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: 19:54, 09 May 2019 (UTC) (Purge)
  • 30 days ago: 19:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • 60 days ago: 19:54, 25 March 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.

Swap Jean Marais for Jean GabinEdit

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

Support
  1. Support As nom GuzzyG (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support as per nom. J947(c), at 05:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose

Visual artistsEdit

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

Swap Thomas Gainsborough for Leon Battista AlbertiEdit

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

Support
  1. Support As nom GuzzyG (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 00:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support addition --Thi (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support removal Gainsborough is not an artist of top level importance - hardly much more important that Reynolds, his great rival. But, while Alberti had diverse talents, I'm not convinced he really achieved enough to warrant inclusion. Even his architecture was hardly ground-breaking. Neljack (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)).
  6. Support removal as per Neljack. J947(c), at 05:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  7. The addition, since Alberti, a polymath, was not only a highly prominent artist but also made great advances in mathematics.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal --Thi (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. The removal, since this is the English Wikipedia, and he is credited (with Richard Wilson) as the originator of the 18th-century British landscape school.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

WritersEdit

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

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.

swap Jacques Brel for Rene GoscinnyEdit

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

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

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

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 Ignacy Łukasiewicz for Ludwik Łazarz ZamenhofEdit

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

Support
  1. Support As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support removal, oppose addition Łukasiewicz is perhaps the least influential inventor listed. However, Esperanto does not require a representative. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support removal, oppose addition per Susmuffin GuzzyG (talk) 08:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support removal, oppose addition --Thi (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)).
  6. Support removal, oppose addition per Susmuffin InvalidOStalk 13:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The removal, since he built the world's first modern oil refinery.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

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

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

Religious figuresEdit

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

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)

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.

Scientists, inventors and mathematiciansEdit

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

Add Joseph BanksEdit

Leading botanist who studied mainly the fauna 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 continets. 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)
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.\

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.

Modern historyEdit

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

Add comfort womenEdit

Support
  1. As nom. It is illogical to include Nanjing Massacre but not this article, which is more vital, since the comfort women system used in WWII by Japanese military inspired the same system during the Korean War by the South Korean government and that after the truce by the same government.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. We're already over quota in the history section by 6 articles, and I'm not seeing 6 articles currently in the history section that are less vital than this article. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose it's called a term in the lede yet would belong in this section. Rreagan makes a good point (not 6, 7) and it seems overtly niche. J947(c), at 18:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

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
Discuss

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)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Syracuse, SicilyEdit

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

Support
  1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin Talk 20:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 09:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  4. Supportit equaled Athens in size during the fifth century BC... Yep. J947(c), at 18:14, 18 March 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)
Oppose
Discuss

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 sportEdit

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

Suport
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  1. @Dawid2009: The word "dscribes" in your nomination text should be replaced with "describes".--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

add History of gamesEdit

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

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  1. @Dawid2009:The word "vitala" in your nomination text should be replaced by "vital" and "to" should be added next to "decide".--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

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.

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)
Oppose
Discuss

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 --Thi (talk) 12:15, 24 March 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 --Thi (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support - an improvement Gizza (t)(c) 22:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

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)
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)

Remove Cleveland or Cincinnati, add Columbus, Ohio and IllinoisEdit

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

Support addition(s)
  1. Support (Illinois) as nominator. –J947(c), at 04:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
    Changing to support the addition of Illinois only. J947(c), at 18:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support addition of Illinois. --Thi (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support addition of Illinois. feminist (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support addition of Illinois. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support addition of Illinois.  Carlwev  20:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose addition(s)
Neutral (all)
Support removal concept
  1. Support as nominator. Not sure which one should be removed though. J947(c), at 07:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose removal concept
  1. Weak oppose removing Cincinnati. The Cincinnati metropolitan area is the largest MSA in Ohio, ahead of both Cleveland and Columbus. To be fair, all three cities are pretty comparable in size and reader interest. Alternatively, I can support remove both Cincinnati and Cleveland. feminist (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Support Cincinnati as removal
  1. Support --Thi (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support GuzzyG (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support (nom) as per below. J947(c), at 19:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Support Cleveland as removal
Discuss

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

Cincinnati is the biggest metropolitan are of the three. Cleveland and Columbus are about the same size. See List of metropolitan statistical areas. Also Illinois before Pennsylvania? Gizza (t)(c) 22:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Just like to say the metro areas have different—non-vital—articles. I certainly do not think that all of that should be discounted against the main articles, but in these cases city proper is slightly more or about the same regarding the level of comprehensiveness. And of course in city proper Columbus' population is significantly larger than the other two C's, with nothing close to nearing that in metro. My support is weaker now though. I'll get around to explaining your other point soon. J947(c), at 03:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Columbus may be more populous now but Cleveland has historically been more populous. In 1970, Columbus had a population of 539,677, Cincinnati had a population of 452,525, and Cleveland had a population of 750,903. I'm not wholly sold on this proposal, but if I were removing something, it would be Cincinnati. pbp 13:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

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 --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)
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
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)
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)

ArtsEdit

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Arts 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) See below
  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)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2018 (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)

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.

Remove Physics (Aristotle)Edit

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

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 22:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

MusicEdit

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

Performing artsEdit

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

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.

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.

Remove Spiritual practiceEdit

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support. As the nom says, we're over quota and this article is less vital than the individual practices also listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

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

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 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 [[s]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)
Oppose
Discuss

add Thai boxingEdit

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)
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Playing card and TarotEdit

Redutant tpo Card game. At other games/sports/activities not list specific articles just like: chess piece, chess theory, soccer equipment football formation, bowling (cricket), goalkeeper, Asana, Swimming style. Card game is also clearly less vital thing than something like Passport (which is more vital than Password but maybe not vital just like Authentication)

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support --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)
Oppose
  1. Oppose both: pbp 14:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

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.

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.

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.

add Fertility riteEdit

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

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Fertility rites have been a major historical trend throughout multiple religions, ancient and modern. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support good suggestion. Gizza (t)(c) 23:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Sure. feminist (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Not really convinced. Only 12 language versions, although the numbers are not very important. Both the Culture and Religion sections are full. --Thi (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

add IdeaEdit

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

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Seems vital enough to list at this level, though I would probably add it to the philosophy section, since it seems to be written more as a philosophy article. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Yes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Weak support for now, well at least until Thi provides a rationale for opposing. Also, I concur with Rreagan. J947(c), at 04:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 'Idea' has different meanings and the article is actually an extended disambiguation page. Concept and Platonic realism (or Problem of universals) are listed in the Philosophy section and Creativity, Cognition, Thought etc. in Psychology. Innovation is more vital article and not listed. --Thi (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
    Suppose it kind of is an extended disambig in a few ways. I think the part which Dawid is focusing on here is the anthropology and social sciences section. Meme is linked in there and is listed here at VA4, linked kind of as a subtopic of that. It's a varying page which could be significantly improved to undisambig this, but that's what the main goal of VA is. Innovation sounds like a good addition. J947(c), at 08:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

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 --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 --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 --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)
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)

Remove RupeeEdit

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

Support
  1. As nom. feminist (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support. Not vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  4. Ruble is currently not listed, rupee is no more vital than ruble, there are still some articles which are indeed vital at this level but not listed (e.g. Ani and Russian Armed Forces), and this list is currently full.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Rupee was once more valuable than US$. Besides, rupee has been used in Russia, which is the largest country in the world.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC) removed the vote (sorry, I thought that rupee is ruble, the currency currently used in Russia).--11:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

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

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)
Oppose
Discuss

CultureEdit

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

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 --Thi (talk) 22:12, 29 January 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

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 --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 Support group and Secret societyEdit

Probably not vital at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Secret society is not needed when we have conspiracy theory. Gizza (t)(c) 23:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Secret societies are generally only referenced by conspiracy theorists. Support groups are better discussed by the other articles in that section. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose secret society As Dimadick points out, secret societies and conspiracy theories are not symbiotic. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Both are vital at L4, in my view. Jusdafax (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose we have Freemasonry, and could add Secret handshake too. wumbolo ^^^ 18:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
  • I'm neutral, though I expect both removals will pass. These are both weak articles and have overlap with existing articles, but I'd support both of these being on a mythical 20k article list. I expect the 50k list will have to suffice here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • secret societies have little to do with conspiracy theories. They are various organizations which conceal the identities of their members from non-members. While some of these were political organizations such as the Carbonari and the Know Nothing party, others were simply fraternities and clubs. Dimadick (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Add Gender equality and Women's rightsEdit

Two high-importance articles related to human rights.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 07:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Of course!J947(c), at 18:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support These articles should have been listed years ago. ―Susmuffin Talk 04:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support women's rights, as I would ultimately like to see that article swapped for women's suffrage at level 3. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  5. Thought they were there already. I agree that Women's rights should be swapped with Women's suffrage at Level 3. feminist (talk) 07:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose gender equality. We're already well over quota in this section and I don't think both are needed since we also include other related articles such as feminism and sexism. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

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
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

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 --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.

BasicsEdit

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

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.

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.

PASSED:
6-0, added. --Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 16:30, 22 May 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 Hypericum, the St. John's wortsEdit

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

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

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

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

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)
Discuss

Physical sciencesEdit

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

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 --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)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Resource. --Thi (talk) 08:03, 16 February 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.

Swap: remove Hay, add Animal feedEdit

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

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

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.

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)
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)
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)

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)
Oppose
Discuss

Media and communicationEdit

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

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.

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)
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)
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)

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)).
Oppose
Discuss

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)
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition --Thi (talk) 08:51, 3 February 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)).
Oppose
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

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