Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 66

< Wikipedia talk:Vital articles‎ | Level/4
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Thi
Archive 60 ← Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67 Archive 68 → Archive 70
Removed per consensus of over 2/3rds of vote. HeartGlow (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2020 (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 Nikolay Nekrasov

One of the least vital Russian writers we list; in which we list too many.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 10:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Since he was the most politically influential figure in the Russian 19th-century literature, and Vladimir Lenin regarded him "the great Russian Socialist" and habitually treated his legacy as a quotation book which he used to flay enemies, left and right, he no doubt should be kept in the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Dimadick (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

Not everyone regarded important is vital; a encyclopedia would not get criticism if they didn't have him in a 2000 people list. Gogol's omission would be criticized if he was missing. There's a big difference, importance is not the end all be all of vitality. Gavrila Derzhavin should be removed too. They're just not vital and Russian literature is covered enough as is. I'd rather list national writers of countries with 70 mil populations not represented like Sunthorn Phu. We don't need 18 Russian writers, 15 would be enough - especially while we're missing Africa/South East Asian and authors like Derek Walcott. Like Mikhail Sholokhov is the perfect example of a waste of a listing, one hit wonder and authorship questions, is it really vital we list these authors? Or do you just say he's important because Lenin quoted him? GuzzyG (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Since it looks like Nekrasov is going to be kept, can we also add Afanasy Fet, Konstantin Balmont, Alexander Ostrovsky, Marina Tsvetaeva, Aleksey Konstantinovich Tolstoy, Ivan Goncharov and Dmitry Merezhkovsky?, They all have a bigger reputation than Nekrasov. I'm sure we can find a politician that regards them as a great writer or quotes one of their works or one who is involved in politics. If a subgenre like political 19th century Russian literature is important, how about a historical dramatist 19th century Russian master like Aleksey Konstantinovich Tolstoy? "Anton Chekhov is quoted as stating that Goncharov was "...ten heads above me in talent." " is from the article on Goncharov, is that enough? When there's so many people on a similar level - who should we pick? GuzzyG (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2020 (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.
Removed after 5-0 support after 15 days. HeartGlow (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2020 (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 James Gordon Bennett Sr.

This guy may be important to American journalism; but i'm sure there's many others worldwide like Paul Reuter, W. T. Stead, Lars Johan Hierta, Hrant Dink, Axel Springer, or Kerry Packer, every major country would have a dominant media figure - this guy's not special.

Alfred Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Northcliffe or Max Aitken, 1st Baron Beaverbrook would be the best adds and cover a area we don't really cover, meanwhile Greeley/Pulitzer already represents New York journalism - he may be important but he's not vital - if he were missing on a 2k limit encyclopedia nobody would care.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 13:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support HeartGlow (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, swapped. --Thi (talk) 09:07, 25 September 2020 (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.

Swap Mel Brooks for Abbas Kiarostami

Kiarostami is THE key and central figure in the Iranian New Wave, in which Persian cinema is one of the upcoming cinema's in the film industry. Here's some quotes from his article

"His films Where Is the Friend’s Home?, Close-Up, and The Wind Will Carry Us were ranked among the 100 best foreign films in a 2018 critics' poll by BBC Culture.[4] Close-Up was also ranked one of the 50 greatest movies of all time in the famous decennial Sight & Sound poll conducted in 2012"

"Kiarostami has received worldwide acclaim for his work from both audiences and critics, and, in 1999, he was voted the most important film director of the 1990s by two international critics' polls.[89] Four of his films were placed in the top six of Cinematheque Ontario's Best of the '90s poll.[90] He has gained recognition from film theorists, critics, as well as peers such as Jean-Luc Godard, Nanni Moretti (who made a short film about opening one of Kiarostami's films in his theater in Rome), Chris Marker, and Ray Carney. Akira Kurosawa said of Kiarostami's films: "Words cannot describe my feelings about them ... When Satyajit Ray passed on, I was very depressed. But after seeing Kiarostami's films, I thanked God for giving us just the right person to take his place."[9][91] Critically acclaimed directors such as Martin Scorsese have commented that "Kiarostami represents the highest level of artistry in the cinema."[92] The Austrian director Michael Haneke has admired the work of Abbas Kiarostami as among the best of any living director.[93] In 2006, The Guardian's panel of critics ranked Kiarostami as the best contemporary non-American film director.[94]"

from here [1]

Kiarostami has one of the best reputations among foreign filmmakers and his films are regarded as one of the best ever, and as some people here might like, he's one of the best people in modern high culture films. Meanwhile Brooks is just a comedy filmmaker who directed well regarded box office comedies. No Brooks film is regarded in the top 50 films ever. We'd also be adding a representative from a region we don't represent much in art. I don't think Brooks is more worthy than any director like Michael Curtiz, Joseph L. Mankiewicz, Ridley Scott, George Cukor, John Huston, Brian De Palma, Victor Fleming, or Mike Nichols.

Noone else will agree with me on this one but comedy films are slightly genre in a way and i'd prefer to list a pioneering horror director like F. W. Murnau or John Carpenter or Tod Browning, we list comedy directors like Woody Allen, Chaplin and Keaton etc and we don't list horror. (not that we should, but it'd atleast be better than another comedy director).

I'd even prefer directors like Glauber Rocha or Rainer Werner Fassbinder instead of Brooks, which are other areas we don't represent.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 11:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 04:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed per consensus. HeartGlow (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2020 (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 J. Paul Getty

He may have been super rich and the richest person at one point in time, but so was H. L. Hunt among many others we don't list. Getty Oil is a not a vital company. Two American businessmen known for being super wealthy i'd support over him are Stephen Girard and Jeff Bezos, Bezos is infinitely more vital for wealth holding than Getty ever was and i'd support William Knox D'Arcy for more importance to the oil industry. We're over quota and i don't think any encyclopedia needs Getty. There's many other business people we're missing in other industries too like Samuel Slater, Samuel Colt, Kōnosuke Matsushita, Ray Kroc, Shibusawa Eiichi, Enzo Ferrari, Éleuthère Irénée du Pont, Aliko Dangote, Alfred P. Sloan, James Buchanan Duke, Conrad Hilton, Verghese Kurien, William E. Boeing, Arthur Guinness, William Levitt, Lang Hancock and Milton Bradley, all of which cover either missing industries of business we don't cover and territories we don't cover (Africa/Oceania). We're light on businesspeople, but at this level i don't think Getty is a stand out name in history to be on a 2000 people list, we have American oil covered with Rockefeller and i don't think we need Getty if we're missing other oil pioneers like William Knox D'Arcy, Calouste Gulbenkian and Marcus Samuel, 1st Viscount Bearsted.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Rockefeller would be better for sheer wealth if he isn't already on here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed per consensus of 5-0 after more than 15 days. HeartGlow (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2020 (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 Donald O. Hebb

Another non vital psychologist. "neuropsychology" isn't important enough for it's founder to be listed on a list of the worlds most vital people.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 09:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support left a weak legacy compared to others at this level. Gizza (t)(c) 10:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 04:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, added. --Thi (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2020 (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 Jane Jacobs

Perhaps the most influential figure to modern urban planning. Counterpart to Robert Moses, who we list, and had a more enduring legacy. Sdkb (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Sdkb (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom.GuzzyG (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support surprised she wasn't on here already. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 11:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support as a swap for Hebb. She was a far more influential Canadian thinker. Cobblet (talk) 04:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn by nominator

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 Plaek Phibunsongkhram

"Phibunsongkhram was a member of the Royal Siamese Army wing of Khana Ratsadon, the first political party in Thailand, and a leader of the Siamese revolution of 1932 transforming Thailand from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy. Phibun became the third Prime Minister of Thailand in 1938 as Commander of the Royal Siamese Army, established a de facto military dictatorship inspired by the Italian fascism of Benito Mussolini, promoted Thai nationalism and sinophobia, and allied Thailand with Imperial Japan in World War II. Phibun launched a modernization campaign known as the Thai Cultural Revolution that included a series of cultural mandates, changing the country's name from "Siam" to "Thailand", and promotion of the common Thai language.

Phibun was ousted as Prime Minister by the National Assembly in 1944 and replaced by members of the Free Thai Movement until returning to power in the Siamese coup d'état of 1947 led by the Coup Group. Phibun aligned Thailand with anti-communism in the Cold War, entered the Korean War under the United Nations Command, and abandoned fascism for a façade of democracy. Phibun's second term as Prime Minister was plagued by political instability and was subject to several attempted coup d'etats to remove him including the Army General Staff plot in 1948, the Palace Rebellion in 1949, and the Manhattan Rebellion in 1951. Phibun attempted to transform Thailand into a liberal democracy from the mid-1950s, but was overthrown in 1957 and entered exile in Japan where he died in 1964.

Phibun is the longest serving Prime Minister of Thailand to-date at 15 years and one month. "

His lede explains his influence on the whole of the country better than i ever could; spiritual swap with Mindon Min.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Status on Prithviraj Chauhan

Was Prithviraj Chauhan demoted to level 5? It doesn't seem like there was any discussion on this. 72.208.178.248 (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

This article is still at level 4 in this section [[2]], It may be easier to find the article by using "find on this page" function of your web browser when on the level 4 people page, like I did.  Carlwev  09:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

It's the bot that probably messed it up.. He's not demoted. The bot has been ruining the talk page templates and has been a bit of a disaster in that regard imo. GuzzyG (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2020 (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
5-0, added. --Thi (talk) 09:28, 25 September 2020 (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 Charles K. Kao

He discovered that fiber optics can be useful for communication.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support RekishiEJ (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom, fiber optics is important enough to list its founder. GuzzyG (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support per previous nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose

Previous nomination here. J947's public account 00:10, 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.


WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn by nominator

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 A Season in Hell for Les Fleurs du mal

Les Fleurs du mal is a more important collection of French poetry. I think it's too much overlap too list both A Season in Hell and Rimbaud since they're close to being one and the same.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support removal Rimbaud and Baudelaire are listed in People, but many other authors and poets and their works are missing, for example La Rochefoucauld or de Chateaubriand. --Thi (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn by nominator

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

Remove The Call of the Wild

as an alternate to the swap above, and per the many other discussions on this. Both Jack London and his book are excessive at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support though I do want to keep one or the other. Orser67 (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Strongly Oppose   // Timothy :: talk  06:14, 17 March 2020 (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.
WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn by nominator

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 I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings

A highly important book for African Americans, a defining book of African-American literature. One of the most important autobiographies/biographies, other than The Diary of a Young Girl (which we decided to list Anne Frank instead of her book). I think this would be a massive improvement for this list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 11:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support   // Timothy :: talk  06:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn by nominator

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 Nocturnes (Chopin)

We don't list Nocturne. I don't see how we should prioritise Chopin or this work, when it didn't truly revolutionise music history and it's of equal popularity of works like Symphony No. 9 (Dvořák), The Creation (Haydn), Pachelbel's Canon, St Matthew Passion, Eine kleine Nachtmusik, Für Elise, Pomp and Circumstance Marches, Requiem (Mozart), The Blue Danube, Flight of the Bumblebee, Gymnopédies, Hungarian Dances (Brahms), Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2, Adagio for Strings, Prelude in C-sharp minor (Rachmaninoff), Peer Gynt (Grieg), 4′33″, Spem in alium, Adagio in G minor, Boléro, Carmina Burana (Orff), The Planets and Missa Papae Marcelli, all of which would be just as worthy as Chopin's nocturnes. They're the kind of thing perfect for the level 5 list, this list should have more technical stuff like genres, movements and styles than artworks. The Nocturnes are no Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven), The Well-Tempered Clavier or Symphony No. 41 (Mozart), Messiah (Handel), Der Ring des Nibelungen and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, the type of works that should be listed in the music section - works of no equal rank. The Nocturnes just don't hold up. I'd even rather add more operas like Turandot, La bohème, or Tosca.

Art music, 21st-century classical music, Mass (music)], Requiem, Serenade, Cantata, Chamber music, Étude, Impressionism in music, Modernism (music), Atonality, Twelve-tone technique, Common practice period, Suite (music), Minimal music, Instrumental, Oratorio, Overture, Prelude (music), Madrigal, Lied, Religious music, Christian music, Hindu music, Anthem, Chant, Serialism and Canon (music) are all more extremely more encyclopedic articles to cover relating to classical music as a whole that we're missing than the Nocturnes.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support lovely pieces and a lot more important that the nom gives them credit for. Not up to the same level as other L4s though. Aza24 (talk) 08:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose It makes absolutely no sense to say we can list three Beethoven symphonies, two Tchaikovsky ballets, two Baroque chamber works, two (or more) Italian operas – and yet say that we cannot list a single work from the Romantic piano repertoire, the music that produced the original celebrity phenomenon and is the reason why Horowitz, Richter and Rubinstein can be considered vital in any way. In particular I would definitely list the Nocturnes before listing Rubinstein. Cobblet (talk) 05:33, 24 September 2020 (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.
WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn by nominator

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 K-pop

We have no music representatives from Japan/Korea, even though they're arguably two of the biggest music markets. It's a highly influential music genre in Asia, which is the biggest continent and one of the biggest genres worldwide today, with even Kazakhstan being inspired to create it's own version Q-pop. It's definitely by population, more popular/spread than Bossa nova and Gamelan ever were and we list both. Maybe it's not big in western music critics eyes, but if this genre had impact on the US/UK as it's having in Asia - it'd be listed and we have very little representation in this area - furthermore i think instead of bios, we should be covering all main forms of art/entertainment and sport of the 21st century. This would be one of them.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Would support listing J-pop. K-pop is highly derivative of J-pop and has not been as popular or influential when looking at the broader historical picture. ili (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2020 (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.
WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn by nominator

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 Breakdancing

It's been voted to be apart of the 2024 Summer Olympics [3], making it the first dance to be included, which is historic for dance. It's also one of the most popular dance's today and with the olympics, there'll atleast be performances/dancers in every major country - so it has worldwide appeal.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn by nominator

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 A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte

Paintings other than a rare few, just don't hold the same historical importance and cultural impact as any of the other artforms like music pieces, books and films etc. They don't have a strong need to have a featured article about them. The School of Athens, Whistler's Mother, Napoleon Crossing the Alps, Liberty Leading the People, Impression, Sunrise, La Maja desnuda, Ophelia (painting), The Kiss (Klimt), Self-Portrait with Thorn Necklace and Hummingbird, The Blue Boy, The Treachery of Images, Self-Portrait as the Allegory of Painting, Black Square (painting), The Beheading of St John the Baptist (Caravaggio), The Tribute Money (Masaccio), Portrait of Madame X, Luncheon of the Boating Party, Lansdowne portrait, Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?, The Turkish Bath, Nocturne in Black and Gold – The Falling Rocket, Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2 and Man at the Crossroads are all paintings of similar rank and influence, some even having a more clear example of what should be listed instead. "It is a leading example of pointillist technique" isn't enough to have it listed. I think 15 paintings is a good cap. Also listing Seurat and this painting is way too much overlap considering he's had a short life and thus short biography.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn by nominator

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 Nighthawks (painting)

per my "A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte" nomination, i am not convinced American painting history is enough to list more than 2 paintings when we list 19 in total and we list Campbell's Soup Cans, America's one main artistic masterpiece, but it's not clear why we need both Hopper and Nighthawks. I don't think Nighthawks is seperated enough over other known/acclaimed American paintings like - American Gothic, Whistler's Mother, Portrait of Madame X, Lansdowne portrait, Washington Crossing the Delaware (1851 painting), Whaam!, No. 5, 1948 and The Problem We All Live With are just as known and acclaimed as Nighthawks, at the very least Nighthawks is of similar rank to these other paintings and should not be prioritised over them. American Gothic and Whistler's Mother being the obvious two more important than Nighthawks. Let's not mention every other painting in history like Las Meninas that are missing.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support Edward Hopper was voted to this list after his painting. --Thi (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn by nominator

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 Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe

per my "A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte" nomination. controversy shouldn't automatically put it above every other painting i've listed above on equal rank to this painting. La Maja desnuda, Portrait of Madame X and L'Origine du monde are the more important of the "scandalous" nude paintings, i don't see why Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe should be listed over them. There's a long history to this kind of painting like Sleeping Venus (Giorgione) and Venus of Urbino etc.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn by nominator

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

Swap Stagecoach (1939 film) for The Searchers

The more important John Ford/John Wayne film, by acclaim and popularity. From it's lede:

"The film was a commercial success. Since its release, it has come to be considered a masterpiece and one of the greatest and most influential films ever made. It was named the greatest American Western by the American Film Institute in 2008, and it placed 12th on the same organization's 2007 list of the 100 greatest American movies of all time.[4] Entertainment Weekly also named it the best Western.[5] The British Film Institute's Sight & Sound magazine ranked it as the seventh-best film of all time based on a 2012 international survey of film critics[6][7] and in 2008, the French magazine Cahiers du Cinéma ranked The Searchers number 10 in their list of the 100 best films ever made.[8]"

For what it's worth, this list that is a aggregate for thousands of "best of" films lists that exist [4], that WikiProject film use to calculate it's "core films", lists The Searchers in the top 10 films of all time [5], way higher than Stagecoach. I don't think being first makes a film automatically vital. Roundhay Garden Scene, The Story of the Kelly Gang and L'Arrivée d'un train en gare de La Ciotat would all be better picks to be on.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support Both are considered to be important/influential Westerns, but my understanding is that the Searchers is generally considered to be a little more influential. Notably, the Searchers and High Noon were the only two Westerns inducted in the first class of the National Film Registry. Orser67 (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support This was in my mind too. --Thi (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Influential film, often studied and copied. "The Searchers has influenced many films. David Lean watched the film repeatedly while preparing for Lawrence of Arabia to help him get a sense of how to shoot a landscape.[1] The entrance of Ethan Edwards in The Searchers, across a vast prairie, is echoed in the across-the-desert entrance of Sherif Ali in Lawrence of Arabia. Sam Peckinpah referenced the aftermath of the massacre and the funeral scene in Major Dundee (1965), and according to a 1974 review by Jay Cocks, Peckinpah's Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia contains dialogue with "direct tributes to such classics as John Huston's The Treasure of the Sierra Madre and John Ford's The Searchers."[2][3] ... "Scott McGee, writing for Turner Classic Movies, notes "Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, John Milius, Paul Schrader, Wim Wenders, Jean-Luc Godard, and George Lucas have all been influenced and paid some form of homage to The Searchers in their work."[4]" "... The film influenced several aspects of George Lucas' film saga Star Wars.[1] The scene in which Ethan Edwards discovers the flaming wreckage of his family homestead is reflected in 1977's Star Wars, wherein the character Luke Skywalker finds that his homestead has been burned and destroyed by Imperial Stormtroopers.[5][6][7] The Searchers was also an influence on the 2002 prequel film in the series, Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones. In the film, Anakin Skywalker learns that one of his family members has been abducted by a group of Tusken Raiders (though the character's mother is kidnapped, rather than a niece). Anakin massacres the kidnappers in vengeance, much like The Searchers climactic battle in the Comanche camp.[5][6] Dimadick (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Stagecoach is to the Western genre what Psycho is to the horror genre, in that it pretty much established most of the conventions of the genre. While I would agree it is not a better film than The Searchers it is a more influential film in virtually every conceivable way.
    • How John Ford’s 1939 western classic transformed the dying genre into the epitome of American cinema. – "Orson Welles was once asked who his favorite directors were. He responded: “I prefer the old masters, by which I mean John Ford, John Ford, and John Ford. He’s a poet and a comedian. With Ford at his best you get a sense of what the Earth was made of.” Welles was so enamored with the director that during preparation for his first film he reportedly screened Stagecoach (1939) some 40 times, later stating: “John Ford was my teacher. My own style had nothing to do with his, but Stagecoach was my movie textbook… I wanted to learn how to make movies, and that’s such a classically perfect one.”"
    • "Stagecoach is said to have set the template for modern Westerns"
    • Archetypal Western – Greatest Western of all time? Most influential Western? Archetypal Western? Stagecoach (1939) may be all three, depending on your point of view.
    An encyclopedic treatment of the Western genre would have to include Stagecoach; It would be pretty surreal if Stagecoach were dropped while The Sound of Music is still on the list. Betty Logan (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I think that Stagecoach is the more important of the two films from a historical/encyclopedic point of view. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

References

  1. ^ a b Snider, Eric (11 May 2011). "What's the Big Deal?: Lawrence of Arabia (1962)". MTV. Retrieved 12 July 2016.
  2. ^ Matheson, Sue (18 February 2016). The Westerns and War Films of John Ford. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4422-6105-1.
  3. ^ Cocks, Jay (September 16, 1974). "Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia". Time. Retrieved 2011-06-25.
  4. ^ McGee, Scott. "The Searchers". Turner Classic Movies. Retrieved 2011-06-25.
  5. ^ a b Young, Bryan (27 April 2015). "The Cinema Behind Star Wars: The Searchers". StarWars.com. Retrieved 11 July 2016.
  6. ^ a b Serafino, Jason (1 October 2015). "The Films That Inspired The 'Star Wars' Saga". Tech Times. Retrieved 12 July 2016.
  7. ^ Robey, Tim (14 December 2015). "10 films that influenced Star Wars". The Telegraph UK. Retrieved 12 July 2016.
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.


WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn by nominator

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 Children of Paradise

I think 7 dramas from West Europe and 3 from France is too much, Children of Paradise is the weakest listed and just another acclaimed film, it doesn't represent any significant impact on the film industry, films like Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans, Apocalypse Now, Taxi Driver, The Passion of Joan of Arc, Persona (1966 film), The 400 Blows, Rashomon, and Raging Bull are all of more of the same type of acclaim. I'd take Sunrise over CoP though if we HAD to list one more European drama.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Children of Paradise often tops polls as the "greatest film ever made" in France. I think there is some Anglo-centric logic on display here too: half of the films on the list are American so are we really going to begrudge France three films? Betty Logan (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2020 (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.
WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn by nominator

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 BMX

Now a olympic discipline, which means it has worldwide impact, we're under quota here so it wouldn't hurt.

Support
  1. Support As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn by nominator

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 Podcast

So i understand this is relatively new and if blog gets backlash this might too, but we list Amateur radio and i think more people worldwide listen to more podcasts today than people ever listened to amateur radio. Amateur radio might be more important historically, but clearly podcasts will get there as they're commonly seen as replacing radio. Podcast hosts like Joe Rogan are slowly becoming well known and as a rule we should be listing all fields where it's potential to become a big celebrity. I don't know if your average layperson ever got involved in the specifics of amateur radio but Serial (podcast) has had over 340 million downloads, i don't think amateur radio has ever had that kind of audience and i'd argue if something niche we list like Carom billiards ever did. That's a average top performing podcast too, the top podcast The Joe Rogan Experience has over "190 million downloads a month" per it's impact section and that's april 2019. i doubt amateur radio ever had that kind of impact as a whole let alone one amateur radio broadcast.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. GuzzyG (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn by nominator

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 La mer (Debussy)

Per my nocturnes nomination, on all the technical music stuff we're missing that'd be better adds. An unimportant work, not a Symphony no. 9.

If you don't see my nocturnes nomination, here's all the actual encyclopedic topics relating to classical music/music in general we're missing so we can list this unimportant work;

"Art music, 21st-century classical music, Mass (music)], Requiem, Serenade, Cantata, Chamber music, Étude, Impressionism in music, Modernism (music), Atonality, Twelve-tone technique, Common practice period, Suite (music), Minimal music, Instrumental, Oratorio, Overture, Prelude (music), Madrigal, Lied, Religious music, Christian music, Hindu music, Anthem, Chant, Serialism and Canon (music) are all more extremely more encyclopedic articles to cover relating to classical music as a whole that we're missing than the Nocturnes. "

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Lovely piece but not up to the same level as others listed. Aza24 (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose One shouldn't express opinions so definitively on a subject where one has no actual expertise unless one is begging to be ridiculed. Sviatoslav Richter ranked La mer alongside the St. Matthew Passion and Ring cycle – I'll take his assessment over the nom's any day. For an in-depth explanation on why La mer matters, I recommend the Cambridge Handbook. The same laundry list of articles given by the nom could be used to criticize the presence of any other specific musical work on the list. The real question are how many works of classical music should be on the list, and how should those works be chosen to achieve a balanced coverage of the subject. If we remove Chopin's Nocturnes and La mer, the list is left with Vivaldi's Four Seasons as the only instrumental classical piece not written by an Austro-German composer, and the only one that is not either absolute or religious music. This makes the list worse, not better – who are we, Karlheinz Klopweisser? I'd get rid of the Brandenburgs, Messiah, the Jupiter symphony, the Nutcracker, and Madama Butterfly or La bohème, before considering removing the Chopin or Debussy. Cobblet (talk) 06:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Neljack (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 04:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

FWIW, of the articles suggested by nom as more worthwhile choices for the list, I would only consider listing chamber music, lied, and religious music. As a whole, those suggestions do not persuade me that we need to continue massively cutting back the specific musical works. Cobblet (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Every single piece or artist on this list a expert or other artist somewhere likes and considers a favourite, judging by your awfully pedantic post and the fact you've suggested the clearly more important Debussy work before Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune [6] and have tried to nominate him to the level 3 list [7], i can assume you're a fan of Debussy - so i can understand your rude/pedantic tone and put it down to passion (obviously i was using hyperbole, which is a tradition on this list, let's quote some other hyperbolic posts for fun; most awarded black woman in American music history "likely no lasting influence, in 50 years we might remember she had a coke habit." [8], someone who is credited as completely responsible for the modern pop star "This list is for significant people, not trailer-park trash" [9], on Donald Trump in 2013 lol "An encyclopedia would not lose much losing him" [10], so clearly my hyperbole was extreme, but hey - that's everyone). Either way, i don't think Richter's word is supreme, especially when St Matthew Passion is not listed, which makes that quote irrelevant to this discussion, the balance you've mentioned is a fair point, although one could easily say we have no medieval/renaissance coverage too, which certainly should be on this list to balance it out. Either way - i am proudly a dumb person, but i still think specific works should be cut down, especially when over quota. Genres and terms are more vital to me than specific works, especially when we're missing so much. La mer, Mirror (1975 film), Dr. Strangelove, Triumph of the Will, Peter Pan, Arnolfini Portrait, The Art of Painting, Nighthawks (painting), Water Lilies (Monet series), Symphony No. 8 (Mahler), Madama Butterfly, The Nutcracker, The Dark Side of the Moon, Heartbreak Hotel, Gravity's Rainbow, Midnight's Children, The Call of the Wild, The Crucible, A Season in Hell, Musée National d'Art Moderne and Burj Khalifa could all be dropped and i could care less, theres so many vital artistic concepts more vital than them and they're all a better fit for the level 5 list. The Crucible should be swapped for Death of a Salesman though. Art and entertainment concepts like Vaudeville, Minstrel show, Blackface, Jester, Pantomime, Tap dance, Ventriloquism, Burlesque, Fashion design, Costume design, Medieval art, Byzantine art, Miniature (illuminated manuscript), Suprematism, Kitsch, Carving, Stained glass, Street art, Cinema of Germany, Atonality, Musicology, Plot (narrative), Narration, Erotic literature, Auteur and Literary theory are all concepts with more worth to a encyclopedic study of art and entertainment than alot of these individual listed art works. That's what i think and if critical opinion needed to be followed than Pet Sounds should be listed over Sgt. Pepper, Thriller and Dark Side, it's critical consensus that that album is atleast in the top three of albums. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm a fan of good music. I'm also a fan of informed discussion with knowledgeable participants. You know very well I have no patience for ignorant bluster. It's not evident to me that you've actually read, looked at, or listened to any of the works you don't consider vital, much less have any understanding or appreciation of them (favourable or not), so I don't see much point discussing them with you. Nobody said Richter has to have the final word, but at least he knew what he was talking about. Since I'm accused of pedantry (but who is writing the walls of text here?), I won't go on. I haven't suggested adding the St. Matthew Passion only because the Mass in B Minor is listed. Cobblet (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
All you do is personal insults lol, let's not act like you care about actual discussion, you want informed discussion, but then mention that i post wall of texts (going indepth on my arguments). You can't argue that La mer is more important to art historically than say fashion design or blackface or narration itself, so you resort to quitting the convo and personal insults. "True appreciation" means jack, i voted to remove my favourite opera Madama Butterfly and im more of a film person but if it'd succeed i'd vote to remove my fav film listed Vertigo (film), (yes i have amateur taste, i love Body Heat, Cruel Intentions, Johnny Guitar and The Apartment (1996 film)) and my fav book Wuthering Heights if it meant we got to the quota. We are over quota and fundamental art topics are missing. How is thinking that fashion design is more important as a concept of art than The Call of the Wild mean i'm automatically not appreciative of The Call of the Wild? How about the fact that fashion design is so uncovered here a clear indicative of the male bias here? I'm not appreciative because i think Medieval art is more important than La mer? I'll admit i'm a poor Bogan and could not afford a higher school or to see a opera or classical concert in person, but that does not mean i am not appreciative of the individual works or because i'm not super smart and cant write i can't clearly distinguish between worth lol. Do you have a business degree to vote removal on Getty? What kind of logic is that? Can i say you don't have a appreciation of fashion or medieval art that you think a composition is more important than a whole artform and time period? I spend every moment researching stuff relating to art and entertainment and sports, do you really think i do not appreciate art? Or can i recognize that whern we're missing major artforms, that we don't have to list so many individual artworks, unless you can tell me with a straight face that la mer is more important than fashion design, that Dark Side of the Moon is more important than the topic of blackface, or that medieval art isn't more important than Gravity's Rainbow. Either way, guess i can't read [11], so no need for a discussion anyway. GuzzyG (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, you are what you write. Based on what you write, I can't take you seriously. Sorry. I see you do good work around here nonetheless. Please carry on without me. Cobblet (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Since everyone i have respected on this list wants to endorse a clear piss weak argument laden with memes (a commercial is a deciding factor on classical music) and personal elitist put downs based on my writing and educational status - despite my clear, unabashed passion for this list, which i constantly work on behind the scenes in my excel sheets (was in the middle of a complete updated revamp of the 15k list) and not just make a petty comment once a year on the lvl 4 list to put down me, while consciously ignoring (and in some cases supporting the removal of) the much more obvious keep (Chopin Nocturnes), proves people base their arguments on authoritative speaking more than any hard knowledge of the field. For posterity sakes i will make a comment analyzing this poor and weak argument, so anyone who stumbles on this list can laugh at the rank elitism directed towards me and my writing, while with unabashed hypocrisy that same person shits on my "wall of texts" (attempts at discussion) and at the same time avoiding arguments, linking commercials (and in other instances movie/tv quotes and memes) and personally insulting me, all while i take it on the chin and try and engage in discussion - yet that same person claims to be only full of intellect and "informed discussion" is hilarious and to see it endorsed by others - means i know i am no longer welcome on such a list and no longer wish to contribute only to be consistently mocked and see that being endorsed. If someone who can't even own their straight up bad faith insults [12] is taken more seriously, than i won't bother contributing. Funny how "you are what you write" means i am not worth anything, but does not count when i am inferred as crazy by links to animated tv show quotes [13], dismissed by links to comedy movie quotes or a commercial (or quora link) is used as a proper argument to determine historic notability - all of which are clear signs of good faith arguing/debating and signs of a higher intellect than someone like me who can't type, all of which are more important to this project. Let's not even mention i even asked for help to someone with more knowledge in classical music than me [14]. I digress, let's analyze this informed discussion.


"One shouldn't express opinions so definitively on a subject where one has no actual expertise unless one is begging to be ridiculed." Personal opinion, this would apply to alot of people and arguments here. Cobblet himself begging to be ridiculed for this piss poor understanding on Dance [15], which massively cut dancers with no informed discussion and with no deeper understanding of the history of dance.
"Sviatoslav Richter ranked La mer alongside the St. Matthew Passion and Ring cycle – I'll take his assessment over the nom's any day." amateur argument, again if Richter is king St. Matthew Passion should be listed over Mass in B Minor, that's a weak cop out otherwise. I guarantee any expert could be used to counter any opinion ever said on this project. It's piss poor nitpicking to compare a expert to me and nothing but a smart dig, which contributes nothing to healthy discussion.
"For an in-depth explanation on why La mer matters, I recommend the Cambridge Handbook." Basic example of a cherry picked point. Since he specifically highlighted "Cambridge handbook" to seem authoritative and smart, lets dissect the other titles in that series. (La mer is not unique, which a basic search proves. [16]). If this series is authoritative enough to be the single main argument used as a keep, than LOGIC should follow and it should relate to other works, yet we don't even list John Dowland who has a work highlighted by this series. [17], Michael Tippett (not even on the level 5 list....) [18], Olivier Messiaen [19], Carl Nielsen [20], Charles Ives [21], Gustav Holst [22] and Alban Berg [23]. All of whom are not listed. Any higher intellect could deduce that this is a objectively weak argument, that it is not unique for a composition to get a book length argument in defense of it and in most cases that importance implied isn't even in favour of the composers most time, yet alone a averagely important work. I can't write for shit, but i can deduce this is a clear example of a cherry picked argument, used authoritatively, it doesn't mean anything and in fact is not clear of notability.
"The same laundry list of articles given by the nom could be used to criticize the presence of any other specific musical work on the list." yeah, cause it's a weak list generally. Beethovens Symphony No. 9 has inarguable importance for this list and thus should be listed. Weaker works like the Debussy are not stronger than articles like Fashion design or Medieval art. You don't have to write good to know that.
"The real question are how many works of classical music should be on the list, and how should those works be chosen to achieve a balanced coverage of the subject." Yes, i agree. So let's add some medieval and renaissance works, without them we have no balance. Having the symphonies of Beethoven means we cover something more similar to Debussys piece than not having Medieval works. Ignoring Debussys piece is then more favourable than ignoring entire eras of music. It's not rocket science. He just doesn't care about the renaissance/medieval period, so it's not worth any attention. One would say he does not have any appreciation for it.
" If we remove Chopin's Nocturnes and La mer, the list is left with Vivaldi's Four Seasons as the only instrumental classical piece not written by an Austro-German composer, and the only one that is not either absolute or religious music. This makes the list worse, not better – who are we, Karlheinz Klopweisser?" The one valid point ruined by a in joke to signal elite knowledge of classical music and signal authoritativeness on a subject but using a commercial in a argument seems mad corny to me and funny in context of "informed discussion".
"I'd get rid of the Brandenburgs, Messiah, the Jupiter symphony, the Nutcracker, and Madama Butterfly or La bohème, before considering removing the Chopin or Debussy" contrast this utterance with his "It's not evident to me that you've actually read, looked at, or listened to any of the works you don't consider vital, much less have any understanding or appreciation of them (favourable or not)". Why when i list various works, i'm stupid with no appreciation or understanding, but not the same for him? This signals his whole argument is just to counter anything i do. Makes it pointless.

But that whole argument is rendered moot, when Cobblet's admitted (and opposers of La mer being removed have agreed in that same discussion) that La mer is not even Debussys most famous or important work [24]. Which means unequivocally that La mer has no place on this list. For him to contradict himself on it's worth is hilarious. It's then a lesser work by Cobblet's own admission. You don't have to type good to see this as a massive contradiction.

Look i can't write for shit, but i absolutely care about making a list of what is important in everything. I truly appreciate arts, entertainment and sport. My dream would be to learn English grammar and save up money to go and get a arts degree, because i am genuinely interested in the study of arts, entertainment, sports and historical figures. My dream would also dedicating my life to learning French, Spanish, Russian/Belarusian, Mandarin/Cantonese, Hindi/Punjabi and Arabic (MSA, Egyptian,Levantine) too, so i can genuinely improve my knowledge of various arts and get a more non western/anglo point of view of art itself. One day i hope i can be more articulate. I'm looking to improve myself, absolutely. One day i hope you can get past your massive elitism and class based condescension and appreciate people that clearly have a passion for something and not consistently put them down for trying or trying to think out of the box, tryna improve what a encyclopedia covers, not the Britannica type more conservative orthodoxy, where brand new ballet dancers and composers have articles but Hulk Hogan does not. You may be a big brained mathematics person who sticks up for the downtrodden engineer over the big bad astronauts but i hope one day you can see the human side of people and not continuously denigrate them. Anyway yeah, i say this all the time and my passion comes through and i come back, but i'm not taking consistent abuse anymore - it's clear people don't take me seriously to the point they follow piss poor arguments like the one i've dissected above. I retire from all three lists. Since Cobblet has driven off the major contributor of the lvl 5 list, i'm sure with his big brain intellect he will make it a better list and take over from me and clean it up to his satisfaction.


P.S. Let's combine a penchant for dismissal of fields dominated by women on this list (resulting in dance/fashion design being under covered in favour of comics etc) and outright dismissal of women pop singers in the archive (Britney as trailer park trash [25] (while average Euro dudes like Gabriel Fauré and Max Ernst get added). In light of that and the hate on this list regarding my predictions let's make another one. Britney Spears being worth more than Debussy in a couple of decades. The progenitor of modern pop, being worth more than "good music" average top tier French composer. How's that for appreciation of music? You never know!!! [26]. Here's one last one relating to this discussion - Christian Dior's name will last longer in French history than Debussy's. Some imply a Debussy composition is worth more than Dior's field. Let's see in 50 years. :) GuzzyG (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Your hard knowledge of classical music and of many of the other fields you choose biographies from is lacking. Which is not a problem on its own – none of us can be an expert at everything, most of us are an expert at nothing – but you're also extremely sensitive to criticism, to the point that you perceive it as an attack on your personal circumstances (which none of us know or care about), and you distort what other people say beyond all reason. Meanwhile, the walls of text you defend yourself with go unchallenged not because people agree with you, but because people don't see it worthwhile to engage with you when you do that. All this is not conducive to building a consensus. It also undermines your desire to be taken seriously. And that is a real shame, because you do often make very good points, which is why the list has benefited from your participation. Your enthusiasm for this project is appreciated and I hope you'll be back one day. Cobblet (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2020 (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
5-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 10:17, 25 September 2020 (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 History of philosophy

As a general rule, I don't really think we should be listing redirects at this level, but especially not when we're already so far over quota in this section. I understand the argument that some people would like an article on this subject, so we should list it to encourage its creation, but for whatever reason the English Wikipedia community has decided that this subject shouldn't have an article. I think we should just accept that. The English Wikipedia is developed enough that our Vital Articles lists aren't really about the creation of articles like they might be for less well-developed Wikipedia languages, but are just about the improvement of existing articles. Maybe it can get to stay listed at Level 5, but we should not list any redirects at Level 4.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. There is already a discussion on this page, so I'll tag Le Deluge, but redirects should not be vital articles. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
    I'd also oppose this at Level 5, as I oppose any non-articles (redirects, cross-namespace pages, the Main Page, etc.) being at any Level, but that might just be me. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support the consensus. --Thi (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support removal, purely on the technical grounds that it's been a redirect since this discussion in March 2016 and Vital redirects make no sense, but I'd be open to reinstating it on the Vital list should the consensus reinstate it as an article.Le Deluge (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 04:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
3-4, not added. --Thi (talk) 10:24, 25 September 2020 (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 Entertainment industry

This one maybe is too vague but still worth consideration. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Nom.
  2. Support; here it could function as a sort of wanted article; I don't see why the same topic should be considered less vital if it is a redirect than if it is featured. Anyhow, it would be a nice catch-all article covering many important areas uncovered at present. J947 (c), at 02:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support per J947. Move to business section where the other industry articles are. --Spaced about (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose It is only a redirect. --Thi (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose We don't list redirects here (or at least we shouldn't), we list articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Redirects and redlinks are inherently disqualified from any Level, IMO. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

Red link, seriously? No, I think it is a vital topic but do we link red links here? Can someoen stub it first? Ping me in few days and I can try to do it myself... would make for a fine WP:DYK. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

A while back it happened once I think. Beyond my time but generally I think redlinks are okay. J947 (c), at 07:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Corrected spelling. you missed out the n. It is not a red link - it is a redirect to entertainment though so?.... Carlwev  09:20, 10 December 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
Ebook 4-5, not added. Parchment 5-1, added. --Thi (talk) 08:02, 23 August 2020 (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 Ebook and Parchment

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

Add Ebook
  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)
  4. Support Ebook. Common element of modern society. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Ebook
  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)
  4. Oppose Ebook per J947. --Spaced about (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Ebook per above. Ebooks have not been as revolutionary as smartphones and are nowhere near as common as the other types of technology listed. Gizza (t)(c) 11:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Add Parchment
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Parchment Historically vital for a long period of time and had a huge impact. --Spaced about (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  4. --Thi (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  5. per above. Gizza (t)(c) 11:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Parchment
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)
@Sdkb: Papyrus is already on the list, parchment is not on the level 4. Dawid2009 (talk) 04:55, 10 May 2020 (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)

I edited this discussion and made separate sections for Ebook and Parchment for clarity. There seems to be no consensus adding Ebook (4-4), but Parchement is 4-1, if user Headbomb's vote is against both ebook and parchment. --Thi (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2020 (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
5-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2020 (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 Alla Pugacheva

We have removed many similar popular ballad singers such as Mariah Carey before. Vladimir Vysotsky is still influential musician.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support - This is pure recentism.--Catlemur (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Ҥ (talk) 06:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  5. Per nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 10:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
3-3, not removed. --Thi (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2020 (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.

Swap: remove Rugby World Cup, add Beauty pageant

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support especially addition, quite relevant cultural phenomenon at this level. --Thi (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Support addition
  1. Not sure about removal, but I support addition of the concept of bp here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We have other tournaments of similar stature, such as the Cricket World Cup. If we want to remove a sports competition, I'm not sure why we need both the NFL and the Super Bowl (which is of course part of the NFL and is covered in the NFL article). Neljack (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Neljack. Cobblet (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose agree with Neljack. Gizza (t)(c) 04:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
@Neljack: Good point about SuperBowl, it is an American event with little international recognition (unlike Oscars or such, it is rarely transmitted to other countries, or covered by international press). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I marked Beauty pageant as passed 5-1, see also other section titled Add Beauty pageant. Removal of Rugby World Cup is currently 4-1. --Thi (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2020 (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.
PARTIAL PASS
5-1, added; 2-1, not removed. --Rreagan007 (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2020 (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.

Swap: remove Sales tax, add Value-added tax

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)
  4. Support addition, not sure about removal per Rreagan007 below. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support addition  Carlwev  17:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Many countries have sales taxes. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
8-4, removed. --Rreagan007 (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2020 (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 Blog

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)
  6. Support not any more vital than Editorial or Column. - Spaced about (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  7. Support It's no more vital that editorial or podcast. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  8. Works for Level 5, but not here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. 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)
  2. Oppose --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 05:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  3. New and very influential form of media. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  4. World-wide famous and arguably more popular than some other mentioned in the op. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
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)
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
5-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2020 (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 Stirrup

We also list Saddle, and stirrups are really just one part of a saddle. Stirrups are covered adequately in the saddle article. We don't need to list both here.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 07:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 11:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2021 (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 Jean Giraud

This list has way too many articles. This article is not necessary to be in this list. Interstellarity (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support nom. Interstellarity (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support We already cover Hergé and Asterix, we don't need three Bande dessinée representatives, we all know a second person in BD would be René Goscinny or Albert Uderzo anyway. This is a highly in-house technical pick of comics, which we don't need. If we needed a in-house influential comics guy it'd be George Herriman. Any other comics artists like Alan Moore, Honoré Daumier, Tex Avery, Chuck Jones, Lotte Reiniger, Robert Crumb, Rodolphe Töpffer, Charles M. Schulz, Willis H. O'Brien, Richard F. Outcault are just as influential to the various forms of comics/animation/cartoons than Moebius. GuzzyG (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support cuts have to be made (43 above overall quota) as Giraud doesn't stand out as a vital comic book artist at this level. Gizza (talk • voy) 04:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-1, removed. --Thi (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2021 (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 Sam Cooke

Straight removal, as a alternative to my swap proposal, see Cline vote above for my rationale, music should be 150 and 6 for Blues, R&B, and soul is a bit much considering every other musicians i've listed and the fact we're only at 10 people for "non-english language music", which we could cover more of. Not more important in this kind of music as Mahalia Jackson, Lead Belly, Jackie Wilson, Muddy Waters or Whitney Houston, who no matter what recency concerns may arise, she's the most awarded woman of all time.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 11:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  4. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Gizza (talk • voy) 23:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Cooke's influence is significant and he should remain. Would consider a swap depending on proposal, but oppose an outright remove. OnAcademyStreet (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2021 (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.
PASSED
5-1, removed. --Thi (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2021 (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 Stephen Sondheim

Musical theatre/lyricism is too niche/American based for 4 representatives. Also; look at all the missing musicians in my Patsy Cline nomination. We also already list Leonard Bernstein for West Side Story. He's not a more important composer in history than John Philip Sousa, John Williams, Erik Satie, Jacques Offenbach, Charles Ives, Edvard Grieg, Francesco Landini, György Ligeti, Orlande de Lassus, Thomas Tallis, or Pérotin all of whom we miss. Prime example of 20th century clutter.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 08:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 11:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Gizza (talk • voy) 23:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Strong Oppose, the existing 4 in musical theater composers are the perfect representatives of the genre - no more, no less. Sondheim is a giant in not just the genre, but the musical world as a whole. Sweeney Todd, Into the Woods, Assassins and Company are hugely important and popular shows, receiving regular revivals since their openings. There also seems to a serious bias against musical theater in the proposed argument since the idea of musical theater being "too niche/american" (Huge in the UK as well...) doesn't really make sense when looking at how Rock and Roll is equally centered in America and the UK but has 19 articles. Is 4 really too many? - Aza24 (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2020 (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.


PASSED
5-0, added. --Thi (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2021 (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 Louis B. Mayer

"co-founder of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studios (MGM) in 1924. Under Mayer's management, MGM became the film industry's most prestigious movie studio". Just as influential as Warner or Goldwyn; commonly regarded as the most powerful and influential studio head.

""Louis B. Mayer defined MGM, just as MGM defined Hollywood, and Hollywood defined America""

"Louis B. Mayer ... made more stars than all the rest of the producers in Hollywood put together. ... He knew how to handle talent; he knew that to be successful, he had to have the most successful people in the business working for him. He was like Hearst in the newspaper business. ... He made an empire out of the thing"

are just some of the quotes describing him in his article.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Mayer is on par with Disney and Jack L. Warner, who are both listed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 11:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support per Presidentman. Jusdafax (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2021 (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 David O. Selznick

Irving Thalberg is the only vital and preeminent film producer needed for this list. Executives are the most important non director role, producers would be alright with just Thalberg. Listing one of the pioneering cinematographers like Gregg Toland, Vilmos Zsigmond, James Wong Howe and Sven Nykvist that we are missing would be much better behind the scenes people, we are missing cinematographers. (and Louis B. Mayer) as above. Either way, we're over quota and if Margaret Mitchell got removed because we list the film, than i don't see how he makes it.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 04:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support - I'm a bit reluctant to pull Selznick, but I have just !voted to add Mayer, so this balances it out. Jusdafax (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2021 (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 Sergey Solovyov (historian)

The least vital person on this list, no discernible influence; there's many, many more historians with more influence than him. We already list one Russian historian (Nikolay Karamzin). We don't need another, atleast not Solovyov. No encyclopedia needs his biography, certainly not one limited for 2000 articles. Historians are over listed compared to people in medicine, of which we're missing big names like Ambroise Paré, Thomas Sydenham and Pierre Fauchard.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support. Not vital for those outside very specific field or interest. --Thi (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Vladimir Dal would be a better choice to represent the humanities in 19th-century Russia. Cobblet (talk) 04:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support per above. Gizza (talk • voy) 06:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3, not removed. --Thi (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2021 (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 Ulysses S. Grant

Grant's contributions are not significant enough to be listed at Level 4. Interstellarity (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support [nom]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Commanding general of the Union army in the Civil war, supremely notable and that's why he's listed. If he is removed than so should Robert E. Lee. His own article states "he was widely credited as the General who "saved the Union"." GuzzyG (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Influential military leader, important figure in American history. --Thi (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per all. The Eisenhower of the Civil War. We (rightfully) have Robert E. Lee at this level, we should also have Grant. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

Note that Grant is listed under military leaders – not politicians – as a result of two discussions. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:36, 11 December 2020 (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.
FAILED
1-3, not removed. --Thi (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2021 (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 John Adams

Adams was without a doubt one of our founding fathers, but I put someone like Jefferson above him for inclusion. Interstellarity (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support [nom]
Oppose
  1. Oppose He was number 25 in The Atlantic's 100 influential Americans. Popular biography in Wikipedia. Basic encyclopedic topic especially in English Wikipedia.. --Thi (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. First Vice President and Second President. He has to be vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Most prominent member of America's first political dynasty, one of the most significant Founding Fathers, first vice president, second president, set the standard for peaceful transfer of power after losing to Thomas Jefferson in 1800. OnAcademyStreet (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2021 (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.
FAILED
2-3, not removed. --Thi (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2021 (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 Andrew Jackson

Jackson's contributions are not significant enough to be listed at Level 4. Interstellarity (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support [nom]
  2. Weak support He is vital in American context but probably not so much in world history. --Thi (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose founded the Democratic Party and ushered in Jacksonian democracy. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Way too important to not be listed. He was the first president that could be called a populist. The Jacksonian Era (pretty sure he's the only president with an era named after him) was a pivotal turning point in U.S. history. Until very recently, the Democratic Party routinely celebrated him and Jefferson as the two founders of the Democratic party annually on Jefferson–Jackson Day. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jackson's modern reputation has taken a tumble for good reason, but we shouldn't let that erase his status as the single most significant American politician of the period between the Founders and the Civil War. OnAcademyStreet (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Discuss

Jacksonian democracy and his actions with indigenous Americans pushes him over the barrier in my opinion, but i'll see what other editors think. GuzzyG (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2020 (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.
FAILED
1-3, not removed. --Thi (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2021 (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 James Madison

Madison was without a doubt one of our founding fathers, but I put someone like Jefferson above him for inclusion. Interstellarity (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support [nom]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Come on, seriously? He had the most significant role in writing the U.S. Constitution. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Rreagan007. OnAcademyStreet (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Vital for American history and English Wikipedia. --Thi (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Discuss

"He is hailed as the "Father of the Constitution" for his pivotal role in drafting and promoting the Constitution of the United States and the United States Bill of Rights. He co-wrote The Federalist Papers, co-founded the Democratic-Republican Party" - for context on why he's listed. GuzzyG (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2020 (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
6-0, swapped. --Thi (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2021 (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.

Swap Eva Perón for Juan Perón

Might be controversial, but if we're really strict on actual influence and not just pop culture celebrity - it's clear Juan is more vital in a influence way. Diana, Princess of Wales failed, with people suggesting that Charles is even more vital today; and i doubt Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis or Mumtaz Mahal would get added. Jiang Qing is listed too, but she had a lot more hard influence. Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 46#Add Jiang Qing and Chinese politics and Mao combine to have a larger vitality all together. But Eva is the same type of figure as Diana, died tragically young and super popular in their area. If Diana isn't vital - neither is Eva. Juan had all the political influence and control/power.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 23:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 08:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  6. Support OnAcademyStreet (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
3-3, not added. --Thi (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2021 (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 Willard Libby

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. Support RekishiEJ (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Radiocarbon dating itself is listed. --Thi (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Thi. Heart (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Not the next person to add from archeology Flinders Petrie would be. GuzzyG (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2020 (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.

Remove Industry

PASSED
Passed 5-0. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:53, 15 December 2020 (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.

Industry is now a disambiguation page, and we don't list disambig pages as Vital Articles. This proposal is to remove it from both Level 4 and 5. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. Per nom – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support It is currently a disambiguation page. --Thi (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (talk • voy) 04:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 03:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-4, not removed. --Thi (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2021 (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 Richard Nixon

Nixon is too insignificant to be at Level 4. His contributions are not influential for a president. Interstellarity (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support [nom]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Significant figure in recent history, still remembered. Defining figure of his decade, he can be compared to Eisenhower in 50s, Kennedy in 60s and Reagan in 80s. --Thi (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Probably the most infamous president in addition to the long list of accomplishments as president enumerated below by GuzzyG. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per everyone. GuzzyG (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per GuzzyG discussion. Jusdafax (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Discuss

Just to add Nixon's basic accomplishments since the nomination is blank - from his article "Nixon ended American involvement in Vietnam in 1973, ending the military draft that same year. Nixon's visit to China in 1972 eventually led to diplomatic relations between the two nations, and he gained the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the Soviet Union the same year. His administration generally transferred power from federal control to state control. He imposed wage and price controls for 90 days, enforced desegregation of Southern schools, established the Environmental Protection Agency, and began the War on Cancer. He also presided over the Apollo 11 moon landing, which signaled the end of the Space Race". A bit more than "insignificant". GuzzyG (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2020 (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.
FAILED
2-3, not removed. --Thi (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2021 (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 James K. Polk

Polk did do a lot in one term in office, but not enough to be listed at level 4. Interstellarity (talk) 12:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support [nom]
  2. Support Fillmore-level of forgettability, U.S. Expansion is already covered by Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose He's not that known - but expanding the US so much makes him important enough for this list. "Polk is chiefly known for extending the territory of the United States through the Mexican–American War; during his presidency, the United States expanded significantly with the annexation of the Republic of Texas, the Oregon Territory, and the Mexican Cession following the American victory in the Mexican–American War. " - from his article. Picking up Texas and California are hugely important to the development of the United States. It would be weird to have Antonio López de Santa Anna and not Polk. GuzzyG (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Polk is hardly well-known, but that doesn't mean he's not significant. His presidency reshaped--literally--the political boundaries of North America. OnAcademyStreet (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per previous opposers. Jusdafax (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Discuss

Previous discussions on Polk:

— J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:21, 11 December 2020 (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.
NO CONSENSUS
3-3, not removed. --Thi (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2021 (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 LeBron James

This list has way too many articles. This article is not necessary to be in this list. Interstellarity (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support nom. Interstellarity (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support Five articles for basketball is pushing it already, i'd support 3 (along with a cutdown of other sports) - Jordan, Chamberlain and Naismith. Instead of covering every sport and contemporary fav (we should leave that to the level 5 list, which is it's purpose), we should atleast cover every social science first. C. L. R. James, John Ruskin, Giorgio Vasari, Richard Bentley, Paulo Freire, Gerardus Mercator, Melvil Dewey, Magnus Hirschfeld, Ellen Swallow Richards, Shoqan Walikhanov are all examples of developments more important than Basketball and tied to a longer lasting legacy. I could mention hard science too. Also it's a bit off that we cover alot of contemporary athletes but not contemporary entertainers/artists, if your answer is "there's not that much historically important earlier athletes compared to contemporary important ones", than that's my point. Athletes fade quick, which is why we should wait. Only unanimous greats like Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps, Roger Federer and Wayne Gretzky should be added. Michael Jordan is the unanimous great, Wilt Chamberlain is representation of early basketball and James Naismith is the founder. If we don't represent 21st century philosophy with a figure than i don't know why we need to represent 2010s basketball yet. It's also weird that Narendra Modi, Xi Jinping, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan would be considered too recent, but not James - despite being pretty much very important leaders in major countries on the world stage and at this point it's weird not to think Xi or Erdogan atleast don't have lasting importance in their countries histories. GuzzyG (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. --Thi (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose, the nominator didn't give a reason. ESPN ranked LeBron ahead of everyone but Jordan, and that was before this year's championship. If you want to remove someone, remove Magic. You already have Kareem. You don't need two players who played on the same team were teammates (clarified, due to confusion). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I agree with the above comment. I think LeBron is more important than Magic Johnson. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Dropping an athlete given the number listed and their relative unimportance in the sweep of human knowledge is reasonable, but there are far better options than James for removal. OnAcademyStreet (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Discuss

Noted that you skipped my reason (so the nominator did not have to have one). "two players who played on the same team."? Every player but Jordan listed played on the Lakers. Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Magic Johnson, AND LeBron James have all played on the same team - which leads one to believe this is mere mythology based promotion of the most known team than a proper representation of Basketball throughout it's history. To put that into perspective - we cover 4 Lakers players but only 6 modern politicians from West Africa itself, a place with massive importance historically to Africa itself and African-Americans in the US and with a population of 381,202,440 - let's not even mention we have the same amount of Lakers players as modern Japanese politicians or one more than catholic popes. I would be in support of cutting Basketball down to three as mentioned (and every other sport cut down too), it's unfathomable how bias we are to sports on this level. They'd fit much more on the pop culture orientated level 5 list. As a Sportsfan it might be tempting to jump to defense for athletes but let's break this down - the key is not to justify why someone should be on the list but why they should take much more notable peoples spots who have actually lasted in history rather than be a contemporary 2010s based still active athlete, especially since athletes are renowned for being lower in historical importance. But let's break this down;

"GOAT" lists are incredibly promotional and meant to induce hype for clicks. They are incredibly contemporary focused and change every decade. in the 50s it would've been George Mikan or Bob Cousy listed as the greatest, in the 60s it would've been Bill Russell, Elgin Baylor and Jerry West, in the 70s it would've been John Havlicek, in the 80s it would've been Julius Erving or Larry Bird, in the 90s it would have been Karl Malone or Hakeem Olajuwon and in the 00s it would've been Kobe Bryant or Shaquille O'Neal. (not including players already listed). Point being - this happens all the time and we should not rush things. If a athlete is still important and being ranked high atleast a decade after their retirement than they should be listed - if we had to cover one other Basketballer than the 3 i mentioned it should be Lisa Leslie to cover women. It begs belief on why we don't list any other contemporary sports figures considered one of the greatest either like Simone Biles, Lewis Hamilton, Katie Ledecky, Tom Brady or Magnus Carlsen - who at the very least will be notable in their own sports for a while to come or even very famous contemporary ones like Mike Tyson or Virat Kohli?. Why do we single out Basketball for a 2010s athlete pick - when 2010s history is not even settled?

I'd much rather we cover Olympic sports (international importance) not coverered like; Lin Dan - Badminton, Jan-Ove Waldner - Table Tennis, Karch Kiraly - Volleyball, Ivano Balić - Handball, Dezső Gyarmati - Water polo, Edoardo Mangiarotti - Fencing, Reiner Klimke - Equestrian, Paul Elvstrøm - Sailing, Carl Osburn - Shooting sports, Dick Fosbury - high jump, Al Oerter - Discus throw, Kelvin Martin - Curling, Naim Süleymanoğlu - Weightlifting, Kim Soo-nyung - Archery, Michal Martikán - Canoe slalom, Kanō Jigorō - Judo, Eugenio Monti - Bobsleigh, Hadi Saei - Taekwondo, Buvaisar Saitiev - Freestyle wrestling or Greg Louganis - Diving. Not to mention upcoming Olympic sports like Duke Kahanamoku - Surfing, Tony Hawk - Skateboarding, Reinhold Messner - climbing, Jennie Finch - Softball or Mas Oyama- Karate. Volleyball is a category B olympic sport like Basketball and deserves coverage [27], most others are C. These are fundamental sports to the world and some have been in the olympics for a century. They deserve consideration too. Let's not mention other important sports like Go Seigen - Go, Eddie Arcaro - Horse racing, Jahangir Khan - Sqaush, Dally Messenger - Rugby league, Richard Petty - Nascar, Royce Gracie - Mixed martial arts or Joe Davis - Cue sports. Also historically important sports like Juan Belmonte - Bullfighting, Milo of Croton - Ancient sports, Taihō Kōki - Sumo. Let's not even get into important already historical figures of main sports like Paul Morphy - Chess, Red Grange - American football or Bobby Jones - Golf, Barney Oldfield - Motorsport or Bob Fitzsimmons - Boxing. Surely as a Sportsfan you should be in favour of having a more representative coverage of sports by country and time period, right? The world of sports goes beyond American team sports.

Now specifically - let's get into important Black historical figures - a area in which we massively lack and would be better coverage than in Basketball.

Ben Enwonwu - Africas greatest visual artist. We list no Black person in the visual arts section other than Imhotep - which is poor form to say the least. Jean-Michel Basquiat would be America's greatest black artist. Both would be good additions and better than LeBron - with more confirmed historical importance too. Edmonia Lewis and Ladi Kwali are also super important for their art.

Ousmane Sembène and Oscar Micheaux are important black filmmakers - in which we list none. So why again do we have 4 lakers players but no black visual artists or filmmakers>?

Bessie Smith, W. C. Handy, John Coltrane, Muddy Waters, Lead Belly and Nina Simone are all important to the development of the blues/jazz - which are archetypes of American popular music but yet we don't cover alot of strict blues. just R&B.

Lorraine Hansberry, James Baldwin, Audre Lorde, Zora Neale Hurston and Claude McKay are all incredibly important to African American literature.

Ida B. Wells - pioneering journalist/activist - most famous African American woman of her time.

Marsha P. Johnson, Thurgood Marshall and Emmett Till three incredibly important people to Black civil rights - and in two areas we do not cover. Till would fit as a catalyst, along with Anne Frank. Marcus Garvey, Amílcar Cabral and Dedan Kimathi are other super important non-American Black activists.

bell hooks, Cheikh Anta Diop, Alain LeRoy Locke and C. L. R. James are some of the most important Black intellectuals.

Jack Johnson and Major Taylor - two people who contributed massively to the acceptance of Black people in sports - historically.

Paul Robeson, Ira Aldridge, Bill Robinson, Bert Williams, Nicholas Brothers, Omotola Jalade Ekeinde, Alvin Ailey, Hubert Ogunde and Misty Copeland - important black entertainers.

Chevalier de Saint-Georges and Florence Price - two Black composers quickly gaining recognition in European classical music.

Le Grand Kallé, Tabu Ley Rochereau, Franco Luambo, Ali Farka Touré, Siti binti Saad, Tilahun Gessesse and Siti binti Saad - important musicians from Africa beyond Kuti and Makeba - one of the most prominent areas of music.

Aliko Dangote - Richest person in Africa.

Jerry Rawlings, Siad Barre, Seretse Khama, Omar Bongo, Jean-Bédel Bokassa, Paul Biya, Dawda Jawara, Félix Houphouët-Boigny, Gnassingbé Eyadéma, Mengistu Haile Mariam, Michel Micombero, Omar al-Bashir, Zewditu, Cetshwayo kaMpande, Samora Machel, Hendrik Witbooi, Sonni Ali, Osei Kofi Tutu I, Dawit II, Afonso I of Kongo, Sundiata Keita, Lalibela, Seku Amadu, Samori Ture, Shanakdakhete, Masinissa, Alara of Kush, Usman dan Fodio and Paul Kagame are all important Black politicians in areas/countries we miss.

Now alot of these wouldn't make it or are contemporary - but all are infinitely more important than James or on his level - it's a travesty we cover things like 4 Lakers players and have more of them than some areas of African culture. There's so much we don't cover on this list for things like 4 Lakers players. A sportsfan should even recognise that is not an accurate representation of the world's activities. If a contemporary Person is truly going to end up a historical figure than we don't have to rush it - they'll make it eventually. But we should cover the people who have made history today.

Either way - this point got skipped - but it's straight up ludicrous that extremely important 2010s figures (and 21st century clearly) figures like Xi Jinping, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Narendra Modi are kept off for recentism - but figures like LeBron are not. We're one over quota anyway - so this is moot. He's one of the weakest figures listed. GuzzyG (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying you should or shouldn't add any of the 100+ people you mentioned to the list. Many of them I would like to see on the list. I'm saying if you want to remove one basketball person, it shouldn't be LeBron. Remove Magic (you already have someone for that era); remove Wilt (you already have another center, and you already have someone for "early basketball"). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
It's not a bad thing to put a contemporary all-time great on the list, and then replace them if they get surpassed in the future. You would have been crazy to leave off Jordan or Gretzky from this list in the 1990s just because they were contemporaries. The only reason many of the athletes on the list are in fact on the list is because they haven't been surpassed yet, but it could happen in the future. What do you think Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps, and Roger Federer have done that guarantees they won't be passed, but LeBron will? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Surely as a Sportsfan you should be in favour of having a more representative coverage of sports by country and time period, right? It depends on the sport. Being an Olympic sport doesn't mean it has "international importance". For instance, I don't know how many countries there are where archery is considered popular (as in, mainstream among people who are not interested in sports.) Whether a sport is best represented by historical figures, recent figures, or contemporaries really depends on the sport and the people in consideration. For sure, men's tennis needs at least one current representative. And for sure, boxing does not, for instance. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
LeBron is just the most egregious case. I am obviously fine with Magic being removed too. The point of the "100+" people being listed is to show that we already are lacking in coverage in areas where we need to cover, but adequately cover basketball (and other sports) enough already.
"You would have been crazy to leave off Jordan or Gretzky from this list in the 1990s" - I agree because they are both unanimous in number one importance.
"What do you think Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps, and Roger Federer have done that guarantees they won't be passed, but LeBron will?" Because Usain Bolt has overtaken Carl Lewis, Phelps has overtaken the entire Olympics movement and Federer has overtaken Rod Laver unanimously as the number one in their sports, if they get beat they can always be swapped. LeBron has been passed, by Jordan who we cover. That's the point. We'd cut Lewis instead of Bolt, Spitz before Phelps and Laver before Federer - yet we would cut LeBron before Jordan - hence he isn't in a position to be passed anyway because he was never ahead. In 100 years second best doesn't mean anything and the corporate entities will be mass promoting the newest great athlete to sell attention/hype on who can overtake the great if you keep watching. LeBron doesn't have the status of Jordan - who massively popularized it - so even if Jordan is surpassed - he still represents a historic milestone in Basketball. LeBron has nothing but contemporary performance/fame - both of which don't tend to last long. Noone remembers second place, especially in sports.
Archery is ranked clearly in class C of importance by the Olympics based on interest in the link i provided [28]. We cover rowing and it's in the same category. We cover wrestling and it's in D. Not to mention it having more of a historical base than Basketball.
As in the case of Joe DiMaggio or Lou Gehrig mass decades long ongoing fame is not enough to be listed and LeBron does not have a record like Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak either.
I never meant that all of those people i listed should be added - but i don't see how anyone can look and imagine the many areas we are missing so we can list 6 Basketball players - 4 from the same team. It's ludicrous. People like Ben Enwonwu and Ousmane Sembène represent a entire continent and will be studied for many decades because of it. Visual art and film have a more academic base than sports - which leads me to believe they will be studied for longer and more suitable for a long term encyclopedia. Either way we're missing out on important topics like Herod the Great and Pierre Fauchard and i can list many, many more examples here. Athletes should have the same amount as entertainers. At the end of the day - again, if we're not listing people like Beyoncé, Tom Cruise, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christopher Nolan Eminem, Kanye West, Radiohead, Banksy, J. K. Rowling, Hulk Hogan, Kim Kardashian, PewDiePie or Britney Spears and every other famous contemporary figure who are tied to their endeavour and dominance within their era - because of recentism - then why Basketball? Not one of these people's importance in their field will be diminished, it's just a waiting game for them to be historical so they can go on a historical list. I don't see why we should prioritize sports as the one area we list a bunch of contemporary figures but in no other area - in which we hold specific recentism rules for. It just does not make sense. GuzzyG (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
This is a proposal about whether to remove LeBron from the list (which I specifically oppose), not about whether we have too many basketball players, too many sports figures, the wrong number of recent figures, or not enough people in some other non-sports categories (which I have varying opinions given the broad nature of the scope). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree that we would remove LeBron before Jordan, but there are six players on the list right now, not one. I don't think we would remove LeBron before Magic, Wilt, or Naismith. And if LeBron were to break Kareem's scoring record, I don't think we would remove LeBron before Kareem either. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not the one stopping recent figures from being added in other categories not related to sports. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2020 (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.
NO CONSENSUS
1-1, not added. --Thi (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2021 (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 Moscow Metro

Support
  1. As nom. Although the list is indeed full it should still be added back because it is no doubt a vital transportational means for Muscovites and every tourist should include it on his bucket list (cf. [29]).--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per previous discussion. There are four country-specific articles related to rail transport: the London Underground, New York City Subway, Shikansen and Trans-Siberian Railway. The Moscow Metro does not fit in among this elite list. It would stick out like a sore thumb. And it would tilt the bias of this small group of articles strongly towards Russia which doesn't deserve 2 out of 5 train articles. Not everything on a bucket list is Level 4 vital. Gizza (t)(c) 12:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

This article had been proposed to be removed twice, and ultimately it got removed in the second time (cf. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_30#Remove_Tokyo_subway,_Moscow_Metro,_New_York_City_Subway,_Paris_Métro and Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 49#Remove_Moscow_Metro).--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2020 (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
Passed 5-2. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:09, 19 January 2021 (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 Medical ethics

This topic is no doubt more vital than, say, Nestor Makhno, which is currently listed, since people hear and talk about medical ethics much more often than Makhno, etc..

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support This might belong in the philosophy section, but it definitely seems important. Sdkb (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support per John, and moreover, while many people will never have any significant interaction with a lawyer, everyone needs a doctor. Cobblet (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose not convinced it is any more vital than the ethics of other major professions like legal ethics, business ethics, media ethics, engineering ethics, etc. Might support applied ethics at this level. Gizza (t)(c) 04:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I agree with DaGizza, and I think applied ethics would be a better article to include at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
DaGizza I see it at about the same level as legal ethics but more important than the other fields, given the privileged status of lawyers and doctors in Western society (patient-doctor confidentiality, and the legal privileged status of interactions between attorney and client) that are simply lacking in the other institutions. I have no opinion on this (and haven't/won't vote), but I see how medical and legal ethics are distinctly prioritized relative to other fields of applied ethics. Perhaps it might be better to have applied ethics generally here, though. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:05, 21 August 2020 (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.
NO CONSENSUS
--Thi (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2021 (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.

Move Bruce Lee to Actors

With regard to there being too many sports figures on this list, I propose to move Bruce Lee to the Actors section. While Lee is certainly a martial artist and certainly worthy of inclusion at this level, he is most famous and most influential for being an actor, not an athlete. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support reasonable move. --Thi (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Bruce Lee is a martial artist who acted in specific martial arts films - his importance is in the martial arts community - he is not a acting technique defining figure but a martial arts one. Some encyclopedias lead with actor as others do because they'd never cover a martial artist but we do and thus Bruce Lee has primary historical importance for his martial arts career and the acting is apart of that. Separating Ip Man and Lee on the level 5 list makes no sense. GuzzyG (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. Bruce Lee wouldn't be on this list if he wasn't an actor. His "acting technique defining" innovation was incorporating martial arts into film. Besides that, he is also "credited with helping to change the way Asians were presented in American films." As of now, there are few Chinese-origin actors on the list (maybe not even one?). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that's not an acting technique - that's him incorporating Martial Arts into film, not a actor - a martial artist (listed under sports). It'd be ludicrous to take him out of his spot on the level 5 list next to his mentor like Ip Man and put him next to Brad Pitt, two different occupations. If we needed a Chinese actor, Ruan Lingyu would be the one, although other than Hong Kong China's film industry is not as established, but we already cover that with Lee. If we need Chinese specific artists (we do), i'd prefer keeping Lee in sports and adding one of Mei Lanfang, Xu Beihong, Zhou Xuan, Zhu Shaowen, Fei Mu or Min Huifen. They'd be much better to represent modern Chinese cultural history than a actor other than Lee. GuzzyG (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2020 (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.
NO CONSENSUS
--Thi (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2021 (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.

Move Edmund Hillary, Junko Tabei, and Tenzing Norgay to Explorers

With regard to there being too many sports figures on this list, I propose to move Edmund Hillary, Junko Tabei, and Tenzing Norgay to the Explorers section. Being the first to climb Mount Everest is much more of an exploratory achievement than an athletic achievement. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support At least Hillary and Norgay belong to other context than sport. --Thi (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Britannica calls mountaineering a sport [30] thus it is. It would be irresponsible to have 3 mountaineers in explorers - the same as we have astronauts and more than aviators. They're better defined as athletes. We'd have to split the section up on the level 5 list too. There's more in common with Alex Honnold and these three than they have in common with Yuri Gagarin, Hernán Cortés or Leif Erikson GuzzyG (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2020 (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.
PASSED
6-0, added. --Thi (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2021 (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 Symphony No. 3 (Beethoven)

With changes happening to the painting section, it is time to fix the musical works one. Beethoven's 3rd could be argued to be the most important piece of music ever written, and frankly it surprises me it's not here already. Originally I assumed that the reason it wasn't on here was because there were already 3 Beethoven works, but after GuzzyG pointed out how many Shakespeare works are on here (and for good reason) this work undoubtedly belongs here. If you're unfamiliar with it, it is a very dramatic work in that it is a harsh rejection of the classical style, and opens up the romantic movement, similar to Les Demoiselles d'Avignon with modern art/cubism and Tristan und Isolde with modern music. Check out these lists too: Voted #1, Voted #1 and Voted #1. Aza24 (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom - Aza24 (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support It can be said that Eroica is famous, popular and significant enough to be listed at this level. Beethoven was not only Romantic composer but "manifestation of the Enlightenment spirit". It is justifiable to inculde also work closer the Classical era. --Thi (talk) 09:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support ili (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support More vital than the 5th symphony. Cobblet (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support A very surprising omission. Neljack (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. Jusdafax (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, swapped. --Thi (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2021 (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.

Swap: Remove Madama Butterfly, add La bohème

Another easy swap. Madama Butterfly's article literally recognizes that the same poll that ranked it as the 6th greatest Opera, ranks La Boheme as the 3rd. La Boheme's influence is enormous, especially considering it inspired the extremely successful musical, Rent. Some outside lists: one that ranks it as Puccini's greatest: From Opera Wire and one that ranks it at #19, the highest of Puccini's Operas in this list from the Guardian. I suspect that it was added from favoritism in the past and no one thought much of it, but it is clear the La boheme, is more influential, more performed and better known. Aza24 (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom - Aza24 (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support at least Madama Butterfly made for a damn good Weezer album. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed. --Thi (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2021 (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.

Suggestion: remove some universities

IMO number of currently included educationa institutions maybe is too large considering coverage of the other topics on the list (for example languages) when we are over quota at society section, especially if we take into fact that earlier we just have removed some libraries. I made a lot of suggestions to remove universities which had weak achivements by theses rankings/sources. Most of these nominations are grounded based on that source but I am not sure all of them are weakest universities on the list. Dawid2009 (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

École normale supérieure (Paris)

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (talk • voy) 05:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support removing all listed universities – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose -- The Ecole Normale Supérieure is the alma mater of many people listed on this list, such as Louis Pasteur, Evariste Galois, Alexander Grothendieck, Jean-Paul Sartre, Henri Bergson, Emile Durkheim, Pierre Bourdieu, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Simone de Beauvoir, as well as 12 Fields Medalist (the biggest number in the world) and 8 Nobel Prizes in Physics. It has the highest Nobel Prizes per Alumni ratio in the world. It has enough significance to make it on this list in my opinion. Gazaret (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

Jagiellonian University

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support; this line from here: For several centuries, virtually the entire intellectual elite of Poland were educated at the university gives me some doubt in supporting the removal of this, but after all it is only relating to Poland and mostly to only a small section of lives and a small section of people. I would be unconvinced by any 'first' argument here. J947 (c), at 00:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (talk • voy) 05:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support removing all listed universities – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Most famous Polish university, significant in European history, still exists and I think is ranked in Top 500; which is not great but shows it is not garbage - and given it's historical and regional significance, I think it is V4. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

University of al-Qarawiyyin

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (talk • voy) 05:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support removing all listed universities – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

University of Hong Kong

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (talk • voy) 05:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support removing all listed universities – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Peking University

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (talk • voy) 05:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support removing all listed universities – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Complutense University of Madrid

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 21:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support removing all listed universities – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Leiden University

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (talk • voy) 05:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support removing all listed universities – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

University of Salamanca

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (talk • voy) 05:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support removing all listed universities – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Charles University in Prague

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (talk • voy) 05:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support removing all listed universities – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, added. --Thi (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2021 (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 Image

Seems a bad omission at this level. — J947 [cont] 01:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. — J947 [cont] 01:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Good catch, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support could plausibly be at Level 3 given an incomplete overlap with photography, but this will do. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 09:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

For context, photography is at level 3, and photograph appears to be unlisted. There's some discussion to be had about potential overlap, but this is clearly an oversight. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:19, 20 May 2020 (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.
NO CONSENSUS
2-2, no consensus. --Thi (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2021 (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.

Swap: remove Rita Hayworth, add Catherine Deneuve

The actors list is quite Hollywood-centric. Catherine Deneuve is known as one of the best-respected actresses in the French film industry. [31]. She was for example in The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964), Repulsion (Roman Polanski, 1965), Belle de Jour (Luis Buñuel, 1967) and The Last Metro (François Truffaut, 1980). [32] Previous nomination of swapping Rita Hayworth: [33].

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support GuzzyG (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - Hayworth was iconic in her era, as her Wikipedia article makes clear. I'm not opposing Deneuve's listing as a Level Four, but am strongly opposed to demoting Hayworth. Even just reading the article lede makes her iconic status clear, in my view. Jusdafax (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Jusdafax's argument concerning historical importance. Dimadick (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2021 (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
5-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2021 (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 Judi Dench

This list has way too many articles. This article is not necessary to be in this list. Interstellarity (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support nom. Interstellarity (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support We don't need another contemporary British actress. She's not even the greatest British stage actress - that's Peggy Ashcroft. GuzzyG (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. --Thi (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  5. Support - not at this level. Gizza (talk • voy) 22:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Removal 2-3, addition or swap 1-3. --Thi (talk) 09:39, 13 February 2021 (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.

Swap: Remove George W. Bush, Add James Monroe

James Monroe is probably best known for the Monroe Doctrine. Although it may be early in history to determine Bush's legacy as president, historians rank him as a below average president. I think James Monroe is the better choice when it comes to presidents. Historians rank him as one of the better presidents.

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support removal importance, rather than quality (good or bad), is what defines vitality here, so the fact that Bush was "bad" is irrelevant. (Indeed, Trump is likely to join this list in January despite similarly dissatisfactory reviews.) Nevertheless, Bush is probably insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but so is Monroe. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Monroe doctrine seems better choice per previous discussion. --Thi (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose GWB's actions on terrorism and it's resultant focus/effect are probably the most defining thing so far this century - his presidency has impacted the actions of every president since. GuzzyG (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose The historian's rankings typically reflect the president's perceived competence, not their historical impact. Due to his War on terror and said war's global impact, Bush is quite a towering figure in global history. Dimadick (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Discuss

@John M Wolfson: How many presidents do you think we should have at level 4? We currently have 17 presidents at level 4 and level 4 has way too many articles. We could possibly cut that number down to 10 or 12 presidents. I would like to know your thoughts on which presidents you think should stay, which ones should be added, and which ones should be removed? Interstellarity (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: Actually, the number of people is currently only excessive by one, at 2,001. That said, of the 18 Presidents, I think we can stand to remove LBJ, Polk, Truman, and Bush while adding Trump, bringing it down to a net of 3. (We can also stand to remove Eleanor Roosevelt, IMO; we already have FD and Teddy.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
@John M Wolfson: Whilst I agree with you on some of the articles like Eleanor, my thoughts were on removing Nixon, Grant, Adams, Jackson, and Madison. Do you think we should make a decision in this section or should I nominate each article individually? Interstellarity (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Individually would be better. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:59, 11 December 2020 (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.
FAILED
3-4, not removed. --Thi (talk) 09:41, 13 February 2021 (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 Eleanor Roosevelt

We already have FDR listed at this level. Eleanor can be moved down a level.

Support
  1. [Nom]
  2. Per nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support. She fits in better at Level 5. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Her work with the UN is too significant to drop her down. OnAcademyStreet (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Her work with the UN makes her an internationally important figure and we certainly need a woman in American politics. Until there's a woman as president, E Roosevelt fits. GuzzyG (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Often listed among influential women, vital for English Wikipedia. --Thi (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Her work with the UN ranks her above most American politicians. Dimadick (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Neutral
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.
NO CONSENSUS
1-1, no consensus. --Thi (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2021 (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 Messe de Nostre Dame, Nuper rosarum flores, Missa Pange lingua and Missa Papae Marcelli

While this may seem like a lot of works, this list has no Medieval or Renaissance pieces and these 4 perfectly sum up these eras and would be by themselves a complete section: (So this proposal is more of a section one)

Messe de Nostre Dame is usually considered the most important piece of the Medieval era, by this era's most important composer, Guillaume de Machaut

Nuper rosarum flores, Missa Pange lingua and Missa Papae Marcelli are the 3 most important pieces of the Renaissance's most important composers, Guillaume Du Fay, Josquin des Prez and Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina respectively. These 4 pieces seem like the perfect amount, no more and no less for a Medieval music section, after all, music did not just start with Bach, now did it? Aza24 (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom - Aza24 (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose They are not as well known to general public than other works. This is example of case when items of the list would fit well to music-related wikiproject but not so well to general encyclopedia. --Thi (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2020 (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.
PASSED
5-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2021 (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 The Dark Side of the Moon

Per my nocturnes nomination, on all the technical music stuff we're missing that'd be better adds. It's a very important album, but it's on the level of Bohemian Rhapsody, Purple Haze, Rock Around the Clock, Led Zeppelin IV, Revolver (Beatles album), Exile on Main St., The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars, Rumours (album), or The Velvet Underground & Nico - all of which it doesn't seprate itself enough from. They're all works of similar length. It sells alot but Back in Black and Bat Out of Hell are rock albums that sell more, so that doesn't help them either. We already list enough modern rock music, if i had to choose another rock album, it wouldn't be another classic rock work, it'd be a newer rock work like to spread out our coverage Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols, OK Computer, or Nevermind, the latter two being on qual if not more critical standing. Why list so many classic rock works when we could list a rap work, a area we don't cover like Rapper's Delight, The Message (Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five song), It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back, Illmatic, Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) or Straight Outta Compton, all of which would be a improvement over a another classic rock work. Best selling album doesn't hold up any more when we removed White Christmas. I even think works like No Woman, No Cry, My Way, Like a Virgin (album), Waterloo (ABBA song), La Vie en rose, and I Walk the Line would be better to list, especially La Vie en Rose, it would be our only non English lyrical modern music work, that's more important than another classic rock album.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support It is most definitely NOT on the level of Revolver (which would be listed if Sgt. Pepper wasn't) or Rock Around the Clock (ditto, Rock and roll) but there is something to be said about Dark Side not being notable for much else except record sales. ili (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (talk • voy) 22:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  5. Support Significant, but perhaps not vital, the band is listed already.  Carlwev  10:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, added. --Thi (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2021 (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 Clothing industry

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support It is in my printed dictionary. Ecological and safety problems of clothing industry are often in the news. Important area in the history of industrialisation. --Thi (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support. Most industries should be at V4. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Where would Textile industry fit in this? feminist (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2020 (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
5-1, added. --Thi (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2021 (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 Food industry

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Vital area of industry. --Thi (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support The list lacks coverage of food technology at several levels. --Spaced about (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support. Most industries should be at V4. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose a straight addition. Gizza (talk • voy) 23:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

Just to note, industries are currently in the 'Business and Economics' section, which makes sense since they are not spread everywhere and easy to compare with each other and related topics. And at the moment, there are more vital business and economic articles missing than most of these proposed industries, like wholesaling and supply chain.

With food industry, I may support swapping it with fishing industry. I don't see why fishing industry is more vital than agribusiness, meat industry, dairy industry, coffee industry, etc. Gizza (t)(c) 12:22, 10 December 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
6-0, added. --Thi (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2021 (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 Film industry

Parent article for subject with longer history than than Video game industry.

Support
  1. Nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  2. Major industries should be covered at VI4. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support per Piotrus. --Spaced about (talk) 13:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  6. Support - Clearly vital. Jusdafax (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3, not removed. --Thi (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2021 (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 either Cuban Revolution or Cuban Missile Crisis

I think one article about Cuba is enough for this level. Interstellarity (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
  1. Oppose Both are significant events of the Cold War, during an era which Cuba had an impact on global events. Dimadick (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Dimadick. These events are often discussed in history books. --Thi (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Dimadick. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:09, 12 February 2021 (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.
PASSED
5-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2021 (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 Musée d'Orsay

I don't see how this is a vital article other than being a popular museum, we should probably have 20 articles in this section.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support. Three museums in Paris seems excessive, and it's clearly behind the Louvre at least. Orser67 (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support The most notable and popular museums around the world are listed, including two Chinese museums. Museums are from commercial viewpoint (tourism) more important than libraries or universities. I can buy the argument that too many museums from Paris are listed at this level. --Thi (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (talk • voy) 23:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
I wonder if we should should rebalance away from European/North American museums, e.g. by adding places like the National Museum of Korea and the National Gallery of Victoria. Orser67 (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Good question. It gets very directly to the larger question of to what extent VA is about usefulness to readers vs. some objective measure of importance. (If the former, museums in the English-speaking world are more vital for the English WP; if the latter, we need to rebalance.) That question remains frustratingly under-addressed, in my view. Sdkb (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I can support a swap for the National Museum of Anthropology (Mexico), Latin America's most visited museum, and universally acknowledged as one of the very best of its kind anywhere in the world. The National Museum of Korea is also a good choice. Cobblet (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2020 (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
6–0, Added. --Rreagan007 (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2021 (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 Keyboard instrument and Electronic musical instrument

Both are vital for this level.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
    Support Electronic musical instrument - innovative. Keyboard instruments are typically covered by string instruments. Squeezebox might be an interesting add which is also Keyboard instrument. --Spaced about (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support ili (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support - Agree that these are Level 4 subjects. Jusdafax (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  5. It is illogical not to list keyboard instrument but to list electronic, percussion, string and wing ones. Besides, placing piano under percussion is quite weird; it should be placed under keyboard instrument.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  6. Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Keyboard instrument was previously proposed here. J947 (c), at 04:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC) Electronic musical instrument is already listed. --Thi (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't find it. --Spaced about (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/4/Arts#Musical_instruments_(42_articles) --Thi (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
My bad. --Spaced about (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Dawid2009:I've struck out electronic musical instrument from the proposal, since the article is currently listed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2021 (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
5-0, added. --Thi (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2021 (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.

Swap: Remove Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven), add Piano sonatas (Beethoven)

Moonlight is not notable on its own, other than being recognizable. But this is not a reason that it should represent all of Beethoven's piano sonatas, especially since they are important as a whole, since there isn't one that is obviously more important than the others, similar to The Well-Tempered Clavier. If this list was based simply on recognizability, then Fur Elise would be before Moonlight, but it is not, for obvious reasons. Additionally, Bach's C Major prelude is the most recognizable of The Well-Tempered Clavier, but the set is on the list, not that piece in particular, so why would this be any different? Note: The popular music appeal of Moonlight is relatively new, and it did not stand out/was not especially notable during Beethoven's life or for a while after. Aza24 (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom - Aza24 (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support Agree that it is the cycle (to speak loosely), rather than an individual sonata, that is so significant. Neljack (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support per discussion. --Thi (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  4. Support--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 20:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

We have moved in the direction of not including lists, this article looks very much like a list. Article states they were composed more or less one at a time over the course of about 27 years, were never meant to be meaningful whole set, and were not performed as a whole set until long after his death. These facts make it feel even more like a list rather than a compound work. Article only appears in 8 languages, not even in Beethoven's native German which would be odd for a work of huge importance, as opposed to Moonlight Sonata which is in 33 languages. There is also this article: List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven. Also I haven't read through all of the following articles/lists in detail to compare them but looking at this page and its sub categories, there are lots of lists to pick from, from many composers, some more important than others, why is Beethoven's Piano Sonatas more important than all other lists here?  Carlwev  07:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Carlwev: You bring up some valid points. I don't think the article was meant to be a list (its not marked as such) and it's appearance as a list like article is likely due to it being mostly incomplete. I suspect this article would take the form of Nocturnes (Chopin) if it was expanded upon. Speaking of which, Chopin's Nocturnes have been on this list for a while and like Beethoven's sonatas, were completed over many many years and not meant to be performed together. (Although I recognize that Chopin's Nocturnes are up for removal – but for lack of notiabillity, not the form of the article or content) Beethoven's sonatas hold as a special place in musical history, as a set of sonatas that fundamentally changed piano composition and technique. (Akin to The Well-Tempered Clavier) That is, unlike Mozart's symphonies, where his 40th and 41st stand out far from the rest, Beethoven's piano sonatas don't exactly have 1 that stands out and while an argument could be made for #29 or #32, neither would stand out far from the others. As for Moonlight, for musical history or compositional value, a "random" middle sonata doesn't display the scope and maturity of the later sonatas, or the set as a whole. However, I recognize that this sonata is not exactly random, as it is very well known, but if being well known was the sole reason to have an article on this list, then Fur Elise would have to be on here too, something that I doubt would recieve much support. Aza24 (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2020 (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
5–0, swapped. --Rreagan007 (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2021 (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.

Swap: add Holy Grail, remove Camelot

The former is the more widespread concept, getting consistently more pageviews, having 61 language versions versus 43 and being wikilinked approximately double the amount (1474 vs 714). Camelot's relevance is more limited to the Arthurian legends themselves, whereas the Grail has transcended them, becoming a widely used and recognised symbol and a subject in arts, fiction and historical revisionism.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 19:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support as we also list King Arthur at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  4. Support as per nomination. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  5. Support swap per all. Interstellarity (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5–0, swapped. --Rreagan007 (talk) 05:12, 16 March 2021 (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.

Swap: Remove Cobra, Add Naja

As a general rule, we do not include lists at Level 4. This article has been assessed as a list. Looking over it, I think it's very unlikely that this article could ever become a featured article (or featured list for that matter). The term "cobra" is just too vague, and this article will probably always be either a stub, disambiguation page, or short list.

Support
  1. Support swap as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support swap with Naja --Thi (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support swap with Naja. Gizza (talk • voy) 08:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  4. Support swap with Naja per Thi. GuzzyG (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  5. Support swap with Naja Plantdrew (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5–0, added. --Rreagan007 (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2021 (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 Curve

Spin-off from Level 3

Believe it or not, the basic concept of a Curve isn't currently listed, even at Level 5. The original proposal was to swap this for Conic section at Level 3, but multiple people pointed out that jumping straight from unlisted to Level 3 is a bit much, regardless of the topic itself.

So for now, let's just see if there's support to put this under Geometry at Level 4.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. Support per my earlier comments. Gizza (talk • voy) 05:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support per discussion. --Thi (talk) 09:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  4. Support major oversight.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  5. Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, added. --Thi (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2021 (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 Konrad Zuse

while less well known outside of Germany, he is regarded as the inventor of the modern computer and creator of the first high-level programming language. Personally I would even add him to the Level 3 list considering the age of computing is currently only represented by Turing in the people section, so he absolutely should be in Level 4.

Support
  1. Support as nom. jonas (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 06:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. since this has been added at only four supports already though, what's the point of leaving this open?. GuzzyG (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support Often overlooked pioneer. His Z4 was "the world's first commercial computer". His Plankalkül was "the first high-level programming language". Dimadick (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2021 (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
5-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2021 (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 Patsy Cline

If we're speaking in a worldwide sense; she's not one of the 2000 most important people in world history; or in the 155 top musicians in world histrory. American country music is incredibly regional with no strong international impact. American specific folk/country would be perfect with just 5 Johnny Cash, Dolly Parton, Hank Williams, Joan Baez and Woody Guthrie. I'd even support Tammy Wynette over Cline. If we had to list regional musicians; i'd prefer Johnny Hallyday, Angélique Kidjo, Youssou N'Dour, Ali Farka Touré, Anita Mui, Zhou Xuan, Abdel Halim Hafez, Googoosh, B'z, and H.O.T. (band) over Cline; as they represent a major countries music which we do not cover. I'd prefer "Weird Al" Yankovic too if we had to list another niche American musician; atleast his style being listed would be unique. Or a modern electronic music representative like Tiësto, Daft Punk or Aphex Twin which would be a more international form of music representative than American country music when we already list 3 others. We're mssing artists like Guns N' Roses, AC/DC, Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five, N.W.A, Eminem, Whitney Houston, Patti Page, Nina Simone, John Coltrane, Charles Mingus, Thelonious Monk, Mahalia Jackson, Lead Belly, Jackie Wilson, Muddy Waters, Ivor Novello, Jerry Lee Lewis, Radiohead, Nirvana (band), Metallica, and Sex Pistols all of whom representatives of music which has had more impact internationally and they have had arguably more impact on their genre than Cline on country. Not to mention the opera singers like Jenny Lind, Farinelli, Feodor Chaliapin or Elisabeth Schwarzkopf we're missing. What makes her more important than other, more international musicians like Martha Argerich, Andrés Segovia, Leopold Stokowski, Jacqueline du Pré, Liberace, Fritz Kreisler or Jascha Heifetz? Again if we have regional country music, why not regional art music reps like Mei Lanfang, Jagjit Singh or Hayedeh? Is she more important to list than further improving our classical coverage of composers missing like John Philip Sousa, John Williams, Erik Satie, Jacques Offenbach, Charles Ives, Edvard Grieg, Francesco Landini, György Ligeti, Orlande de Lassus, Thomas Tallis, or Pérotin or missing music producers like George Martin, Phil Spector, Quincy Jones, Rick Rubin, or Max Martin, which we don't list any, is one more country singer worth more? How about music businessmen like Berry Gordy or Malcolm McLaren? How about Latin musicians like Vicente Fernández, Víctor Jara, Héctor Lavoe, Mercedes Sosa, Elza Soares or Carlos Gardel, a genre spread over a whole continent unlike American regional country music? Is Patsy Cline really more important than all of these people? Is one more American country singer more important than all of these areas missing? Will Patsy Cline last in history as long as Kassia? If her eight year career with only three main songs still remembered (Crazy/I Fall To Pieces/Why Can't He Be You), more important than everything the people i've listed represent? This is just musicians too; we have many other fields and representatives more important than Cline; is Cline more important to history than figures like Snorri Sturluson? We should have 150 musicians in my opinion, cutting Cline would be a start. Ella Fitzgerald, John Lennon, Sam Cooke, Eric Clapton should be the other four. (Lennon as overlap with his band, when we're missing figures like Sturluson and other major academics/scientists the overlap is too much).

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 11:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Gizza (talk • voy) 23:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  5. Support - Interstellarity (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removal passed 5-0. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:03, 12 February 2021 (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 Maurice de Saxe

Maurice de Saxe is not as vital as Prince Eugene of Savoy as representative of army of the Holy Roman Empire.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support As GuzzyG points out, there are plenty of better choices. Cobblet (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support extremely weak military leader, as mentioned by my comment in the page history. GuzzyG (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support per above. Gizza (talk • voy) 22:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose


Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-1, removed. --Thi (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2021 (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 Olga Korbut

We should only have two or one gymnasts, cycling and figure skating are of equal worth and only have 1. Korbut is a weak addition and no encyclopedia would be missing her on a 2000 people list. We're over quota already and we're missing many important people like Herod the Great, can we really say Korbut is more worthy of a spot than Herod, especially while over quota?

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  4. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support - Interstellarity (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Following one of GuzzyG's usual arguments, gymnastics is a Category A Olympic sport like athletics and swimming. We have 3 for swimming and 3 for gymnastics. Why is gymnastics being targeted instead of swimming? Gymnastics is one of the only female-dominated sports on the list. Spitz would be make just as much sense to cut now that Phelps has taken his record. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

Would consider supporting if it was a swap with Simone Biles. I thought you wanted that last year? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

By that measure, we'd have 13 swimmers too, no? I have "targeted" swimming and think Spitz should go, others disagree. Since you've searched the archives (Simone), you should've seen that - Spitz (and Weissmuller) have no place on this list when Duke Kahanamoku exists. I would've supported a swap with Katie Ledecky, Krisztina Egerszegi or Dawn Fraser, i'm a fellow sports fan too (i added 95% of the athletes on the level 5 list and made sure to include every sport with a wiki article - i still regret John Brzenk not making the cut!, so not clueless here! Věra Čáslavská is one of my fav athletes in total!). If you care about women in sport so much - do you wanna swap LeBron for a women's basketball player?. Infact, let's do another usual GuzzzyG argument; instead of covering 3 in one sport, why not cover various other successful women in olympic sports we do not cover - examples;
Valentina Vezzali, Kim Soo-nyung, Birgit Fischer, Mariana Pajón, Ryoko Tani, Anja Andersen, Brenda Villa, Kerri Walsh Jennings, Kim Rhode, Wu Minxia, Lizzy Yarnold, Jennie Finch, Charlotte Dujardin, Deng Yaping, Jennifer Jones (curler), Anastasia Davydova
Or how about sports we do cover but no women?
Saori Yoshida, Elisabeta Lipă, Darya Domracheva, Judit Polgár, Lisa Leslie, Katie Ledecky, Laura Kenny, Hayley Wickenheiser, Jhulan Goswami, Eliška Junková, Laila Ali
As a sports fan, wouldn't you care about covering all of sports, improving our coverage of women? Infact, instead of three Gymnasts, i'd prefer an extra figure skater instead a sport women dominate just as much - since i am a fan of balance, how about one who pioneered some of the most important moves in figure skating Cecilia Colledge? What do ya reckon? GuzzyG (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_66&oldid=1015973031"