 sportspeople. --Thi (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Thi: It's nice to see that someone agrees with me on this! Nonetheless, since this level-5 VA project has been going on for a few months now with the 50,000 figure being stable, I would like to hear what others think of the proposal for expansion to 100,000 before doing anything. Double sharp (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be 100,000, although I'm not as interested in this level as I am the smaller levels. 100,000 does seem the natural way to go to me. On another note... I would like to pay more attention to areas other than biographies, and I think there are many questionable articles, especially among the biographies that don't seem vital, and maybe biographies are too high a percentage of all articles and of our attention; although easiest to think about and make. Also should we as members of the project, actually pick one or more of the vital articles to actually try to improve to FA status, or at least as good as we can, and not just make lots of lists? I admit, I enjoy making the lists as much as the next person, but is it all we re going to do? Is it taking up much, if not all of our time spent on the project? If anyone is improving the articles as a result of them being listed here, I don't remember the actual improvement of these articles being discussed here much if at all.  Carlwev  11:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

There are large portions of the 50,000 list that haven't been filled up and are going to be relatively challenging to fill. I would like to see a complete and stable 50,000 list before we create a 100,000 list. pbp 14:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this. Until there is a demonstrated need for increasing to 100k articles, I don't see a point in raising it. If we start getting close to 50k and it becomes clear that isn't enough, then we can raise the quota. But doing so now seems premature to me. I remember when Level 5 was first proposed, there were people who were saying 50k was too many and it should be 25k or 30k. I think we can find 50k articles worthy of being called Vital Articles, but I'm not so sure yet that there are 100k articles worthy of that distinction. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I too think that the list should eventually be expanded to 100,000; it only seems logical. However, I think it's a good idea to wait until the current 50,000 is closer to being filled up. Ergo Sum 17:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Note that the size of the English Wikipedia is almost 5,7 million articles right now (6,825,159 articles exactly). 50 000 articles would cover a bit less than 0,88% of total Wikipedia articles and 100 000 would cover ~1,8%. Imagine almost every fiftieth article being listed as vital. (Now we only need to add levels up to 7 (10 million articles) and then create another new 4,3 million articles just to fill its quota! :P) --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Remove Land and water hemispheres

I have no issue with North, South, East and West hemispheres as Lv5, but the concept of Land and water hemispheres is a pretty obscure one in comparison and it's not appropriate to give this the same rank. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

We're still well under quota in the physical geography section, so I'm against removing this article at this time. Questionable articles should not be removed at this time. Only articles that will unquestionably not make the final cut should be removed right now. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

History of [demographic group] vs. [Demographic group]

There are a number of entries on the History section of the list beneath the History by demographic group section under United States. The articles mostly take the form of "History of [demographic group]". This seems to jump the gun since the articles of those listed groups aren't even on the Vital 5 list. Moreover, there are many large demographic groups that have played an important role in American history that don't have a "History of..." article, such as Italian Americans, German Americans, and Irish Americans. It only seems logical to replace the "History by demographic group" section with a "Demographic groups" section under Ethnic groups in Society and social sciences, if they are to be kept at all. Ergo Sum 01:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

We're still well under quota in the history section, so these article should not be removed at this time. You can add whatever articles you think merit inclusion. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Duplicates

• The Graduate is listed twice.
• Green bean is listed twice. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done with The Graduate. --Makkool (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Theatre of ancient Greece

Should Theatre of ancient Greece be listed under Arts or History? It's currently at both on this list, but on the Level 4 it's under Arts. Makkool (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

If an article is listed at Level 4, it should be in the same section in Level 5. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Non-vital articles on the list of vital articles

I came across a couple of articles on the vital article list that I don't think deserve to be there: Asatru Folk Assembly and its chief guru Stephen McNallen. How did these two articles get on the list? The Asatru Folk Assembly could probably have a general meeting of members at my kitchen table. Is McNallen one of the most important religious leaders of all time? Really? To my mind both those articles are of low importance, not even coming close to being "vital."

Now, admittedly Jesus wouldn't have merited a wikipedia article during his lifetime. So, if a couple of decades from now, the Asatru Folk Assembly rivals Methodism as a religion, okay, it should be a vital article. But now? No. Premature -- and highly unlikely that the organization will even exist in 20 years. We should avoid putting subjects likely to be ephemeral and transitory into the vital category.

So, can I take those articles off the "vital" list? Smallchief (talk) 10:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Smallchief:If you want to remove these articles from the list, then you should discuss it here first, since this list still contains only less than 40,000 articles, unlike the level 4 list, which now contains more than 10k ones.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

See also #Process? above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• The question isn't if he is vital out of religion in totality but if he is vital to modern paganism and it's offshoots of which their should be atleast 5-10 representatives on a list of 15,000 biographies, if you can come up with better, go ahead. I understand having someone recently listed as a hate group leader might be shocking but we list serial killers and genocide perpetrators, so removal would have to be based off of more then that. Find 5-10 better representatives of modern paganism and new religious movements and McNallen is gone. 22:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)GuzzyG (talk)
• What time period are calling "modern paganism and new religious movements?" If it's, say, since 1945, I wouldn't have more than 5, and probably less. Even on level 5, there aren't that many religions with more than 5. pbp
• I don't think this should be removed, at least for now. We're still well under quota in that section and Asatru Folk Assembly should arguably be included as it is one of the largest neo-pagan new religious movements. Once we get close to the quotas, we'll be better able to compare articles to each other to see which ones are most vital to list. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I won't pursue the matter any further. A wikipedia article on neo-pagan religion might deserve to be a level V Vital article, but declaring the obscure and insignificant Asaratu Folk Assembly article "vital" is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. An article about Asaratu? Fine. No objection. Vital? No. Low importance.
  • Maybe I'll get together a few friends and establish the Church of Whirled Peas dedicated to Legumination and demand that my religion gets 5 to 10 slots among Wikipedia's vital articles. Smallchief (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• • • Cornhole? Sport stacking? Seriously? Doug Weller talk 14:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Negative Thoughts

I am weary of the number and types of biographies being added. I am only one person and each is entitle to their views. It appears certain types of people are being listed to make the list varied, which I can understand, but I still think some areas are odd. I think some activities may need no one to represent the activity. I see a list of biographies added to represent an area/topic, but no one bothers to add the topic itself for which said people are notable for; and normally a topic should be listed before a person from said topic. Eg we are listing pimps (do we need this??), but we don't list pimping (Procuring (prostitution)). We list hackers of different types, like phreaking but we don't list hacking (hacker) itself nor any types of it like phreaking. We list Robert Wadlow but we don't list human height. We list videogame players who are the best at specific games that we don't list. We list Tuone Udaina, a stub, the last known speaker of the Dalmatian language. But we do not list Dalmatian language nor Dalmatia. We list Popcorn Sutton but not rum running nor prohibition nor Prohibition in the United States. We list Chang and Eng Bunker, but not conjoined twins. We list Jemmy Shaw but not Conformation show. We list Ishi the last known person of his culture, Yana people which we do not list. We list Collyer brothers but not what they were known for Compulsive hoarding. We list Ned Maddrell the last speaker of the Manx language but we don't list the Manx language. I could go on, we list fairly unknown unvital people of fairly known topics which themselves we do not list. Some of those people are OK in my eyes, but we should list their parent topic, some of those, I think the parent topic may be enough. At level 3 we list comics, jewelry football and photography but no people of those areas. At level 4 we list Scrabble, Surfing, Sailing, Skating, but no people from those areas. I think at level 5 perhaps some topics can be covered but maybe we don't need people listed. Perhaps list paintball, hoarding and pimping, but I'm not sure we need competitive eaters, 15 pimps/madams, medal of honor players, paintballers, hoarders, people famous for cutting off someones penis (yes we have this). Some topics might be notable enough to list themselves, just about, but might not need a record holder or known person in addition or instead of the topic. Others may have different thoughts, just sharing mine.  Carlwev  15:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Carlwev: I generally agree with you. Why don't you make some specific proposals and we can vote on them? pbp 16:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Majority of those topics should be listed, considering i built the whole biographies list atleast 60% myself and i have rarely added topics ofcourse there is a lag behind. Look if you disagree we should try to cover alot of different fields, fine. We will keep the list with the same old subjects and have 200 soccer players, instead of one of every sport (Yes, paintball etc has it's own WikiProject - aka it would be good to have a biography as a featured article; the point of this list) but i digress. Also if you think 15 people is too much for a field (sex work) which has been around since the dawn of time which covers 15k people, then i do not know what to say, if you look at alot of the 2000 biographies, especially in art alot of the figures patronized these establishments so it's only fair to list some representives; and yes procurers are more important then the workers - so we list madams and pimps; again ignoring there's a sex work WikiProject; which would only make this site better on the whole if every project was covered in the biography section. Now for crime, yes we list someone for genital mutilation but would you not consider domestic abuse one of the most common crimes? That's the representative; yeah it feels tabloidy but we're grown adults and the subjective fact is that's apart of crime and a full representation would include it. Now snarky comments and snark towards my HARD research into checking the statistics, pageviews and coverage online and having a excel sheet filled with each field for EVERY SINGLE one of my additions including people who are not listed so i know who is actually the top of their field is all fun and games; but let me know the direction of this list because i will not work on it if the philosophy of mine is different to everyone else. If every single addition you mock got made a featured article from this list it would separate us from every other encyclopedia in that we could say we truly cover everything. The subjects being tabloid rubbish is subjective but "tabloid" rubbish exists and it should be covered too; 15,000 is a high number and there's clearly space. Whatever, i might just have to work on my own project/site. GuzzyG (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

When enough people have concerns with your additions, you need to listen to them. Otherwise, you will need to work on your own project/site. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Fine. I retire. I will listen when people criticize anything other then the yawn of "oh my god sex work has some coverage, it's only been around since the dawn of time". Nitpicking over fields with a negative image is a bore. Look at nearly every proposed removal on the talk page 85% are controversial people. Good luck not including every WikiProject in a wikipedia improvement list. P. S. if my additions are so bad, you should remove them all...... not just the controversial fields with a bad pr problem.. Also before these get removed just think; remove the sports and where's it going 50 more soccer people? diverse. Remove the people listed here in the misc section and where is that going? 50 more businesspeople? Doesn't sound like an improvement to me. GuzzyG (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

A lot of your contributions are good, but not all of them. There's no way that Hubert Blaine Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorff, Sr. is "vital" at this level, regardless of what you say about diversity. And if you take every criticism as a personal attack, I won't try to stop you from retiring. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

If you get into record setting culture the 5 main ones for humans are; oldest person, heaviest person, tallest person, shortest person and longest name. I can see how Hubert may not be vital; but why not bring him up then? Surely you notice it's only the controversial fields i get heat for; it gets to the point where there's some certain morality thing that i am not going to bother to fight every single time so that is why i choose to retire. If you think people like Curtis LeMay on a list of this size were removed for any other reason then for being a bad person; then i do not know what to say. Personally the weakest section is the fandom section, i thought i would get heat for it - but i forgot noone thinks bad of it. At the end of the day this list covers too many people not to have seemingly unvital people on it - i'd rather it's spread out covering everything then bunched up in the same canonical type fields we list on the level 4 list. GuzzyG (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

1. Just as a point Robert Wadlow who is mocked for being on this list has 44 different articles in foreign languages on wikidata and his total page views are 6,885,965 [8]. Those figures alone beat some people on the level 4 list and he's been dead for nearly 80 years; which makes it even more of an accomplishment; the readers have interest in this stuff and we serve the readers. Wikipedia would be an improvement for our readers if his article was featured. GuzzyG (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I tried to voice several concerns at once, I tried to be clear but perhaps I was not. Some people I think should not be on the list Michael Carroll (lottery winner), Hubert Blaine Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorff, Sr., John and Lorena Bobbitt among others. If you think they belong, that's fine we are adults, we can disagree and still both contribute and collaborate, that's the point of discussion and voting. I just try to think of articles other than biographies I suppose. Other biographies, I found it odd we listed a "representative" of a topic before the topic itself. I don't think Robert Wadlow is a bad article to list in fact, I just thought it odd to list a tall person before an article on height; or articles on individual hackers, before the article on hackers itself. Chang and Eng are quite notable, I just think Conjoined twins article is more notable. Yes I could add these myself soon and I may. I do not shy away from things that involve crime sex violence or other things that might be thought of as nasty rude or taboo, I added articles like circumcision, torture, Elizabeth Bathory, Guy Falkes, Nipple, Clitoris, anal sex, I supported the adding article female circumcision. Take John and Lorena Bobbitt for example, for crime Fritzl case and Harold Shipman or Sinn Fein or The IRA would be more notable in my view, from a genital point of view? whatever that means? Penis transplantation, or Genital modification and mutilation or labia or Glans penis would be more notable. (If I named myself or my child a 50,000 letter name, or cut someones penis off I would not expect to find myself top billing in any encyclopedia for those reasons, no one would be interested in the rest of my personal life or work.) I would list National Lottery (United Kingdom) before one of the winners who was famous for winning then losing millions of pounds on said lottery, only my personal opinion, you are free to disagree, Problem gambling would be another interesting addition. I know sex has been a big part of human culture, I wouldn't really mind listing articles about brothel, pimp, human trafficking, Zoophilia, necrophilia, Vibrator (sex toy), child sex abuse, pornographic movie, magazine, etc, erotica, internet porn, child porn. All are significant they have been relevant to human culture and people study and read about the topic, I think we do in fact lit a couple of them. Sports people, musicians, actors, scientists, artists, leaders, impact the world stage and people are interested in reading about them at the time and long after. Sex workers not so much, I know sex work is old, but many professions are thousands of years old, blacksmiths, basket weaving, different kinds of hunting and farming, carpenters, pottery mining, slavery, people have been cleaning for a long time, cleaning itself would be vital at this level, and not to put down cleaners but I might not list a cleaner here. I appreciate your and anyone else's work and views here, most have done more than I at level 5. I was only sharing my own opinion on how to improve the list, that is what this page is for, it is in no way an attack on a person here. In the past I have have ideas others liked, and ideas I thought were good but others disliked, but ideas were discussed and common ground was found; I'm sure everyone has had the same. I believe these pages should be built by us all sharing our views and finding consensus....Just a thing I would do, if I were adding a person famous for something say hacking, I would check if the article on the "activity" they were famous for is in or not first and add it if it's not, so long as I believed it was vital.  Carlwev  21:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• For the record, it's not the prostitutes that jump out at me. It the rat catcher and the Collyer brothers. While having a diversity of occupations is important, there are some occupations that are inherently more notable than others, and some occupations where virtually everyone isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article, let alone an article on the VA5. pbp 00:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree generally with Carlwev and pbp. There are exceptions, but most of the time a biography is less vital than the parent topic (an encyclopedia would definitely have an article on hacking before a hacker). 15,000 out of 50,000 may be too high a target. We'll find out when we're closer to being full. Even if the 15K stays, my guess eventually the subtargets for academic areas like scientists will increase at the expense of people who are famous for being in the Guiness Book of World Records. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

1. When there's one person who works on the biography section; did anyone stop to think when they've finished they WILL (or were now) going to add the parent topics too??? Why the impatience? GuzzyG (talk) 06:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

SSTbot adding Level 5 tags to talk pages of non-level 5 articles

See Talk:Shem. I don't know how many articles User:Feminist's bot has miss-tagged. @Power~enwiki:, you know about bots, what's happening here? @Andy Dingley and SMcCandlish: I saw your posts at Feminist's page. Frankly this whole thing seems a mess. It's additions that should be voted on, not removals. Doug Weller talk 14:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Feminist claims that the 'bot is just repeating what's on the page. Maybe not the wisest way to run a 'bot, when the source is so clearly distrusted, but the root problem is what's on the page, first and foremost. I know nothing of VA, but if this is how it works, then it's not worth wasting effort on it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Shem is indeed listed on Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Philosophy and religion. What's wrong? Note that my bot account isn't automatic. feminist (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

If anything, adding bot tags notifies editors of a particular article that their article is listed as a VA, so that they can add/remove articles in their area of expertise. feminist (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Feminist and Andy Dingley: it's listed as a Level 4 article, not Level 5. Or rather Noah is and those under it shouldn't be level 5. Just as it tagged Elyon I'm concerned that you seem to have misunderstood the list. And how about Britannia? And again, Cornhole is Level 5, as is Lawn game, but Yahweh and Adam and Eve are Level 5 Level 4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

Basically, Level 1 = most important, Level 5 = least important. It's a common misconception, I know. feminist (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Doug Weller: I agree with you that there are some things, perhaps a lot of things, that we need to scrutinize about Lv 5, and I don't see why there being empty spaces on the list should stop us from such scrutiny. pbp 16:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Feminist (talk · contribs) Ok, I still don't understand why Shem is tagged L5 when it's evidently L4, or where to find Britannia. And IMHO it's very hard to make most of the L1 articles really good because they are so generalist. Doug Weller talk 16:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

As it looks like to me, Shem doesn't seem to be level 4, but Noah is level 4. Shem is level 5, but is, visually, displayed under Noah on that page because Shem is related to Noah, article-wise. Maybe the only problem here is that graphical presentation, but Shem seems to correctly appear as level 5 here. --Blemby (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The bot looks to be behaving correctly to me; Noah is on the level-4 list, and Shem is on the larger level-5 list. I don't have the time or energy to discuss inclusion guidelines in detail right now; at some point by the end of this year we will reach the point where "any challenged additions should be discussed on the talk page" but I don't know when or how yet. User:power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Power~wiki: I think I get it now. Sorry to be so slow. Doug Weller talk 15:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Surely all additions have to be agreed on the talk page? That's what Wikipedia:Vital articles says. Doug Weller talk 14:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: the reason why additions don't have to be discussed (for now) is because the list is still incomplete. I expect additions to require discussion as the L5 vital articles list gets close to completion. And yes, because the list is still under construction, it should not be taken as a finished product and inconsistencies are to be expected. feminist (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Biographical adds, swaps, removals

Swap: Remove Phil Heath, add Charles Atlas

When I think influential bodybuilders, I think of Charles Atlas. Of the three modern male bodybuilders (Heath, Ronnie Coleman, Lee Haney), Heath has the fewest titles, and also has fewer pageviews than Coleman. pbp 15:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 15:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
2. Surely we should have Charles Atlas first and then think who else we might include. Many of the lists seem to lack historical perspective. Nigej (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

1. Before you mouth off and say my additions lack historical perspective; maybe check the "health & fitness" sub-section under miscellaneous. Gizza removed him from bodybuilders so i re-added him there as he's more known for his exercise program then professional bodybuilding. Offensive when i go out of my way to achieve historical perspective; its not my fault bodybuilding has only been around 100 years. Early era is covered by Sandow; Arnold/Ferrigno got moved to actors and they cover the Pumping Iron era; Coleman is regarded as the best but Haney ties him and Heath represents the Generation Iron era. I'm pretty sure Reeves/Hargitay are under actors too. GuzzyG (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

   I've got no idea who wrote the lists and indeed it doesn't matter. I'm just expressing a view, which is that, in the sports areas, there are generally too many contemporary figures (and indeed too many Americans). The issue also highlights again the problem of people being in more than one category. I've had this problem before - essentially it means that it's difficult to comment on a specific area unless one is au-fait with the entire list of 50,000. Nigej (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, the reason I didn't catch that this was in health and fitness was because whomever added it to heath and fitness failed to add the VA template to the article. pbp 19:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Some changes in Association football

[ Ian Rush, Tom Finney, Javier Zanetti, Lucien Laurent, Allan Simonsen, Zbigniew Boniek, György Sárosi, Yaya Touré, Nilton Santos, Carlos Alberto Torres, (Gabriel Batistuta)] ------swap for-----> [ Gary Lineker, Jimmy Greaves, Daniel Passarella, José Manuel Moreno, Jari Litmanen, Teófilo Cubillas, Stern John, Didier Deschamps, Gianni Rivera, Carlos Valderrama, (Bert Patenaude)]

Lineker should be added because of he has much more page views per day than Giascigone. Giasscigone has been regarted by BBC Sports so he also should be staying but in my opinion we could swap Ian Rush and Tom Finney for Gary Lineker and Jimmy Greaves (for Greaves, see: List of English football first tier top scorers). I also suggest to swap Zannetti and eventually Batistuta for Passarella and Moreno. Zanetti has fewer page views than various older and younger players: Xavi, Iniesta, Rooney, Bergkamp, Raul, Figo, Rijkaard etc. so he clearly should be removed. For Moreno see: [9], for Passarella, see: List of players who have appeared in multiple FIFA World Cups - he won the same number of World Cups what Argentina has won. Meazza (Italy), Ferrari (Italy), Monzeglio (Italy) and Passarella (Argentina) are four players in history who are not Brazilian and who won World cup at least two times. Didier Deschamp should be added because after 2018 world cup he is very much vital French football players, he won World Cup for Frane in 1998 as captain and in 2018 as coach (only Beckenbauer did it before Deschamps, Mario Zagallo also did it but no as captain). Lucien Laurent is vital player but certainly not enaugh to staying in case when we do not have Leônidas, José Leandro Andrade and Bert Patenaude (players from 30's) on the list. Due to fact that we try add one player from each country/continent we should swap Jari Litmanen, Teofilo Cubillas, Stern John (see: [10]) for Simonen, Boniek and Sarossi (Laudrup, Schmeicel, Lewandowski, Willimowski and Puskas are o the list). Gianni Rivera should be addedd due to fact he has more achivements than Cruyff and George Best in the same era. Yaya Ture should be removed because he is not vital such like other Ivory Coast plyer, Didier Drogba (see: Golden Foot). In my opinion Carlos Valderama should be added (When he come watching 2018 World cup in Russia, we could see that he is important for Culumbian football fans etc., still more than Falcao and Rodriguez). Nilton Santos and Carlos Alberto in my opinion should be removed (from 1958-1962 Brazil squad we have Pele, Garrincha, Didi and it is enaugh). We do not need theese two Brazilian defenders, while we do not have players from FIFA World Cup All-Time Team . They also have worse results in various ranking than Rivaldo who also is not on the list, see: FIFA Player of the Century#Background#FIFA internet vote, [11] etc.. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Even though i'd oppose nearly every suggestion here i specifically have to point out swapping Welsh Ian Rush out for MORE English players is a horrible idea. Remember this list is not built on just pageviews. GuzzyG (talk) 06:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

To be my honestly, I have suggested remove In Rush due to fact that we have 4 Welsh players (Bale, Giggs, Rush, Charles) and just one Scotch player (Daglish). It is possible that Denis Law orJimmy Johnstone would be better candidates to addition than Jimmy Greaves. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thinking about it more, I agree, we do not need Jari Litmanen (he has never played on world cup) and Calros Valderrama (Andrés_Escobar has more results in google and he is not listed) but I still specifically have point out 5 Brazilian players from 1958-1962 while we have one from Golden team. Based of football elo it seems to me better would be if we will have one player from golden team and three players from Brazil ~~1958-1962~~ squad. However I have quite new suggestions now: [ Javier Zanetti, Tom Finney, Carlos Alberto, Lucien Laurent, Nilton Santos, Ian Rush, Yaya Touré, Allan Simonsen ] ---swap for---> [ Teofilo Cubillas, Didier Deschamps, Didier Drogba, Denis Law, Gary Lineker, Gianni Rivera, Daniel Passarella ] @GuzzyG, @Cobblet, @Neljack, @RekishiEJ, @Pumpernikiel90, @Hurrygane, @Fenix down, @Messirulez What do you think? Dawid2009 (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Daniel Passarella won two times World Cup not only as one in history Argentinian and not Italian/Brazilian player but also in 1978 as captain (Mario Kempes listed here was not captain in 1978 and he also won't World Cup later in 1986). Didier Deschamps is vital for French because of France won World Cup two times only in case when Deschamps was their captain (in 1998) or Coach in 2018. Franz Beckenbauer when won world cup with Germany as captain it was not their first cup. I belive that Deschamps is more vital than other French on the list such like Lucien Laurent or Sean Garnier (Milene Domingues also has more pageviews on PTwiki than Sean Garnier on FRwiki). Leonidas and Jose Leandro Andrade are more vital than Lucien Laurent not only due to pageviews. Jose Leandro andrade token role in a documentary film : Promo - History Of Football The Beautiful Game so he is propably more known. Leonidas is more vital also because of before Pele for decades was considering as the best Brazil stricker of all time (he and Arthur Friedenreich). Javier Zanetti and Tom Finney have more google results than Daniel Passarella and Gary Lineker but it not necessarilly mean that they are more vital. In this logic we could say that Milene Domingues and Barbara Latorre are more vital than Homare Sawa Abby Wambach because of they have more google results. [12] - In IFFHS voting Finney has worse result than Lawton who was playing in the same era what Finney and Lineker has better result than listed Gascoigne who was playing in the same what Lineker. We also have too many players from 1958-1962 Brazil squad, if we have one player from Golden team (exist article about Golden team so is vital) we should have three Brazil players from 1958-1962, not FOUR (Carlos Alberto is not from 1958-1962 Brazil squad, my mistake). @GuzzyG, what do you think about last one suggestion (in my above comment from 5th August)? Dawid2009 (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Positive Thoughts

I have lots of ideas bouncing around my head, not sure where to place some of them, and I'm short of time, I thought I'd write them here so I wouldn't forget them and add them soon, others can add them if they wish... what do others think of them any how. Many are bodily functions. Rapid eye movement sleep, Vomiting, Yawn, Cough, Hiccup, Laughter, Crying, snoring, Flatulence, Urination, Defecation, sneeze, insomnia, sleep disorder, burping, erection, Erectile dysfunction, Ejaculation, county, thumb, toe, lip, Conjoined twins, Dwarfism

Also on my own talk page I kept a list of ideas I had over years so I wouldn't forget, of things which I thought originally could maybe candidates for the level 4 list, some of them where added when bought up by myself or coincidentally by others, or failed, or I never suggested them at all as I didn't want to flood the talk page or thought they were borderline for the level 4 list. Some of them might be lev 4 material, but many more may be lev 5 material, if anyone is interested that list is here. User_talk:Carlwev/Archive_2#Ideas_for_vital_articles_(10'000).  Carlwev  15:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I added a few from your lists. feminist (talk) 09:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Comics:

I question some of the additions to the comics section. Several were recently added that I feel probably shouldn't be on there. Any list is gonna be mildly arbitrary, but these lists should represent works that are the most impactful culturally. Sales and artistic influence are two criteria. List of best-selling manga

Monster, Ranma ½, Berserk have sold 20-55 million copies, which is notable, but other manga have sold way more. Keep in mind I love Berserk, but it's only a decently selling series with a cult following, so don't think like I'm bashing it.

Instead replace them with: One Piece Naruto, since they are 2 of the top 3 selling manga of all time. Not sure what else to add. Fist of the North Star and JoJo's Bizarre Adventure both sold less, around 100 million each, and have had long lasting cultural influence. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, removed three as suggested. Didn't add Naruto though yet because it seems to be already listed in level 5 society (as a TV show).--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah, these are big multi-media franchises so it's a little arbitrary to list them under the comic or the show. Which one was relatively bigger? Many of them have just one big article for the entire media franchise, and others have them split up.

Another one is Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind (manga). Great manga, and I'd even argue it's Miyazaki's best work. However, it's the film that is way more notable (and has its own article) and should be listed as vital. It was one of Ghibli's first big films and marks a watershed of Japanese animated history. The manga is a bit obscure in comparison.

Any of the really influential Japanese comics that sold over 100 million are fair game for this list. Examples I can think of are Fist of the North Star, and Jo Jo's Bizarre Adventure. Maybe Doraemon and Bleach (manga). Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Moved Nausicaä and added Jojo and North Star. Thanks for the input!--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Naruto is a big multi-media page for the entire series, so you can just remove it from Society and add it to art. It covers the manga and then the adaptions based on it as well. The television section should be for either pages that are just about the adaptions, or for series that started off as a tv-show first (like Neon Genesis Evangelion or Cowboy Bebop). Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I just have moved Naruto to mangas at arts. Naruto should staying in the same section what Astro Boy is staying. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Expand computer scientists from Turing Award

I noticed too few people listed for the vast impact of computer technology, and many giants (20-30) could be added from list in "Turing Award" plus Ada language lead designer Jean Ichbiah (/ish-bee-ah/), with sources to show tech leadership, for the ultra-standard, verified compilers used in military and avionics software such as International Space Station. Also add Ward Cunningham, not just in a self-focus as creator of the first wiki, but for lead design of eXtreme Programming (XP) as a broad agile software development methodology (but also note worldwide impact of wikis). Among operating system giants, add Dave Cutler with software of DEC VAX/VMS (OpenVMS) of 1980s-1990s scientific computing (medical labs, nuclear, NASA) while later lead designer of Microsoft Windows NT. I can start adding those leaders to Level-5 "Computer scientists and programmers". Any other issues? -Wikid77 (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Wikid77: sure, go and add them. feminist (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Mountains

I suggest to swap three chinese mountains: Mount Heng (Hunan), Mount Heng (Shanxi), Mount Song --------swap for-------->Jengish Chokusu, Namcha Barwa and Namcha Barwa. In my opinion we should include mountains from List of peaks by prominence if it is possible. Anyway we have very few mountains. Mountains such like Monte Rosa, Gangkhar Puensum, Gerlachovský štít (not listed) have much more page views than cities such like: Barnaul, Esch-sur-Alzette, Babruysk wchich are currently listed. Is someone interested in addition of mountains? Dawid2009 (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes mountains have more significance than what the Level 5 list as it currently is suggests. For now, physical geography is very much under quota (still a 1000 more articles to go) so swaps may not be necessary. Another very weak area at the moment is waterfalls. We only have four. IMO four is too few on a list of 10,000 let alone 50,000. When I get time, I will try to boost these areas. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that List of peaks by prominence is great metric for geographical diversity at mountains. So moutains with best topographic prominence could be added. Dawid2009 (talk) 04:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Finding duplicates

After the 10,000 (L4) free-for-all some years ago, there ended up being many duplicate articles (up to a hundred) and it took us a long time to find them all. The problem is going to be even bigger here. Ideally, a bot should find and tag them. While we could wait until the list is full, we don't know how accurate the numbers are until the duplicates are removed. Does anyone have the know-how to get a bot to do this? Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree we need a bot to find the duplicates. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

There are also probably many articles which have been removed, but still have a VA template remaining on the talk page. A bot might be able to detect and remove those too.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 15:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Articles being added without discussion

Although User:Feminist suggests above discussion is not necessary, that's not what the guidance says. WP:Vital articles says explicitly that "Articles should not be added or removed from this list without a consensus on the talk page." The faq states that "Since there is a hard limit on the number of articles at each level, articles are judged against each other within the same subject areas to determine which articles are more vital to list than others" which is what should happen on the talk page. Doug Weller talk 07:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

There is an implication here: WP:Vital_articles/Frequently_Asked_Questions#How_do_I_add_articles_to_the_list/remove_articles_from_WP:VITAL? that what you say only applies to levels 1 to 4 and "This section is missing information about level 5". Nigej (talk) 09:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:Vital articles only applies to Level 3. feminist (talk) 09:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: If there is an addition you find particularly objectionable, I urge you to start a discussion about it. pbp 15:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Feminist: so it does. Could this be much more confusing? Why just Level 3? On the other hand, User:Purplebackpack89, besides my quote above from the faq, the faq also states "To add or remove articles from Levels 1–4, please propose your article(s) under a new section on the talk page of the Level you think they should be added to or removed from." That suggests to me that the pages for Vital articles levels 1, 2, and 4 should have the same information Level 3 has. The system described seems to have been designed to avoid people just adding whatever their favorite articles are. Doug Weller talk 18:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

This isn't Lv 1, 2, 3 or 4 though. Those lists have a problem Lv 5 doesn't: they are full and Lv 5 is not. Until Lv 5 is full, my opinion is that we should have a BRD approach: anybody can add an article, but if another editor objects to the add, discuss it. pbp 19:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I just added Benjamin Lett to the Level 5 Revolutionaries pile. Someone may want to make sure I didn't ruin anything. Seemed a little too easy. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I think this entire endeavour needs completely open exposure and analysis, particularly as some individuals are now attempting to use "vital article" as leverage at places like ITN. Watch this space, but don't be surprised if "vital articles" stops existing in its current form. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

VA3 survived deletion once, this will survive deletion as well. I, for one, am perfectly happy to explain the rationale for my additions. Sorry that we're messing with your personal fiefdom, BTW. pbp 02:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Not at all, it's fine. Nobody is taking this micro-project seriously, and until it is properly scrutinised and governed, that won't change. And no more running to my talk page to make false accusations PBP. I've already told you you're not welcome there. Deal with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

If I'm not welcome to comment on your talk page, you're not welcome to come barging in to my life every so often trying to make trouble for me. pbp 13:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. This is not "your life", this the Vital articles project. I was drawn here by some comments at ITN and Doug's invitation on my talkpage. That you happen to frequent here is simply unfortunate. But you must not post to my talkpage again, you're the one doing the harassing if you continue to do that. I've asked you in the past to stop doing it but you continued doing it, and made some false accusations at the same time. You need to stop that, or further action will be required. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

If Doug Weller, SMcCandlish and The Rambling Man all agree there's a problem, there's probably a problem. I can start an RFC. The possible options I'm considering are:

1. Do nothing.
2. Require discussion for biographies.
3. Require discussion for all articles.
4. Require a formal vote (as on L1-L4 lists) for all articles.

All of these may also need a "grace period" for people to remove articles without bureaucracy; there seems to be consensus that there are some articles that should be removed from this list/project.

I'm not sure where to get "completely open exposure"; I'm not sure that posting it on any of WP:CENT, WP:VPPR, or WP:AN is appropriate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• "This is a currently incomplete list of 50,000 subjects for which Wikipedia should ultimately have featured-class articles" - ultimately being around the year 2718 on current form! Really, it isn't worth the community's time arguing about what belongs in the 50,000, higher levels are bad enough. I doubt Level 5 would be missed if just abolished, but at least if we know they are added by anyone who feels like it there is little excuse for taking them seriously. Johnbod (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• I am a frequent editor of the Level 4 list, and I would probably not miss Level 5. I feel that it is simply too large to be properly maintained. If Level 5 is to survive, then it must have a defined voting process. A large portion of the people and things on this list were added by the same few users, without any kind of discussion. Of course, if the additions were all discussed, then this portion of the Vital Articles project would never be completed. This Sisyphean task serves no purpose, and should be brought to an end. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 00:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Could you link me to the diffs where Doug and McCandlish said we have a problem? I have a pretty good idea why TRM's here... pbp 01:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm here because Doug left a note on my page relating to this micro-project. Any more false accusations? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Just go away and bully somebody else, please. I don't want your bullying here. And I don't want you bullying me and treating me like I'm some vandal. That stops NOW. pbp 15:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: See my posts above in this thread. Doug Weller talk 15:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Packer, you came to my talkpage to harass me after I asked you not to, you made a mistake with some false accusations, and you tried to cover it up. Stop doing that, you are not entitled to interact with me on my talkpage, you already know that, continuing to do so is bullying and harassment. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• I have made a proposal for criteria for challenging articles currently on this page. It can be found Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5#Formal Proposal for Challenging Additions pbp 15:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I also won't miss really the Level 5 list. All of the Level 5 lists I've seen (this one and the ones on people's user sub-pages) have been deficient. And I can only talk about the areas I'm familiar with (nobody is an expert on everything of course). The other areas beyond my familiarity are probably just as bad. And as the vital list grows, the more redundant it becomes to the WikiProject importance tags on talk pages. For the L5 list to have been better, it needed additions and suggestions from a much larger pool of editors with expertise in a range of subjects, and a slower process to add articles with more long-term planning on how the list should be structured and organised (which may be too late to fix). Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I've come to the conclusion that discussion for each Level 5 article would be unworkable, and that perhaps Level 5 itself is not a sensible goal. I agree with User:DaGizza, User:Susmuffin and User:Johnbod. Doug Weller talk 15:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Every section outside biology and maths, is at leat 75% done, and every undersection outside chemistry, and undersections from biology is done at least 60%. Currently this page have 39 watchers. Voting would be more reasonable if every section is at least 75 % done and if the lak page have at least 100 watchers (and more later). @Gizza ^(t)(c) which may be too late to fix - We never will know it is possible if we do not constantly analyze this list. I think that delte VA page without any anazyle would be not reasonable and foolish. In my opinion we should listed on new the metapage all articles from the list which have fewer than 10 what links here to have better view on current situation. Publishing VA5 talk page on HelpDesk also would be reasonable (currently numberer watchers of VA L5 is much fewer than number watchers of VA L4. We could attract more watchers on help desk for VA L5). @And as the vital list grows, the more redundant it becomes to the WikiProject importance tags on talk pages. - In my opinion we could also use for vital articles suggestbot (in future). Suggestbot could random for user the most interesing articles among 50 000 vital(among compedium). So we can look for any solutions. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Why is there no main page for Vital articles?

Or have I missed one? WP:Vital articles is only for Level 3 and the talk page is only to discuss Level 3. Is it just me or isn't this a bit odd? Posting here as there seems to be more discussion here than anywhere else. Doug Weller talk 15:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles Dawid2009 (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Because one isn't really necessary. The Level 3 page acts as sort of the de facto main page. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Actors quota

So, Americans occupy more than 50% of the current "quota" for actors (214 out of 393), while Asian actors (from, e.g. Bollywood, that multi-billion dollar industry which makes three times more movies per year than Hollywood) have secured a paltry 34. I would have thought it be more reasonable to see Hollywood down to 150 and Asia up to 100 on that basis alone. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no agreed-upon distribution for actors by nationality at this level. Do you want to propose one? pbp 15:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I just did. I'd be interested in more views before jumping in straight to one of what looks like about three hundred open proposals around here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm generally against any type of quota system based on nationality. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Personal computers, as influencial as home consoles

I've expanded section Technology#Computer hardware with home computers from the 80's. In Europe, these were as important as video game consoles or more; it would be unbalanced to include relatively secondary consoles like the Game Gear or Dreamcast in the list and not having these enormously influential computing devices.

I've included the most popular in Europe. There may be some more missing, like the Atari ST and Amiga. Diego (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Wait, do the section titles numbers get updated by some bot, or one has to keep track of the articles one adds? Diego (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Diego Moya:, the BBC Master was extremely influential in UK education although you wouldn't know it from the article. However the article on its predecessor, the BBC Micro, deals with that and mentions the Master, so if only one can be added, it should be that one. The Acorn Archimedes was particularly significant because of the legacy of its architecture (I won't go into details here, I'm sure you'll read the article). Doug Weller talk 14:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

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

---

Formal Proposal for Challenging Additions

Any article currently on this list may be challenged. The discussion is open to the following rules:

1. Any discussion must run at least two weeks before being closed
2. Any discussion must have at least five total votes before being closed
3. Any article with at least 55% support for inclusion will be retained
4. Any article with at least 55% opposition for inclusion will be removed

Support

1. pbp 15:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
2. feminist (talk) 07:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
3. I don't have a problem with the proposal -- although what happens if somebody gets 51% support or opposition? Smallchief (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

   The discussion is kept open until support or opposition reaches at least 55%. feminist (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

   Yes. That. pbp 14:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

4. --Thi (talk) 07:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Absence of agriculture articles from vital articles list

Maybe I haven't found them, but there seems to be a near total absence of articles dealing with agriculture in the broad sense on the vital articles list. Agriculture is a Level 2 article. There is virtually nothing on the Level 3, 4, and 5 lists dealing directly with agriculture. May I suggest adding a number of articles including Agriculture in the Roman Empire, Agriculture in the Middle Ages, Incan agriculture, Peasant, etc? (Not coincidentally, I've contributed to some of those articles, and will probably do more in the future.)

During the last 10,000 years the vast majority of the human race has depended upon agriculture for a livelihood -- and about 60 percent still do. More coverage seems desirable.Smallchief (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Agriculture. I agree with you that forms needs to be greatly expanded. pbp 15:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Sorry. But I think several articles about the history of agriculture should also be added. Smallchief (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Peasant is listed at Level 4. I have added the three other articles you mentioned. feminist (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

A person of action! Thanks.Smallchief (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Just so you know, the breeds of animals used in agriculture are in the animals section while cultivars of plants and other crops are generally in the edible plants section. So agriculture is mainly spread over three sections (tech, animals and plants) though there are some other related articles in history, social sciences and possibly other areas. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)