Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 73
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | Archive 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | Archive 76 |
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.
This level has representatives of Italian, German and English Baroque, but not French Baroque music. In the court of Louis XIV, he controlled French cour music and his style of composition was imitated throughout Europe. Lully was the first important modern conductor, he set the foundation of French opera, in his ballets he introduced new dances, such as minuet, and his style influenced other Baroque composers, like J. S. Bach. Lully collaborated with Molière to produce comedy ballets and he wrote also sacred music. "Later French musicians were influenced by his forms - particularly the five-act grand opera - for more than two centuries, and closer to his own time, the so-called 'French style' became an almost universal way of writing for later composers from England and Spain to Italy and Germany." [1]
- Support
- Oppose
- Discuss
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.
- Support
- As nom. Although I definitely know that he is less crucial than, say, Margaret Thatcher or Barack Obama, he still should be listed since he is the longest-lived male member of the British royal family, the longest-served and oldest-ever British consort, helped to expand the sport of combined driving and supervised the drafting of the early rule book of it, and has more popularity than Pablo Escobar, Walt Disney or Heinrich Himmler, according to [2].--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose
- We have less than a dozen British politicians or royals from the last 200 years. We don't have anything close to every PM or every monarch. Should we add Phil when we don't have his father-in-law or his daughter-in-law? Heck, we don't even have his SON at VA4, even though his son was heir apparent almost as long as Phil was consort, and is king now. Yes, Phil was consort for a long time, but at a time when Britain was losing their colonies abroad and the monarchy was weak at home. VA5 is the appropriate level for Phil. pbp 01:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose per pbp. Gizza (talk • voy) 03:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Elizabeth II is listed. --Thi (talk) 08:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Only six other spouses of English or British monarchs have even made it to level 5 (plus two others who were married to monarchs, but not at the time they were monarch). We recently removed four of Henry VIII's wives even from level 5. Not all monarchs and prime ministers have made it to level 4. Being the longest-lasting royal spouse doesn't make him that important. PatGallacher (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, checked further, we do have one spouse of an English monarch at level 4, Eleanor of Aquitaine, but she is clearly a more important figure for a number of reasons. PatGallacher (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'd hardly consider him to be Level-5. Compared to the other names on the list, he's done little of note. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. Just because someone lived to be very old doesn't mean that they are vital. Also, combined driving is not a vital article. 22:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mucube (talk • contribs)
- Discuss
- This consort contributed significantly to combined driving, which is an equestrian sport, meaning I don't just argue for his vitality at this level by judging his length of being a prince consort or his age compared to former prince consorts, and anyone who contributed significantly to a sport should definitely be added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Carriage driving isn't exactly basketball or soccer. It itself isn't even listed at VA4 or even VA5. Not high-importance at the Equestrian WikiProject either. While Phil popularized it, I don't think he INVENTED it per se. And there's a weird loop here: is Phil vital because of carriage driving, or is carriage driving popular because of Phil? pbp 02:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Pantheon.world is absurdly subjective. For example, it ranks Frida Kahlo ahead of Yuri Gagarin and Mikhail Gorbachev. And even if it were a good measure for actual popularity, we still shouldn't use it for determining vital articles, because we would end up only listing pop culture people and no one else. Mucube (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Change the !voting rule
Currently, the rule states,
- After 15 days any proposal may be closed as PASSED if a) at least five !votes have been cast in support, and b) at least two-thirds of the total !votes support the proposal.
- After 30 days any proposal may be closed as FAILED if it has a) earned at least 3 opposes, and b) failed to earn two-thirds support.
- After 30 days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal hasn't received any !votes for 30 or more days regardless of the !vote tally.
- After 60 days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if it has a) failed to earn at least 5 support !votes, and b) earned less than two-thirds support.
However, getting 5 support or 3 oppose seems rather difficult at this level, due to fewer attentions this level is getting, thus, I propose that, for level 4, the criteria should be changed to as follow:
- After 30 days any proposal may be closed as PASSED if a) at least 4 !votes have been cast in support, and b) at least two-thirds of the total !votes support the proposal.
- After 60 days any proposal may be closed as FAILED if it has a) earned at least 2 opposes, and b) failed to earn two-thirds support.
- After 60 days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal hasn't received any !votes for 60 or more days regardless of the !vote tally.
- After 90 days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if it has a) failed to earn at least 4 support !votes, and b) earned less than two-thirds support.
C933103 (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support
- Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support - I would support changing the rule to 4 supports as well as 2 opposes. Neutral on discussion time. Interstellarity (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose extended discussion time because extended time is already possible and formal 90 days would slow down the process too much. --Thi (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose, any proposals here should incentivize improving, not adding/swapping/removing Vital articles from the lists. We have focused too much on the wrong thing. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per above and pbp. Gizza (talk • voy) 00:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Discuss
- The rules go on to say that "Nominations should generally be left open beyond the above-listed minimums if they have a reasonable chance of passing." I can only recall a few times that an editor has swooped in right after the deadlines and closed nominations that had a reasonable change of passing. I'm not sure that formally changing the time limits is necessary. I would like to think that editors around here can me responsible enough to follow the spirit of the rules and leave nominations open that have a reasonable change of passing, even if they personally oppose the nomination. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Observation: I am not sure "90 days would slow down the process too much". There has only been one !vote since March 20, 2022 therefore it is very likely "so fewer attentions this level is getting" is true. -- Otr500 (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I propose to abolish this voting rule in favor of good old common sense consensus. None of this "X number of supports" or "X number of opposes" rule makes sense. They were made in the past in the hype, when there's too much stuff to sort out. Now that's not the case. I would also like to speed up discussion time to incentivize making snappy decisions, but I won't mind stretching the discussion time by a bit. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Also, ditch the superfluous headings to place entries. They are not helpful. These headings have only one use that is to clutter the talk page. Get rid of it and letting the nominators to point towards the article's location in the list would be a much better approach. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Boldly done. What do you think? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- I have reverted that change. 14K of content changing hands should've been discussed first. pbp 22:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- Purplebackpack89 No one have discussed about it when I mentioned at the talk page. Anyways, the current system is extremely unweldy at archiving pages and navigation (which lead to discussion from 2019 still languish at the main talk page). It's fairly obvious that my level 2 headings system is a superior approach, as it is also being used in other talk pages. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree. The reason we have the headings system we do is discussion resulted in consensus to have it that way. It shouldn't be undone by BOLD edit and no one expected you to do that. If you want it implemented, start a discussion about changing it. Otherwise, leave it alone. pbp 03:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- Purplebackpack89, it's been 2 week since Wikipedia talk:Vital_articles/Level/5 adopted my system. Everything has gone well there, so I'm sure it will also work here too. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree. The reason we have the headings system we do is discussion resulted in consensus to have it that way. It shouldn't be undone by BOLD edit and no one expected you to do that. If you want it implemented, start a discussion about changing it. Otherwise, leave it alone. pbp 03:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- Purplebackpack89 No one have discussed about it when I mentioned at the talk page. Anyways, the current system is extremely unweldy at archiving pages and navigation (which lead to discussion from 2019 still languish at the main talk page). It's fairly obvious that my level 2 headings system is a superior approach, as it is also being used in other talk pages. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- I have reverted that change. 14K of content changing hands should've been discussed first. pbp 22:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- Boldly done. What do you think? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- Also, ditch the superfluous headings to place entries. They are not helpful. These headings have only one use that is to clutter the talk page. Get rid of it and letting the nominators to point towards the article's location in the list would be a much better approach. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- I propose to abolish this voting rule in favor of good old common sense consensus. None of this "X number of supports" or "X number of opposes" rule makes sense. They were made in the past in the hype, when there's too much stuff to sort out. Now that's not the case. I would also like to speed up discussion time to incentivize making snappy decisions, but I won't mind stretching the discussion time by a bit. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Add Edna O'Brien DBE / Commandeur de l'Ordre des Arts et Lettres
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.
Suggested as I see recent writers such as Margaret Atwood and Ursula K. Le Guin included. Le Guin is described as the "greatest American writer of her generation". O'Brien has endorsements such as ""the most gifted woman now writing in English", greatest writer alive/greatest writer of her generation from people like Michael Ondaatje and Philip Roth, which shows her international reach and her appeal to male as well as female readers.
- Support
- Oppose
- Discuss
Remove Mary I, Queen of England
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.
Bloody Mary is a controversial figure, but she was only queen for five years, question if she is much more important than several other English monarchs, she should be demoted a rank.
- Support
- As nom.
- Oppose
- Oppose Her five years are marked by the First Statute of Repeal, the Revival of the Heresy Acts, and the Second Statute of Repeal. She tried to reverse all religious policies since 1529, and to restore papal influence on the Kingdom of England. Dimadick (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Despite her short reign, she remains a very well-known figure in British history. --Thi (talk) 11:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. Influential political figure. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Discuss
Add Kim Gu
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.
- Support
- As nom. Because he has been considered the father of the Republic of Korea, he is no doubt vital at this level, just like Syngman Rhee, who is currently listed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Promote Beloved (novel) from Level 5 to Level 4
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.
Support
- As nom. Beloved is arguably Morrison's best known work, and for many, her best. It doesn't feel right by me that other American Nobel Literature prize winners have level-4 featured works on the list (e.g. Faulkner, Steinbeck) but Morrison does not. Beloved is arguably just as well-known, studied, acclaimed, and important as The Sound and the Fury and The Grapes of Wrath in the American canon. Neuroxic (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose. There are many far more influential books in American history, and I would contest that it's as well known as either of those other examples. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Discussion
We are over quota. I've never heard of this novel or author, not that I'm an avid reader, but if you truly feel this should be added, it'd be best to propose a swap. LightProof1995 (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
add Osteopathy
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.
- Support
- Oppose
- Oppose "OMT will and should follow homeopathy, magnetic healing, chiropractic, and other outdated practices into the pages of medical history." --Thi (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm not sure how I feel about this being a Level 5 VA. Even among the fringe, there are far more notable topics. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose If we should add one more alternative medicine practice, I think Traditional Chinese medicine is more vital than osteopathy. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Discuss
Add Jeff Bezos
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.
- Support
- As nom. Now that he owned Amazon, and he was the wealthiest on earth from 2017 to 2021, he is no doubt vital at this level. Some may argue that since Amazon is already listed, there is no need to list him. Nonsense, because he founded not just Amazon but also Blue Origin and Bezos Expeditions, and he was once the richest. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support. A contender for the most prominent businessman of this generation. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support Dawid2009 (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Ew. Also we're over quota. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't think that simply having been the richest person in the world is enough for Level 4. Outside of Amazon, Blue Origin and Bezos Expeditions aren't enough to put him up above others in my view (he's far from the only billionaire trying to get into space at the moment). OliveYouBean (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 10:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Discuss
Add Elon Musk
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.
- Support
- As nom. Because he was once the richest on earth, and founded several corporations and acquired Twitter, he is no doubt vital at this level. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support Today is already ok Dawid2009 (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Double ew. Also we're over quota. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. While important, much of his renown is due to popular culture and social media presence. If he gets us to Mars then I'll change my vote, but until then I think he's Level-5. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with Thebiguglyalien. All of Musk's companies are only Level-5 vital, so it wouldn't make since to add Musk himself to Level-4. Mucube (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree that it's too soon. If he somehow turns Twitter around, he gets to Mars, and Teslas take over the world in the same way as the Ford Model T then he's a shoe-in, but he's not quite there yet and his super high relevance at the moment could end up being transitory. OliveYouBean (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Twitter is in Level 5. --Thi (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Discuss
We should add John D. Rockefeller to Vital-3. LightProof1995 (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Add Shinzo Abe
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.
He is the longest-serving Japanese prime minister. Helped shaped Japan into the country it is today. Interstellarity (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support
- Interstellarity (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- Weak support. Recency is a concern, but I think his influence on Japanese politics is significant enough to warrant inclusion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support Dimadick (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support His economic, military, diplomatic and internal legacy all together make him important enough to warrant inclusion. The Account 2 (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add Ric Flair
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.
The fact that he is considered to be the greatest professional wrestler of all time makes him vital at this level, since a lot of people watching such games, and a person who is a/the greatest player of a particular vital sport makes him vital at this level.
- Support
- As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support. It's reasonable to include one wrestler on Vital-4, and this would be the one. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose professional/entertainment wrestling doesn't need any biographical representatives at this level IMO. No more vital than the Kardashians. Gizza (talk • voy) 00:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Not vital. --Thi (talk) 08:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Discuss
- This list currently lists professional wrestling, so including some prominent such figures is absolutely needed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Add Yuzuru Hanyu
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.
As the first male single skater to complete the Super Slam and the first in 66 years to win back-to-back Olympic gold, an elevation of Yuzuru Hanyu's biography to level 5 category of vital articles is long overdue (see previous nomination). In addition, he has become the first to launch a career as a solo show skater. His scheduled 2.5 hour show at the Tokyo Dome with 55K capacity is an unprecedented milestone, elevating figure skating as a performing art to the caliber of a major solo pop rock concert, which was long considered unthinkable. According to the latest publication by Google Search, he is ranked 6th in the list of most-searched athletes in 2022 worldwide, and also 7th among most-searched people in Japan. Together with his long list of firsts, achievements, and accolades, this should make his biography article qualify for level 4.
- Support
- as nom. Henni147 (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Lisseut (talk) 11:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- ErnestKrause (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Hanyu's name has been synonymous with figure skating. His pageviews alone are four times than the sport's article. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Hanyu has been named by various skaters, coaches and sports writers all over the world as the greatest and most complete skater in history. Marika yuzu (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. With his performances, Hanyu has raised the interest in figure skating as a sport not only in his own country but all over the world including countries with little to no winter sports background like Brazil, Turkey, and Indonesia. Apqaria (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
- Note: Currently, it is 3-time Olympic and 10-time world champion Sonia Henie, who occupies the one level 4 spot for figure skating biographies. She is undoubtedly a pioneer and vital person in the history of the sport, having contributed to the athletic development of women's skating, popularizing the production of ice shows, and being one of the best-earning actresses of her time among many other feats. With his solo show career, Hanyu is exploring uncharged territory in figure skating, which makes his status and impact as a skater comparable to Henie's. Henni147 (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: His performances at the Olympics alone make his the equal of Dick Button in winning 2 Gold Medals in different Olympic years. It make sense to place his name next to Sonia Henie in the Wikipedia level 4 articles. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Add Tuva
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.
- Support
- As nom. Because it is the geographical centre of Asia, it is absolutely vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support Tuvan throat singing is nowadays known around the world. --Thi (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Only a formally independent state for a limited period, geographical position is irrelevant, hardly a level 4. PatGallacher (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Not quite relevant enough for Level 4. Curbon7 (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. No more notable than any other Russian subject. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per PatGallacher's analysis. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Discuss
Remove Chartres Cathedral
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.
We have many cathedrals listed as Vital-5 to the point there is great Western bias. I plan on proposing some be swapped with other structures at Vital-5, however I'm starting here at Vital-4.
I am certain Chartres Cathedral should not be listed here over the Cologne Cathedral or the Mosque-Cathedral of Cordoba, which are both only level-5.
I am also fairly certain it does not deserve to be listed here over the Lincoln Cathedral (Tallest building in the world for over 200 years), the Seville Cathedral (Known for La Giralda), or the Aachen Cathedral (Coronation site of Holy Roman emperors, one of the oldest cathedrals in Europe), none of which are even listed at Vital-5. I personally think Aachen Cathedral is a better fit at Vital-5 over the Cologne Cathedral even, although that is more debatable.
The Notre Dame Cathedral is the only French cathedral we need at Vital-4. We are also over quota -- I'm proposing a removal, with nothing swapped in.
Support:
- As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- This will lessen the Western bias. Mucube (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support. This really is super out-of-place on this list. Also agree that getting rid of this will help reduce Western bias. OliveYouBean (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support per above. Gizza (talk • voy) 00:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Not as vital as Notre Dame of Paris. --Thi (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Discussion:
I made this determination before looking at their view counts, but here are the view counts of all cathedrals I list here, for reference: Chartres Cathedral (France): 16,069. Cologne Cathedral (Germany): 36,582. Mosque-Cathedral of Cordoba (aka La Mezquita) (Spain): 28,702. Lincoln Cathedral (UK): 18,436. Seville Cathedral (Spain): 18,113. Aachen Cathedral (the only one I've mentioned with less views than Chartres Cathedral) (Germany): 10,441. Notre-Dame Cathedral (France): 98,542.
Remove Guggenheim Museum Bilbao
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.
Not nearly important enough to be a Level-4 vital article. It should be demoted to Level-5. Mucube (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. Mucube (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Excellent proposal, thank you :) LightProof1995 (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Agree that it's not important enough to be at Level 4. OliveYouBean (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support per above. Gizza (talk • voy) 00:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support After all, we already list Alhambra and Sagrada Família, which are both more important. The helper5667 (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Frank Gehry is listed. --Thi (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Embarrassment
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.
One of the only major emotions that's not included. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support Carlwev 03:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support Dimadick (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support Mucube (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose
- I'm really really sorry about this, especially since this has been listed for so long and I've only now looked into it. I swear it's not personal, but I have to respectfully oppose. We have plenty of emotions listed, and embarrassment is for the weak. Also we are over quota. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
- In the real world people have an awareness of embarrassment on themselves and others, how to avoid it, or use it for humour or bullying. Media such as newspapers, magazines and online media report on events if a celebrity of politician does something embarrassing, be it important or trivial. In fiction be it novels, movies, TV there are many storylines involving characters dealing with embarrassment, or attempting to avoid it, it's often treated as important or humourous. Not to mention something as simple as all the videos online or on TV of random people in embarrassing situations, such as falling over, dropping thing among many others. For better of worse, I think embarrassment is a big enough part of culture to make it into a 10,000 list that includes many emotions already. Carlwev 03:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- @LightProof1995: How about we remove Openness to experience and then add Embarrassment? Mucube (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- I'm down for that :) LightProof1995 (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- I've made the swap. LightProof1995 (talk) 08:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm down for that :) LightProof1995 (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2022 (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.
- Support
- As nom. It is no doubt vital for armed forces worldwide.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm surprised this isn't already included. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose unless a swap is proposed as the Society and social sciences are already 25 over quota and the entire list is 3 over quota. How about Command and control because it seems redundant with Operational level of war? LightProof1995 (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Discuss
I am certain this counts as a PASS for swapping Command and Control with Military exercise. LightProof1995 (talk) 05:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC) EDIT: I just realized this was four counts and five are required, not four (I thought it was four at this level). I don't think it's worth editing this back because I don't see anyone opposing this swap, so I'm leaving this as archived, but please reach out if you disagree. LightProof1995 (talk) 07:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Add Mark Rothko
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.
- Support
- As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support A well-known artist, one of the most popular American artists according to YouGov. --Thi (talk) 10:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Remove Heshen
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.
He's not all that significant in Chinese history. He was one of the most corrupt officials in all of Chinese history, but that doesn't seem nearly enough for being a level-4 vital article, so we should demote him to level-5.
- Support
- As nom. Mucube (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 07:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- Excellent proposal and reasoning, thank you :) LightProof1995 (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support per nom. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
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.
Inventor of Volleyball
- Support
- Dawid2009 (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Definitely should be added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose. The sport itself qualifies as Level-4, but I don't think its inventor does. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with Thebiguglyalien. James Naismith qualifies as Level-4, because he invented basketball, which is more popular than volleyball, and he coached the University of Kansas athletic team. Compare that to Morgan, who invented volleyball and then basically did nothing of note for the rest of his life. Mucube (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 10:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
Add Western Xia
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.
Arguably just as important as Liao dynasty and Jin dynasty, both of which are listed. Mucube (talk) 05:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support
As nom. Mucube (talk) 05:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Jin Ping Mei
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.
Extremely important in Chinese literature, and arguably just as important as Water Margin and Romance of the Three Kingdoms, which are both listed. David Tod Roy calls the novel "a landmark in the development of the narrative art form—not only from a specifically Chinese perspective but in a world-historical context...noted for its surprisingly modern technique" and "with the possible exception of The Tale of Genji and Don Quixote, there is no earlier work of prose fiction of equal sophistication in world literature." Mucube (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support
As nom. Mucube (talk) 04:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
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.
- Support
- As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support Dimadick (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Remove Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood
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.
Not very important in art history. None of the people in the group are Level-4 vital, but most of them are Level-5 vital so this could potentially be demote to Level-5. Mucube (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support
- Oppose
- Discuss
Remove Donald Duck
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.
The only Walt Disney character we should have listed at this level is Mickey Mouse. Donald Duck is completely redundant to be listed here when we are over quota, and does not deserve to be on this list over Godzilla, Luke Skywalker, or SpongeBob SquarePants under Fictional characters/Film, television, and games. (Not that I'm suggesting we swap any of them in -- we need to take articles out to get the list back down to 10,000.)
Support:
- As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose. Donald Duck is one of the most prominent cartoon characters in history. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- A Google search of "Most prominent cartoon characters in history" resulted in these ten cartoon characters listed (in this order) from the first article:
- 1. Mickey Mouse
- 2. Bugs Bunny
- 3. Homer Simpson
- 4. Fred Flintstone
- 5. Snoopy
- 6. SpongeBob SquarePants
- 7. Eric Cartman
- 8. Daffy Duck
- 9. Winnie the Pooh
- 10. Charlie Brown
- The second article that came up listed these as top ten:
- 1. Bugs Bunny
- 2. Homer Simpson
- 3. Charlie Brown and Snoopy
- 4. Tom and Jerry
- 5. SpongeBob SquarePants
- 6. Mickey Mouse
- 7. Scooby Doo and Shaggy Rogers
- 8. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
- 9. Zuko
- 10. Steven Universe
- LightProof1995 (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Discussion
Before Homer Simpson, there was Donald Duck. Donald is more popular character in Europe than Mickey and the most published comic book character in the world outside of the superhero genre. Carl Barks is one of the most appreciated comics artists. Nevertheless, It is up to you to decide if the article is really needed at this level. --Thi (talk) 09:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Donald Duck has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame; very few other fictional characters do. As Thi noted, he appears in more media than Mickey does. And asking for his removal in favor of Luke Skywalker (himself redundant to the Star Wars franchise) or SpongeBob is a hard no from me, even if I'm neutral as to keeping him on the list. pbp 05:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I wasn’t proposing to swap anyone in. I was only proposing a straight-up removal since we are over quota. Donald’s star and relative popularity to Mickey in other countries are irrelevant since Mickey also has a star and is the most popular character in English-speaking countries and this is English Wikipedia. If Swedish Wikipedia wants to keep Donald Duck, that makes sense, but I don’t think he belongs here. LightProof1995 (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- English Wikipedia isn't just used in majority English countries. There are more English speakers in Europe than there are people in the United States. I'm indifferent as to whether Donald Duck stays or goes, but I think it's wrong to ignore how well-known he is in Europe. OliveYouBean (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Fair enough. When I made this proposal, I did compare view counts between Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck, and this affected my judgment.
- I see now I should've written the view counts within my initial proposal -- I suppose I didn't because I was unaware of his popularity in Europe.
- Mickey Mouse: 179,738 views.
- Donald Duck: 38,604 views.
- I hope this new knowledge helps garner support for my proposal. LightProof1995 (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Question: Do other Wikipedia languages have Vitals lists? Not the "10,000 articles every Wikipedia should have" list, but the 5-tiered lists? LightProof1995 (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2022 (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.
Peking University's influence is on par with any Ivy League university in the US, and, within the last few decades at least, has been considered one of the best in the world. Tsinghua University is already level 4. In general, this page needs more representation from non-American universities, which make up over 1/3 of level 4 university articles. Normsupon (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. Normsupon (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- There are definitely more non-American universities that should be included, and this is one of the most important. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Because it is one of the most renowned universities in China, it definitely should be added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- It's ranked first in Asia and is on par with Tsinghua University. Mucube (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Agree with others that this part of the list has a heavy United States bias, and adding one of the most influential universities in Asia will help fix that. OliveYouBean (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Overdue. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
If we are going to add this, we probably should also remove several American universities (Do we really need 3 in California? Maybe we can remove Ivy League as well? Not UVA because of their legendary Division of Perceptual Studies), and we should also consider adding Seoul National University. LightProof1995 (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Remove University of Virginia
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.
The University of Virginia is not nearly important enough to be a Level-4, so we should demote it to Level-5. Currently, the educational institutions section has a very bad American bias, so this should help with that. Mucube (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. Mucube (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support as it's just nowhere near the level of the other universities on this list. OliveYouBean (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 10:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support The number that California has isn't really relevant, there is no requirement that we be "fair" to all the states. Lorax (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Per nom. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Per my statement above that I made (UVA=University of Virginia) before you made this proposition, lol. No need to take out the only university in Virginia, but leave three in California. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Discuss
@LightProof1995: Yes, I know that. The reason that you gave for including UVA is that they have a "legendary Division of Perceptual Studies", which is not a good enough reason. UVA isn't a very good or significant university, compared all of the other universities that are listed. Mucube (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- I also stated the I don't think we should take this one out, but leave three in California in. I disagree with everyone saying it doesn't deserve to be here over all other universities listed. It may rank lower than the others, but it's still only one of two "Public Ivy" (or public at all) universities listed here, along with UC Berkeley. My reasoning for leaving it may be more subjective to me since I believe in reincarnation and think they literally proved it was real at this university, however I see now I'll have to list the boring reasons to leave this university here in order to stop it being removed over others listed.
- Even if we were to take 6 American universities out to get "Society and social sciences" quota down to its target, and UVA had not proven reincarnation to be scientific fact, I'd argue we'd take these six out:
- 1. University of Chicago -- Private -- Founded 1891 -- Illinois -- Views: 42,508.
- 2. California Institute of Technology -- Private -- Founded 1891 -- California -- Views: 36,961
- 3. Johns Hopkins -- Private -- Founded 1876 -- Maryland -- Views: 44,805
- 4. Ivy League
- 5. University of California, Berkeley -- Public -- Founded 1868 -- California -- Views: 89,240
- 6. Okay maybe UVA would be the sixth, unless we left Ivy League in and took Princeton and Columbia out per redundancy, but looking through the entire section, others stand out as ones we could take away instead. Four occupations has already been proposed and I agree that along with Caste system in India could be taken out since we already have Caste as Vital-4. Oedipus complex seems an odd choice as Vital-4, and do we really need doubt with its view counts of 1,777? UVA -- Public -- Founded 1819 (by Thomas Jefferson) -- Virginia -- Views: 56,355. If we're going to leave an American public university (as we certainly should as most people attend public universities instead of private ones), shouldn't it be this one? LightProof1995 (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- The list you chose for removal is extremely subjective. Even the University of Chicago, the first on your list to remove is much more significant that the University of Virginia. The University of Chicago has had 97 Nobel laureates, while the University of Virginia has only had 9 (source). Sure, UVA was founded by Thomas Jefferson and it's a World Heritage Site, but that's not nearly enough for inclusion. (And even if we really needed to list a public university that's not Berkeley, I would choose UCLA with 29 Nobel laureates.) Mucube (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- I only listed the University of Chicago first because it's listed first in the list. I tried making the list as objective as possible by listing when the universities were founded and what there view counts are, to show you UVA is a good contender for leaving as Vital-4. This list was meant to choose six to take away, but if I were to choose only a university to take away, Cal Tach would be first due to it being founded last in the list (along with University of Chicago), having the lowest view counts, and being in California when there are three universities in California listed. UCLA is also in California so I wouldn't support adding it to the list but removing UVA. LightProof1995 (talk) 08:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- I just want to point out that if the University of Virginia really did prove reincarnation to be "scientific fact", then if this was a key reason why it should be considered vital, surely the word "reincarnation" would be mentioned at least once on the article? I don't think that something which is apparently not a significant enough part of the university's legacy to be in the article should be used as a reason for keeping it at this level. OliveYouBean (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for pointing out this glaring error on the University of Virginia page!! :) I should go fix it. I would like to point out, if you search "University of Virginia" on reincarnation's page, results do appear. LightProof1995 (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- The list you chose for removal is extremely subjective. Even the University of Chicago, the first on your list to remove is much more significant that the University of Virginia. The University of Chicago has had 97 Nobel laureates, while the University of Virginia has only had 9 (source). Sure, UVA was founded by Thomas Jefferson and it's a World Heritage Site, but that's not nearly enough for inclusion. (And even if we really needed to list a public university that's not Berkeley, I would choose UCLA with 29 Nobel laureates.) Mucube (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Abstain: I agree we have too many American universities on the list. However, UVA is the model of a public secular university in the United States, and, as such, has a claim to vitality. pbp 01:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Add Monarchism
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.
One of the only major ideologies that's not included. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support Dimadick (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose
- We already have Monarchy as Vital-3, and Monarchism isn't even listed as Vital-5 yet. I would support adding it to Vital-5, but not to Vital-4. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- @LightProof1995: I've added monarchism and republicanism to the VA 5 list (the fact that they were not included before surprised me a lot!) --RekishiEJ (talk) 09:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Coverd by Monarchy. --Thi (talk) 11:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. Redundant to Monarchy. OliveYouBean (talk) 04:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Swap: Remove The Washington Post, Add USA Today
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.
Most circulated newspaper in the US. Interstellarity (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support
- Interstellarity (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose. The WP is one of the most important newspaper of record, and used more broadly to chronicle history. USA today is not. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Support adding USA Today. Strong oppose to removal of The Washington Post. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Neutral on adding USA Today. Strong oppose to removing the Washington Post. The Post has won the Pulitzer Prize 65 times, only behind the New York Times. Mucube (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Discuss
Add George Soros
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.
- Support
- As nom. Because this year he donated more money to candidates in the 2022 United States elections than any other person[1], and he is known as "The Man Who Broke the Bank of England", he is absolutely vital at this level. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Hugely influential figure in global politics and economics. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support. The two greatest investors of the 20th century are undisputably Warren Buffett (already a Level 4), and George Soros. There is no third person. Soros's Black Wednesday, is probably the most famous event by an individual investor in financial history. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Agree. 31.187.2.237 (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Buffett and Soros are easily the two greatest investors of the last hundred years. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- We shouldn't be adding living people to this list when we're over quota. I'm American and I've never even heard of this guy. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- VIT5 is sufficient. This is recentism. czar 20:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
- I'm torn. On the one hand, I think he's for sure influential enough globally that he belongs here over certain Americans who are already there (e.g. Leland Stanford). On the other hand, I think this part of the list is a little oversized (also regarding the Americans in particular). OliveYouBean (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- We should take out Ted Turner, and probably David Sarnoff, who have become less important businessmen with the passing of time. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
References
Replace David Thompson (explorer) with Robert Falcon Scott
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.
Thompson may deserve greater recognition than he has received, but he could still seem like a rather obscure figure. There is some controversy about Scott, but he remains an important figure who a lot of people have heard of. PatGallacher (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support
- Nom
- A well known figure. --Thi (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Common sense swap. Curbon7 (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Per nom. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 13:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Aszx5000 (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Strong oppose The list does not need both Shackleton and Scott. One figure to represent British polar exploration is plenty. We do not list Henry Morton Stanley next to David Livingstone for similar reasons. Vitality is not popularity, and famous failures are not more vital than quietly successful people. Cobblet (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2023 (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.
- Support
- As nom. I'm quite surprised that he is not listed (in the past he was even not included in the level 5 list)!--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support Dimadick (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose Covered by Tokugawa shogunate, as said. --Thi (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Respectfully Oppose per statements by Thebiguglyalien and Thi about how this is already covered by Tokugawa shogunate and we are also over quota.EDIT: After looking more into this, I've decided it's probably okay to list him, but we should remove some lesser-known leaders/politicians. I'll Support if we do that. LightProof1995 (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Discuss
- It's worth noting that the Tokugawa shogunate is already Level 4, which seems to cover this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2022 (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.
He is an important figure in Chinese history, comparable to Emperor Taizong of Tang, who is already listed. Mucube (talk) 05:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. Mucube (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Major figure in Chinese history. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support after reading more about him. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Aszx5000 (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
Respectfully oppose. Adding this emperor would just be redundant with the more-famous Tang dynasty emperor you mention. Also we're over quota on this list overall.LightProof1995 (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Discuss
- @LightProof1995: How would adding Emperor Xuanzong be redundant to Emperor Taizong? Xuanzong is just as important as Emperor Taizong in Tang dynasty history. (To quote the article: "he was credited with bringing the Tang dynasty to a pinnacle of culture and power.") Also, overall, the people sublist is actually under-quota, not over-quota. Mucube (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Mucube: Fair enough. I'll change my vote. Please note that it it is not great this list is 12 over quota -- It was at 3 over quota and no one had updated the counts in a while, when I came in here and counted them, it was at 12 over, and I couldn't figure out which ones had been added without consensus. Changes at this level usually take a long time, and to get this list back down to 10,000, it will take years unless we have editors, such as yourself, who care more about it. So I really appreciate your help with this and I hope you and I can get this list back down to 10,000 :) LightProof1995 (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Add Kanō Jigorō
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.
The founder of Judo and according to HPI he is the most memorable non-soccer sportsperson after Muhammad Ali. Certainly more than enough vital at this leve since our list contains +70 non-soccer sportspeople, is not that enough convincing?
- Support
- Dawid2009 (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- czar 01:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Changes to Martial arts at Level 4
Swap Wrestling subcategories down
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose we move Freestyle wrestling and Greco-Roman wrestling down to Vital-5, as they are redundant with Wrestling, and swap in Brazilian jiu-jitsu in as Vital-4. I feel I would want to know BJJ out of the ones not listed as Vital-4, due to BJJ being the only martial art not listed among the three that inspired Mixed martial arts (the others being Muay Thai and Boxing -- MMA itself is also listed). The two-for-one swap is because we are above quota.
Support:
- As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 04:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support removal of Freestyle wrestling and Greco-Roman wrestling. --Thi (talk) 09:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support. I think that freestyle wrestling and Greco-Roman wrestling should still be listed as Level-5 because they competed at the Olympics. Mucube (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Per nom. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support. From nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Swap Wushu for Chinese martial arts
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.
While Kung fu, Wushu, and Chinese martial arts have all been used synonymously, Chinese martial arts is the article that is the main heading for the term in Vital-5. It also gets the most view counts of the three, but just barely, at around 22,000 vs around 20,000 for kung fu and around 17,000 for wushu.
Support:
- As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 04:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- Chinese martial arts is broader and has a much longer history. Mucube (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Per nom. Kung Fu already re-directs to Chinese Martial Arts, so makes sense. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Aszx5000 (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- czar 01:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Education for the list of topics in this category.
Remove Ivy League
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.
The Ivy League universities themselves are definitely acceptable vital article, but I don't think the grouping itself is. Mucube (talk) 05:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. Mucube (talk) 05:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support I agree and also said above I felt this should be removed. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 10:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Per nom. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support. 31.187.2.237 (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- This term is no doubt vital, since it has been frequently used worldwide and associated with academic excellence and social elitism.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
Should we consider taking Princeton and Columbia out, but leaving Ivy League in? LightProof1995 (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Remove Four occupations
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.
The concept itself was never really important in Chinese history. To quote the article: "The system did not factor in all social groups present in premodern Chinese society, and its broad categories were more an idealization than a practical reality." And: "The commercialization of Chinese society in the Song and Ming periods further blurred the lines between these four occupations." Mucube (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. Mucube (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support per your reasoning :) LightProof1995 (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 10:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Per nom. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Per the nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Proposal: Remove Heathland and Moorland, add Shrubland
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.
Heathlands and Moorlands are sub-types of Shrublands. I propose we move heaths and moors to Vital-5, and move Shrublands to Vital-4. Vote below...
Support:
- As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 08:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support. As a general rule, broader is better. Mucube (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support Lorax (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Per nom. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Discussion:
The words Heathland and Moorland are are both words describing acidic-soil, low vegetation shrublands (lowland and upland, respectively), but the term Shrubland is much more broad, and encompasses biomes such as the Chaparral in California, Fynbos in South Africa, and the Deserts and xeric shrublands biome which according to the map at the Soil pH article page, all don't have acidic soils making them neither heathlands nor moorlands (especially the Deserts and xeric shrublands one). LightProof1995 (talk) 08:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Remove Fresnel lens
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.
Not nearly important enough to be a Level-4. Mucube (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. Mucube (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support a technology specific to lighthouses (itself only L4 vital) should be relegated to L5. Gizza (talk • voy) 00:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Augustin Jean Fresnel is listed. --Thi (talk) 10:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Per nom. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 12:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Per above. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Remove CalTech
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.
Sorry CalTech, but per the discussions above on Adding Peking University and Removing UVA, we don't need 3 universities in California listed as Vital-4. Stanford has 117,733 view counts, and UC Berkeley has 83,938 view counts, but Cal Tech has 35,220 view counts in the past 30 days. I admit Cal Tech is an impressive university but we have to reduce both the quota and Western bias.
Number of Nobel Prize winners has been brought up before as an indicator of an impressive university. Cal Tech has less than both the other universities in California, although it is still a great #7 in the US: https://www.bestmastersprograms.org/most-nobel-prize-winners/ One could argue it stands out from the other California universities by being a tech school, but we have MIT, and according to this list: https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/engineering CalTech is ranked #87 in the world for engineering, compared to MIT at #4, Stanford at #9, and UC Berkeley at #11.
Support:
- As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 09:25, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 10:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Lorax (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose:
- Oppose. Currently ranked #6 in the world and for most of the last decade was ranked 1-2, per California Institute of Technology. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. 31.187.2.237 (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Discuss:
Remove Ellen Terry
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.
Not sure we have room for Actors/Actress with so limited fame. We already have Bernadth who represent pre film era. I always was saying that sport is even more overrepresented than film/actors/actress but now I found we have ana actress which is nowhere near as famous as the most hearable soccer player from 19th centrury which is not (rightly) at the level 5 Santiago Bernabéu (footballer) has better stats and I would not nominate him to the level 4, I only point him to show how Ellen Terry does not fit at this level among actress like Bernhardt, Hepburn, Monroe. It is like putting Bernabeu next to Pele and Messi, not? Dawid2009 (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support
- Dawid2009 (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support per above and my previous nomination. --Thi (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support per nom. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- czar 01:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Bold suggestion: remove more "team sportpeople" for not listed clubs and more leagues, competitions etc.?
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.
Would you see for example Real Madrid or Lakers at this level instead Di Stefano or LeBron? I realise my suggestion can be too bold and be dangerous for list which was hard-working estabilished for over 10 years but are not sporpeople still bit overrepresented ans should not we have more teams so? Just uestion/conception/suggestion. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think being a part of a team should diminish whether an individual can be Level 4 (ie. Ronaldo or Messi vs. Tiger Woods or Nadal). Ultimately, "teams" are a more fluid concept and for a period might be very strong, but then fade, whereas an individual's legacy (i.e. Tom Brady), is more fixed. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Remove A. J. Foyt, add Enzo Ferrari
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.
Is A. J. Foyt really more vital than someone like Enzo Ferrari or Ferrari or someone like William G. Morgan who is considered as founder of Volleyball or Kanō Jigorō who is founder of Judo? It would be strange to have as many racing drivers as American Football people given how not global is Grindon sport.... but I am rather on the point thet we also sh0uld reduce GRindon to 1 people on the list as well as Rugby Union and Field Hockey. So we can drop also one from Formula 1. Volleyball needs one representation and Martial Arts most probably one more. See also my and user:RekishiEJ previous comments.
- Note, Wiliam G. Morgan and Kano Jigoro have already been submitted seperately for consideration as Level 4; therefore, have WP:BOLDLY amended this proposal as a swap for Enzo Ferrari. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- Dawid2009 (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support removing Foyt and replacing with Enzo Ferrari; I do not support replacing with William G. Morgan (who I don't consider Level 4); I have separately !voted for Jigoro as Level 4 on their standalone proposal entry. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Agree. Enzo is globally notable, Foyt is US-centric. 31.187.2.237 (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support per above. Gizza (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support At least he is a better choice than Foyt. --Thi (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Per above. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Dawid2009 (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2022 (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.
Language which has a lot of native speakers. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- Weak Support. Spoken by over 50 million, in line with some of the other 14 Level 4 Indo-Aryan languages pages, including Assamese language (15m), Marathi language (83m), Sindhi language (30m). 78.18.228.191 (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose - this is the same argument you made for Northern Sotho language on the Level 5 talk page and it still does not cut the mustard. Make a better argument than 'has a lot of speakers' (not as many as Sichuanese, for example), and then we can discuss. Kazamzam (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Remove State religion
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.
This is hardly a level-4 topic: this is just a not particularly well-defined modern conception. In the Middle Ages, the guiding principle was Cuius regio, eius religio and the concept of state religion, per se, did not exist. States have supported and sponsored religions to varying degrees over the millenia, and there is no particular reason to elevate the specific philosophical concept of "state religion" to the level of other level-4 concepts in religion, such as "temple" and "priest", which are far more fundamental terms/ideas. Level-5 would be more fitting. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Ambivalent on this. Seems to me an argument for better framing of the scope on the State religion page itself. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Add Neo-Confucianism from Level-5
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.
Extremely important in Chinese philosophical history. It dominated most philosophical thought from the Song to Ming dynasties. Three of the most important Neo-Confucian philosophers, Han Yu, Zhu Xi, and Wang Yangming, are already listed as Level-4, so why shouldn't the movement as a whole be listed? The whole movement was arguably much more important than each of the individual philosophers. Mucube (talk • contribs) 05:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Add Law enforcement
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.
Now that it has been added to Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Society_and_social_sciences/Politics_and_economics, it has been existent since ancient times and frequently used, it definitely should be considered vital at this level.
- Support
- Oppose
- czar 02:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Aszx5000 (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose --Thi (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
Add Light fixture
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.
Important in technology. Comparable level to knife and stove (which are level 3) in terms of everyday life or human history IMHO. Dawid2009 (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- Nom
- Oppose
- Being an everyday item doesn't make it high importance in its field. czar 02:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Aszx5000 (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Not as vital as Lighting. --Thi (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
Add Narendra Modi
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.
Highly ranked here Dawid2009 (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support
- Dawid2009 (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- It is absurd that we have Jackie Chan and Diego Maradona but not this politician.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Surprised it was added already. Mucube (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support adding Modi. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Patheon.world is not a good source for determining whether an article is vital, but he has been the catalyst of significant changes in Indian politics. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support: Not sure what the link shared above refers to, but yes, the two-tern incumbent Prime Minister of world's largest democracy is certainly at least a level 4 vital topic, if not higher. His leadership not only got BJP the highest vote share by any political party since the 1989 general election, he is also a major global leader. For good or for bad, he has had a major impact on Indian politics, not seen since, probably, Indira Gandhi's premiership. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 12:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Also, support replacing Manmohan Singh or Atal Bihari Vajpayee with Modi, if over-quota is a concern. What major thing did they do? Who even remembers them? As an Indian, I don't find many people. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 12:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Very valid. At least Modi is notorious, even if for all the wrong reasons, e.g. race-baiting. Vital articles aren't a popularity contest or a reward for good behaviour, which is why the likes of Genghis Khan stalk these halls. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Also, support replacing Manmohan Singh or Atal Bihari Vajpayee with Modi, if over-quota is a concern. What major thing did they do? Who even remembers them? As an Indian, I don't find many people. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 12:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support: Ok, after all my blathering, I guess I'll support, though not in relation to pantheon. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose because we are over quota and the list your reference seems quite absurdly subjective. You're really gonna tell me Will Smith is more memorable than Martin Luther King, Jr.? LightProof1995 (talk)
- Oppose. Currently very notable/visible, but will he he be one of the most important figures in Indian history? Too soon. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Opppose The man hasn't done anything apart from foment an Hindi state. scope_creepTalk 09:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Quite like Benito Mussolini in Italy. Crappy nationalist speeches, cult of personality, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Opppose He has been awarded the Ig Nobel Prize. --Thi (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- Doesn't stand out idiocy also count for notability/notoriety? Only true muppets win this. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Recentism. Enduring contribution to history of all politicians is yet unseen or not on same plane as Nehru and Indira Gandhi. VIT5 is sufficient. czar 01:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- What about Manmohan Singh or Atal Bihari Vajpayee in VIT4? —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'd support removal at VIT4 ("all-time"). VIT5 looks sufficient for those. czar 22:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- What about Manmohan Singh or Atal Bihari Vajpayee in VIT4? —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
@LightProof1995: We have other Indian prime ministers like Indira Gandhi, Manmohan Singh, and Atal Bihari Vajpayee listed as Level-4 vital articles, so why shouldn't Modi be? Mucube (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not exactly opposing his addition as much as the reference that was listed as reasoning. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Not level4. scope_creepTalk 09:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Why not level 4? —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 12:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- What has he actually done to merit Level-4 vital article? What has he done? He doesn't mert being added to any of these vital articles, because he has not achieved a single thing, even on agenda. He is one types who is great in his own mind. scope_creepTalk 13:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- I mentioned Mussolini (a level-4) to highlight how fomenting an entire nation into right-wing ethnonationalist fervour is a something. Did Mussolini do anything good for Italy? Not that I'm aware of. Is he still the most famous Italian leader this side of the 19th-century (possibly outside of Berlusconi and his bonga bonga parties)? Yes, he very much is. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- What has he actually done to merit Level-4 vital article? What has he done? He doesn't mert being added to any of these vital articles, because he has not achieved a single thing, even on agenda. He is one types who is great in his own mind. scope_creepTalk 13:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Why not level 4? —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 12:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not level4. scope_creepTalk 09:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- User:scope_creep: Regarding your oppose, I'm sure you would be very surprised to know that Adolf Hitler is a level-3 vital article. He made his space into this list through genocide. Well, it turns out that there aren't any rules to exclude religious nationalists from vital articles list, provided that they actually are a vital encyclopedic topic. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 12:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Thi: How many among the 49 at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Asia (49 articles) were awarded a Nobel Prize? —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 12:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- @CX Zoom: It's the Ig Nobel Prize - something completely different and, ahem, less great. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Every day I get to learn something new on here. Thanks, Iskandar323. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 13:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- @CX Zoom: It's the Ig Nobel Prize - something completely different and, ahem, less great. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Add Magnus Carlsen
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.
5-time world champion with the highest elo rating in chess history, which has been consistent for a decade
Many people refer to him as the greatest chess player in history. And he has been very influential in the new popularity of chess in recent years Mehran uy1 (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- Support. Nom.
- Support Dawid2009 (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Verifiably the best chess player in history. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Per nom. 31.187.2.123 (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose Chess itself is only a level-4, so why should any particular chess player be also named a level-4?
- Oppose. VIT5 is sufficient. Not same level of importance as Fischer and Kasparov. czar 02:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Not as vital as Fischer or Kasparov. --Thi (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don't fully understand how Carlsen is less vital than Fischer or Kasparov. I mean in the past 10 years the guy has had the highest chess rating in history and as stated in the article even based on computer chess engine analyses he is the most accurate chess player of all time.
- we have so many less vital people in the sport section.We can wait a few more years for his importance to be known, but he is not going to defend his title anymore and I think he has done enough. Mehran uy1 (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- They're more publicly associated with the game and Vital takes the stance of all-time rather than present day. czar 22:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
- Not Commenting on how important Carlson is at the moment. But the argument Chess is only lev 4 so why should a chess player be lev 4 seems a bit odd. Yes Chess being level 3 would make chess players feel more important in a way. We already list 2 Chess players at level 4, Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov. Chess did used to be level 3, but I know it's not now, board game is level 3, which is a weak argument but still. My main thought is level 3 has only a few sports, Association Football, Athletics, Olympics, Martial arts and Swimming, but we still list varied sports people at level 4, less than we used to though. If the argument we shouldn't have chess players at level 4 as chess itself is only level 4, then it would equally make sense to also say we shouldn't have any Rugby players as rugby itself is only level 4, same for Tennis, American Football, Basketball, Baseball, Boxing, or equally we shouldn't list any cities from Belgium or Switzerland as those themselves are only level 4 etc. One could still argue Magnus Carlson is not for the list (or the opposite) I just think that particular argument is not very strong. Carlwev 08:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Add Online shopping
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.
More vital than Amazon which is listed. Can also cover Ebay and many other things.
- Support
- Dawid2009 (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- Shopping mall and supermarket are level 4. Aszx5000 (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- VIT5 is sufficient. czar 02:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose redundant to e-commerce which is Level 4. Too much overlap between the two articles. Gizza (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per Gizza. --Thi (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
Dawid2009 (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Separate Scientology and Wicca
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.
Wicca is under Scientology in the section for religon and there is no reason as to why. Wicca is not a sect of Scientology, Wicca shares little in common with Scientology in terms of belief system and structure, and they almost nothing in common. If you go to each of their respective articles neither of them mention the other. The two articles should be seperated LJFIN2 (talk) 08:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- Per nom. Why is Scientology level 4?. There are many other belief systems with much bigger followers who are not level 4. 31.187.2.123 (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Is this a technical misplacement? Was it supposed to be under modern paganism? —C.Fred (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC) Based on this edit, it is. I do not see where a fix of this is in any way controversial. —C.Fred (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Further question about Scientology
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.
- @C.Fred:, from my reading of the archives of Level 4, it was !voted to remove Scientology? 31.187.2.123 (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have a diff for that? —C.Fred (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Because the last thing I see (Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 72#Add Scientology) had no opposition to adding. —C.Fred (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Shouldn’t that diff been closed as a no consensus? It had only one !vote in support - surely not a way to re-add a level 4 (that was previously properly !voted to remove). 31.187.2.216 (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- That's beyond the scope of a simple technical change, so I'm not going to do anything to that. I would say a separate discussion would need held to replace Scientology with something else. —C.Fred (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- I am inclined to remove Scientology now, as an editor added it to Level 4 without any consensus to add, and it had been previously removed in 2014. Don't see a need for a discussion about undoing a false add? Aszx5000 (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- I have removed Scientology from Level 4 (it is still in Level 5) per previous consensus. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- I am inclined to remove Scientology now, as an editor added it to Level 4 without any consensus to add, and it had been previously removed in 2014. Don't see a need for a discussion about undoing a false add? Aszx5000 (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- That's beyond the scope of a simple technical change, so I'm not going to do anything to that. I would say a separate discussion would need held to replace Scientology with something else. —C.Fred (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Shouldn’t that diff been closed as a no consensus? It had only one !vote in support - surely not a way to re-add a level 4 (that was previously properly !voted to remove). 31.187.2.216 (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Association football adds and removals
I have grouped the three Association Football proposals under a single heading.
There are currently 14 association football Level 4s, out of 96 Sports People in Level 4. It breaks into one female player Mia Hamm (I think Marta (footballer) is unambiguously the best female player), one goalkeeper Lev Yashin (yes is the best, and worth separating out as goalkeepers are not always treated consistently in top 100 lists). That leaves us with 12 male players currently at Level 4.
There are lots of established lists of the top 100 male players of all time (I won't list them here), but generally, they do reconcile closely with 10 of these 12 male players in our Level 4 list:
- 1. Top 4: these are almost always Lionel Messi, Diego Maradona, Pelé, and Cristiano Ronaldo (in various orders)
- 2. Top 10: this is the top 4 plus Zidane, Beckenbauer, Cruyff, Platini, Di Stefano, and Ronaldo (Brazilian footballer) (in various orders)
There is more variation for the top 11-15, but it definitely includes Roberto Baggio (the candidate most likely to feature in a top 10 list that is not in our Level 4). After Baggio, Gerd Müller and Garrincha feature a lot in the top 11-15 (two candidates proposed below, currently not Level 4s). I would say that current Level 4s, Eusébio and Ferenc Puskás usually rank behind Baggio, Müller, and Garrincha (although not on every list).
So my 2 cents is to stick with 14 in total, but make the following changes.
- 1. Stick to the clear "mostly top-10s" for males: This means adding Roberto Baggio.
- 2. Avoid candidates that are mostly outside of the top 10: You can find a top-100 all-time list that will have any of circa 25 players in its top-10 (e.g. Van Basten, Best etc.), however, once you leave the "mostly top-10" list, the variability is too much. This means dropping Eusébio and Ferenc Puskás.
- 3. We probably should have two females: This means adding Marta. If the view was to have one female, we should remove Mia Hamm and replace her with Marta (who has won the female player of the year far more times).
- 4. We should keep a goalkeeper, as the lists don't treat them properly. This means keeping Yashin, and he was the greatest.
78.18.228.191 (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- I could eventually support remval for all soccer players exept pele, messi maradona, but no way other way. Current list is stable. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Add Gerd Müller
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.
Because Eusébio's HPI 2022 is lower than Gerd[1], Gerd is widely regarded as one of the greatest goalscorers in the history of the sport, and Eusébio is currently listed, Gerd should be as well.
- Support
- Oppose
- Strong oppose Beckenbauer is far more influential and vital and needed as defender fort this level. Beckenbauer got a lot of !votes from former Ballon d OR winners [3], meanwhile Esuebio has been aled "greates football player of alll time" by Di Stefano after is death. See also HPI from 2020: [4] Dawid2009 (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Yes, Muller regulary ranks above Eusébio, but both are less frequent visitors to quality top-10 all-time lists (there are some); per my comments above, we should stick to the regular top-10 candidates, which is about 11-12 players. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 11:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Eusébio is possibly top 10 player, Müller is not as highly ranked, not an all-rounder. --Thi (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Per above. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Add Garrincha
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.
Because he is widely regarded as one of the greatest soccer players of all time, and by some, one of the greatest dribblers ever, he is definitely vital at this level. He is far less important than other listed footballers. H was removed years ago.
- Support
- Oppose
- Oppose Pele is the only Brazilian which is considered as Brazilian treasure and he represent fairly anough old Brazilian football. Ronaldo Nazario at this level represent modern Brazilian football because and has no overlap with Pele. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Yes, Garrincha regularly ranks above Eusébio, but both are infrequent visitors to quality top-10 all-time lists (there are some); per my comments above, we should stick to the regular top-10 candidates, which is about 11-12 players. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per comments. --Thi (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Add Alex Ferguson
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.
Because he is widely regarded as one of the greatest managers of all time and has won more trophies than any other manager in the history of soccer, and soccer has been loved by many, he is definitely vital at this level.
- Support
- Oppose
- Oppose Nope. We do not need any soccer business personality especially if we do not list Mrgan for Volleyball. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. With time, he has faded; will be a Level 5, but his notability is still more strongly tied to what he achieved for English football. Bizarely, Carlo Ancelotti is not even a Level 5, even though he is probably a Level 4 (the most successful manager in history; and a step above Ferguson). 78.18.228.191 (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose He could represent Manchester United here, but the players are more important topics. --Thi (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not in same league as Anchelotti. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
Remove Eusébio
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.
He is a regular in the top 11 to 20 all-time great lists, and appears in some top-10 all-time lists, but not frequently enough. Per my comments above, we should stick to the smaller core of players who are in most quality top-10 lists. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- czar 02:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Marta would be more timely choice for this list. --Thi (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ilya O. Sarvar (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose The best Poortoguese player of all time according to Britannica and chatGTP. The only football player in history which was top hgoalscorer in Champions League and World Cup the same year. First football player who won BB spor personality of the year. The best player ever according to Di Stefano. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
Remove Ferenc Puskás
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.
As per Eusébio, he is a regular in the top 11 to 20 all-time great lists, and appears in some top-10 all-time lists, but not frequently enough. Per my comments above, we should stick to the smaller core of players who are in most quality top-10 lists. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- czar 02:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ilya O. Sarvar (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Roberto Baggio
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.
Per my comments above, we should stick to the smaller core of players who are in most quality top-10 lists. Baggio is the one who often appears at #10. Definitely consistently ranks above the existing Level 4s of Puskás and Eusébio. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- VIT5 is sufficient; category is already well represented at this level czar 02:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ilya O. Sarvar (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- --Thi (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
Add Marta
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.
Per my comments above, she is unambiguously the most famous female footballer, more than existing Level 4, Mia Hamm. I still think we should keep Hamm (women's football is one of the fastest-growing sports in the world), but in all cases, Marta should be a Level 4. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 11:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. 11:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Per nom. The best female footballer of all time. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- czar 02:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ilya O. Sarvar (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support Cobblet (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Pixel
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.
Because it is a basic computing term that has been used quite frequently, it is absolutely vital at this level.
- Support
- As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support. --Thi (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support. 31.187.2.123 (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ilya O. Sarvar (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose. VIT5 is sufficient for this concept. czar 22:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
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.
Because it influenced Arabs a lot, and it has been outstanding, it is no doubt vital at this level.
- Support
- As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- czar 02:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Aszx5000 (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ilya O. Sarvar (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
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.
- Support
- As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- czar 02:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Aszx5000 (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ilya O. Sarvar (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
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.
Because Orhan Pamuk is a laureate of the Nobel Prize in Literature, and he is a Turk, this article is no doubt vital at this level.
- Support
- Oppose
- Oppose. Odd reasoning. Not every writer who is a Nobel Prize winner has their country's literature listed as vital. Gizza (talk) 07:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Going by nobel prizes, other countries with multiple laureates aren't listed (Turkey has one), such as: Poland, Ireland, Denmark, Greece, Switzerland --Gerdolfo (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- czar 22:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
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.
Because this film laid the groundwork for many later graphic novels, movies and series when it comes to science fiction and dystopian societies, and it changed the way people regard anime substantially[1], it definitely should be added.
- Support
- As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- As nom.--LJFIN2 (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- The film has been influential within its genre and Japan but I don't think it can be considered essential within the medium of film as a whole. Indeed, I would say there are more important films within animation and within Japanese cinema that come ahead of Akira which are omitted here. If more animated films were to be added my choice would be Toy Story which reinvented the field of animation, and is probably every bit as important as Snow White. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying Akira is not important, but when you are restricting your list to 30 films or so then you need a high bar, and you need to stick to films that transcend the medium in some way. Betty Logan (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- czar 02:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Per Betty Logan. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Not the most vital missing thing in Japanese cinema. --Thi (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
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.
These two periods literally determined modern-day climates and the evolution of mammals (and other animal groups) up to the modern day, the result of massive tectonic shifts and climates never seen in prehistory before.
The Paleogene period is where the Earth moved away from the greenhouse climates from previous periods up to the "Terminal Eocene Event" in the Eocene-Oligocene transition and became an icehouse up to the modern day and has important implications for paleoecology, in which large extinction/turnover events happened most notably in Europe (the "Grande Coupure") but has been recorded in Asia ("Mongolian Remodeling") and, in recent studies, Africa. In other words, the Paleogene saw the formation of glaciations in the Antarctic and carbon dioxide began decreasing heavily, which saw the end of the tropical world from reduced greenhouse atmospheres and increased albedo feedbacks from long-term glaciation. The climate of the late Paleogene wasn't always consistent cooler over time, seeing the Oligo-Miocene transition to warmer environments, but the world never truly returned to the greenhouse world seen in the Paleozoic era, Mesozoic era, the Paleocene-Eocene epochs again, especially with grasses becoming important components of habitats as early as the Eocene and C4 carbon fixation plants making their debut in the Oligocene.
The Neogene period is equally as important because once again, paleontologists and paleoclimatologists recognize massive shifts in fauna resulting from more tectonic shifts and another large drop in CO2 in the air, which resulted in the expansion of C4 plant environments and/or open woodlands/grasslands environments, more seasonal climates, and large faunal turnovers/extinction events that generally consist of large mammals living in closed habitats. The Neogene also saw debuts of many mammal families that we recognize today, such as most ruminants other than the tragulids (chevrotains) that already appeared in the Oligocene, bears, hyenas, and true elephants, many of which are the result of climatic changes and the dispersal events to other continents that followed.
The Paleogene and Neogene have been critical in understanding modern mammal order evolutions as well as other animal classes like birds, and the paleontological record is rich with fossils and evidence of climatic changes, especially in Eurasia where the two periods have become increasingly popular for paleontologists living there to study. For those reasons, the Paleogene and Neogene should be level-4 Vital Articles. I know the Cenozoic article is already level 4, but it doesn't go as in-depth on such events as the periods inside, and the 3 periods of the Mesozoic era are already level-4 in addition to the era itself. - PrimalMustelid 20:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. -- PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ilya O. Sarvar (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Titania (moon)
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.
It is the largest moon of Uranus and no moons of the planet are now listed. Interstellarity (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- In VIT4 Physical Sciences, we have 4 moons of Jupiter and 2 moons of Saturn, so it does seem consistent to add the largest moon of Uranus. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'd support relegating the two moons of Saturn (Enceladus and Titan) to VIT5. The 4 moons of Jupiter listed here are significant because they are the Galilean moons, and thus are appropriate. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- VIT5 is sufficient. VIT4 is Pluto-level. czar 22:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose --Thi (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- per Czar 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
- @Czar: Please elaborate. Interstellarity (talk) 11:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- For a secondary school student, this is not a must-know celestial body. Pluto at VIT4 sets the bar for what should be included here (i.e., we have no standard of one-moon-per-planet at VIT4). czar 18:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Add Charon (moon)
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.
The moon is tidally locked to Pluto. It is the most interesting moon of a dwarf planet. Interstellarity (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- Oppose
- VIT5 is sufficient. VIT4 is Pluto-level. czar 22:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose --Thi (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
- @Czar: Please elaborate. Interstellarity (talk) 11:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- See Titania discussion czar 18:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Swap: remove Seymour Cray, add Supercomputer
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.
Supercomputer is more vital concept.
- Support
- Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- Strong Support 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ilya O. Sarvar (talk) 09:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support Lorax (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Good article reassessment for Mount Vesuvius
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.
Mount Vesuvius has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Add Land (economics)
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.
As vital as Capital (economics) and Labour economics for production. All should be listend and that does not make sense to one be out of anothers at thesame level. I was not active long time on VA but I believe can nominate article already to level 4 even if is not level 5 (nomination from level 5 to level 3 is another case as level 4 is more stable than level 5). Dawid2009 (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- Oppose
- 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.
One of the main literary genres.
- Support
- Oppose
- Discuss
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.
It is very popular genre. "From Huckleberry Finn to Holden Caulfield to Jeannette in Oranges are not the only fruit, right up to twenty first century protagonists such as Starr Carter in The Hate U Give, we see complex, intriguing characters that personify human challenges around choice, values and conflicting feelings." [5]
- Support
- Oppose
- Discuss
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.
Art history books often present ancient Egyptian art. It has also influenced classical European art and architecture.
- Support
- Oppose
- Discuss
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.
Science communication includes the important concept of popular science (or science popularization or public understanding of science). [6] "We all benefit from science communication, that includes researchers, practitioners, politicians, decision makers, entrepreneurs, citizens alike. We can use science-based knowledge to aid in problem-solving, networking and knowledge sharing as well as knowledge co-creation. Science communication can provide us with a more holistic and multidisciplinary perspective to ourselves, societies and the environment." [7]
- Support
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Anthropomorphism
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.
Vital concept in psychology, culture and history of religion.
- Support
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Willa Cather
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.
One of the greatest American novelists of all time, known for her descriptions of life on the American frontier and the immigrant experience. [8][9][[10]
- Support
- Oppose
- Oppose. Not a major world figure (not even sure she is really one of the greatest American). Level 5 is more appropriate. Aszx5000 (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose too niche and obscure. Not even sure if L5 is appropriate. Gizza (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
Add Georg Büchner
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.
His works have had a profound influence on modern literature. Büchners play Woyzeck is one of the most influential and most often-performed German plays.
- Support
- Oppose
- Discuss
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.
Influential writer, the founder of French Romanticism.
- Support
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Praxiteles
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.
He has become a name synonymous with ancient Greek sculpture. [11]
- Support
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Joe Biden
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.
He has passed major legislation compared to other recent presidents. He led the US in withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. Interstellarity (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. Interstellarity (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- To avoid recency bias, I'd say wait till the end of his term. 〜 Festucalex • talk 12:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Leaning oppose. I don't think he's there yet. Let's see whether he makes it to a second term first, at which point there would be a fairly certain case for this. BD2412 T 15:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Per BD2412 and Festucalex. Aszx5000 (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Too early to judge his historical significance. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discussion
Whether or not Biden is there yet, he IS more notable than Henry Kissinger pbp 20:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Purplebackpack89: Kissinger has had a major hand in determining US policy in Vietnam, Cambodia, Chile, Argentina, and many other countries. Biden, on the other hand, was just yet another senator until 2008. In no way is Biden more notable than Kissinger if we took in consideration their career as a whole. After all, we have Henry Kissinger and the Vietnam War, but not Joe Biden and the Vietnam War. 〜 Festucalex • talk 03:13, 3 June 2023 (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.
President of Paraguay and the central figure of the Paraguayan War, “the deadliest and bloodiest war in Latin American history”, which shaped the history of South America, and a deeply polarizing figure, viewed by some as an ambitious madman and by others as a righteous hero. His legacy is still heavily taught and debated to this day. I believe a promotion from VIT5 to VIT4 is merited.
- Support
- Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add USA Today
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.
One of the top 5 most circulated newspapers in the US. Interstellarity (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- Support as proposer: Interstellarity 07:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added by Festucalex)
- USA Today is currently the most popular newspaper in the U.S., and the word "McPaper" typically refers to it.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- The five Level 4 papers, English Times, NYT, WPO, WSJ, and Le Monde are all major newspaper of record types; can't see a quasi-tabloid like USA Today being at Level 4. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Not needed at this level. Rarely quoted in other medias, unlike NYT and other papers which are known for their investigative journalism. --Thi (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- per Aszx5000 and Thi 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- 3 papers from the US already compared to just 2 from the rest of the world. And you want to add a 4th? Besides, going off the infoboxes its circulation figures are dwarfed by the NYT and WSJ. the wub "?!" 22:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add Path (computing)
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.
Foundamental topic about File (computing) Dawid2009 (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- Support as proposer: Dawid2009 (talk · contribs) 12:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added here by Festucalex)
- Oppose
- 〜 Festucalex • talk 12:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- The number of technology articles is already over target, and this is covered by Computer file#Identifying and organizing and File system. the wub "?!" 23:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- The number of wikilinks suggests that it is not so vital. --Thi (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
Add Localhost
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.
Subject related to Computer network Dawid2009 (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- Support as proposer: Dawid2009 (talk · contribs) 12:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added here by Festucalex)
- Oppose
- 〜 Festucalex • talk 12:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- Very much a niche topic within technology, which is already over target. the wub "?!" 23:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Too specific. --Thi (talk) 08:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
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.
Important thing related to data storage Dawid2009 (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- Support as proposer: Dawid2009 (talk · contribs) 12:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added here by Festucalex)
- Oppose
- Belongs where it is now, in VIT5. 〜 Festucalex • talk 12:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- The number of technology articles is already over target, and this is covered by Computer file#Identifying and organizing and File system. the wub "?!" 23:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per the wub. --Thi (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
Good article reassessment for Metric system
Metric system has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Track and field
Track and field has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Add Archive
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.
Basic topic in encyclopedia, compare with Library . "Archival records serve to strengthen collective memory and protect people’s rights, property, and identity." [12]
- Support
- Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Very useful in historiography.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- the wub "?!" 00:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Still life
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.
Important concept in painting and art history.
- Support
- Oppose
- Belongs in VIT5 in my opinion. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
Add Aphorism
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.
Essential topic in literature. Many important aphorists are not listed, such as François de La Rochefoucauld or Stanisław Jerzy Lec.
- Support
- Oppose
- 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
Move Psychosis, Delusion, and Hallucination from Mental Disorders to Symptoms and Signs
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.
- Note: This discussion was erroneously listed on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5. I moved this discussion here. 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
psychosis is better understood as a symptom rather then it's own condition seeing that it's not a stand alone diagnosis but instead part of an other dignosis.
Also it really doesn't belong under mental disorders considering that psychosis isn't always a symptom of a mental disorder it can also be caused by an injury of the brain, drug use, medication side effects, or a medical condition. It belongs much more in Symptoms and Signs LJFIN2 (talk)
- Support
- Support as proposer: LJFIN2 11:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added here by Festucalex)
- 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- This jives with my understanding. — HTGS (talk) 01:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support The person who loves reading (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
- I just realized those are VIT4 articles, not VIT5. How do we proceed? 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:14, 29 May 2023 (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.
Mulholland Drive is often regarded as the greatest film of this century. It was ranked 8th in the 2022 Sight & Sound poll of the best films ever made. It is both a thriller and an art film. Its inclusion at this level would produce better overview of film history, since most recent film is currently Star Wars from 1977.
- Support
- Oppose
- Oppose There is a reason why the most recent film on this list is from the 70s: it takes time for a film's place in film history to become apparent, and to understand what its impact was and what its relevance is today. I don't think 20 years is really long enough to understand the significance of a particular film. Betty Logan (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- pbp 13:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
- I don't contest the view that Mulholland Drive is a top-tier film, but is it really the best film from this century? Is it even better (or more important) than Blue Velvet, which appears to have been more influential? The purpose of listing films among vital topics is not to impose some kind of qualitative assessment but to try and map out which films are vital to the topic of film. In truth, I would probably choose it over The Sound of Music, but I think there are more meritorious selections. I mean, if you look at how dependent Hollywood film-making has become on comic books and superheroes you could make a case for the first Christopher Reeve Superman. There is no black cinema represented on the vital topics, and I am really tempted to nominate Do the Right Thing. But as for this particular nomination, I don't think 20 years is long enough to assess the importance of a particular film. Betty Logan (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)