Open main menu
WikiProject Vital Articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Vital Articles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of vital articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and work together to increase the quality of Wikipedia's essential articles.
Vital articles discussion
Level 1     Level 2     Level 3     Level 4     Level 5

IntroductionEdit

The purpose of this discussion page is to select 10,000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles. All Wikipedia editors are welcome to participate. Individual topics are proposed for addition or removal, followed by discussion and !voting. It is also possible to propose a swap of a new topic for a lower-priority topic already on the list.

All discussions will remain open for a minimum of 15 days.

  1. After 15 days any proposal may be closed as PASSED if a) at least five !votes have been cast in support, and b) at least two-thirds of the total !votes support the proposal.
  2. After 30 days any proposal may be closed as FAILED if it has a) earned at least 3 opposes, and b) failed to earn two-thirds support.
  3. After 30 days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal hasn't received any !votes for 30 or more days regardless of the !vote tally.
  4. After 60 days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if it has a) failed to earn at least 5 support !votes, and b) earned less than two-thirds support.

Nominations should generally be left open beyond the above-listed minimums if they have a reasonable chance of passing. Please be patient with our process. We believe that an informed discussion with more editors is likely to produce an improved and more stable final list. When proposing to add or remove a particular topic from the vital articles list, we strongly recommend that you review and compare the other topics in the same category in order to get a better sense of what is considered vital in that area.

When you are making a decision whether to add or remove a particular topic from the Vital Articles Level 4 list, we strongly recommend that you review and compare the other topics in the same category in order to get a better sense of what other topics are considered vital in that area. We have linked the sublists at the top of each proposal area.

  • 15 days ago: 03:13, 09 August 2019 (UTC) (Purge)
  • 30 days ago: 03:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • 60 days ago: 03:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

If you are starting a discussion, please choose the matching section from the TOC:

PeopleEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People for the list of topics in this category.

EntertainersEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Entertainers for the list of topics in this category.

Halve the number of actors and actressesEdit

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

To me the areas that could get cuts are journalists, modern writers (174 of them! Almost triple the number of actors and actresses) and some genres of musicians. Psychologists are also over-represented compared to other types of social scientists like economists. Some of those suggestions are quite good Rekishi, particularly Dias. Robert Fisk, a journalist notable for interviewing Osama bin Laden, shouldn't be in before someone whose achievements started the Age of Discovery and changed the world forever. Gizza (t)(c) 12:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@DaGizza: Who would you remove? ―Susmuffin Talk 21:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree that we we list too many actors. However, I am not sure if the section can be reduced by half. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I think we should remove a dozen or so from this section, but quite honestly the sportspeople section is the one that should be halved. J947's public account 23:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
The sports figures section is one of the most bloated parts of the list. ―Susmuffin Talk 23:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
100% agree about sportspeople. Let's make that happen! - Sdkb (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
If we lose a dozen actors and half the sports section we have to reexamine the point of this list (which articles are the most vital to improve to our MODERN readers, not a purely "greatest" technical list). Tupac Shakur should be higher priority to be featured than Guido of Arezzo in any modern encyclopedia. Judging by importance to the world; religious people, politicians, ancient greek philosophers and scientists should cover every spot then; we need balance to modern culture as well. Clark Gable has no real effect on history's trajectory, but his article is vital to have featured. The only bad thing about the sports quota of 100 is that it's more than entertainers total, it should be equal. I completely agree with DaGizza, journalists, psychologists, modern writers and rock musicians need cutting, but noone wants to get rid of the sci-fi writers, that's the real problem with the modern culture section. I think we need to set quotas by section. These names are flashy but what makes Samuel Colt different to John Browning, Mikhail Kalashnikov, Oliver Winchester, Richard Jordan Gatling or Daniel B. Wesson. Firearms should be listed, inventors maybe not. Food businessman like Henri Nestlé or Henry Luce are the two missing businessmen. But again, businesses should be in before their founders and expeditions before explorers, which is why they're low. The only two things that are bad about our entertainer's section is the fact we're missing pre recorded entertainment figures like Joseph Grimaldi, Ira Aldridge, David Garrick, Marie Taglioni, or Thomas D. Rice and we need to remove our reliance on the single country based AFI list, they don't cover silent film or anything else; Claudette Colbert isn't more vital than Rudolph Valentino for example.. But the key point of this list is popular names combined with influence rather than just the most influential/technical, it's why we list people like Houdini over Jean Eugène Robert-Houdin or Capone over Lucky Luciano. Because even though Houdini/Capone are the less influential, they're very common pop culture names and they had some influence so they're more vital to have featured. But i contend that entertainers should be at 100 covering pre recorded entertainment history. I don't think entertainers need cutting, sports i can agree, for example why does Basketball have a modern figure in Lebron James but not American football with Tom Brady or any other sport. The main problem with the athletes is we focus too much on team sports and tennis. We need more Olympic sports like fencers, equestrians, sailors and people like Kanō Jigorō. But if Lin Dan isn't getting votes, that's clearly not going to happen. If any section is underrepresented it wouldn't be businesspeople, explorers, scientists or religious people it'd be painters/craftspeople/designers in my opinion. GuzzyG (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe Lin Dan would be getting more votes if he wasn't pitted against Mark Spitz. Maybe pit him against a tennis player. As for LeBron vs. Brady, let me ask you this: who is more well-known outside North America? I'm almost certain it's LeBron, because basketball has a much higher profile in Europe, Asia and Africa than American football does. As for creating quotas, put me down as in favor of that. And to your comment "religious people, politicians, ancient greek philosophers and scientists should cover every spot then", I believe that the number of spots they cover shouldn't be reduced from what it is now. pbp 17:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe not halve sportspeople, but we could easily cut the category down to 70/75 and disperse the spots throughout people. It is absolutely unreasonable to have more sportspeople than entertainers, when entertainers have had far more of an impact on popular culture. I understand the point about businesses rather than businesspeople completely, but I don't think the same applies for explorers and expeditions. Most important explorers are known for more than one well-known expedition and often the expeditions can be summarised in the explorer's articles—which TBH, can be all they need. Also, to further pbp's sentiment, being from New Zealand I have no idea who Tom Brady is but definitely know who LeBron James is. And I don't really think that painters and such outside of the top two to three thousand articles have that much impact on the world. Just my opinion. —J947's public account 21:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Visual artistsEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Visual artists for the list of topics in this category.

Add Giovanni BelliniEdit

"Few artists in the history of painting can match the contribution of the Venetian, Giovanni Bellini. Bellini can be credited with bringing a humanistic quality to his religious and mythical scenes. He was also at the vanguard of developments in oil painting and, having dispensed of the egg and water tempera method, he used oil paints to evoke a heightened sense of scenic ambience. Whereas the painted landscape was generally viewed with a stuffy distain by the artistic elite, Bellini treated it with a respect and attention to detail that brought it, though much later, a new generic credibility. And, quite apart from his own magnificent contribution to the canon of the Renaissance, he tutored Titian who, remarkably, even surpassed his grand and graceful Venetian master." (The Art Story) [1]

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

WritersEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Writers for the list of topics in this category.

Add Joseph CampbellEdit

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

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Joseph Campbell has had much influence on the study of comparative mythology and on several writers of the 20th and 21st centuries. Dimadick (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose He is primarily known for a single book. Furthermore, the concept of the "hero's journey" is more important than the man who studied it. ―Susmuffin Talk 04:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Note: according to the talk page templates, Joseph Campbell and The Hero with a Thousand Faces are not yet listed in Level 5. --Thi (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
    We've decided to get a bot when L5's close to finished to add the talk page templates, rather than waste time doing it ourselves. J947(c), at 03:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

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

Previous nomination here. J947's public account 21:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Remove Margaret Atwood, add Ayn RandEdit

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

Support
  1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin Talk 13:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support if it's acknowledged she created a philosophical system, then she's certainly one of the most famous women philosophers to the everyday public (atleast in america, which if we have american football players this should count). Obviously she has a bad reputation and some people might be iffy but certainly not more so then Blackbeard, people with bad reputations can be vital too. Shes certainly one of the only authors on here who have strong influence on a section of their countries politics. GuzzyG (talk) 09:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support addition probably one of the most influential American women in literature. feminist (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support addition due to Rand's popularity. I'd have to look into Atwood more to determine how vital she is. - Sdkb (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition. Rand is not vital at this level. --Thi (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removal Atwood is not a one-hit wonder. Among her other novels, Alias Grace and The Blind Assassin have won a number of literary awards, and several other were nominees for awards. Dimadick (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose removal Atwood is more than one single novel. feminist (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. (Not sure what section to put this in.) Oppose removal; support addition: Atwood is not only famous for The Handmaid's Tale (I'm dubious that it was even her most famous work before the 2017 TV series). As for Rand, we currently list 66 philosophers so we can definitely make room for her—many of the current entries look less significant to human history than the person responsible for objectivism, Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Rand may have, in some sense of the word, created a philosophical system, but hardly any philosophers take her seriously as a philosopher. Her literary reputation stands no higher with literary scholars and critics. Of course, she is popular and influential in some circles, but there are plenty of very popular authors with terrible critical reputations that we don't list. And Atwood is far from a one-hit wonder. Neljack (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Halldór LaxnessEdit

The most famous Icelandic author. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1955. His novels Salka Valka, Independent People, and World Light have been listed among the best books of the 20th century.[2][3][4]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. SupportJ947's public account 00:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Previous nomination here. J947's public account 00:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Add Constantine P. CavafyEdit

"Greek poet who developed his own consciously individual style and thus became one of the most important figures not only in Greek poetry but in Western poetry as well." (Britannica)" "C.P. Cavafy is widely considered the most distinguished Greek poet of the twentieth century." [5] The 20th century produced many famous Greek poets: Yiannis Ritsos, Giorgos Seferis and Odysseas Elytis, among others. It is easy to start with Cavafy, the "greatest Greek poet since antiquity" (The New Yorker).

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 04:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Jack LondonEdit

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

Support
  1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support I knew not to bother with American writers, but i think one of the biggest problems with this list as it is, is that when people like London or Alec Guinness are nominated for deletion oppose votes bring up other works of the person, but they never argue why when we are over quota someone like London and many other of our over represented modern writers are more important to list then people like Roger Bacon or Peter Abelard and why does writing The People of the Abyss make London more vital then someone like Abelard who is described as "the keenest thinker and boldest theologian of the 12th Century", to ignore 12th century intellectual history on a list that's supposed to cover all of human history in favor of another modern American writer seems odd, but you'll never get a answer. Same with Ray Bradbury, nominate him saying Fahrenheit 451 is his main recognized work (true) and people will oppose saying "im partial to The Illustrated Man more" but never acknowledge that Bradbury is thus being judged as more important then dominant intellectual people from centuries we do not cover in favour of keeping modern American writers of which we list 39 total and 10 genre authors (Asimov, Bradbury, Chandler, Dick, Heinlein, King, Le Guin, Lee, London, and Lovecraft) not even including our bloat in our europe/uk sections or the fact writers like Kazuo Ishiguro are listed on the main reason he won a award 2 years ago. "But his life story is famous" shouldn't ever be a valid reason to make London (or people like Alec Guinness) as more important then people like Bacon and Abelard, but this is the crossroad we're at and have to decide on at this point of this list. I used to be more in favor of this list covering a more modern variety of modern things, but with the level 5 list, this list should become more strict and less modern now. Especially if the level 3 list has gotten stricter on arts/music/film by removing Dali/Chopin/Hitchcock etc. I'm more in favor of covering missing science articles like Joseph Banks on this list now then modern stuff. GuzzyG (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support London is a significant writer, but the excessive number of American authors on the list requires some tough choices to be made. GuzzyG makes some good points about the sort of people we don't have - Abelard and Bacon are striking omissions. Neljack (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. The Call of the Wild can be removed instead. London wrote many other works and his life story is famous. --Thi (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Agree with Thi. (I'm partial to the The People of the Abyss and The Iron Heel, myself.) El_C 23:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. The Sea-Wolf is another enduringly popular work by London, and viewed as an early study in psychopathy. Dimadick (talk) 06:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose We do indeed list two many American authors, but London is one who should be retained. pbp 15:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Thi. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

JournalistsEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Journalists for the list of topics in this category.

Musicians and composersEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Musicians and composers for the list of topics in this category.

Add Clara SchumannEdit

One of the most prominent and influential women pianists and composers of her day. Championed the works of her husband Robert Schumann and friend Johannes Brahms who themselves are both on this list and is one of the most dominant women in music history. Hildegard of Bingen is the only other woman composer we list, but she's notable for way more then music, Clara would be the first main woman in music history we list, if we list Dolly Parton, we should definitely list Clara. Taking into consideration the bias women faced, especially the ones that get overshadowed by their husbands, she has pretty much the same results up against Robert and Brahms in ngrams [6]. I think she is our biggest missed musician, we may be over quota, but Jacques Brel removal vote seems to be successful so we have room.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Not vital enough as a composer to warrant inclusion, but more significant as a pianist and I think the overall package is sufficient for inclusion. Neljack (talk) 04:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 04:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support Dimadick (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Too many more famous composers are not listed. Nadia Boulanger is listed as a pedagogue. I would love to see the third greatest cellist Jacqueline du Pré added. --Thi (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
  • Famous, who decides famous anyway, does Anna Nicole Smith need to be added? (not that pioneering reality television won't be important in about 50 years, as it should)

Let's dissect this because i linked the one objective way to measure importance: book mentions (google ngrams. Let's compare Clara to every other level 5 composer.

  • Medieval and Renaissance composers [7] and [8] now, out of these only William Byrd outdoes her, but we list more English composers then women ones so, balance? The real thing to do here is add Clara and swap Benjamin Britten or Ralph Vaughan Williams for Byrd, because he outdoes them clearly [[9]]
  • Baroque composers: [10] and [11] no other level 5 baroque composer out does her.
  • Classical composers: [12] no other level 5 classical composer out does her.
  • Romantic composers (her competition): [13], [[14]] and [[15]] now John Philip Sousa is the only one who beats her and yes he should be added because he represents a unique style, but not at the cost of a woman.
  • 20th century modern composers: [16], [17] and [18] now only Charles Ives, Kurt Weill and James Scott beat her, Ives being the only viable contender, we don't list a American composer i think and he should be on here. Weil represents nothing new and he's more of a collab with Bertolt Brecht who is listed. James Scott is obviously because it's a common name.
  • Avant-garde/postmodern composers: [19] and [20] now only John Adams beats her, obviously because he has the same name as a president.
  • Entertainment composers: [21], [22], and [23] now John Barry and John Williams beat her, Barry because of the naval officer with the same name and Williams absolutely should be on here, film composers and music producers are two of our music sections weak spots, but the most prominent woman romantic composer beats the importance of a film composer (they're untested so far)
  • New age composer: [24] Yanni beats her, but it's a common name and New-age music itself would have to be on first before a representative.
  • Now, your suggestion of Jacqueline du Pré, she's more famous due to the movie and her medical condition, yes, but did she have more of a effect on music as a whole, [25] Clara again beats every woman listed on the level 5 page under classical musicians, (except opera singers, i didn't compare her with them). (which is another area of concern, why is it filled with American singers? Where's people like Giovanni Battista Rubini, Farinelli, Maria Malibran, why Leontyne Price and Marian Anderson but not Jenny Lind and Beverly Sills? Why Kiri Te Kanawa and not Nellie Melba? Why no Lied singers like Elisabeth Schwarzkopf or Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau. I understand some of the Americans are for diversity reasons, but then why not Mei Lanfang? Opera is the worst section on this whole 2k list, too many people that are alive/Americans, but that's another discussion.

If being famous is important for being vital to classical music, list who you think is more famous and i will check every form of statistic i can find. But do we need more European men? Why is three women, (one under pedagogue) a bad thing? Clara would not be out of place on this list.GuzzyG (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I meant major composers in the context of classical music, canonical composers[26] ("innovation, influence, aesthetic importance and historical significance") Much has been written about romantic composers and Clara's own compositions were forgotten. In 1952, the New York Times had headline “Clara Schumann: Wife of Robert was also a composer”. She was a great pianist, notable composer and an example of female composers who were unjustly ingnored in their times. She would not be as out of place if there is room for more instrumentalist and singers from pre-recorded era such as Malibran. I think that composers are important for example because some of the most well-known contemporary female composers such as Unsuk Chin and Kaija Saariaho have been influenced by György Ligeti and it would be useful to know Ligeti, Anton Webern or Iannis Xenakis first. --Thi (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
GuzzyG I agree that some changes are needed to the opera singers section. In my view, five of the nine - Callas, Caruso, Domingo, Pavarotti and Sutherland - warrant inclusion, but the other four do not (even as a New Zealander, I cannot justify Dame Kiri's inclusion, great singer that she is). I would suggest replacing Nilsson with Kirsten Flagstad They are both Wagnerian sopranos, so are easily comparable, and most critics regard Flagstad as the greatest Wagnerian soprano ever. I think Fischer-Dieskau should also be added - the important lieder singer ever and a remarkably versatile artist. We also don't have any representation of the lower male voice (baritones, bass-baritones or basses). It's no coincidence that both Fiescher-Dieskau and Flagstad have been hailed as the singer of the (20th) century. Going back before the recorded era is more tricky, but Farinelli and Malibran seem to have strong cases. That would leave us at nine singers, as at present. Neljack (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you on everything. I would support the Nilsson/Flagstad swap. If you nominate that swap or any other Opera swap, i would support it. GuzzyG (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
PASSED
Removed 6-0, added 5-1. Neljack (talk) 08:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Kiri te Kanawa, add Dietrich Fischer-DieskauEdit

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

To replace her, I propose the great German baritone Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, who revolutionised lieder singing, as well as being an acclaimed singer of opera and sacred music. Leonard Bernstein described him as the most significant singer of the 20th century,[27] and others agreed.[28] He was, in Leon Botstein's words, "arguably the most famous, respected, and versatile singer of the second half of the twentieth century."[29] In Germany he was called "Der Jahrhundertsänger", which translates as “singer of the century” or “hundred-year singer" - though it has been said that "neither translation does justice to the air of veneration the term connotes" and that he was "a social phenomenon and a symbol of postwar Germany."[30] We also currently don't have any representative of the lower male voices (baritones, bass-baritones or basses). Neljack (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

Remove Birgit Nilsson, add Kirsten FlagstadEdit

Flagstad and Nilsson were both Wagnerian sopranos, so they are easily comparable, but Flagstad is regarded by most critics as the greatest Wagnerian soprano ever.[31] Rudolf Bing called her "the greatest soprano of this century" and he was not the only one to hail her as "the voice of the century" Desmond Shawe-Taylor wrote of her in the New Grove Dictionary of Opera: "No one within living memory surpassed her in sheer beauty and consistency of line and tone."[32] Neljack (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Previous nomination regarding the removal of Nilsson here. J947's public account 00:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Directors, producers and screenwritersEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Directors, producers and screenwriters for the list of topics in this category.

BusinesspeopleEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Businesspeople for the list of topics in this category.

ExplorersEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Explorers for the list of topics in this category.

Philosophers, historians, political and social scientistsEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists for the list of topics in this category.

Swap: remove Karl Barth, add HeraclitusEdit

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

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC) 14 August 2019 withdrawn proposal of removal
  2. Support Heraclitus has had an influence on the works of Plato, on Stoicism as a philosophical movement, and the Church Fathers. Christianity derives its concept of the Logos from the works of Heraclitus. Dimadick (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Heraclitus is one of the famous names in the ancient Greek philosophy. He is in The School of Athens (and in The Philosophers' Football Match). --Thi (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support addition, neutral on removal Heraclitus was one of the most important Greek philosophers. However, I share GuzzyG's concerns regarding Karl Barth. ―Susmuffin Talk 23:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support addition Heraclitus was highly influential, but I agree with GuzzyG that Barth should not be the next religious figure to go. Graham probably should be. Neljack (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  6. The addition, since he and Parmenides are commonly considered to be two of the founders of ontology.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  7. Support addition, neutral on removal Heraclitus is important and there's alot of other missing philosophers too. GuzzyG (talk) 05:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  8. Support addition and support removing Graham instead. Relative to Catholicism, other Chrstians and people of other religions, Protestantism is indeed over-represented. Even if the overall number of religious figures go up, Protestantism doesn't need 13 articles. Gizza (t)(c) 05:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  9. Support. Heraclitus was the philosopher of his generation, possibly of his century. His ideas on the Logos were formative to that concept in Christianity. His ideas are credited with giving rise to the enduring schools of thought of both Stoicism and Pandeism. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The removal, since Karl Barth was featured on the cover of Time on April 20, 1962 and Pope Pius XII regarded him the greatest theologian since Thomas Aquinas (It is quite unusual for a Catholic clergyman to highly praise a Protestant theologian) means he is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removal of Karl Barth or of Billy Graham I believe my comments below and in related threads explain my reasoning on this. I think if Heraclitus is added it should be at the expense of another social scientist or philosopher, not a religious figure. pbp 19:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

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

@GuzzyG: I would support the removal of Billy Graham. ―Susmuffin Talk 23:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@Susmuffin:I would too, but with the resistance Jack London is getting there's no way Graham would be removed. Yes, he had a major role in American evangelism and dominated a nationwide poll and was friends with presidents but he is up against every other Christianity related figure and saint. I'd even say women like Thérèse of Lisieux should be represented more then Graham, who was mainly a one country based figure. Religious people should be included based on their international impact, considering the size of religion. If i had to choose a one country based religious person from America it'd be Charles Taze Russell, Jim Jones, Ellen G. White or L. Ron Hubbard who represent areas we don't cover from American religion or anywhere else on this list. Jonathan Edwards covers Graham's area in my opinion. Why Graham when we don't list Southern Baptist Convention? Also Graham's vitality rests on fame, popularity and "being the most admired" person over many years, yet we don't list Diana, Princess of Wales who is exactly the same, yet more international. Graham is like the Bob Ross of religion. Very popular and famous but no strong influence on anyone other than Televangelism and certainly no strong international influence other then some rallys in London which is not influence. Also historically Charles Coughlin may be more vital in Graham's area. GuzzyG (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I've said this before, but I'll say it again: I will support retention of Billy Graham on this list. Billy Graham and Jonathan Edwards are separated by more than two centuries and are completely different in almost every respect aside of being American. One of the major developments in 20th century religion was its connection to radio, television and stadium-sized revivals, of which Billy Graham is the best example. Southern Baptist Convention probably should be added at this level, but this level should also contain a Baptist person of some sort; again, Billy Graham being the best example. In my opinion, Billy Graham is easily one of the five most influential American religious figures, regardless of faith. I also disagree with the comment made above that we have too many Protestants on this list. Protestantism spans 500 years, many countries, and many different denominations and we have only 13 protestants on the list. Religious figures are under-represented on this list. Finally, to add Heraclitus, I believe we should instead remove a social scientist rather than a religious figure. pbp 15:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Swap: remove Paradigm, add Thomas KuhnEdit

Thomas Kuhn IMO is influential just as Karl Popper.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Both Paradigm and Kuhn's main work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions are listed. Kuhn was not as versatile thinker as Popper, who was one of the main philosophers of last century and wrote about philosophy of science, ontology and social philosophy. --Thi (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Kuhn is probably less vital than Popper, but Popper should also be removed. He is a less important philosopher than several modern philosophers we don't list, such as W.V.O. Quine, Saul Kripke and David Lewis. The whole list of modern philosophers is quite strange. How did John Dewey, A.N. Whitehead and Isaiah Berlin get on the list ahead of more important philosophers? Being famous is not the same as being philosophically important. Neljack (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
    Al-Kindi and Al-Farabi are also missing. ―Susmuffin Talk 20:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

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

Add Peter AbelardEdit

Peter Abelard was one of the most prominent thinkers of his age. The Chambers Biographical Dictionary described him as "the keenest thinker and boldest theologian of the 12th century".[1] Furthermore, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy said that "He is, arguably, the greatest logician of the Middle Ages and is equally famous as the first great nominalist philosopher."[2] Abelard was the most respected philosopher of the time and is still considered one of the foremost thinkers of his age. His theological viewpoints were deeply controversial. He was involved in many debates and conflicts with his peers. These disagreements eventually caused him to be temporarily excommunicated by the Catholic Church.[3] He was also known for his correspondence with Héloïse. Their love affair has attracted a considerable amount of attention over the last few centuries. In the period following the French Revolution, they were celebrated as "forerunners of modernity".[4] Honestly, I am surprised that Abelard was not already listed, as he was one of the most influential philosophers and theologians to ever live.

Support
  1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin Talk 20:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Good add pbp 20:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Large impact. "Abelard was an enormous influence on his contemporaries and the course of medieval philosophical thought, but he has been known in modern times mainly for his connection with Héloïse. Only one of his strictly philosophical works, the ethical treatise Scito te ipsum, had been published before the 19th century, in 1721. It was only with the publication by Cousin in 1836 of the collection entitled Ouvrages inedits d'Abelard that Abelard's philosophical work began to be studied more closely. Cousin's collection gave extracts from the theological work Sic et Non ("Yes and No") which is an assemblage of what Abelard saw as opposite opinions on doctrinal points culled from the Fathers as a basis for discussion. The collection also includes the Dialectica, and commentaries on logical works of Aristotle, Porphyry and Boethius. Two works published by Cousin and believed at the time to be by Abelard, the fragment De Generibus et Speciebus (published in the 1836 collection), and also the psychological treatise De Intellectibus (published separately by Cousin in Fragmens Philosophiques, vol. ii.), are now believed on upon internal evidence not to be by Abelard himself, but only to have sprung out of his school. A genuine work, the Glossulae super Porphyrium, from which Charles de Rémusat gave extracts in his monograph Abelard (1845), was published in 1930. The fascinating hypothesis of Abaelard‘s influence on Menasseh Ben Israel and Spinoza has been developed by Robert Menasse and first published in his essay „Enlightement as Harmonious Strategy“ edited by Versopolis in 2018.[5]" Dimadick (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support obvious importance. GuzzyG (talk) 05:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support A surprising omission from the list. Neljack (talk) 06:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  7. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  8. Support as per above. J947(c), at 21:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  1. ^ Patrick, David; Groome, Frances Hindes, eds. (1902). Chambers's Biographical Dictionary: The Great of All Times and Nations. Lippincott. p. 7.
  2. ^ King, Peter; Arlig, Andrew (2018), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), "Peter Abelard", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2019-07-27
  3. ^ Guilfoy, Kevin. "Peter Abelard (1079—1142)". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2019-07-27.
  4. ^ Mews, C. J. (2005-01-13). Abelard and Heloise. Oxford University Press, USA. p. 4. ISBN 9780195156881.
  5. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2018-04-01. Retrieved 2018-03-31.CS1 maint: Archived copy as title (link) (retrieved on March 31, 2018).

Religious figuresEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Religious figures for the list of topics in this category.

Swap: remove John Wycliffe, add Pope Pius VEdit

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

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC) 14 August withdrawn removal
Oppose
  1. Oppose John Wycliffe was the founder of Lollardy in the 14th century, a major influence of Jan Hus and the Hussites in the 15th century, and an ideological ancestor to the Reformation in the 16th century. Pius V does not have that much of an impact. Dimadick (talk) 07:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose John Wycliffe was a highly influential predecessor to Protestantism. Meanwhile, Pope Pius V was not as influential as the listed popes. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Influence of John Wycliffe. Also Leo is the better add for 16th century pope. Finally, I again take issue with "so many Protestants" when we only have 13 of them for a half-millennium of Protestantism. pbp 15:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
  • Even though the removal has been abandoned, I still oppose this proposal because I feel that Pius V is the wrong add for a pope of this era. I'd prefer the Leo that excommunicated Luther, and, yes, I am aware that Leo had little to no theological brilliance, just world influence. pbp 19:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Swap: remove Huldrych Zwingli, add Giordano BrunoEdit

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

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC) 14 August withdrawn removal of Zwingli.
  2. Support Zwingli is an ideological ancestor of Calvinism, but Bruno's ideas on cosmology were groundbreaking for his era. "He proposed that the stars were distant suns surrounded by their own planets, and he raised the possibility that these planets might foster life of their own, a philosophical position known as cosmic pluralism. He also insisted that the universe is infinite and could have no "center"." Dimadick (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Bruno is for example in Britannica Guide to 100 Most Influential Scientists. --Thi (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. The addition, since his death was used by some commentators as a basis of conflict thesis (although he was in fact executed for his religious and philosophical views rather than his astronomical views) means that he is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support addition, key figure in modern movements surrounding Pantheism, Pandeism, and Deism; influence and martyrdom led him to be a focus of the second Cosmos series. Some things now known true to science he envisioned long before any means to even properly suspect them. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The removal, since the lede of the article which states that "His legacy lives on in the confessions, liturgy, and church orders of the Reformed churches of today." means that he is no doubt vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Zwingli was a key figure of the Reformation, often cited with Luther and Calvin as one of its three key leaders. Despite Bruno's originality as a thinker, his influence has not been so great. Neljack (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose removal Zwingli is easily vital enough for this list. If you want to drop a Protestant, drop Melanchthon; he's mostly notable for being Luther's sidekick and lacks the influence of Zwingli. Except don't, because I'm disappointed at the number of Protestants who are on the chopping block right now: Barth, Zwingli, and perhaps Billy Graham. Plus Wycliffe who was a simpatico to the Protestants. pbp 15:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Politicians and leadersEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Politicians and leaders for the list of topics in this category.

Remove Shoshenq IEdit

He is the least important Egyptian figure on this list.

Support
  1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin Talk 03:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Orser67 (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 10:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

He may well be the least important but is there any reason why there should be one less Egyptian? Just asking. J947(c), at 00:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

We could replace him with Ramesses III, who was far more important. ―Susmuffin Talk 00:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Fair. I'd support that swap, but I get the feeling Shoshenq is here for representation of later Egyptians (I haven't looked at the list well, just a guess). J947(c), at 06:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Well my guess was sort of right. Shoshenq's the only representative for a ~thousand-year period. Due to that I'm gonna mark down as neutral. However, the article doesn't speak like he's important in any way, so a swap with another figure from near the middle of that period who is more vital? No idea if that's a good idea. J947(c), at 18:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: I'd prefer if this was reopened. We added Ramesses III basically as a swap with Shoshenq, and despite my neutral I'd like another opinion on this as I'm no expert here. J947(c), at 21:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@J947 and J947 Public: Ok, I reopened it.

Military leaders and theoristsEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Military leaders and theorists for the list of topics in this category.

Rebels, revolutionaries and activistsEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Rebels, revolutionaries and activists for the list of topics in this category.

Add Sophie SchollEdit

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Scientists, inventors and mathematiciansEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Scientists, inventors and mathematicians for the list of topics in this category.

Add Henrietta Swan LeavittEdit

If we are going to consider add Giordano Bruno, I think we should consider addition of Leavitt. Giordano Bruno suggested that solar system is not center place in the universe, meanwhile Henrietta Swan Leavitt discovered how infinitly large is the universe and that Milky Way is not the only galaxy.

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

Add Willard LibbyEdit

Highly influential figure in context of archeology because of he is founder of Radiocarbon dating.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Karl DraisEdit

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

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. - Sdkb (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Georges CuvierEdit

Father of paleontology.

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

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

  1. ^ Bressan, David. "On the Extinction of Species". Scientific American Blog Network. Retrieved 2019-08-11.

Add John McCarthy (computer scientist)Edit

Father of artifical intelligence who made significant contributions to Cognitive science.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Charles K. KaoEdit

He discovered that fiber optics can be useful for communication.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose

Previous nomination here. J947's public account 00:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Add Gerolamo CardanoEdit

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

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

Add Anders CelsiusEdit

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support. Famous scientist. --Thi (talk) 10:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Important astronomer. "His research also involved the study of auroral phenomena, which he conducted with his assistant Olof Hiorter, and he was the first to suggest a connection between the aurora borealis and changes in the magnetic field of the Earth. He observed the variations of a compass needle and found that larger deflections correlated with stronger auroral activity. At Nuremberg in 1733, he published a collection of 316 observations of the aurora borealis made by himself and others over the period 1716–1732." Dimadick (talk) 09:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. Weak support – Obviously has a famous last name, but as Guzzy has said, it isn't everything. His influence in astronomy is probably enough to push him over the boundary with the temperature scale, however. Scientists IMO are underrepresented on this list, but still unsure. Surprisingly concise article for someone like him. J947(c), at 03:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    He's more vital than Fahrenheit, so if we have one of them it should be him. Thinking aloud. J947(c), at 03:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

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

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

Add Joseph BanksEdit

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Weak support looking at other entries and the article. J947(c), at 23:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
    To elaborate: as a New Zealander I think that he's probably the 3rd most important and well known coloniser (for the lack of a better word) in my home country, and the other two are both probs top 4000 (James Cook, Abel Tasman). It's a hard choice but I think he should be on here. J947(c), at 03:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Jusdafax (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support Dimadick (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I prefer adding History of botany to this level. --Thi (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    I'd prefer both. J947(c), at 03:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Sports figuresEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Sports figures for the list of topics in this category.

Swap: remove Johnny Weissmuller, add Duke KahanamokuEdit

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

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

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

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

Swap: remove Mark Spitz, add Lin DanEdit

Contigent about swapping Spitz for Li Dan was here. Badminton is promient sport in China and is more global than American Football.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support removal. Michael Phelps is more vital. --Thi (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support addition, oppose removal Seven golds, all in world record time, in Munich in 1972 was a remarkable achievement and makes him vital in my book. Phelps may have eclipsed him, but he still ranks among the great Olympic athletes. Li Dan warrants a place too as the greatest badminton player ever. Neljack (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Spitz still did things noteworthy enough to be included at this level. pbp 19:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

We don't need Spitz, we need Lin Dan but swimming should have a woman, if we have Lebron - Katie Ledecky should not be a issue, so i don't think swapping people in multiple sports is a good nomination. Also just to make my opinion clear sports and SOME politics people should be the only sections with super modern people because sports historicity is dependent on statistics and records which are broken constantly and politics for obvious reasons. Eminem, Linda Lovelace, Mel Blanc, and Jack the Ripper are the only super modern non sports/politics people i would support and only because their field is very ingrained in 21st century culture. Banksy or Damien Hirst also because we have current musicians, actors and writers but no current artists other than Gerhard Richter. I would also support swapping Carol Burnett for Joan Rivers as Rivers is more integral to comedy AND television than Burnett. Other then those people i have mentioned, our modern (1945+) arts/entertainment coverage is complete. GuzzyG (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Spitz was proposed for removal here. J947's public account 00:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Swap: remove Vince Lombardi, add Walter CampEdit

I do not know much about American Football but what do you think to consider swap Vince Lombardi with father of American Football? Lombardi has more language versions than Camp but Camp get better statistics outside Wikipedia than Lombardi: [33], [34], [35].

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support removal, oppose addition As a coach Vince Lombardi is not as famous and vital as other three football players, who were for example listed in ESPN 100 Athletes of the 20th Century. --Thi (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support removal, oppose addition Three is more than enough for American Football, which is not a sport that is very big globally. Neljack (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Lombardi is one of the most iconic coaches in the history of the sport. I would rather swap Jim Brown or Jerry Rice, who don't seem as significant. As GuzzyG notes below, it would make more sense to have a quarterback to represent the sport. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

BTW I am not 100% sure 2 representants is better option for Grindon than one representant. Matthew Webb as maybe 15-th most motable swimmer also is counry-specific but has more language versions and comparable results on WorldCat: [36]. Although on the other hand I note that American Football personalities have good results on Google Nagrams, better than most soccer player (I do not have ikdea why).


I don't think the only coach we cover should be removed. We need a coach just like we need a music producer (which we don't have either), these are highly important roles. Honestly, we should have a Quarterback to represent American football. If we have LeBron James why not Tom Brady? I would swap Jerry Rice for Brady. Keep Brown to cover a earlier time, if Lombardi's removed, we will need a coach from Association football. O. J. Simpson at the end of the day is the only internationally known/vital American football player anyway. Either way Rice is the one who should go, no matter that he got voted number one, he's just not vital and clearly the vote is outdated now with Brady. GuzzyG (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Lombardi was removed here and readded here. J947's public account 00:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

HistoryEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/History for the list of topics in this category.

General commentsEdit

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

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

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

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

BasicsEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/History#Basics for the list of topics in this category.

History by continent and regionEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/History#History by continent and region for the list of topics in this category.

History by countryEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/History#History by country for the list of topics in this category.

PrehistoryEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/History#Prehistory for the list of topics in this category.

Ancient historyEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/History#Ancient history for the list of topics in this category.

Post-classical historyEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/History#Post-classical history for the list of topics in this category.

Early modern historyEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/History#Early modern history for the list of topics in this category.

MagellanEdit

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

I would rather list the latter. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Add 1887 Yellow River floodEdit

The second-deadliest natural disaster in history, which killed 1-2 million people. We already list 1556 Shaanxi earthquake, which had a lesser death toll. - Sdkb (talk) 04:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support As nom. Sdkb (talk) 04:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 06:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Modern historyEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/History#Modern history for the list of topics in this category.

Add 1953 Iranian coup d'étatEdit

Support
  1. As nom. This event is no doubt vital at this level because it was the first United States covert action to overthrow a foreign government during peacetime (according to the lede).--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Don't see why this coup has significance comparable to say the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand or the First Sino-Japanese War. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per above. --Thi (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose We are over the quota in this section. ―Susmuffin Talk 13:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose it's the 1979 coup (listed as Iranian Revolution) that is of critical importance at this level. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Great Chinese FamineEdit

Largest mass-death event in history, causing tens of millions of deaths. Partially covered by Great Leap Forward, but still. - Sdkb (talk) 06:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Sdkb (talk) 06:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 06:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Was removed here. J947(c), at 05:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Historical citiesEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/History#Historical cities for the list of topics in this category.

Add CtesiphonEdit

Ctesiphon was the capital of the Parthian and Sasanian empires.

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

Add AniEdit

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

Previously nominated here. J947(c), at 05:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

History of science and technologyEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/History#History of science and technology for the list of topics in this category.

History of other topicsEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/History#History of other topics for the list of topics in this category.

Add history of philosophyEdit

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

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support. 22:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support The page should be restored (currently a redirect). The two areas are far too expansive to be combined into one article. Endymion.12 (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support – Obviously a vital topic. This list is about (sub)topic areas that deserve to be covered by expansive, good quality articles. There have been a fair few redirect nominations in the years, that communicate rough split opinion among contributors here. J947(c), at 03:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose This is a redirect page. ―Susmuffin Talk 01:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

As it stands at the moment history of philosophy is just a redirect to a section of the philosophy article. History of philosophy would stand a good chance of being a stand alone article......In fact looking into it right now it was a stand alone article until a matter of months ago. [[37]]. I can't find the discussion about it, I'm not going through all the archives. It appears to have been disagreed upon in 2016 to as to whether it should be an article or not as well. Although it appears to be a good suggestion on the surface, and I'm not sure if it's a set in stone rule, we seem to try and avoid redirects in general.  Carlwev  19:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Add History of political thoughtEdit

Is it acceptable that history of economic thought is listed but not this one?

Support
  1. As nom, although I've never read none of the articles I mentioned in this proposal.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support. 22:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Auxiliary sciences of historyEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/History#Auxiliary sciences of history for the list of topics in this category.

GeographyEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Geography for the list of topics in this category.

Add ArizonaEdit

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

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We do not need to list another American state. ―Susmuffin Talk 06:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose agree with Susmuffin but in any case there are 5-10 more important states than Arizona not listed. Gizza (t)(c) 13:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose there are more important states listed. Looking at that section, is a bit odd that we list the South, Midwest, West, and New England as regions, but not the Northeast more generally. - Sdkb (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    I concur. J947(c), at 21:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose – IMO we should swap a few US cities for US states, but ahead of Arizona there's Pennsylvania, Colorado, Michigan, and a few roughly equal to Arizona. I think we should just add the first three in swaps. J947(c), at 03:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Not the first state I would add if I were to add another. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Western Europe and Mediterranean BasinEdit

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

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Western Europe without a doubt but surely there's a better article than Mediterranean Basin. J947(c), at 03:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Western Europe per J947. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Geography for the list of topics in this category.

Add North American CordilleraEdit

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

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

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

Add Eastern EuropeEdit

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

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2019
  2. Support as culturally significant as a region. More vital than New Britain by a long shot. More vital than most entries here, probably. J947(c), at 03:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I don't see why it's any more vital to list at this level than Western Europe, Northern Europe, or Southern Europe. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Western Europe is not listed. ―Susmuffin Talk 23:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Add AntarcticEdit

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

Support
  1. Strong support As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Unnecessary at this level. Arctic Ocean is paired with Southern Ocean. Arctic is paired with Antarctica. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Rreagon's rationale. - Sdkb (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. Weak oppose per Rreagan, but might be vital enough at this level. J947(c), at 04:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Swap George Town, Penang for PenangEdit

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

Support
  1. As nominator. feminist (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Nom's rationale sounds reasonable to me. - Sdkb (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support. Not to be considered on the same plain as other regions due to nom's statement, perhaps best under 'Islands'. J947(c), at 04:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    Actually, I think Penang should be placed under Regions and country subdivisions, in the same way as how Galicia, Texas and Fujian are listed. feminist (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    It does seem best but I could easily imagine a discussion in the next few years on removing Penang passing unanimously because it's not as vital as other regions. That it's an island gives a good alternative option to half-signify its there instead of George Town. J947's public account 23:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    Sure, that sounds reasonable. feminist (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 22:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

George Town was added here. J947's public account 23:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

add Scottish HighlandsEdit

Physical geography in genral is underrepresentedd at this level and Scottish Highlands clearly are the most notable moutains from English-speaking world missed at this level. If we check to disambig Highlander first suggestion (as primary topic) are people who live in Scottish Highlands

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Weak supportJ947(c), at 05:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Famous for its nature (and Celtic culture). --Thi (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

swap: remove Aoraki / Mount Cook, add Southern AlpsEdit

Recently we have added Aoraki but it just was our mistake. Southern Alps deserve for includsion because of only Scottish highlands are more vital moutains from English-speaking world for this level. Meanwhile Aoraki (obviously as single mountain in southern alps) is nothing special among List of peaks by prominence. There are plenty moutains with better Topographic prominence and some of them (for example Mount Kinabalu) also do not have parent peak. This make Aoraki not vital at this level. When we seldon list member of bands ahead of bands I think we should list Shoutern Alps ahead of Aoraki. I also do not support add Mount Kinabalu (more vital moutain IMO) due to fact Mount Pelée is proper addition because of this voulcan had impact for history by its eruption.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per my comments here. J947(c), at 05:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support - an improvement Gizza (t)(c) 22:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Related discussions here and here. J947's public account 23:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

add Mount PeléeEdit

Second largest eruption of voulcan in history of world. Physical geographu is underrepresented. Perhaps voulcans and waterfalls are two fields the most underrepresented at this level

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

swap Leeds for BelfastEdit

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

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support addition, oppose removing Leeds. The Leeds–Bradford metropolitan area is the 4th largest in the UK by population. It should be kept on the list. feminist (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support addition, oppose removing Leeds per above. The capital and largest city in Northern Ireland is needed at this level. --Thi (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

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

@Rreagan007: suggested to add New Zealand ahead of Peru at the level 3 despite fact New Zealand represents completly other region than Peru does, meanwhile France and UK are on the same continent. If New Zealand is more important to English Wikipedia even despite fact it represents much younger (+much smaller) continent than South America I think United Kington should have 25% more cities when both countries represents Europe. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I must say that I completely disagree that Peru is more vital than New Zealand. It has a far longer history, far more people, and I'd take a guess that even if we read the tailored to the English-language Wikipedia that strictly, there'd be more English speakers in Peru than in New Zealand. After all, it is a global language. J947(c), at 20:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Belfast was previously nominated here. J947's public account 23:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

BasicsEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Geography#Basics for the list of topics in this category.

Physical geographyEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Geography#Physical geography for the list of topics in this category.

Parks and preservesEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Geography#Parks and preserves for the list of topics in this category.

CountriesEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Geography#Countries for the list of topics in this category.

Regions and country subdivisionsEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Geography#Regions and country subdivisions for the list of topics in this category.

CitiesEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Geography#Cities for the list of topics in this category.

Swap Poznań for ŁódźEdit

Łódź historically is bigger city than Poznań

Support
  1. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support removal, no comment on addition. feminist (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Seems better choice. --Thi (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support Łódź is the third-largest city in Poland. ―Susmuffin Talk 23:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

What do you think about swap Poznań for Belfast? Łódź IMO certainly is not less vitala than Poznań but if Gdańsk has to be kept we also have to remove Poznań. Poland is very strongly overrepresented at the level 4 and United Kington strongly underrepresented. Belfast pretty fit at this level. Recently we have added Honolulu to the level 4 despite fact that Honolulu had fewer pageviews than Belfasst for last three years and it is not significant in context of whole USA such like Belfasst is significant in contex of whole United Kington. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Belfast may be a bit too small for this level. feminist (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Swap Canberra for AdelaideEdit

Larger city with a longer history.

Support
  1. As nominator. feminist (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support addition Adelaide also deserve for featured article if it is more vital for people from Oceania. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support removal If the capital is restricted to a small zone and for government buildings only, then it could be well covered already in the respective country article. What's the need for an extra article? Viztor (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support removal per Viztor mainly. There isn't anything in Canberra that makes it vital beyond what is already mentioned in Australia#Nationhood. Gizza (t)(c) 04:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal Capital of the Australia is not enaugh vital at this level? Dawid2009 (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
    Isn't Adelaide more significant? feminist (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose We generally list national capitals. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose removal Canberra
  4. Oppose addition Adelaide isn't really a major city anymore. It's the Australian equivalent of Detroit, being a car manufacturing city which is now suffering economically after all of the factories have closed. I would add more physical geography from Australia before adding any more cities. Gizza (t)(c) 04:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Other
  1. Weak support for removal, neutral for addition. Canberra is nothing but a capital. It was made to be a capital. It has less residents than Katowice, which is a definite removal. It has no history aside its development and the government. It has a barely international airport, a stopover on one route. It has no metro. It isn't the host of a gigantic government like Washington D.C. It doesn't have cultural significance. A bit likewise, Adelaide has nothing either. Nothing but more than a million residents, a little history, and an international airport. Which makes me neutral upon Adelaide. J947(c), at 23:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Strong oppose removal, weak support addition Swapping Canberra with Adelaide because of Adelaide being larger and older than Canberra would be like swapping Washington D.C. with New York City for the same reasons. Of course, NYC is already on the list (and at level 3, even), but my point still stands. However, with Adelaide containing >75% of the population of the population of South Australia, I wouldn't say it can't be on the list. InvalidOStalk 12:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support addition, neutral for removal. Adelaide is the only major Australian city not listed as a level 4 vital article. Interstellarity T 🌟 13:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support addition, oppose removal. Canberra's capital status means it should be included, despite it being otherwise uninteresting. Adelaide is on the same level as Brisbane and Perth, so should be added. Also, keeping with Australia, New South Wales should be replaced with Northern Territory, as then every state/territory is either included or has its capital included, but not both. Calbow (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support addition and oppose removal, since a/the capital of a country is no doubt vital at this level (thus Canberra is vital at this level), and Adelaide was the third largest city in Australia until the post-war era.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

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

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

And wow, right above that is me nominating Adelaide then withdrawing. I'm going to say Neutral for now. –J947(c), at 05:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure that if a country (or any other subdivision) has five or more cities on this list or the VA5 list, at least one of them should be the capital. Thoughts? pbp 18:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Another related nomination is found here. J947's public account 23:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

ArtsEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Arts for the list of articles in this category.

Add ArtistEdit

We list The arts at level 1. I think the people who create the stuff we're talking about deserve at least level 4. We list other occupations like Lawyer, Teacher, and Physician at this level. - Sdkb (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Sdkb (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 06:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Interesing discussions here and here. Dawid2009 (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

ArchitectureEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Arts#Architecture for the list of articles in this category.

Cultural venuesEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Arts#Cultural venues for the list of articles in this category.

LiteratureEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Arts#Literature for the list of articles in this category.

Add Fictional universeEdit

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

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 07:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Seems like a pretty vital concept in terms of understanding how fiction works. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support, from looking at it the article has a wide-encompassing meaning. –J947(c), at 05:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Fiction has more importance in the long-run than many "historical" subjects with minimal cultural impact. Dimadick (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)).
  7. Support as per Presidentman and J497. InvalidOStalk 13:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  8. Support core component of modern fiction. GuzzyG (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  9. Support This is one of the most important concepts in modern fiction. ―Susmuffin Talk 16:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC) Literary critics are usually interested about other concepts (Glossary of literary terms). --Thi (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    Any reason? J947(c), at 23:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. This article is more narrow in scope and less vital than Setting (narrative). Rreagan007 (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
    1. @Rreagan007:This argument is invalid since the level 4 list has MS-DOS but not DOS, which is broader.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC) fixed the argument a bit 14:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
      1. @RekishiEJ: It's not invalid at all. We do have a general consensus of including the more general articles at the higher levels, but there are exceptions. As such, the burden is on you to give a good argument as to why this article should be an exception to our general rule. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
  • I withdraw this nomination becaue of I have found in archives [removing Underworld. Underworld has been removed due to fact the article technically remind list but IMO fiction/popular culture can not deserves for better representation than mythology/religion/folklore/oral tradition. However actually this nomination properly should be passed while ago but we are well over quota at this section and I think we can still discuss it for consensus Dawid2009 (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC) I chaned my opinion again, because of we also list things like Fictional character or Superhero. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I see that there is also Fantasy world and Worldbuilding. I'm not exactly sure what the distinctions are, but I agree we ought to have something relating to the general concept listed at this level. - Sdkb (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Add Black comedyEdit

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

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

Note: Comedy is listed here at level 4, but I just nominated it for level 3. - Sdkb (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Add Commedia dell'arteEdit

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

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

Swap: Add The Jungle BookEdit

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

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I'm afraid it has not aged very well. --Thi (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose We are over the quota in this section. ―Susmuffin Talk 16:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

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

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

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support High-impact work. "The Grimms believed that the most natural and pure forms of culture were linguistic and based in history.[1] The work of the Brothers Grimm influenced other collectors, both inspiring them to collect tales and leading them to similarly believe, in a spirit of romantic nationalism, that the fairy tales of a country were particularly representative of it, to the neglect of cross-cultural influence.[2] Among those influenced were the Russian Alexander Afanasyev, the Norwegians Peter Christen Asbjørnsen and Jørgen Moe, the English Joseph Jacobs, and Jeremiah Curtin, an American who collected Irish tales.[3] There was not always a pleased reaction to their collection. Joseph Jacobs was in part inspired by his complaint that English children did not read English fairy tales;[4] in his own words, "What Perrault began, the Grimms completed". W. H. Auden praised the collection during World War II as one of the founding works of Western culture.[5] The tales themselves have been put to many uses. Adolf Hitler praised them as folkish tales showing children with sound racial instincts seeking racially pure marriage partners, and so strongly that the Allied forces warned against them;[6] for instance, Cinderella with the heroine as racially pure, the stepmother as an alien, and the prince with an unspoiled instinct being able to distinguish.[7] Writers who have written about the Holocaust have combined the tales with their memoirs, as Jane Yolen in her Briar Rose.[8] Dimadick (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. --Thi (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support addition --LaukkuTheGreit (TalkContribs) 14:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support addition GuzzyG (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal Being rated by critics as the best does not override supremely groundbreaking movies, without Snow White there's no Pinocchio. GuzzyG (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference jackz was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Acocella, Joan. "Once Upon a Time", The New Yorker, July 23, 2012
  3. ^ Jack Zipes, The Great Fairy Tale Tradition: From Straparola and Basile to the Brothers Grimm, p 846, ISBN 0-393-97636-X
  4. ^ Maria Tatar, p 345-5, The Annotated Classic Fairy Tales, ISBN 0-393-05163-3
  5. ^ Maria Tatar, "Reading the Grimms' Children's Stories and Household Tales" p. xxx, Maria Tatar, ed. The Annotated Brothers Grimm, ISBN 0-393-05848-4
  6. ^ Maria Tatar, "-xxxix, Maria Tatar, ed. The Annotated Brothers Grimm, ISBN 0-393-05848-4
  7. ^ Lynn H. Nicholas, Cruel World: The Children of Europe in the Nazi Web p 77-8 ISBN 0-679-77663-X
  8. ^ Maria Tatar, "Reading the Grimms' Fairy Stories and Household Tales" p. xlvi, Maria Tatar, ed. The Annotated Brothers Grimm, ISBN 0-393-05848-4

Swap: remove Merlin, add Aesop's FablesEdit

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

Support
  1. As nom. I strongly support especially remival because of we do not need two characters from the same genere. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support removal. Merlin is not as vital as King Arthur. However Aesop is listed in the People. --Thi (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
    I think Aesop's Fables should be before Aesop himself. In eventuality it's the only thing that makes him famous and the article about the fables is probably more important. J947's public account 23:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support removal per Thi. Neljack (talk) 12:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support removal per Thi. GuzzyG (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Previous discussions about Merlin. J947's public account 23:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Add The Little MermaidEdit

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

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose We are over the quota in this section. ―Susmuffin Talk 17:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Not at this level. --Thi (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Add The Adventures of PinocchioEdit

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

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose most translated is like best selling. doesn't make something automatically vital. GuzzyG (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Swap: remove Great ExpectationsEdit

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

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

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

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

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

We currently list only two Dickens works: "A Chritmas Carol" and "Great Expectations", David Coperfield is not listed (I doubt any pure writer other than Sheakspeare had ever more than two works listed). I intentionally nominated Great Expectations because of firstly I though A Christmas Carol is the one we should have but after reading some discussions in archives I assume it can be even more vital than either of David Coperfield and A Christmas Carol. J947's link is not the only where was contigent that Great Expectations should be keep Dawid2009 (talk) 10:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add De rerum naturaEdit

Influential poetic work by Lucretius. "... theories of the atomic structure of matter and the emergence and evolution of life forms – ideas that would eventually form a crucial foundation and background for the development of western science. In addition to his literary and scientific influence, Lucretius has been a major source of inspiration for a wide range of modern philosophers..." (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) [38]

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

Swap: remove Saga, add StorytellingEdit

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. Sdkb (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal. The list contains many individual works of world literature and some of the sagas could as well be among them. --Thi (talk) 06:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Saga was added here. J947's public account 00:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Add WriterEdit

We list occupations like Lawyer, Teacher, and Physician at level 4, but both Writer and Author are relegated to level 5. I think we ought to elevate one. - Sdkb (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Sdkb (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 06:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support; agree with nom. J947's public account 00:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Interesing discussions here and here. (ping @Cobblet, Carlwev, DaGizza, Thi, Neljack, Wumbolo, Susmuffin, Power~enwiki, and J947: who were participating in these discussions) However I do not think it is vital. Article like Filmmaker even does not exist (it is redirect at the moment to filmmaking). Quite frankly IMO when we are way over quota we should rather remove all articles like physician. Dawid2009 (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

There are some occupations that many people interact with, and are a vital part of society, most people interact with teachers and doctors/physicians numerous times in their lives for example who provide a service. Not many people interact with writers other than by reading their writing. I would imagine there are more teachers than there are writers. We do list things like Mathematician, farmer, soldier, and scientist which is in the same the same ball park as writer and artist. If we list writer and artist in addition to writing, literature, art and the arts. (Looking at the vital 100 list of topics that have equivalent jobs) why are they more important than chemist in addition to chemistry, or biologist, physicist, tailor, chef, athlete, industrialist, merchant, filmmaker, architect, historian, linguist, philosopher etc in addition to their fields.? When is it appropriate to list a person/expert in addition to their field? I am not sure of the answer but a lot of duplication could arise, how much is acceptable? which areas are acceptable, which are not? I am not sure......For comparison We don't list Christian and Muslim in addition to Christianity and Islam. Although we list a few most nationalities/race/peoples are not listed; eg we don't list Russians in addition to Russia, or Mexicans in addition to Mexico. They are quite substantial topics covering millions of people but are probably seen as covered and redundant to other articles; are writer and artist redundant to literature and art? is musician redundant to music?  Carlwev  19:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

MusicEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Arts#Music for the list of topics in this category.

Swap: add Song, remove Singer-songwriterEdit

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

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support. Singer-songwriter is not absolutely necessary concept and Song is more general. --Thi (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (TalkContribs) 14:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support Song is clearly more basic and important. Neljack (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support This is one of the basic forms of music. ―Susmuffin Talk 17:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  7. Support Dimadick (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  8. Support Song is clearly vital, singer-songwriter clearly less so. - Sdkb (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  9. SupportJ947(c), at 04:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  10. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Previous nominations here. J947's public account 00:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Add Keyboard instrument and Electronic musical instrumentEdit

Both are vital for this level.

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

Keyboard instrument was previously proposed here. J947(c), at 04:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Add LullabyEdit

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

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

Remove White Christmas (song)Edit

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

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom and my previous nomination. --Thi (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support We also list the song's most prominent singer. ―Susmuffin Talk 15:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support Don't see a need for so many singles at this level. Many of the "specific musical works" are among the least vital art articles and we're over quota by 3 in Arts and 16 overall. Gizza (t)(c) 22:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support not vital enough, best selling/most famous isn't enough if people like Marilyn Monroe are not on the level 3 list, if it does not apply there, it shouldn't apply here. On that note Carmina Burana (Orff) and The Death of Socrates are the next weakest links on the arts page and should be nominated next. GuzzyG (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support. I'm not sure we should have any specific songs on this list, when we don't even have the article Song. bd2412 T 02:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  7. Support Song is indeed a bizarre omission. Neljack (talk) 07:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  8. Support per Guzzy. Opposers are unconvincing. J947's public account 22:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - biggest selling individual single in history at over 50 million. Total sales over 100 million in all versions. Song awarded an Academy Award and still popular around the world despite being released many decades ago. Only song in history to be at the top of the U.S. sales charts in three different years. Listed in the article as behind only Over the Rainbow on the Songs of the Century list. Clearly vital at level 4. Supporters are unconvincing. Jusdafax (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Being the best selling single in history means that it is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose removal due to its best selling status.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

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

Previous nomination here. J947's public account 22:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Remove Carmina Burana (Orff)Edit

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

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

Performing artsEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Arts#Performing arts for the list of articles in this category.

Remove Performance artEdit

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

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose All major forms of art should be included, a completely different, unique form of art is not comparable to "spiritual practice" either. GuzzyG (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose The two articles have a similar title but refer to very different concepts. Performance art is a specific (albeit wide-ranging) genre, involving artists like Marina Abramović. Performing art, on the other hand, is an umbrella term covering all theatre, dance, etc. - Sdkb (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Visual artsEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Arts#Visual arts for the list of topics in this category.

Modern visual artsEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Arts#Modern visual arts for the list of topics in this category.

Fictional charactersEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Arts#Fictional characters for the list of articles in this category.

Remove SuperheroEdit

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

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose General article about superheroes is needed, specific examples are not as vital. --Thi (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --LaukkuTheGreit (TalkContribs) 11:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose We need a general article on the concept. ―Susmuffin Talk 22:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Dimadick (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  6. Oppose as per above. J947(c), at 04:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

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

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

Move Pokemon to fictional charactersEdit

In the archives I found contigents ([39]) where some editors have [agreed] each other that [[Pokemon] are not vital as [[video game] but colud fit as character/franchise. If we decide move Pokemon to art section with characters from popular culture will be dominated by characters from Japan (Mario, Pokemon, Godzilla, King Kong) and we will have only two characters from west which are both from Walt Disney Company. On that basis I suggest to remove Godzilla and King Kong

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose the article is based on the media franchise, not the characters of the franchise. Gizza (t)(c) 22:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per DaGizza and the media franchise itself is almost certainly more vital than as a character or the video game. J947's public account 23:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose The franchise is more important than its characters and creatures. ―Susmuffin Talk 04:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

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

FWIHW there were at least two times discussions about these problems: here and here. If opposers says that Pokemon is article about franchise, not Pokemon (characters) I can as well says that Pokemon is not about article Pokemon (video games) and we do not list anyy franchises in every day section but we list plenty franchises in art section and society section on level 5. I think that article about franchise should be priritized because of article about chracter is list but after thinkink about this list veeeery long=, finally I consider tht we should list franchise about James Bond instead James Bond the character and put Pokemon next to Mario in art ection (due to we list Hello Kitty and ikatchu in art section on the level 5). Problem with listing Pokemon among video games is fact that if we consider Pokemon puly as video game it is not among top 3 video gzmes of all time and we do not list franchises in every day life ection. @Carlwev: where you would put Pokemon (I ping you because of you were participating in recent discussions about confusing franchises with fictional characters)? Dawid2009 (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
The article is about the media franchise and very little of it is about the character. We shouldn't put media franchises in the character section. Also, the reason why people often vote directly after another person is because the discussion shows up in the history and so renews interest of the discussion. J947(c), at 21:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Remove King Kong and GodzillaEdit

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

Support
  1. As nom
  2. Support Famous popular culture references, but Level 5 will suffice. --Thi (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (TalkContribs) 11:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support Clearly more notable than Hello Kitty. But still not enough. GuzzyG (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose

King Kong was added here. Godzilla was added here. Other discussions: 1. J947's public account 22:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Remove X-men, add Stock characterEdit

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

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

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

Swap: remove Don Juan, add ZorroEdit

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

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support removal Mozart's opera Don Giovanni is the best-known version of the legend and it is listed at this level. --Thi (talk) 10:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support "Being one of the earliest examples of a fictional masked avenger with a double identity, Zorro inspired the creation of several similar characters in pulp magazines and other media, and is a precursor of the superheroes of American comic books. Bob Kane has credited Zorro as part of the inspiration for the character Batman, which was created in 1939." --LaukkuTheGreit (TalkContribs) 11:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support removal, oppose addition We already list the most prominent depiction of Don Juan. Meanwhile, Zorro is simply another pulp character. Why should we list a pulp character when we do not list the magazines themselves? ―Susmuffin Talk 23:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support removal, oppose addition GuzzyG (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support addition, oppose removal Zorro is a high-impact character. "Being one of the earliest examples of a fictional masked avenger with a double identity, Zorro inspired the creation of several similar characters in pulp magazines and other media, and is a precursor of the superheroes of American comic books." Dimadick (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition. Zorro is one of many pulp characters. --Thi (talk) 10:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Don Juan is more universal of a character. @Thi: I think I'd rather keep the character and delete the Opera. pbp 19:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Add UFOEdit

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

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

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

Philosophy and religionEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Philosophy and religion for the list of articles in this category.

PhilosophyEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Philosophy and religion#Philosophy for the list of articles in this category.


Religion and spiritualityEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Philosophy and religion#Religion and spirituality for the list of topics in this category.

Specific religionsEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Philosophy and religion#Specific religions for the list of topics in this category.

Western esotericism and New religious movementsEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Philosophy and religion#Western esotericism and New religious movements for the list of topics in this category.

MythologyEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Philosophy and religion#Mythology for the list of topics in this category.

Everyday lifeEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Everyday life for the list of topics in this category.

Add Wedding receptionEdit

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

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Too specific at this level. Wedding is more important. --Thi (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --LaukkuTheGreit (TalkContribs) 14:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose – Hardly important here. J947(c), at 22:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Wedding is already listed. ―Susmuffin Talk 23:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Swap: remove Tetris, add FutsalEdit

Futsal as indoor version of soccer (I belive almost everyone have ever played Futsal on winter) is more vital than Tetris. I also think that Nintendo and Video Game Industry are better articles to coverage of video games and I doubt we can find place for Tetris when we even do not list something like Internet slang or Online chattingat technology section.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition it's like dodgeball which IIRC was proposed for addition and failed a year or two ago: it's a game with no real professionalism about it, just merely a not-too-common kids game. I'd add dodgeball before it. Weak oppose on removal – I feel like one of the three video games/modern franchises here deserves to be removed and that's between Tetris and Pong. I'm leaning towards Pong. J947(c), at 22:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Tetris was added here and proposed for removal here. J947(c), at 22:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Swap: remove Pong, add Video game industryEdit

Pong as milestone is less vital than History of video games same. However Video Games have way too short history to we need article like History of video games. Video game industry is article which we need in Every Day Life section and could be replaced with Pong.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support removal per my previous nom. --Thi (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (TalkContribs) 14:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. Weak support per my comments in the above nomination. J947(c), at 23:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition the video game industry is less vital than at least 10-20 other industry not listed here. Health care, hospitality, petroleum, fashion, film, music, food, etc. all should be in first. Gizza (t)(c) 03:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Pong has been proposed for removal twice, here and here. J947(c), at 23:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I have given some thought to industry articles. I think we would benefit from discussion as to what industry articles to include in addition to their parent article. For example Music industry is only level 5, Film industry appears to not be listed in the project. Construction industry, tourism industry Transport industry and entertainment industry do not even exist as articles they are redirects. There must be many similar examples I'm not thinking of or mentioning as well. Aviation industry does not exist. Why video game industry before music or film industry? where is it appropriate to have industry article in addition to parent article? a lot of duplication could arise.... Going off topic, but similar issue was in my head as to when to include a people in addition to a country/region, and if to include specific mining article in addition to a resource, eg coal mining in addition to coal and mining.  Carlwev  15:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Swap: remove Pinball, add PubEdit

Pinball is covered by Arcade Game. Some games which we list in everyday life are historically popular ALSO thank to pubs.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support--LaukkuTheGreit (TalkContribs) 14:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support removal. --Thi (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Support Pubs are old and popular thing. Oppose addition Bar is listed. --Thi (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Note: We already list Bar at this level, which has some overlap. - Sdkb (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Pub was proposed for removal twice, here and here. J947(c), at 23:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

add CapoeiraEdit

Cultural combination of Martial arts/acrobatics/dance. The most vital sport missed at this level which is also known for centuries. It get more pageviews on PTwiki than Samba and outside world cup, in general it is way much more vital for Brazilians than soccer players just like Pele, Garrincha, Ronaldo etc. Also for people who train acrobatics it is centairly quite vital. Popiularity of this sport will be growing growing just like popularity of acrobatics or parkour etc.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

add Muay ThaiEdit

One of two national sports for Thailand. Sepak takraw is listed at this level and is less vital for Thailand than Thai boxing

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. It is better known in Taiwan than sepak takraw.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support If we list 100 sportspeople like 9 tennis players and some speed skaters and figure skaters, I think Muay Thai is more vital, it appears in around 65 languages, is popular outside US and Europe.  Carlwev  19:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
Playing card removed (5-0). No consensus to remove tarot (2-1). Gizza (t)(c) 03:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Playing card and TarotEdit

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

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Too specific things at this level. --Thi (talk) 08:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support removing playing card. Neutral on tarot which has significance more for its association with the occult and divination than being used as playing cards. Gizza (t)(c) 07:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support the first removal, neutral on the second The playing card is as important as the chess piece; they are both quotidian objects. Meanwhile, the Tarot is important for its association with the occult. I would be inclined to support its removal if we exceed the quota. ―Susmuffin Talk 15:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support playing card removal as it is an object designed only for use in a game. Oppose tarot removal as its function is different to that of a game item. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose both: pbp 14:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

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

@Purplebackpack89: Technically Tarot was 2–2 at the time of closure so shouldn't have been removed. J947(c), at 21:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@J947: I have reclosed it to reflect the difference in votes and lack of consensus to remove tarot. Gizza (t)(c) 03:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Clothing and fashionEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Everyday life#Clothing and fashion for the list of topics in this category.

Cooking, food and drinkEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Everyday life#Cooking, food and drink for the list of topics in this category.

Add SnackEdit

We list breakfast/lunch/dinner, as well as dessert, here. Eating is level 2, and snacking is a common type of eating. - Sdkb (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Sdkb (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. Weak supportJ947's public account 23:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Family and kinshipEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Everyday life#Family and kinship for the list of topics in this category.

Household itemsEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Everyday life#Household items for the list of topics in this category.

Sexuality and genderEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Everyday life#Sexuality for the list of topics in this category.

Sports and recreationEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Everyday life#Sports and recreation for the list of topics in this category.

Stages of lifeEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Everyday life#Stages of life for the list of topics in this category.

Society and social sciencesEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences for the list of topics in this category.

Add CraftEdit

Fundamental topics for human's creativity

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

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

Craft was removed here. J947(c), at 23:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Add NintendoEdit

This company is needed when we list for example severalWalt Disney company specific subtopics. I think that Nintendo is important to cover video game's industry. Same inventor of Pokemon has more language versions than Vince Lombardi who is the only pure sport businessmen on the list.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Emergency medical servicesEdit

When Police is level 3 article, First aid is 4 (nomineted to level 3 too), Emergency medical services fits on level 4.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support I think anyone who's ever needed to use them would agree they're quite vital. - Sdkb (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Swap: remove Looney Tunes, add Warner BrosEdit

If DC Comics] was swapped for AT&T, I think we should swap Looney Tunes for Warner Bros (although Warner Bros also are not wide topic like AT&T). In my opinion we need to add Warner Bros because of History of film is level 3 article meanwhile Looney Tunes has ben swapped for Bugs Bunny while ago. I also blive we need more companies which are moentioned in List of most-viewed online videos in the first 24 hours#Top trailers (includong Warner Bros).

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

Discussions of interest. J947(c), at 23:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

GeneralEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#General for the list of topics in this category.

AnthropologyEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Anthropology for the list of topics in this category.

Business and economicsEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Business and economics for the list of topics in this category.

Remove TariffEdit

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 12:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose throughout human history, tariffs have been an extremely important source of revenue collection. Articles like free trade, mercantilism, protectionism, etc. can all be seen as subsets of the article on tariffs, since all ultimately concern how/whether to apply tariffs. The tariff article is far more important than e.g. flat tax and value-added tax, and is comparable to other level 4 vital articles like sales tax, property tax, and income tax. Orser67 (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Swap with Protectionism
  1. Support We should include a more general article on protectionism, as it is the economic policy of restricting imports from other countries. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support per below. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 13:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support The general ideology is more vital than the specific mechanism. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. We have neither Free trade nor Mercantilism. wumbolo ^^^ 21:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support More vital topic. --Thi (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

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

I would support that swap as well. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@DaGizza and PointsofNoReturn: I have added a swap option to this proposal. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Swap: remove Sales tax, add Value-added taxEdit

Sales tax is only really relevant for the USA, while VAT is found in most of the rest of the world. VAT article is also more extensive.

Support
  1. Support as nom.T8612 (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support addition per nom. --Thi (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support swap. feminist (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Many countries have sales taxes. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Add FoxconnEdit

Even though it doesn't have widespread name recognition in the U.S., it's a larger company than most of the companies currently at level 4. From its article intro: "it is the world's largest contract electronics manufacturer and the fourth-largest information technology company by revenue. ... one of the largest employers worldwide. ... Foxconn factories manufactured an estimated 40% of all consumer electronics sold worldwide."

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Sdkb (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 05:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Per above. Biggest in industry should be enough. Viztor (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

There is currently 116 Top-importance company articles. Foxconn is one of those, but I am not sure if it stands out. --Thi (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Add TencentEdit

For residents in the Mainland China (probably in Greater China as well) this company is as vital as Alibaba, which is currently listed. Besides, it is the world's largest gaming company, one of the world's most valuable technology conglomerates, one of the world's largest social media companies, and one of the world's largest venture capital firms and investment corporations (taken from the lede).

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Both Tencent and Alibaba have about the same market value and cultural impact, so it doesn't make sense to list one but not the other. - Sdkb (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

CultureEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Culture for the list of topics in this category.

Remove Harvest festivalEdit

We have article about custom related to Equinox between summer and autumn but we do not have other Equinox/Solstice festivals. How Harvesr festival is more vital than eostre, saturnalia or Saint John's Eve? Even local slavic versions like Dozhinki or Kupala Night have comparable pageviews in number of forgein languages. I think that when we are over quota we could make room for these types of customs on the level 5.

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose while we don't have Thanksgiving, as this is the only article covering it. I'd be potentially open to a swap, or to adding it in addition; I'd need to first check how important harvest festivals in other parts of the world and historical harvest festivals are. - Sdkb (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per my comments below and the fact that harvest festivals are found throughout the world. I would rather have this article than Thanksgiving, which only really applies to the U.S. and Canada. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

@Dawid2009: are you suggesting that we have a variety of different examples rather than the general article? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Since we are way over quota in this section I was looking for where we could do some cuts. I noted that we cover all customs related to Equinox/Solstice except the summer (for example Saint John's Eve). Easter and Christmas debatedly cover Equinox/Solstice of Spring and Winter. I would compare Harvest festival rather to older traditions like eostre and saturnalia than christmas and easter which are much mre promient and I do not see why we need to cover all Equinox/Solstice except the Summer but I do not see issue with keeping only Easter and Christmas. Dawid2009 (talk) 08:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I still don't quite understand your reasoning, as harvest festivals aren't really related to an equinox or a solstice, so I'm going to to oppose for now. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Harvest festival was added here. J947(c), at 23:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

EducationEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Education for the list of topics in this category.

Add SkillEdit

Learning is a level-3 article, so this should be level-4. Behavior and Preference also seem debatable, but I'm not going to nominate them at the moment.

Support
  1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 19:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  2. Tentative support. It carries a wibbly-wobbly dictionary-like feel for it, but it definitely needs attention, and unlike businessperson I think it could be made a FA. Suppose it's the kind of thing which is either at VA2 or lingers in a dirty unknown corner that isn't even level 5. J947(c), at 10:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Weak support Dawid2009 (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Learning is at the level 3, because of knowledge is at the level 2. Preference is not listedd because of Hobby is at the level 5. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: what does preference have to do with hobby? wumbolo ^^^ 11:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Replace University of London with University College London (UCL)Edit

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

Support
  1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robminchin (talkcontribs) 06:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support removal The institution's constituents are more vital than the overall body. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support as proposed. feminist (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support The University College London has a longer and more prominent history than the body that is currently part of. ―Susmuffin Talk 03:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support removal Per my comment below. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support removal Perhaps universities are overrepresented at this level as Dawid2009 says. --Thi (talk) 11:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose swap I feel like UCL may be worthy of inclusion, but, at this point, I would rather swap with the London School of Economics (also part of the University of London). - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose KCL, Imperial, and LSE have at least similar reputation and importance in academia. You cannot reduce the University of London to UCL. I prefer removing University of London than adding UCL, or swap it with the Russell Group.T8612 (talk) 08:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose addition We are over wuota at this section and have far too many univertities while have far too few languagrs at this level. We even do not list Catalan language despite fact Cztalan Wikipedia for very long time was one of the biggest Wikipedias. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

One related discussion here. J947(c), at 23:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

EthnologyEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Ethnology for the list of topics in this category.

International organizationsEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#International organizations for the list of topics in this category.

LanguageEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Language for the list of topics in this category.

LawEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Law for the list of topics in this category.

Mass mediaEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Mass media for the list of topics in this category.

MuseumsEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Museums for the list of topics in this category.

Politics and governmentEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Politics and government for the list of topics in this category.

Remove Cult of personalityEdit

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

Support
  1. Support as nominator. J947(c), at 21:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose a tad specific but I believe it's a useful article in understanding how totalitarian regimes work. In the present day it is most applicable to North Korea but cults of personality have been present worldwide for a long time. Gizza (t)(c) 23:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

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

PsychologyEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Psychology for the list of topics in this category.

SocietyEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Society for the list of topics in this category.

Remove Life (magazine)Edit

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 11:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Photojournalism is not listed. ―Susmuffin Talk 12:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support, anyone keen for a swap? J947(c), at 20:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  7. Support feminist (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. This magazine is vital, since it was once the American equivalent of Punch, featured some of the greatest writers, editors, illustrators and cartoonists of its time, has published some vital journalistic photos and serialized some figures' memoirs, and contributed to journalism substantially.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removal That magazines today wield less cultural influence than they once did doesn't change their important history. Being defunct isn't an argument for removal, per WP:Recentism. I Support addition of photojournalism as a massively influential subfield of journalism. - Sdkb (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Swap with Photojournalism
  1. Support swap Photojournalism is a basic type of journalism; it is far more important than a defunct magazine. ―Susmuffin Talk 22:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support swap GuzzyG (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support swap – The subject is vital, unlike the magazine. J947(c), at 04:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support swap feminist (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Add HomophobiaEdit

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Sdkb (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. Culturally important nowadays. And likely to get more and more so. J947's public account 23:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support I am surprised that this was not already listed. ―Susmuffin Talk 01:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

SociologyEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Sociology for the list of topics in this category.

War and militaryEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#War and military for the list of topics in this category.

Swap Medal for AwardEdit

Medal as an article is more about the object, and less about similar items like ribbons, badges, pins and sashes. While Award is not as military-oriented, we can always add Order (distinction). wumbolo ^^^ 18:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support I assume that Wumbolo supports his own proposal.
  2. Support The article on awards has a more general topic. Also, this article should probably be moved to another section. ―Susmuffin Talk 23:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support removal. I don't think we really need to list either one at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support removal Probably more useful topic at this leve.. --Thi (talk) 08:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support, probably best to discuss the merits of keeping or discarding Award in a different proposal. J947(c), at 09:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  7. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)).
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition. We don't need either at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Biology and health sciencesEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences for the list of topics in this category.

Add SociobiologyEdit

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

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

Add Biosphere, Flora and FaunaEdit

All these three terms are essential part of physical geography. More vital than specific deserts.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose flora and fauna. There is nothing in those articles that would not be covered in plant and animal. Redundant. Gizza (t)(c) 13:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose flora and fauna because of redundancy. --Thi (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

BasicsEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences#Basics for the list of topics in this category.

Add molecular geneticsEdit

Support
  1. As nom. From the lede of the article "This is useful in the study of developmental biology and in understanding and treating genetic diseases." and two hot topics mentioned in it - gene therapy and Human Genome Project, it is no doubt vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Important topic in genetics. --Thi (talk) 08:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add molecular evolutionEdit

Since evolution is considered vital at level 2, it is better to include more subtopics of it. Because of molecular biology's high vitality, molecular evolution should be included.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Important topic in genetics. --Thi (talk) 08:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Anatomy and morphologyEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences#Anatomy and morphology for the list of topics in this category.

Biochemistry and molecular biologyEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences#Biochemistry and molecular biology for the list of topics in this category.

Biological processes and physiologyEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences#Biological processes and physiology for the list of topics in this category.

Add BirthEdit

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

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

BTW the L3 proposal has failed. J947's public account 00:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

BotanyEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences#Botany for the list of topics in this category.

Cell biologyEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences#Cell biology for the list of topics in this category.

EcologyEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences#Ecology for the list of topics in this category.

ZoologyEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences#Zoology for the list of topics in this category.

OrganismsEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences#Organisms for the list of topics in this category.

Swap Passerine for Tinamou in Basic 10Edit

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

Support
  1. Support as nom MeegsC (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. Agree Craigthebirder (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. Tentative support. Passerines are a far more important topic concerning birds and tinamous is covered by Palaeognathae. However, if the aim is ten articles covering important aspects of birds I would consider songbird over passerines (perching birds). Which captures the essense of birds more, bird song or perching?   Jts1882 | talk  06:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support but MeegsC generally swapping is meant as swapping one article off the list for another one to go on the list. J947's public account 00:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support in principle, but just get rid of the "Basic bird articles" header (see comments below). Plantdrew (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  • Passerine is already listed, just not under the first basic 10 bird articles but further down in its own section along with song bird. We could discuss moving existing articles about. I agree passerine is more vital than tinamou.  Carlwev  03:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @Carlwev: that's why I suggested swapping them. ;) MeegsC (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • If tinamous are removed from the basic ten they need to be placed somewhere else. They belong with the ratites, although are not ratites, so that section needs renaming Palaeognaths. The position of Palaeognaths as a basic ten topic might also be reconsidered. Is the importance because it is the primary taxonomic division in birds (rather abstract) or that it contains the large flightless birds (of popular appeal). If the latter, ratites or flightless_birds might be the more vital topic. A basic ten with birds of prey, songbirds, flightless birds and seabirds seems more consistent. Alternatively, if the taxonomic divisions are important, Palaeognaths, Galloanserae and Neoaves should be consider basic ten topics. Neoaves should certainly be in the 118 articles.   Jts1882 | talk  06:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @Jts1882: I did suggest we keep tinamou at level 4, just not in the "top 10"! MeegsC (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • There's nothing particularly "basic" about the 10 "basic bird articles". Flamingo, loon, penguin and tinamou are the only representatives of their orders in VA4, and the listed birds are otherwise arranged by order. I can see not wanting to create sections headers that will only have a single entry, but it's misleading to suggest that these 4 birds are somehow more vital/basic. "Basic bird articles" is a grab bag of entries that don't fit elsewhere. Just get rid of the "basic birds" section header (or create section headers for orders with single entries; I don't care much either way). There is already one order section header with a single entry (Apodiformes). Hummingbird is in the "basic" list but should be moved to Apodiformes. Plantdrew (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
There are already several section headers for plant orders with a single entry. Plantdrew (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Health, medicine and diseaseEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences#Health, medicine and disease for the list of topics in this category.

Add Human fertilizationEdit

We already list Fertilisation and Infertility.

Support
  1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 09:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support good find. Gizza (t)(c) 09:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. This is covered enough by other articles that are already listed. Human fertilization isn't really any different from fertilization that takes place in other mammals. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Opposeper above. Human process doesn't make it that much different.Viztor (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Seems already covered. Would be good for level 5. - Sdkb (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Physical sciencesEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Physical sciences for the list of topics in this category.

Swap: remove Astronomical object, add Gravitational accelerationEdit

Astronomical object is just list. Gravitational acccleration is vital topic.

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

BasicsEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Physical sciences#Basics for the list of topics in this category.

MeasurementEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Physical sciences#Measurement for the list of topics in this category.

Remove Cubit, add Anthropic unitsEdit

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support removal. Cubit has no business being listed at this level. It's not currently in active use in any meaningful way and is primarily of historical interest. It should be dropped down to level 5 where other historical measuring units are listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
    Agree that it's fine at level 5. And thanks for fixing the nomination. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support removal Cubit is not in use. --Thi (talk) 08:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support removal. The nomination is more thorough this time. I agree that proposals shouldn't come up again after a short period of time if the arguments are the same but that isn't the case here. Cubits are no more vital than palms which was just as common historically. But list-like or disambiguation pages aren't vital too so I oppose anthropic units. Gizza (t)(c) 23:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support removal As per Rreagan007. InvalidOStalk 00:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support, but, even though this doesn't seem to be the prevailing opinion, only if Anthropic Units is added in its stead, as I think the topic has Level 4 importace. Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 01:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Cubit is a very important historic unit and per what J947 said about anthropic units pbp 15:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Cubit has important historical significance. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    No more than any other ancient units. It's only claim to fame is pretty much being used by the ancient Jewish tribes of the Bible. There's nothing special about cubits, that doesn't also apply to palms, hands, the general concept of arms width (like fathoms/alds), the fingers, or pretty much anything in List of human-based units of measure. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I stand by my previous statement in the older discussion. The cubit has great historical significance and the article anthropic units is currently almost entirely devoid of meaningful content. –Katolophyromai (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Katolophyromai:The whole point of this list is to highlight the articles that are most important to improve, so the fact that the anthropic units article is in bad shape is completely irrelevant to whether or not it should be listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    I actually stand by that judgement often (#Add winter sport) but this is an article consisting of three articles. And only one of the three fits what Headbomb was referring to (and now there's going to be a mammoth discussion about no applicable rationale for addition. Sigh.). J947(c), at 18:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I think cubit is histororically significant, and view "anthropic units" as a neologism. Dimadick (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose addition per my comment below. J947(c), at 21:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  6. Oppose addition --Thi (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

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

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

@J947: And now we're having a new discussion about it. Do you think it belongs in the list or not? Rreagan007 (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Reading that discussion I pointed out above makes me neutral. J947(c), at 20:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to echo J947's concern. I continue to be of the opinion that articles shouldn't be proposed for addition or removal if an addition or removal proposal has failed in the past year. I remember when this project was six years younger we sank a ton of time into repeated proposals about the merits of Harry Potter and I'd like to avoid anything approaching that mess. pbp 15:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
There was a proposal last year for a 1-year rule, and it failed to gain consensus. So as of right now there is no such rule. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dimadick, Katolophyromai, and Presidentman: This proposal may interest you. ―Susmuffin Talk 15:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

AstronomyEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Physical sciences#Astronomy for a complete list of articles in this topic.

ChemistryEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Physical sciences#Chemistry for the list of topics in this category.

Earth scienceEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Physical sciences#Earth science for the list of topics in this category.

Add Natural resource and ResourceEdit

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

Support
  1. Support as nominator. J947(c), at 07:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  07:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Natural resource. --Thi (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support Natural resource per nom. - Sdkb (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support Natural resource. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Resource. --Thi (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. These feel more like dictionary words to me. The different resources and natural resources that are vital are what we should list. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Resource, since seems like a dictionary word. - Sdkb (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Resource. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

PhysicsEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Physical sciences#Physics for the list of topics in this category.

TechnologyEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology for the list of topics in this category.

AgricultureEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Agriculture for the list of topics in this category.

BiotechnologyEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Biotechnology for the list of topics in this category.

Computing and information technologyEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Computing and information technology for the list of topics in this category.

Add Machine translationEdit

Important topic for future generation. Something futurable.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Translation is enough. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose More general AI-related articles such as Turing test, machine learning and technological singularity would be better candidates for promotion.--LaukkuTheGreit (TalkContribs) 11:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Translation is already listed. ―Susmuffin Talk 03:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Until it gains more widespread usage, I just don't think it's vital enough for level 4. - Sdkb (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per above; too early. J947's public account 00:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Ebook and ParchmentEdit

We are well under quota at this section. I do not see how parchment and Ebook are less vital than papyrus or email.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support adding E-book Vital modern topic. --Thi (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Not at level 4. Level 5 yes. An ebook is just a digital version of a book. Much less vital than electronic publishing which isn't listed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Ebook. The computing and information technology section looks very overblown to me. Looking at the electronics section, we list Smartphone at this level, but not things like iPod. We should also be careful to avoid recentism. - Sdkb (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Ebook really not that important in modern day life and is covered in book. J947's public account 00:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

@Headbomb: What is more vital Papyrus or Parchment? Are not they jus as vital each other? And how is vital electronic publishing in your opinion? Dawid2009 (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on paper-like materials, but from a brief glance I'm not sure why we'd list one without the other. - Sdkb (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: Which section are we talking about? Ebook seems like computing or electronics and parchment seems like industry. - Sdkb (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Add Mobile InternetEdit

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

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not distinct enough from Internet to warrant inclusion on Level 4. - Sdkb (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Sdkb. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Article (publishing) and DiaryEdit

At least vital just like Blog and Academic journal.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Support at level 5, not level 4. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Article (publishing). Too specific for level 4. - Sdkb (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

I'm neutral about Diary. I think it might belong in Arts/Literature/Basics. There are some roughly similar importance things listed there (e.g. Prose, Saga) and some relegated to level 5 (e.g. Storytelling, Memoir). - Sdkb (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Add News mediaEdit

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

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

Add LaptopEdit

A common type of computer. We list Computer at level 2, Computer hardware at this level, and many other topics that seem less vital than laptop. - Sdkb (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support As nom. Sdkb (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Reduce section quota?Edit

Even though we don't do quotas at this divisional level, I think it's worth noting that "Computing and information technology" has all of 4 articles at Level 3 (plus arguably a few more in the adjacent "Media and Communication" section), and then suddenly balloons to 75 here. I think this is a reflection of how computer-inclined Wikipedians are, plus a bit of recentism. Do others support making some cuts? - Sdkb (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Reduce it slightly, to 65 or so, but it's the type of topic that generates more articles of importance than its higher-level percentage as you get lower. J947(c), at 04:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Windows VersionsEdit

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

It was added without discussion [40] --LaukkuTheGreit (TalkContribs) 04:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
@John M Wolfson: Would you be able to weigh in? - Sdkb (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Windows 95 was the first "modern" version of Windows, being able to fully supplant DOS and introducing the taskbar and Start button, among other innovations. I might have been a bit optimistic in making it Level 4 but I certainly think it's appropriate for at least Level 5 alongside XP. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 16:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think we should have any versions of Windows at this level. Windows the OS in general is the only part of Windows that is vital at Lv 4. pbp 22:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Just to let you guys know, Sdkb has removed it, which is a fair decision for now. J947(c), at 05:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

ElectronicsEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Electronics for the list of articles in this category.

EngineeringEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Engineering for the list of topics in this category.

IndustryEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Industry for the list of topics in this category.

InfrastructureEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Infrastructure for the list of articles in this category.

Machinery and toolsEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Machinery and tools for the list of topics in this category.

Add SiphonEdit

A simple technology that has been widely used for thousands of years.

Support
  1. as nom power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support as widely used. J947(c), at 04:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Media and communicationEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Media and communication for the list of topics in this category.

Remove BlogEdit

We are well under quota at this section but there are plenty more vital things missed at this level (for example Machine translation, Ebook, Parchment, IT infrastructure, Human-powered transport, Fishing rod, Online encyclopedia, Identity document, Passport, Mobile Internet). Also when people support keeping Tool at the level 2 we probably should list teechnical names like Equipment or Gadget to the level 4. BTW I note that Tumblr and World Press Review still are not listed at the level 5 yet.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 06:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support a removal or a swap with article which is the more general topic. Why should blog be listed when news article, encyclopedia article and academic paper are not? Even as an internet invention, online chat is far more vital. Gizza (t)(c) 08:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Would be fine for level 5, but just doesn't have the significance or influence for level 4. - Sdkb (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support per above comments. J947(c), at 04:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support per above. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Vital 21st century invention. GuzzyG (talk) 06:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. A frequently heard term in the 21st century, and a lot of people still read and write blogs.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --LaukkuTheGreit (TalkContribs) 05:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  4. New and very influential form of media. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Because blogs and blog hosting websites has let the opportunity for every human to have their opinion piece published while the others are more specialized, the average person will not have the opportunity to publish a academic paper but they do have the opportunity to make a blog, and that is vital in my opinion. Blogs will be studied sociologically as representative of peoples attitudes to their time, "online chat" will not (and is not public) and also, blogs can be their own literary genre which can be studied; online chat is not.. GuzzyG (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I would be rather oppose to add Academic publishing but I do not mind to swap Blog for article (publishing). Article is general concept which is naturally boarder and more important than Academic publishing, Blog and Online encyclopedia. Online chatting perhaps is the most often used type of telecommunication nowdays. Blog IMO seems be more specific concept just like Instant messaging, Online dating, Online game etc. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
A blog is not a article, more like a online diary and will be infinitely more important for researchers then instant messaging, online dating and online games.Not to mention that Vlog is the significant genre of online entertainment, which will be the biggest form of entertainment specifically created in the 21st century. We will just be back in 10-20 years to re-add it, so while we're under quota what's the issue?GuzzyG (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Medical technologyEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Medical technology for the list of topics in this category.

Military technologyEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Military technology for the list of topics in this category.

Navigation and timekeepingEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Navigation and timekeeping for the list of topics in this category.

Optical technologyEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Optical technology for the list of topics in this category.

SpaceEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Space for the list of topics in this category.

TextilesEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Textiles for the list of topics in this category.

TransportationEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Transportation for the list of topics in this category.

PASSED
8-3 added Dawid2009 (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add CargoEdit

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

Support
  1. As nominator. feminist (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support cargo itself (how it is handled, labelled, stored, carried, leased, owned, etc.) is the vital concept. Not the transport used to move it. Having said that, cargo makes more sense as a subtopic of logistics or supply chain management within Business and Economics than Transport. Gizza (t)(c) 03:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  16:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)).
  7. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  8. Support Even though Cargo is technically a more narrow term than Freight transport, as it refers to the stuff being shipped rather than the process of shipping, because the stuff being shipped could be anything, the article primarily consists of the process. For whatever reason, information about freight transport has coalesced in the Cargo article rather than the Freight transport article (and not just as a fluke, as evidenced by the other languages), and thus I'd expect it's the more common search term used by readers, too. To best serve them, therefore, it's the article that's most vital. - Sdkb (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I think Freight transport would be a better choice. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
    I see your point, Freight transport does cover a somewhat broader topic, but Cargo has more language versions. feminist (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
    The number of language versions is irrelevant here, since this list is specifically for the English Wikipedia. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
    They are basically two names for two similar things, so you'd expect the smaller one to have an equivalent in more languages. J947(c), at 23:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose in support of Rreagan's alternate proposal Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 16:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  3. Weak opposeJ947(c), at 04:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
  • It looks like we may be adding cargo ship to the list, which will create even more overlap with cargo, thus making it even less necessary to list at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Note: We currently list Logistics, which has some overlap, at level 4 in Society. - Sdkb (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
6-2, aded Dawid2009 (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Freight transportEdit

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)).
  5. Support Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 16:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support as broadest; albeit slightly tentatively. J947(c), at 04:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose in favor of Cargo, per my rationale there. One is definitely necessary, though, and I wouldn't mind seeing more than one term related to logistics added overall. - Sdkb (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Sdkb. Gizza (t)(c) 00:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Even though the vote totals support it, I'm not sure how many of us want to see both of these listed, rather than just one or the other. Should we have a discussion about which, if either, to remove? Sdkb (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that would be good. J947(c), at 05:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Feminist, DaGizza, Dimadick, Presidentman, Carlwev, Ios2019, RekishiEJ, Rreagan007, Fritzmann2002, and PointsofNoReturn: Dawid2009 (talk) 05:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I support both. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Funicular, add Cable car (railway)Edit

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support removal --Thi (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support removal Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support removal Too obscure a mode. Covered by Cable transport. - Sdkb (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support removal per Sdkb's alternative article. J947(c), at 04:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition --Thi (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose addition Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose addition Covered by Tram, and also by Cable transport. - Sdkb (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose additionJ947(c), at 04:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

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

Add Vehicle engineering and Automotive engineeringEdit

Two very important disciplines with underwhelming articles. We can't have Naval architecture on this list without these two. —J947(c), at 02:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. J947(c), at 02:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support vehicle engineering only. Both articles need a ton of work, but I don't see the argument for needing both here. Consider me neutral on Automotive engineering. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)).
  4. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Sidewalk, Bicycle infrastructure, and Intersection (road)Edit

I looked through the Road Transport subsection for this level and level 5 (where I made edits directly), and I noticed that there's a bit too much focus on vehicles as opposed to infrastructure. On a gut level, given that we include such more minor vehicles as Rickshaw, Van, Aerial tramway, and Chariot at this level, I think it makes sense to include equivalently important infrastructure as well. For context, we list Road, Bridge, and Infrastructure itself at level 3. Regarding my specific proposals:

  • Sidewalk: They're used throughout the world by pedestrians in cities. We already list Trail (an unpaved road) here at level 4.
  • Intersection (road): Every road in a place that's not extremely remote will have tons of intersections, which makes them an important part of road transport. Wikipedia has a more general article, Road junction, which covers both intersections and highway interchanges, but since highway interchanges are so much less common, I think it'd be best to leave the road junction/interchange articles for level 5. There are also some features of intersections that I think deserve to be at level 5 (e.g. Pedestrian crossing, traffic light), and listing intersections here will help justify room for them there.
  • Bicycle infrastructure: This article covers bike lanes, bike paths, bike racks, and all the other infrastructure used by the many millions of people who travel by bicycle worldwide. For context, we list Bicycle at level 3.

- Sdkb (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support all three as nominator. Sdkb (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose all three. Can expand on my !vote if asked. J947(c), at 04:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

MathematicsEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Mathematics for the list of topics in this category.

BasicsEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Mathematics#Basics for the list of topics in this category.

AlgebraEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Mathematics#Algebra for the list of topics in this category.

Calculus and analysisEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Mathematics#Calculus and analysis for the list of topics in this category.

Discrete mathematicsEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Mathematics#Discrete mathematics for the list of topics in this category.

GeometryEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Mathematics#Geometry for the list of topics in this category.

Probability and statisticsEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Mathematics#Probability and statistics for the list of topics in this category.

OtherEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Mathematics#Other for the list of topics in this category.

General discussionsEdit

Global proposalsEdit

Change in the quotas selectionEdit

I suggest changne quotas in selections. Currently we are under quota on technology section and based on how current inclusionism goes in this section I doubt we need higher quota at this section at the moment (although metapage has higher quota there). I also belive we can reduce quota in Every day life as -5. What do yoiu think to decreasing quota in technology section and Everyday section for History and Religion? We are also over quota at society section but honestly some articles in society section are so ridiculous weak that likely will be fastly removed So I think that only history section and religion section need higher quotas. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Return to the project page "Vital articles/Level/4".