Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 58

< Wikipedia talk:Vital articles | Level/4
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Power~enwiki
Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60→Archive 65
FAILED
. --Thi (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Daniel Day-Lewis, Remove Gérard Depardieu

Sir Daniel Day-Lewis is an English actor who is the only male actor with 3 Best Actor Oscars. And he is the only male actor that is 1 of 3 male actors with 3 Oscars. Not to mention the various other awards he holds. He further has been nominated for three other Best Actor Oscars. He is also an accomplished and acclaimed theater actor. In November 2012, Time named Day-Lewis the "World's Greatest Actor". His third Oscar was in the highly decorated film Lincoln in 2012. There are some world class male actors in Level 4, I'm not disputing that. But certainly he belongs in Level 4 more than Gérard Depardieu? I modified the proposal to say add Lewis, remove Depardieu. dawnleelynn(talk) 03:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --dawnleelynn(talk) 03:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support addition Day-Lewis is certainly one of the great actors, as reflected by his Oscars, but I wouldn't remove Depardieu, particularly given the comparative lack of representation of French cinema. Neljack (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Alec Guinness would've been the better swap, but alas he has a big fanbase on this list so he's untouchable. To call DDL a "active" actor is lunacy considering he is retired. Depardieu should be swapped with Alain Delon or Jean Gabin but he certainly does not belong here. Most ridiculous claim that because Depardieu is more prolific he is more vital when DDL is significantly more critically acclaimed which is the standard for the lvl 4 list or we would have Samuel L. Jackson and Tom Cruise on here. GuzzyG (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support addition Day-Lewis is considered one of the greatest actors in recent years. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose, while Daniel Day-Lewis certainly is recognized and world-class, Gérard Depardieu is known internationally, with a much more prolific career. I feel there's a bit of anglocentrism at play here. I'm not saying Depardieu necessarily belongs here, but this seems like a bad swap, reducing French cinema from 2 to 1 actors. Looking at the list, I might support a swap with Spencer Tracy or Gregory Peck, but I'm also loathe to stack the section with active/modern actors.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Using Oscars is a too anglocentric measure of vitality. Also critical acclaim is not the standard for the vitality list, and we should of course include Tom Cruise and Samuel L Jackson before we include Daniel Day Lewis.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Gérard Depardieu has won the César Award for Best Actor, the Volpi Cup for Best Actor, the Cannes Film Festival Award for Best Actor, the Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Musical or Comedy, and the Stanislavsky Award. He has also been nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actor, losing to Jeremy Irons. Day-Lewis has not even been nominated for any major European award, he is just an obscure actor. Dimadick (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
    Excuse me! FOUR BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role - one short of the record, from 7 noms! Depardieu has just 2 noms, no awards. Johnbod (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
    Thank you, I was going to add that. Also 2 Golden Globes with 6 more nominations. And in the link, many other awards, some not American or English. dawnleelynn(talk) 21:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
    BAFTA stands for British Academy Film Awards, and they are organized by the British Academy of Film and Television Arts. They are not an international competition such as the Venice Film Festival and the Cannes Film Festival. Per our list BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role, the current record-holder for most awards is Peter Finch. Dimadick (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Neither of them should be on the list IMO. You can quite easily cover the field of acting without mentioning either of these actors. Frankly I would prefer to see him replaced with Tom Cruise. It is kind of strange that we don't have Cruise on the list given that he has been named the world's number 1 money-making film star more times than any other actor that has ever lived (see Top Ten Money Making Stars Poll. Betty Logan (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
This is not about whether actors are in the Vital Articles list. It's whether they are on the Level 4 list. And no, Tom Cruise is not a Level 4 actor, I'm sorry. All three actors are on the Level 5 list, with some actors who are more notable on the Level 4 list. Actors are not on the Level 4 list because of their earnings; it is their notability.
Discuss

I would probably support removing Gérard Depardieu.  Carlwev  13:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not actually tied to a swap with any actor, and especially wasn't trying to purposely replace a foreign actor with an Anglo one. In fact, I originally didn't even propose a replace, just an add. If someone has a better replace, or just wants to do an add, that's great. Also, being selective is part of Day-Lewis's entire career, he could have been just as prolific as any other actor. He certainly didn't lack for offers. So being prolific isn't necessarily a reason to select an actor. Also, as I mentioned, he spent time as a stage actor as well. Thanks. dawnleelynn(talk) 03:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
A straight add would also break the 32/32 parity we have with actresses. Not sure I can support that either. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Swap with Tom Hanks? --Thi (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Swapping with Tom Hanks sounds like a better option. Didn't know Hanks was listed. Gizza (t)(c) 05:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
They seem rather comparable. Not the guy I'd have swapped with, but I wouldn't oppose that swap. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I would remove the two Indian actors, neither of whom can be expected to be known to people who do not follow Indian cinema, before removing Depardieu. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
But there are an awful lot of people who do follow Indian cinema - both get many times more views than Depardieu - 5 & 7K, vs 1,200 per day. And I'd certainly heard of Amitabh Bachchan, though I don't follow Indian cinema. All 4 are getting on in years. D D-L gets some 5k views btw. Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I would swap with any that consensus agreed upon. As far as DDL's notability, I am not placing his eligibility for Level 4 based solely on his Oscars and nominations. There was that Time list, of course. And the fact that he was knighted in 2014 for his services to drama. Here's another link that calls him the greatest actor [1] and talks about his retirement. And the real pièce de résistance, List of awards and nominations received by Daniel Day-Lewis. dawnleelynn(talk) 18:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Depardieu has also become a Chevalier (Knight) of both the National Order of Merit (France) and the Legion of Honour. I don't see Day-Lewis' knighthood as particularly impressive. We have an entire category with them: Category:Actors awarded British knighthoods. Their female counterparts are the Category:Actresses awarded British damehoods.Dimadick (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but how many are alive at any one time? These go back a century or more. The French awards are actually much more common - Legion of Honour: "As of 2010, the actual membership was 67 Grand Cross, 314 Grand Officers, 3,009 Commanders, 17,032 Officers and 74,384 Knights"! National Order of Merit (France): "It comprises about 187,000 members worldwide." Johnbod (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
"These go back a century or more." 123 years to be exact (1895-2018). The very first actor to be knighted was Henry Irving in 1895. Currently Irving is more famous because he was both idolized and feared by Bram Stoker (his business manager), who used Irving as a main source for a new fictional character: Count Dracula. "Scholars have long agreed that keys to the Dracula tale's origin and meaning lie in the manager's relationship with Irving in the 1880s. … There is virtual unanimity on the point that the figure of Dracula—which Stoker began to write notes for in 1890—was inspired by Henry Irving himself. … Stoker's numerous descriptions of Irving correspond so closely to his rendering of the fictional count that contemporaries commented on the resemblance. … But Bram Stoker also internalized the fear and animosity his employer inspired in him, making them the foundations of his gothic fiction." I still remember television documentaries back in 1995 (the Dracula centennial) covering in detail how Irving shaped the novel and its title character. Dimadick (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I think it's clear by now most people vote based on fame rather then accomplishment, merit or impact by now, so DDL not being on is hardly surprising. As the above claim that Samuel L. Jackson is more vital proves. The fact that there's more French actors/actresses then Indian is laughable too. DDL is "anglocentric" but the sports section apparently isn't. What's the difference between [2] DDL and Guinness? People that opposed that removal because Guinness had a "lengthy career", "knighted" and won "various 'most liked actor' type awards" vote to oppose DDL who has more of that. Funny. GuzzyG (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
"most people vote based on fame rather then accomplishment, merit or impact" I view Depardieu as having the accomplishment, merit, and impact by managing to win some of Europe's greatest awards, starring in major films such as the Asterix films (live action), and being a household name for decades. I had never even heard of Daniel Day-Lewis until the last couple of years (I have seen several of his 1980s and 1990s films, but could hardly remember him), and I am not particularly impressed with his acting or his filmography. Dimadick (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I think my point about people playing favorites is made clear by the fact you opposed the removal of Guinness for the same reasons you're opposing the addition of Day-Lewis. Two regional Cesar (french) award means diddly squat to three (regional) academy awards, unless you think French cinema has more impact then American cinema. Or why Depardieu is more vital for French cinema then Jean Gabin, Alain Delon or Max Linder. GuzzyG (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
It's clear the arguments about awards went into overkill. We all have the Internet and the subject's articles to read. Also, once the arguments of awards was starting to be exhausted, then opinions of the actor were trotted out, and they are not really helpful to the discussion. Many questions could have been answered if people had just checked the actor's Wikipedia pages and the provided links. For example, touting Depardieu's Golden Globe Award and implying DDL had none, while I had just earlier posted a link to all of his awards in a Wikipedia article. dawnleelynn(talk) 22:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
p.s. You know, you should really be careful who you accuse of discrimination on the Internet. You don't know anything about me. Referring to anglocentrism. dawnleelynn(talk) 23:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
"Many questions could have been answered if people had just checked the actor's Wikipedia pages and the provided links." Unfortunately not in Depardieu's case. Once I checked his page, I realized that the Awards section often linked to an entirely wrong page (the Festival instead of the acting award) or to the wrong award (the drama award instead of the comedy one.) I had to do some verifications with our awards lists. And the Internet Movie Database's list includes awards and nominations which ours does not even mention. See: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000367/awards?ref_=nm_awd For example, Depardieu won the National Society of Film Critics Award for Best Actor for 1983. Daniel Day-Lewis won the same award in 1989. Dimadick (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, added. --Thi (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Izumo no Okuni

Originator of Kabuki, vital topic of non-western dance (of which we have no coverage). If we have a french comedian for diversity reasons then one example of non-western dance should be alright.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support I would say that the inventor of kabuki is vital. Gizza (t)(c) 23:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Okuni was an actress, dancer, and singer, and she trained many others into her art. "Gathering up the female outcasts and misfits of the region, particularly those involved in prostitution, Okuni gave them direction, teaching them acting, dancing and singing skills in order to form her troupe. ... As mentioned above, Okuni's troupe was exclusively female. Thus, she required her actresses to play both male and female roles. As her troupe gained fame, she was emulated by many others, particularly brothels, which offered such shows to amuse wealthy clients, as well as to gain prostitutes who had marketable acting and singing skills." Dimadick (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support , absolutely yes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support She is highly important and adds a level of regional diversity to a section that desperately needs it. ―Susmuffin Talk 15:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, added. --Thi (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Gabriel Fauré

"One of the most influential French composers of the 19th and early 20th centuries." [3][4] He is for example in Phil G. Goulding's book Classical Music, The 50 Greatest Composers.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Besides being a key composer, Fauré served as director of the Conservatoire de Paris and significantly changed the rules of musical education there. "Fauré radically changed the administration and curriculum. He appointed independent external judges to decide on admissions, examinations and competitions, a move which enraged faculty members who had given preferential treatment to their private pupils; feeling themselves deprived of a considerable extra income, many of them resigned. Fauré was dubbed "Robespierre" by disaffected members of the old guard as he modernised and broadened the range of music taught at the Conservatoire. As Nectoux puts it, "where Auber, Halévy and especially Meyerbeer had reigned supreme ... it was now possible to sing an aria by Rameau or even some Wagner – up to now a forbidden name within the Conservatoire's walls". The curriculum was broadened to range from Renaissance polyphony to the works of Debussy." Dimadick (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support - per Dimadick. Jusdafax (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, added. --Thi (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Ralph Vaughn Williams

Vaughn Williams is probably as equally influential as Elgar or Gilbert and Sullivan as early 20th-century British composers go.

Support
  1. as nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support, but his name was Ralph Vaughan Williams. He still has an influence on music.: "Composers of the generation after Vaughan Williams reacted against his style, which became unfashionable in influential musical circles in the 1960s; diatonic and melodic music such as his was neglected in favour of atonal and other modernist compositions. In the 21st century this neglect has been reversed. In the fiftieth anniversary year of his death two contrasting documentary films were released: Tony Palmer's O Thou Transcendent: The Life of Vaughan Williams and John Bridcut's The Passions of Vaughan Williams. British audiences were prompted to reappraise the composer. The popularity of his most accessible works, particularly the Tallis Fantasia and The Lark Ascending increased, but a wide public also became aware of what a reviewer of Bridcut's film called "a genius driven by emotion". Among the 21st-century musicians who have acknowledged Vaughan Williams's influence on their development are John Adams, PJ Harvey, Sir Peter Maxwell Davies, Anthony Payne, Wayne Shorter, Neil Tennant and Mark-Anthony Turnage." Dimadick (talk) 08:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support - per Dimadick. Jusdafax (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support He certainly had a massive impact on British classical music, moving it away from a German-influenced style. Neljack (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
It is clear that this will not pass. ―Susmuffin Talk 06:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Move Eleanor Roosevelt and Sitting Bull to Rebels, revolutionaries and activists

Eleanor Roosevelt was an activist and Sitting Bull was a rebel; they should not be in the Politicians and leaders section. ―Gregorius II 07:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support ―Gregorius II 07:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support agreed. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support - Also agree. Jusdafax (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Eleanor Roosevelt per Dimadick. I think that Sitting Bull also qualifies as a leader since he was considered a leader of the Sioux nation. Calling him a "rebel" is, frankly, somewhat offensive to Native Americans IMO. If he is moved anywhere, religious figures would be more appropriate. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose moving Eleanor Roosevelt. I think we should include First Family as political leaders, just as we do for First Family in other countries (Eva Peron), and non-ruling wives and kids of non-British monarchs. We also need to think about what moving Eleanor would mean for VA/5, which also includes Abigail Adams, Dolley Madison and Martha Washington. I've long found it a bit off that Sitting Bull was in political leaders, but I can appreciate the argument for keeping him there, so consider me neutral on Sitting Bull. pbp 19:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose both. Roosevelt per pbp and Dimadick, and also so we have a female US politician (which is important, no doubt). Sitting Bull is definitely not a rebel, that IMO could be considered racist if said in the wrong way. Not exactly a revolutionary either. And definitely not an activist. IMO he's far more of a leader than a religious figure if we do consider that; I just don't think it fits him. Leader ticks the boxes though, so keep him here. J947 (c), at 05:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
  • The first sentence of her article does call her an "activist". Right now she's in the "politicians and leaders" section. Nowhere in her article is she referred to as a "politician" and the "leaders" designation of that section seems to reference unelected leaders like monarchs and dictators. She seems to fit better in the activist section, as she is primarily known for her work as a women's and civil rights activist, aside from being the wife of a president. As for Sitting Bull, I wouldn't really call him a politician in the modern sense of the word. And as far as a leader, it's harsh to say, but you're a leader if you win, you're a rebel if you lose. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Let's be honest here. Tribal sovereignty, like U.S. state sovereignty, is really just academic at this point. The U.S. federal government can pretty much pass whatever laws it wants to regulate the various tribes and states. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • But it wasn't "academic" during the 19th century while Sitting Bull was alive. It was an active thing, as can be clearly seen by the fact that Sitting Bull actively resisted U.S. interference as a leader of his people. The whole gist of this suggestion, and the arguments presented for it, devalues Native American history and culture by reducing it to rebelliousness. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • First lady is by nature an unelected position, and Eleanor would not have been able to achieve the things that put her on this list if she hadn't had the platform available to her by being First Lady. pbp 19:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I would like to point out the article on Sitting Bull describes him as a leader in the text and in the categories it's included in, in different areas it describes him as a spiritual leader, a Native American political leader, Lakota leader, Native American leader, Indigenous leader of Saskatchewan, Hunkpapa Lakota leader, and mentions the word leadership several times. The article does not contain the words rebel, rebellion, revolution, revolutionary, activist, or activism at all in the text or categories.  Carlwev  20:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed 6-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Israeli Declaration of Independence

In my opinion the article about this specific event is not as vital at this level as Israel, History of Israel and David Ben-Gurion. Articles Jewish history, Arab–Israeli conflict and Zionism are also related.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support. Not vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support if History of Israel were more focused on modern times I would be more confident, but I think Balfour Declaration is probably sufficient for articles on the history of modern Israel. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support while Zionism is a vital topic, this is too specific to be vital. Gizza (t)(c) 22:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support The event in question is overly specific; it is already sufficiently discussed by a variety of other articles. ―Gregorius II 00:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Biafra

Redundant to Nigerian Civil War at this level.

Support
  1. as nom power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Redundant Plantdrew (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove The Creation (Haydn)

Handel's Messiah is the most famous oratorio and another example is probably not needed when the quota is over.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 09:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 04:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support We are currently eighteen articles over the quota of 670 in this section. ―Susmuffin Talk 13:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed. --Thi (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Escapology and Sleight of hand

Probably only Magic (illusion) is vital at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. This is a good place to make cuts. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  15:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support escapology Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support The two articles have no reason to be included at this level. ―Gregorius II 06:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose sleight of hand Sleight of hand isn't used exclusively in magic. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Fine-art photography

Photography “is one of the new media forms that changes perception and changes the structure of society”[1], and is one of the Level 3 Vital articles listed under Visual arts.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Qono (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support - Agree this is vital at this level. Jusdafax (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Meaning (philosophy of language)

The study of meaning has been central not only to philosophy of language, but also to logic.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 04:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Vital. Gizza (t)(c) 04:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Lots and lots of philosophical time has been spent thinking and writing about this. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  14:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support - Yes, this is vital at this level, at the very least. Jusdafax (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Gaia removed 5-1. Demeter added 5-0. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Swap Gaia for Demeter

I have no idea who it was that suggested Gaia be included on this list but not Demeter, but, whoever they were, they were clearly not basing that decision on actual mythological significance. Gaia is a vague, obscure ancestor figure who had virtually no cult whatsoever and is hardly mentioned in literature outside of Hesiod's Theogony and works derived from it. Demeter, on the other hand, was one of the most important deities in the pantheon; she was a member of the Twelve Olympians, a major recipient of worship, and a central figure in several myths, most famously the myth involving her daughter Persephone's abduction by Hades, which was the central story behind the Eleusinian Mysteries, one of the most important cults in all of Greek religion. I suspect that the only reason someone chose to include Gaia here instead of Demeter is because of POV-pushing in favor of the Gaia hypothesis, which really has nothing to do with the Greek goddess by that name. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal. The reason Gaia is included on the list is because she has become important in modern times. As the article points out, she is worshiped today by neopagans, as well as being used symbolically as mother earth by some environmentalists. Also, the reference to her by the Gaia hypothesis makes her vital. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Rreagan007: Virtually every deity from Greek mythology is worshipped by Neopagans of some variety, including Demeter; that fact in itself is not distinguishing. Considering that the Gaia hypothesis itself is not on this list, I do not think that it makes Gaia vital at this level either. The Roman god Mercury has a planet in our solar system named after him and he (rightly) is still not listed here. If we could include one more deity from Greek mythology, it would undoubtedly have to be Dionysus, not Gaia. Unlike Gaia, Dionysus was widely worshipped in antiquity, was central to numerous myths, and still retains a strong influence on modern culture as a symbol of drinking, libertinism, and mystical ecstasy. He even had a cult that, in the second century AD, may have rivalled Christianity in total number of adherents. Notice that even our article about Dionysus is four times longer than our article about Gaia. Not to mention the fact that Dionysus is probably nearly as much worshipped by Neopagans as Gaia. Gaia is perfect for Level 5, but not Level 4. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
"and still retains a strong influence on modern culture as a symbol of drinking, libertinism, and mystical ecstasy." Never mind that. As the patron deity of theatre, most texts concerning Dionysus typically cover this relationship, and his depiction in works of Euripides and Aristophanes. "The origins of theatre in ancient Greece, according to Aristotle (384–322 BCE), the first theoretician of theatre, are to be found in the festivals that honoured Dionysus. ... "The origins of tragedy remain obscure, though by the 5th century BCE it was institutionalised in competitions (agon) held as part of festivities celebrating Dionysus... As contestants in the City Dionysia's competition (the most prestigious of the festivals to stage drama) playwrights were required to present a tetralogy of plays (though the individual works were not necessarily connected by story or theme), which usually consisted of three tragedies and one satyr play." Dimadick (talk) 12:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Housekeeping

Like personal life (that was recently removed), this is sort of a general, catch-all term for a number of different activities and isn't really an encyclopedic topic.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support The subject's hopeless, shouldn't be a priority for an encyclopedia.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  15:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support as per above dawnleelynn(talk) 22:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Housekeeping is an overly general subject that is better suited to a dictionary than an encyclopaedia. ―Susmuffin Talk 14:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, added. --Thi (talk) 11:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Suit (clothing)

The suit is a traditional form of men's formal clothes in the Western world.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support as per above dawnleelynn(talk) 22:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support The suit is one of the more basic articles of clothing; the encyclopaedia would be incomplete without it. ―Gregorius II 12:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove House society

Like moiety (that was recently removed from the list), this seems to be a very niche topic without any general applicability. It doesn't seem vital to me.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 09:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support The subject of this article would only interest a very small group of people. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2-4, not removed Gizza (t)(c) 22:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove National Hockey League

We don't need 5 North American sports leagues (also including MLB, NBA, NFL, and NASCAR) at this level. More popular than some of the others in Canada, but clearly the least popular in the United States.

Support
  1. as nom power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 09:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose More vital than NASCAR. It may be the least popular of the Big 4 in the U.S., but it also has substantial appeal in Canada and elsewhere. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Presidentman Gizza (t)(c) 22:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose because my long-standing precedent is big topics over people in the topic, which applies here. J947 (c), at 19:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
2-3, not removed. --Thi (talk) 06:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove National Basketball Association

MLB was the most notable American sports league in the 20th century, and the NFL is the most notable one today. There are far more basketball leagues world-wide than American football or baseball. I think that this league doesn't make the cut for this level.

Support
  1. as nom power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 09:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Agree with Presidentman. Also I'd remove a few more basketball players before the league itself. Gizza (t)(c) 22:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose because my long-standing precedent is big topics over people in the topic, which applies here. J947 (c), at 19:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-1, removed. --Thi (talk) 11:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove NASCAR

We only really need one car-racing league IMO and NASCAR is clearly less vital than Formula One. Even within the U.S., it is only really popular in the South with little appeal elsewhere in the country.

Support
  1. as nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 22:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support a regional interest, at best. Formula one is the premier racing league. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support NASCAR is a highly regional car-racing league; the subject is sufficiently covered by Formula One. ―Susmuffin Talk 22:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

I'm neutral here, though I dispute "only really popular in the South"; it's somewhat regional but that region is over half of the USA at this point. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment as well. And it's certainly the most popular form of auto racing in the U.S. by far. I don't think Formula One races are even broadcast on U.S. TV really. I could be wrong about that, but I've never seen them. NASCAR races all broadcast on major TV networks. I honestly don't view Formula One as any more vital than NASCAR. If one is removed, then I think they both should be. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Withdrawn; some of the other libraries will remain, so no need for this move at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Move Library of Alexandria to History

This was destroyed over 1500 years ago, and is primarily important as a historical concept.

Support
  1. as nom power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 06:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

My view on this will depend on the outcome of the other proposal on libraries. If all the others are removed except this one, then I would be for the move. If some other libraries are retained, then I would want all the libraries to be listed in the same place. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
There's clearly insufficient support to remove Library of Congress, British Library, and Vatican Library. I believe the vote on the remainder is 5-3 currently, which isn't consensus. As a result, I'm withdrawing this as a bulk proposal; I will propose removal of a few of the others individually in mid-July (and ping all participants here); any other editor is welcome to do so earlier. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove 9 libraries

Library of Congress, New York Public Library, National Library of China, National Diet Library, Vatican Library, British Library, Russian State Library, National Library of Russia, Bibliothèque nationale de France - all of the libraries currently listed, excluding the Library of Alexandria. I don't see a need to list any of these at this level, now that the level-5 list exists.

Support
  1. as nom power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support except for the 3 opposed below. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC) Neutral on three mentioned below. --Thi (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support except for 3, per Rreagan007. feminist (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support except for the three mentioned below by Rreagan007. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose for Library of Congress, British Library, and Vatican Library. I think these are vital enough to retain at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Some of the most important archival records on the planet are represented by these libraries. Dimadick (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - per Dimadick. These are vital at this level. Jusdafax (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - I feel they're all integral. Perhaps the weakest is the National Library of Russia, but the page needs improvement anyway. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

If there's a scattering of votes on which of these to remove, I'll re-factor this on 13 June to allow for cleaner discussion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
3-3, not removed. --Thi (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Punch

Victorian magazine, probably not necessary at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Satirical magazine published from 1841 to 2002. It published works by several significant writers and political cartoonists, such as John Tenniel and E. H. Shepard. Dimadick (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - per Dimadick. Vital at this level. Jusdafax (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. One of my junior high school history textbooks contains a picture from this magazine, meaning this magazine helps contemporary readers understand Victorian Britain.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

"contains a picture from this magazine, meaning this magazine helps contemporary readers understand Victorian Britain." To a point correct, as the magazines' cartoonists commented on nearly every politival event of the era. But Punch also published various serialized novels and poems, with some legacy of their own. Among the most notable were the satirical novel Vanity Fair (1847-1848) by William Makepeace Thackeray and the poem "Teddy Bear" (1924) by A. A. Milne, which introduced Milne's new character Winnie-the-Pooh. Dimadick (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, added. --Thi (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Biomechanics

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Dimadick (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  17:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discus
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
7-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Silver carp, Grass carp, and Common carp

We have Carp, I don't think these types of carp are different or important enough to be listed individually at this level.

Support
  1. as nom power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support this is reasonable Gizza (t)(c) 00:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support dawnleelynn(talk) 22:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support The three articles are overly specific; they should not be included as this level. ―Gregorius II 10:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not added, 1–5. --Thi (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Overweight

Obesity may be a vital article, but overweight should be added as a level 4 because more people are overweight than obese. --2601:183:101:58D0:C5F2:FD9C:2766:CEFE (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I still think there is too much overlap with Obesity to list it at this level. We don't list Underweight at this level either. It's fine to add it to level 5 thought. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose it's not just about the numbers. Being slightly overweight isn't really a health risk. Gizza (t)(c) 22:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose For some experts being overweight is actually somewhat healthier than being underweight, thus overweight is less vital than underweight.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose The topic of the article is not worthy of being included at this level. ―Susmuffin Talk 20:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
The creator of this proposal has withdrawn it. ―Susmuffin Talk 06:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Minor planet

Minor planet refers to every natural solar-system body that isn't a planet not a comet. They encompass every type of asteroids (including trojans, mentioned above) and dwarf planets. Alternatively, Small Solar System body could be added, which is every natural solar system body that isn't a planet, dwarf planet or a natural satellite. Smaller subdivisions of these objects (centaurs vs trojans vs Kuiper belt objects vs whatever) is basically the same as considering Spaniards to be more vital than human/people. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. As proposer, prefer Minor planet over Small Solar System body. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose;
Discuss

@Headbomb: Please withdraw this nomination as Minor planet is already listed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Strange, I didn't see it when searching. But since it's already there, consider this withdrawn / speedy close it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
This is not a Level 4 article. ―Susmuffin Talk 06:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove tokamak

Too niche for this level. Also should be moved to technology. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Tokamak isn't a level 4 article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added 6-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Cybernetics

Either this or cyborg, but I think Cybernetics is the parent article. Much has been written about and studied in this topic, it is of interest to experts general readers, and has featured in many fictions, be they movies novels or games etc, it has a place in popular culture as well as in science, and it's only getting more attention as time goes on. Philosophy and religion have paid attention to the topic also with regards to what is human or alive, and whether certain technology is ethical, moral, right or wrong etc. I know everyone has their own opinion and this is only mine, but I am surprised we have overlooked this up until now....Not 100% sure on it's placement, as by definition it is the blending of 2 things, the biological and the artificial/mechanical/electronic, biotechnology may or may not be the right place, it is bio it is tech, but it is not genetic engineering. It also appears in about 74 different language wikis, it looks like people from around the world are interested in the topic. It also has nearly 1000 daily page views [5]. It is surely more vital than many individual people and works we have.

Support
  1. As nom.  Carlwev  18:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support I am not certain about its popular culture impact, but cybernetics includes the study of basic principles behind Artificial intelligence, Computer vision, Control systems, Conversation theory, Emergence, Interactions of actors theory, Learning organization, Robotics, Second-order cybernetics, and Self-organization in cybernetics. Dimadick (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support - Clearly vital for L4. Jusdafax (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support This topic is absolutely vital to any encyclopaedia due to its prevalence in popular culture, as well as its various real-world applications. ―Susmuffin Talk 20:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 8-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Mesa Verde National Park

To make room for the Everglades. Per the above nomination, Great Smoky Mountains National Park is more vital to keep listed as it's a UNESCO heritage site and the most visited national park in the United States.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. The subject is notable primarily because of the Ancestral Puebloans, which we already have.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support I'm not quite sure why this is on the vital list. I guess because it's perhaps the most prominent national park with an archaeological/cultural aspect? But Ancestral Puebloans are already on the list, and so is Cahokia (a state historic site rather than a national park, but it was once the largest city in North America). Plantdrew (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 00:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support as Ancestral Puebloans is listed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support The subject of this article is better represented by the two articles on the Ancestral Puebloans that we already have on this list. ―Susmuffin Talk 13:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
3-3, not added. --Thi (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add The Egyptian

It's among the most internationally famous Finnish literary works (rivaled probably only by Kalevala and Moomins). It was successful enough to remain in the U.S. bestseller lists for two years straight and get a high-budget film adaptation. There's also this summary of a seminar where various professors heaped various superlatives at it, e.g. "serious intellectual achievement", "artistic aspects and its magnificent literary competence is beyond comparison" etc. I already put this at level 5, but let's see how this nomination goes.

Support
  1. Support Significant historical novel. Dimadick (talk) 09:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support as nominator.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I am not convinced it quite at the necessarily level of significance. Neljack (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Looking at the list and the article, I am not quite convinced that this fits the level necessary for inclusion. J947 (c), at 04:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Nowhere near the level of things like One Thousand and One Nights or Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Unanimous opposition, never going to pass at this rate. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 06:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Swap: remove Asterix, add Watchmen

We already have another Franco-Belgian comic listed at this level (Tintin), and I think Watchmen is clearly more significant. Just look at Watchmen's legacy section: "A critical and commercial success, Watchmen is highly regarded in the comics industry and is frequently considered by several critics and reviewers as comics' greatest series and graphic novel. In time, the series has also become one of the best-selling graphic novels ever published. Watchmen was the only graphic novel to appear on Time's 2005 "All-Time 100 Greatest Novels" list"... Besides, Watchmen is already a FA.

Support
  1. Support as nominator.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal Simply put, removing Astérix for yet another British-US comic, even if it's Watchmen is a ridiculously anglo-centric. Both Tintin and Astérix are amongst the most widely read, most beloved, and most widely decorated comic series of all times, with broad international appeal. Watchmen is influential the comic world since the late 1980s, sure, but step outside the comic world, or especially the comic world outside the US/UK, and few people will know what Watchmen even is. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Asterix is a huge global phenomenon after all these years. The albums are translated into over 100 languages. Watchmen deconstructs and parodies the superhero genre, it is not as universal. --Thi (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Asterix is one of the most important Franco-Belgian comics; its appeals to a vast variety of audiences throughout the world. Watchmen is far less prominent and is not worthy of being included at this level. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. I have never heard of Watchmen. I have definitely heard of Asterix. Though I do think Tintin is more vital to have on this list than Asterix, they are both comics which have spread worldwide, and both some of the biggest non-superhero comics (I guess you could argue a case for Asterix, but it definitely outfitting of the normal superhero genre, to say the least) all-time. And isn't this section anglo-centric. I oppose the removal, at least. J947 (c), at 18:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per above. Also it's irrelevant that Watchmen is a Featured Article. The list is about which article should become one, not whether they already are one. Gizza (t)(c) 23:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Few comics series can match the success and impact of Asterix, since its debut in 1959. "The Asterix series is one of the most popular Franco-Belgian comics in the world, with the series being translated into over 100 languages. The success of the series has led to the adaptation of several books into 13 films: nine animated, and four live action (one of which, Asterix & Obelix: Mission Cleopatra, was a major box office success in France). There have also been a number of games based on the characters, and a theme park near Paris, Parc Astérix. The very first French satellite, Astérix, launched in 1965, was also named after the comics character. As of October 2009, 325 million copies of 34 Asterix books had been sold worldwide, making co-creators René Goscinny and Albert Uderzo France's bestselling authors abroad." Not bad for a series that is largely based on Commentarii de Bello Gallico by Julius Caesar. Dimadick (talk) 10:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  7. pbp 14:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
Watchmen is famous, yes. But it's a deconstruction, which makes it a reaction to things that established the conventions of the genre. Basically you need Superman and Batman first, maybe Superhero, and then you can get into Watchmen. Alan Moore in general might be worth a mention though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
As far I understand it did also help popularise the term "graphic novel". Well, looks like this thread is almost ready to be snowballed. I might try again with a "Add Maus" proposal at some point though (it would have been my second pick for a level-4 graphic novel). Regarding the "including Alan Moore" point, that's the way I feel about Goscinny - he's written multiple popular comics, Asterix being only one of them.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 06:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
2-6, not removed. --Thi (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Formula One

NASCAR is much more popular in the U.S. and Formula One much more popular in Europe. If we're going to remove NASCAR, then I think we should remove this article as well.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose by far the most important of all racing associations/leagues. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Formula One is a globally followed motorsport. Not just European. Here is a list of where all the grand prix have have been held. Gizza (t)(c) 23:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose This is a false comparison. NASCAR is popular only in the U.S. Formula One is very popular in Europe, but it is also popular in much of Asia and even the U.S. (to an extent). - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Formula One is the most popular racing association in the world. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Europe is bigger than the US, for one. J947 (c), at 19:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Human papillomavirus infection

A major STD that is missing. It is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the world. It is also the leading cause of cervical cancer, as well as several other types of cancer. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Relatively common disease. "In 2012, about 528,000 new cases and 266,000 deaths occurred from cervical cancer worldwide. Around 85% of these occurred in the developing world. In the United States, about 27,000 cases of cancer due to HPV occur each year." Dimadick (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  08:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support dawnleelynn(talk) 22:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Our encyclopaedia would be incomplete without an article on this absurdly prevalent disease. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Hypothermia

An IP suggested it at the bottom of the page, I'll put it in a proper thread, I think it's sufficiently vital to list here. Fairly common of interest and studied by experts and non experts. Covered in first aid training.

Support
  1. Support  Carlwev  08:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discus

It is as vital as other body conditions. --2601:183:101:58D0:1511:B779:5B78:8397 (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I moved the suggestion above here. --Thi (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5-1. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Scythe

I previously proposed removing Sickle due to its similarities with Scythe (the former being a one-handed tool and the later being a two-handed tool). However, people wanted to keep sickle due to its symbolic association with Communism. Due to their similarities, I still don't think we need to list both of these at this level, so I'm proposing this removal.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Largely obsolete agricultural tool. As a symbol, the scythe is primarily associated with the Greek god/Titan Kronos/Cronus and with figures identified with him, such as Saturn, Chronos, and Father Time. Little political significance. Dimadick (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support there are more important agricultural tools and concepts to know about. Gizza (t)(c) 06:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. A scythe is also culturally vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, added. --Thi (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Driving under the influence

Drunk driving is for example in the United States the third-most commonly charged crime and it accounts for about a third of all road deaths.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support It was prohibited in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland since 1872, and has had an impact on traffic regulations over the last couple of centuries. Per the Licensing Act 1872: "In particular, the Act creates an offence of being drunk in public with a maximum fine of level 1 on the standard scale (currently[when?] £200); and of being drunk in a public place while in charge of a horse, a cow (or other cattle), a steam engine, or a carriage, or in possession of a loaded firearm, with a possible penalty of a fine of up to level 1 on the standard scale (again currently £200) or 51 weeks in prison." Dimadick (talk) 07:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support - Yes, Level 4 vital. Jusdafax (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

We list alcoholism at level 3. I thought about suggesting Alcohol intoxication a while ago but never did. It covers physiological, psychological and social aspects of being drunk, including driving under the influence, although it could have a lot more on it. Would it not be sensible to have the article on being drunk/intoxicated/under the influence in general before specifically driving whilst in that condition. I'm not necessarily opposed to this add, I just think Alcohol intoxication should be added first. They both definitely belong at level 5, and are worth considering here too.  Carlwev  21:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah Alcohol intoxication/drunkedness is probably the better the option. Drinking too much behind the wheel is only one situation, albiet a common one. Gizza (t)(c) 23:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
5-5, not removed. --Thi (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Tom Hanks

The list contains already examples of respected actors from the second part of 20th century, such as Robert De Niro and Meryl Streep. Many other actors are probably equally as vital as Hanks.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Hanks feels out of place now. Gizza (t)(c) 01:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support CamHat000099
  4. Support We can only list around 30 actors, and the actors included should be be absolutely essential to the coverage of acting as a form. As far I am aware Hanks has not made any great contribution to the evolution of acting technique (unlike Brando for example), and neither does he top the list of greatest stars (he is topped by John Wayne and Tom Cruise in both metrics—arguably the only two absolutely essential male film stars). Betty Logan (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - Winner of two consecutive Oscars for Best Actor, among other awards. Substantial number of blockbuster films. Reasoning to remove is unconvincing. Jusdafax (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Hanks is one of the few actors currently listed who are both living and producing a high volume of work still. (De Niro and Eastwood are the other two). I see why he may not be as vital as others, but I would only support his removal if he is replaced with someone equally current. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per the Box Office Mojo list of actors by the total gross of their films, Hanks is the 4th most successful actor in their entire database. He is only surpassed by (in order) Samuel L. Jackson, Harrison Ford, and Robert Downey Jr.. Dimadick (talk) 08:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    Samuel L. Jackson, Harrison Ford and Robert Downey Jr. are all on the Level 5 list. ―Susmuffin Talk 06:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Weak oppose Internationally recognized, high name recognition through multiple generations, well-known in fields outside of acting. Only reason for "weak" is because we should have more actors from outside the Anglosphere. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  14:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Oppose per the "Lenny Bruce" standard in which a pioneer is less regarded then a popular figure. He's won two academy awards and has high box office gross, that's enough. GuzzyG (talk) 08:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

@Thi: Who would you swap Hanks with if he were to be removed? I am tempted to oppose this proposal, as Hanks is one of the most successful and important actors of our time. He's the winner of many important awards, including two Oscars, eight Primetime Emmys, four Golden Globes, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom - more than most actors in the field. But I would first like to see who exactly you'd replace him with. Regards, Zingarese (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

No one. At some point the list contained for example such names as Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Cruise and Johnny Depp and AFI Life Achievement Award winners Al Pacino, Dustin Hoffman and Morgan Freeman. They are all dropped. --Thi (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to know what the criteria is supposed to be. I created a message to "Add Daniel Day-Lewis, Remove Gerard Depardieu" earlier. It's basically going nowhere and I was even accused of anglocentrism twice. Is notability or popularity the criteria? Some over at my message suggested Tom Hanks as the one to be removed instead. Some don't like DDL because he is not as prolific as other actors. One tried to turn it into an award versus award contest. Is it quantity over quality? Hanks is surely a notable actor and one of my favorites but what exactly makes an actor qualify for level 4? Thanks. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Tom Cruise should definitely be on the list since he is unquestionably one of the top three film stars of all-time. He has spent more years as the #1 box-office draw than any other actor, and only John Wayne and Clint Eastwood surpass Cruise in top 10 placements. Being a film star might be looked down on by some film connoisseurs but throughout the 20th century film-making was either star or auteur driven. Betty Logan (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
2-2, no consensus after 60 days. --Thi (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Ellen Terry

Probably not as needed at this level as Sarah Bernhardt. --Thi (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --dawnleelynn(talk) 03:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose we need atleast two pre film actors/actresses. one (Bernhardt) is not enough. GuzzyG (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Terry had a particularly long acting career, starting as a child actress in 1856 and retiring from the stage in 1920 and from film acting in 1922. ..." in 1925 she was appointed Dame Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire, only the second actress, after Geneviève Ward, to be created a dame for her professional achievements." Dimadick (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
4-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 23:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Giorgio de Chirico

His article appears in 37 wikis. De Chirico "was among the great innovators of 20th‐century art and one of the most influential of modernist painters." [6] "...his impact had been felt right across Western culture: most obviously on the Surrealists, but also Edward Hopper and numerous film-makers. Unsettlingly deserted cityscapes were a motif adopted by Hitchcock, Antonioni, Fritz Lang and a host of science-fiction directors." [7] His key ideas are presented here: [8].

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support His works influenced 20th-century film and literature. "De Chirico's style has influenced several filmmakers, particularly in the 1950s through 1970s. The visual style of the French animated film Le Roi et l'oiseau, by Paul Grimault and Jacques Prévert, was influenced by de Chirico's work, primarily via Tanguy, a friend of Prévert.[2] The visual style of Valerio Zurlini's film The Desert of the Tartars (1976) was influenced by de Chirico's work.[3] Michelangelo Antonioni, the Italian film director, also claimed to be influenced by de Chirico. Some comparison can be made to the long takes in Antonioni's films from the 1960s, in which the camera continues to linger on desolate cityscapes populated by a few distant figures, or none at all, in the absence of the film's protagonists." ... "Several of Sylvia Plath's poems are influenced by de Chirico.[4] "Dimadick (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support dawnleelynn(talk) 03:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Unconvinced of vitality. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - not really at this level. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - Agree that this is not the level of vitality for this artist. Jusdafax (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
Clearly not going to pass. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Edward Hopper

We are over quota in People, and he seems to be the least vital modern artist. The article does note that he influenced artists such as Willem de Kooning and Mark Rothko, but I would rather list one of these two rather than Hopper.

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Frederic Remington is least vital. --Thi (talk) 14:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose It was just added with 5-0 support. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Dimadick (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose as per my opinion shown on the link I provided below. Neutral on Remington if it comes up. J947 (c), at 04:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

/Archive_55#Swap:_remove_Frederic_Remington,_add_Edward_Hopper. Thought I recognised the name. Historical reference. J947 (c), at 04:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
3-5, not added. --Thi (talk) 09:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Carl Orff

Orff's music isn't as notable as some of the others (with the exception of "O Fortuna"), but his Orff Schulwerk has probably had a wider pedagogical impact.

Support
  1. as nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support "As an historical aside, Carmina Burana is probably the most famous piece of music composed and premiered in Nazi Germany." Dimadick (talk) 09:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 10:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We already have lots of classical composers and I am not convinced that Orff is sufficiently important, even considering his pedagogical influence. Neljack (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Really just known for one work. Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose We have an excessive number of classical composers as it is. He should not be added unless we remove another composer. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Classical music is over-represented in my opinion. GuzzyG (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
Clearly not going to pass. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Battle of Hastings

Not really sure why this specific battle is more vital than any other Medieval European battle, especially when we already have Norman conquest of England.

Support
  1. as nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. This is vital for the English Wikipedia. The battle marked a major turning point in Anglo-Saxon history. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I don't see how you can have more than 10 articles on the history of Britain (and including biographies of monarchs, we certainly do) without including this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose The battle marks the death of Harold Godwinson and the retreat of his surviving soldiers. By December, 1066 (two months following the Battle), most of the English nobles had already submitted themselves to William the Conqueror, and he had secured control over Dover, parts of Kent, Canterbury, Winchester, and London. The rather disorganized resistance to William is thought to be a consequence of several experienced leading figures dying at Hastings. Dimadick (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Weak oppose Norman conquest of England should be at Level 3 at least, and every time I learn about British history, there is special focus on this battle. We have a lot of British content though. . . — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  15:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  6. Oppose The Battle of Hastings is easily one of the most pivotal battles in world history. It irreversibly changed the course of history in England and, consequently, in all of England's later colonies around the world as well. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  7. Oppose pbp 15:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  8. Oppose; it is vital to the history of the UK and one of the most famous medieval clashes ever. And by the way, I'm pretty sure there's a strong consensus here. J947 (c), at 19:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
9–0, added; 2–2 not removed. --Rreagan007 (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Swap Great Smoky Mountains National Park with Everglades

We don't have any wetlands listed, and the Everglades are more vital even just from a U.S. perspective due to their rich biological diversity as well as the attention their conservation has received in recent years.

Support
  1. as nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support addition Rreagan007 (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support addition, I'm neutral on the removal. There seem to be too many "national parks" in North America, but I'd rather add more in other countries than remove American ones at this time. The list could probably support 30 parks globally, and there are currently 19. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support addition per power~enwiki. Also Geography is under quota. Gizza (t)(c) 22:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support addition. Neutral on the removal. --Thi (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support addition. Neutral on the removal. Dimadick (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  7. Weak support I'm familiar with the Smoky Mountains (I've been there before), but the nom is right in that we need more wetlands and the Everglades is very high profile. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  15:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support addition Plantdrew (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  9. Support addition I had assumed that this park was already on this list, as it is one of the most prominent nature preserves. I am neutral on the proposed removal. ―Susmuffin Talk 15:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal. It's a UNESCO heritage site and the most visited national park in the United States. It is more vital than the Mesa Verde National Park, which is also listed. If we have to remove one, we should remove Mesa Verde. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removal. Most visited National Park should stay. If there's one park east of the Mississippi that's vital, it's Great Smokies. Plantdrew (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, added. --Thi (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add George Town, Penang

Procedural nomination on behalf of Vnonymous. It is a plausible addition but I am neutral here.

Support
  1. Support Malaysia's capital city Kuala Lumpur and the third largest city Johor Bahru are already listed. Indonesia has 10 cities listed. "George Town, the capital city of the Malaysian state of Penang, is located at the northeastern tip of Penang Island. It is Malaysia's second largest city, with 708,127 inhabitants as of 2010, while Greater Penang is the nation's second most populous conurbation with an estimated population of 2.5 million. The historical core of George Town has been inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 2008." --Thi (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support per Thi. Gizza (t)(c) 22:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. UNESCO city centre is almost enough IMO. Not to mention that it's the second-biggest city in a large country in an area we're lacking in. Support. J947 (c), at 19:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support. feminist (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-1, removed. --Thi (talk) 07:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove The Cantos

Not as famous and widely read as some other modern works of poetry listed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 04:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support redundant to Ezra Pound. Gizza (t)(c) 22:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support We are presently sixteen articles over the quota of 270. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I haven't read the article completely, but by skimming through it I know that this long poem is vital because it has been influential in the development of the English-language long poems since the 1920s, thus I oppose the removal. And The Cantos is merely one of Erza Pound's famous works.--RekishiEJ (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
3-3, not removed --Thi (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove The Dark Side of the Moon

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band represents rock albums, British pop music, concept albums and progressive rock (or art rock) on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 04:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. I have a way of thought, which is bands before albums at this level. And Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is more vital. J947 (c), at 04:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - The article’s lede convinces me this work is indeed vital at this level. Jusdafax (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose In the List of best-selling albums, The Dark Side of the Moon is currently ranked 4th. It is only surpassed by (in order) Thriller (1982) by Michael Jackson (1st), Aap Kaa Surroor (2006) by Himesh Reshammiya (2nd), and Back in Black (1980) by AC/DC (3rd). Dimadick (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose likely the most influential prog album out there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Discus

It's a well known album, but is the above argument valid when we do list either Reshammiya or AC/DC themselves, let alone their top selling albums. Is Dark Side of the Moon more vital than AC/DC? It might be, I'm just asking. We listed AC/DC, but was removed, now at level five. I've never heard of Himesh Reshammiya.  Carlwev  15:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I dispute the accuracy of the Aap Kaa Surroor claims (and they've been removed from that list); I don't think we need to consider them here. I'd consider a proposal to swap AC/DC with an existing music group, but I don't have any specific swap to propose. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
AC/DC are considered the most successful musical group to originate in Australia and is listed in the List of best-selling music artists. "Total available certified units: 114.9 million". 5 music groups are ranking above them in the sales department: The Beatles (271.6 million), Led Zeppelin (140 million), Eagles (129.6 million), Queen (126.3 million), and Pink Floyd (119.6 million). Dimadick (talk) 07:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Syllogism

To be placed under the "Logic" section. If you study Logic, you will have to learn what this is. So much of Logic revolves around this subject, I'm surprised it wasn't here already. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  14:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as the nominator. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  14:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support. Definitely vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6-1. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Socratic method

And important dialectical method.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support An immensely important method of teaching and argument refutation that has been used since antiquity and is still in use today. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Dimadick (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support - Vital at Level 4, at the very least. Jusdafax (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The Socratic method can be built out of the other critical thinking tools, such as dialectic and deduction, which are listed. It is for example not listed in such popular book as The Philosopher's Toolkit: A Compendium of Philosophical Concepts and Methods. --Thi (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

@Thi: You may wish to sign your post. ―Gregorius II 15:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Done. --Thi (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Critical thinking

"Critical thinking is an important element of all professional fields and academic disciplines...".

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 02:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Critical thinking is an absurdly basic subject; the encyclopaedia would be incomplete without it. ―Susmuffin Talk 16:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 07:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Mother goddess

We already list Goddess at this level, and that article covers mother goddesses. This article seems too specific to list at this level, especially since we need to make some room in this category for several philosophy nominations that seem likely to pass.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support, though somewhat hesitantly We do need coverage of this subject, but the article goddess is probably sufficient and, if Demeter is added, as it seems likely she will be, then we will also have coverage of probably the most famous mother goddess, so this article does become slightly redundant. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support This article is far too specific to be important at this level. ―Gregorius II 05:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support per Katolophyromai. --Thi (talk) 06:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
6–1, removed. --Rreagan007 (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Palm oil

I see no reason why Palm oil should be listed separately, especially if we are going to add vegetabel oil. It is no more vital than a number of over vegetable oils, from Olive oil to Peanut oil.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support wumbolo ^^^ 08:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support This topic is better discussed in the article on vegetable oil. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support if anything Canola/Olive oil would be more important, but vegetable oil is sufficient here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support The general article is more vital, and palm oil wouldn't be the first vegetable oil I would have added. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I prefer adding olive oil instead of removing this. Only keeping vegetable oil would be like replacing butter and lard with animal fat. Considering that there are many food articles on sources of protein and carbs, there should be a reasonable number of fats and oils too. Gizza (t)(c) 04:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
  • We don't have room to add more oils as we're already over quota. And it's not just olive oil and peanut oil that are as vital as palm oil. We'd also have to add canola oil, sunflower oil, cottonseed oil, rapeseed oil, coconut oil, and possible several others. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Smallpox vaccine added 8-0, Polio vaccine added 6-1 power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Smallpox vaccine and Polio vaccine

Because of them small pox is eradicated and polio is almost so. according to this (questionably reliable for this stat, though) small pox vaccine has saved 530 million lives.

Support
  1. Support as nom Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support smallpox vaccine, as the first successful vaccine in history should be listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support both. Both vaccines have had a critical effect on human civilization, protecting people from early deaths and paralysis. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support smallpox vaccine, I'm neutral on polio. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose polio vaccine, as I don't see it as being any more vital than a number of other vaccines. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

I'm not convinced yet; we have vaccine, smallpox, and polio. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Both smallpox and vaccine are in level 3 so at-least smallpox vaccine should belong in level 4, being a significant vaccine and ending smallpox. Maybe not polio vaccine. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
The smallpox vaccine was also the first successful vaccine, so it probably should be included. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I've added smallpox vaccine due to it passing 6-0; I'm going to leave this open a little longer to see if polio vaccine reaches 5 votes; it's currently at 4-1. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: The current vote ratio is 6-1 in support of adding the polio vaccine to the list. ―Susmuffin Talk 04:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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.

Proposal: Move the 18 color articles from the Everyday life section to the Physical sciences section

The color articles don't really fit well under the Everyday life section. They're really more scientific in nature and belong under the Physical sciences section. Along with this change, I am proposing we reduce the article quota of the Everyday life section by 15 articles and increasing the Physical sciences section quota by 15 articles.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support. feminist (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support The colours do not belong in the Everyday life section. The other proposal does seem reasonable as well. ―Susmuffin Talk 04:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support - Good reasoning, and the quota changes are obviously called for under the circumstances. Jusdafax (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose as color is human visual perception, not based in physical sciences, but possibly biology. wumbolo ^^^ 22:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
10-0, added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Pope Urban II

This Pope declared the First Crusade. I am a bit surprised that he is not already on this list.

Support
  1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin Talk 17:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Major historical impact: "He is best known for initiating the First Crusade (1096–99) and setting up the modern-day Roman Curia in the manner of a royal ecclesiastical court to help run the Church. He promised forgiveness and pardon for all of the sins of those who would fight to reclaim the holy land, and free the eastern churches." He also set up a special relationship with the County of Sicily, with Roger I of Sicily serving as Papal legate and granted privileges denied to other secular rulers. Dimadick (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Absolutely. pbp 00:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support - Clearly vital at this level. Jusdafax (talk) 08:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support obviously. GuzzyG (talk) 08:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support good find. Gizza (t)(c) 11:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  9. Support Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  10. Strong support major influence on world history. #Deus Vult!  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  16:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
SPLIT DECISION
6-0 for addition, 2-4 for removal. Sequoyah added and Luciana Aymar retained pbp 00:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Swap Luciana Aymar for Sequoyah

Since we are at limit and we now have a level 5 list, i do not think we need two representatives of field hockey, it's just not that prominent worldwide. Sequoyah on the other hand created Cherokee syllabary "making reading and writing in Cherokee possible", per our article on him. Which is also "one of the very few times in recorded history that a member of a pre-literate people created an original, effective writing system" and which resulted in "Their literacy rate quickly surpassed that of surrounding European-American settlers.". Seems more vital to me and helps with our diversity problem.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support removal. --Thi (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support addition Neljack (talk) 10:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support addition Gizza (t)(c) 22:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support addition Neutral on removal. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support addition This fellow successfully created an entire writing system by himself. That is far more important than some of the people who are already on this list. However, I would only support the removal of Ayamar if the male field hockey player is also removed. Also, I will admit that I am not overly familiar with the importance of field hockey, so I am uncertain of the value of including the sport itself. ―Gregorius II 00:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal Aymer is widely considered the greatest female hockey player of all time and I do not see why we should have the greatest male hockey player but not the greatest female one. Considering that the women's game is in many places larger than the men's, that would seem like systemic bias. Neljack (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removal per Neljack. Gizza (t)(c) 22:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose removal per Neljack. Also because we don't have enough Argentinians. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  15:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose removal per Neljack, whose reasoning is clear and direct. Jusdafax (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
I would assume that he would not be added to the Team sports section. ―Gregorius II 00:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
6–0, added; 7–2, removed. --Rreagan007 (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Naqada III

I think that at this level Prehistoric Egypt can be summarized in the main article Ancient Egypt.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Two lines in a long article is not a representative summary. Dimadick (talk) 10:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Dimadick. Unless this is swapped with Prehistoric Egypt. At least one article is needed on Ancient Egypt's transition to one of the greatest civilisations the world has seen. Gizza (t)(c) 22:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - The subject is vital at Level 4, in my view. It needs work, but that’s what this list is for, right? Jusdafax (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Swap with Prehistoric Egypt
  1. Support swap Rreagan007 (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support swap This seems like a more logical choice. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support swap The article on prehistoric Egypt would be more useful to potential readers. ―Gregorius II 06:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support swap It makes more sense at this level to have the more general article dealing with the entirety of Egyptian prehistory rather than the more specific one dealing only with this particular time period of Egyptian prehistory. I am opposed to a straight removal, however. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support swap per discussion. Gizza (t)(c) 22:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

I'd support a swap with Prehistoric Egypt, but not a straight removal. Perhaps this should be withdrawn in favor of a swap; I think updating this to a swap will be too complicated. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@DaGizza: @Power~enwiki: The proposal has been updated with a "Swap with Prehistoric Egypt" option. ―Susmuffin Talk 17:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Susmuffin: Gizza (t)(c) 22:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add 4 Jainist texts

Not added. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Procedural nom on behalf of Realphi to add Samayasāra, Pravachanasara, Tattvarthsutra, and Atmasiddhi to this list. I am neutral; I doubt all of these are vital but would support one if it were clear which is the most important. I made this procedural proposal on 8 June 2018 power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
  1. Oppose I must admit I don't know a lot about Jainism, but according to our articles there are only 4 to 5 million Jains worldwide. I don't think a religion that small should get 4 text articles. MAYBE it deserves 1, if there is 1 that is much more vital than the others. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 06:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose We do not need four religious texts for a religion that has less than ten million followers. ―Susmuffin Talk 13:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Skimming through the ledes, I feel like Samayasara is more important than the other three. Thoughts? J947 (c), at 18:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@J947: If we add one of the Jain texts, then we should add the Book of Mormon as well. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints presently has over 16 million followers. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Off topic but I think Book of Mormon seems reasonable, I would definitely support Jehovah's Witnesses as well in general religion area, 8 million people, not up there with top religions but seems more vital compared with songs albums and books. Might suggest it soon.  Carlwev  19:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
A swap with Nightwear. --Thi (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Pajamas

Possibly not vital at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Swap
  1. Swap with Nightwear. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Swap per Rreagan007.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  15:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Swap Nightwear is a far more general topic than pajamas. ―Susmuffin Talk 16:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Swap - makes sense. Jusdafax (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Swap power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
8–1, added. --Rreagan007 (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Female genital mutilation

Significance similar to, if not higher than Circumcision, which is listed here.

Support
  1. As proposer. feminist (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Culturally, ethically and medically significant. Article states over 200 million females alive today have undergone this, several nations over 90% of adult female population have had this done, I have read about it before but did not realize it was so wide spread.  Carlwev  17:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support The absurd prevalence, cultural significance and medical impact of this activity show that it is indeed worthy of being included at this level. ―Susmuffin Talk 17:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support - Like Carl, I believe the numbers involved make this vital. Jusdafax (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support I'd expect an encyclopedia of 10,000 articles to cover FGM. Gizza (t)(c) 04:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Discussion

@Emir of Wikipedia: Out of curiosity, what is your reason for opposing this proposal? ―Susmuffin Talk 16:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5–0, removed. --Rreagan007 (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove katal

Yes, it's an SI unit, but even still it's not really used apart from an extremely specialized field, in which the non-SI unit is actually often preferred. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support not at this level. I also doubt whether a comprehensive article can ever be written on the katal. Gizza (t)(c) 23:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. support non-base SI units that's of no interest to anyone but specialists. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support. Probably too niche for this list. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
2–2, not added. --Rreagan007 (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Trojan (astronomy)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I don't really see what makes those rocks more special than any other ones. I would support adding minor planet, however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Headbomb. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
6–0, removed. --Rreagan007 (talk) 03:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove astrobiology

No more vital than other subfields such as astrochemistry. The one potentially vital concept in the field, extraterrestrial life, is already listed. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 21:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support while more 'known' than other subfields of astronomy for everyday folks, extraterrestrial life covers what's important in this already. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support We do not need to have two articles on extraterrestrial life on this list. ―Susmuffin Talk 01:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support. Until extraterrestrial life is actually discovered and studied, this article is unnecessary at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1–6, not added. --Rreagan007 (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add GW170817

Sure, it was recent, but this is a transient that will be remembered for centuries to come. Has allowed for unprecedented breakthroughs in multiple fields. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose To the extent that it is important, this is already covered in gravitational wave. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Too specialized for level 4. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Too specific for this list. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  6. Oppose This is a general list of the most vital topics that this encyclopaedia simply cannot exist without; we are not creating a list of 10,000 astronomy articles. ―Susmuffin Talk 06:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
6–0, added; 1–3 not removed. --Rreagan007 (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove meteor shower, add meteoroid

Let's remove the phenomenon for the actual bodies in space. The latter article covers the former topic well, and also covers the space bodies and meteors that occur at times other than showers. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support addition Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support addition --Thi (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support addition Gizza (t)(c) 04:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support addition  Carlwev  04:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support addition Rreagan007 (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal Meteor showers are well-known, and often newsworthy, events. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removal Gizza (t)(c) 04:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose removal  Carlwev  04:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
10–0, removed; 6–0, added. --Rreagan007 (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Tannic acid

Unsure why it is there. Maybe add Tannins instead Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  15:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 21:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Swap
  1. Swap with Tannin as the more general article. J947 (c), at 03:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Swap with tannin. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  3. Swap with tannin. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  4. Swap with tannin. Plantdrew (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Swap power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  6. Swap There are several different varieties of tannins. ―Susmuffin Talk 15:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5–0, removed. --Rreagan007 (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove electrical reactance

Just not vital at this level when so many more important topics are missing. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support, we have Electrical impedance as well as capacitance and inductance. Reactance isn't needed here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5–0, added. --Rreagan007 (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove soil mechanics

A very niche topic, not vital at this level. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support It does seem to be a little too specialized of a topic for this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support redundant to soil science at this level. Gizza (t)(c) 23:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1–6, not added. --Rreagan007 (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add first observation of gravitational waves

Extremely influential; this is basically what proved general relativity 100 years after Einstein. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose Already covered in gravitational wave. And general relativity was proven/established long before gravitational waves. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Headbomb. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose We already have an article on gravitational waves on this list. ―Susmuffin Talk 04:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Too specific for this list. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  6. Oppose power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1–5 --Rreagan007 (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Pendulum, Add Pendulum clock

Pendulum clocks were the most common and most accurate types of clocks for centuries. The pendulum itself really isn't very notable outside of its historical usage in clocks.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Opppose pendulum clocks are one of many applications of pendulums, and are covered in pendulums anyway. Pendulum is more vital. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Pendulums were and are used for many different purposes; the article on pendulum clocks only discusses one of those purposes. ―Susmuffin Talk 23:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose pendulums are vital in many physics experiments. Definitely Level 4 if not close to Level 3 (where it was until recently). I would have it a list of 2,000 articles. Gizza (t)(c) 03:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Gizza power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED:

5-0, added. feminist (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add cult of personality

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support The concept was popularized by Nikita Khrushchev, in his criticism for the (deceased) Joseph Stalin and the (living) Mao Zedong. Ending Stalin's cult of personality was a major goal of the De-Stalinization process in the Soviet Union of the 1950s and 1960s. Dimadick (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support One cannot understand modern dictatorships without also understanding this concept. ―Susmuffin Talk 19:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support - Clearly vital at L4. Jusdafax (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
3-3, not removed. --Thi (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Shintarō Katsu

Not as vital as Toshiro Mifune.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support CamHat00099
  3. Support His article fails to convince me of his importance. ―Susmuffin Talk 19:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Making the actors list even more American and British is bad. GuzzyG (talk) 08:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose A key figure in the 1960s. "In the 1960s he starred simultaneously in three long-running series of films, the Akumyo series, the Hoodlum Soldier series, and the Zatoichi series." Dimadick (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  3.   Weak oppose Seems to have been a major cultural icon, according to his Japanese Wikipedia article: (ja)  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  16:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-4, not moved. --Thi (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Move Josiah Wedgwood to Visual artists

Most people would associate Wedgwood with his artistic output than his business acumen.

Support
  1. as nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose He was a pioneer of the industrialisation process, not an artist. "Meeting the demands of the consumer revolution and growth in wealth of the middle classes that helped drive the Industrial Revolution in Britain, Wedgwood is credited as the inventor of modern marketing. He pioneered direct mail, money back guarantees, travelling salesmen, carrying pattern boxes for display, self-service, free delivery, buy one get one free, and illustrated catalogues." Dimadick (talk) 09:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 10:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Wedgewood's vital achievements are in the world of sales and marketing, not art. Industrially-produced pottery was simply what he sold. Gizza (t)(c) 04:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose While Josiah Wedgwood certainly was an accomplished potter, he was more prominent as a businessman. He was credited with the industrialisation of the pottery industry. Also, Wedgwood was the inventor of modern marketing and many of the various basic elements thereof. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
4-6 after 30 days. It has failed to achieve 2/3 majority and has at least 3 oppose votes pbp 23:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove James K. Polk

Though Polk's achievements are significant, he is easily the least vital U.S. President listed. In his own time, he was not as influential as either John C. Calhoun or Henry Clay as he only served for four years as President, whereas Calhoun and Clay had long, significant, careers.

Support
  1. as nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Weak support Not because of the nom's reasons, though. Yes, Polk was an important President but we are at the maximum and we can only allow so many U.S. Presidents. There need to be cuts somewhere.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  15:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Weak support We do need to make difficult choices so that this list of modern politicians can be brought into line with the others. ―Gregorius II 05:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I would choose Polk over any other 19th-century American president, as he was the most successful expansionist. "Paul H. Bergeron wrote in his study of Polk's presidency: "Virtually everyone remembers Polk and his expansionist successes. He produced a new map of the United States, which fulfilled a continent-wide vision." "To look at that map," Robert W. Merry concluded, "and to take in the western and southwestern expanse included in it, is to see the magnitude of Polk's presidential accomplishments." Amy Greenberg, in her history of the Mexican War, found Polk's legacy to be more than territorial, "during a single brilliant term, he accomplished a feat that earlier presidents would have considered impossible. With the help of his wife, Sarah, he masterminded, provoked and successfully prosecuted a war that turned the United States into a world power." Borneman noted that in securing this expansion, Polk did not consider the likely effect on Mexicans and Native Americans, "That ignorance may well be debated on moral grounds, but it cannot take away Polk's stunning political achievement." James A. Rawley wrote in his American National Biography piece on Polk, "he added extensive territory to the United States, including Upper California and its valuable ports, and bequeathed a legacy of a nation poised on the Pacific rim prepared to emerge as a superpower in future generations". ... "Greenberg noted that Polk's war served as the training ground for that later conflict [the American Civil War: "The conflict Polk engineered became the transformative event of the era. It not only changed the nation but also created a new generation of leaders, for good and for ill. In the military, Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant, Stonewall Jackson, George Meade, and Jefferson Davis all first experienced military command in Mexico. It was there that they learned the basis of the strategy and tactics that dominated the Civil War." Dimadick (talk) 09:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    In regards to I would choose Polk over any other 19th-century American president: You'd choose Polk over Lincoln? And Jefferson? Lincoln is widely agreed to be in the Top 3 of US presidents, with FDR and Washington. I don't think Polk is in the Top 8, let alone the Top 4. J947 (c), at 05:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose: I'll give yah that Clay and Calhoun were both more important than Polk, but I believe a) Polk is significant enough for this list, and b) there are American political figures on this list with less significance than Polk (For example, you could use the exact same lines of reasoning put forth by the OP to nominate JFK for removal: he was only President for 2½ years, he wasn't as influential as Ike, LBJ or MLK Jr., and he has a list of accomplishments shorter than Polk's). Polk did more in four years than many presidents have done in eight. Most notably, he brought the ground on which I'm currently sitting into the Union. pbp 18:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. It would be laughable to remove someone as important as Polk from that section before removing Eleanor Roosevelt. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    We need a female US politician on the list, and if I remember correct E. Roosevelt's the only one. Nevertheless, she is certainly the most vital. J947 (c), at 05:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
    Her article does not refer to her as a "politician" and as she was never elected to anything (or even run for office) I don't think she really is a politician. So if you want a female U.S. politician on the list, this isn't one. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I do not necessarily agree with everything Polk did, but, in terms of historical importance, he is certainly, by far, the most underrated US president. He almost single-handedly created the map of the United States that we know today and irreversibly altered the course of American history. I do not think we need to remove any American presidents at this point, but, if we were going to remove one, it would have to be John F. Kennedy, who is without a doubt the most overrated president in American history; Kennedy's most important accomplishments were mainly getting his country out of the messes he himself created. Although he continues to earn popularity points with the general public, mostly on account of his tragic murder, Kennedy really has had very little long-term impact on the course of history. As for Clay and Calhoun, @Presidentman:, you do realize that both of them are already on this list, right? If you are trying to get someone removed from the list, it is not really effective to argue that the person is less notable than other people who are also on the list, and much more effective to argue that the person is less or equally notable when compared to people who are not on the list. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
    I believe Presidentman's point is that in the US President is a massive step up compared to other countries like the UK (just look at Trump controlling the world) and both Clay and Calhoun never were President, but Polk was. J947 (c), at 05:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Dimadick. Jusdafax (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  6. Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
  • We do need to reduce the number of American politicians on the list of modern politicians. The list has 20 politicians while none of the others have 15; the list is quite clearly biased toward Americans. Also, we have nearly every President from F. D. R. to Barack Obama on this list. If James K. Polk is not removed, one of them will need to be removed instead. ―Gregorius II 05:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • For starters, why is it than when people complain about "American bias", they always gravitate toward politicians? A much lower percentage of politicians are American than athletes, actors, activists, or several other categories. The "American bias" problem isn't really much of a problem in politicians. The USA isn't even the country with the most politicians on the list. pbp 21:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • And in regards to "almost every President from FDR to Barack Obama", there are pretty good reasons for having those men. The US was the dominant world power during that time. Most of the American presidents during that time were involved in one or more large wars (WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc). But if we want to drop an American president, my choice is always JFK. Any other president on this list, I can point to accomplishments. JFK, not so much. pbp 21:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "I do not necessarily agree with everything Polk did, but, in terms of historical importance, he is certainly, by far, the most underrated US president. He almost single-handedly created the map of the United States that we know today and irreversibly altered the course of American history." In the aggregate of Historical rankings of presidents of the United States, Polk is currently ranked as the 12th most successful among them. The ones ranking above him are (in order): Abraham Lincoln (1st), Franklin D. Roosevelt (2nd), George Washington (3rd), Theodore Roosevelt (4th), Thomas Jefferson (5th), Harry S. Truman (6th), Woodrow Wilson (7th), Dwight D. Eisenhower (8th), Andrew Jackson (9th), John F. Kennedy (10th), and Barack Obama (11th). Dimadick (talk) 10:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "if we were going to remove one, it would have to be John F. Kennedy, who is without a doubt the most overrated president in American history; Kennedy's most important accomplishments were mainly getting his country out of the messes he himself created. Although he continues to earn popularity points with the general public, mostly on account of his tragic murder, Kennedy really has had very little long-term impact on the course of history." Incorrect. Kennedy is credited with some innovations of his own:
    • "The US Special Forces had a special bond with Kennedy. "It was President Kennedy who was responsible for the rebuilding of the Special Forces and giving us back our Green Beret," said Forrest Lindley, a writer for the US military newspaper Stars and Stripes who served with Special Forces in Vietnam. This bond was shown at Kennedy's funeral. At the commemoration of the 25th anniversary of Kennedy's death, General Michael D. Healy, the last commander of Special Forces in Vietnam, spoke at Arlington Cemetery. Later, a wreath in the form of the Green Beret would be placed on the grave, continuing a tradition that began the day of his funeral when a sergeant in charge of a detail of Special Forces men guarding the grave placed his beret on the coffin."
    • "Kennedy was the first of six presidents to have served in the U.S. Navy, and one of the enduring legacies of his administration was the creation in 1961 of another special forces command, the Navy SEALs, which Kennedy enthusiastically supported."
    • "Kennedy's civil rights proposals led to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. President Lyndon B. Johnson, Kennedy's successor, took up the mantle and pushed the landmark Civil Rights Act through a bitterly divided Congress by invoking the slain president's memory. President Johnson then signed the Act into law on July 2, 1964. This civil rights law ended what was known as the "Solid South" and certain provisions were modeled after the Civil Rights Act of 1875, signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant."
    • "Kennedy's continuation of Presidents Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower's policies of giving economic and military aid to South Vietnam left the door open for President Johnson's escalation of the conflict. At the time of Kennedy's death, no final policy decision had been made as to Vietnam, leading historians, cabinet members, and writers to continue to disagree on whether the Vietnam conflict would have escalated to the point it did had he survived.His agreement to the NSAM 263 action of withdrawing 1,000 troops by the end of 1963, and his earlier 1963 speech at American University, suggest that he was ready to end the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War contributed greatly to a decade of national difficulties, amid violent disappointment on the political landscape." Dimadick (talk) 10:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm neutral at the moment. I'm not an american, and I wasn't born in 1789, so I can't accurately judge this list. Simple as that. J947 (c), at 05:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
2-5, not removed. --Thi (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove A. J. Foyt

We do not need any NASCAR drivers, as we have removed the organisation itself.

Support
  1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin Talk 20:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - His list of accomplishments is huge and independent of NASCAR. The point Presidentman makes is important. Jusdafax (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per winning the "Indianapolis 500 (four times), the Daytona 500, the 24 Hours of Daytona, and the 24 Hours of Le Mans." amongst others. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Not notable as a nascar driver, the list would be bad with just formula one drivers. GuzzyG (talk) 08:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose if we were to keep one non-Formula One driver it would be Foyt IMO. Gizza (t)(c) 04:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per my comment below. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

I'm neutral for now, but I'd like to point out that Foyt was not solely a NASCAR driver, but also a four-time Indy 500 winner. At any rate, he has more vitality than Richard Petty. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3-5, not removed Gizza (t)(c) 01:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Nazi concentration camps

Too much overlap with The Holocaust, which is also listed at this level. We are significantly over quota in the history section and some things have to be pushed down to level 5.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 22:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Nazi concentration camps were significant in their own right as the method the Nazis used to genocide millions of people. It is perhaps the most significant portion of the Holocaust, and it is the thing that most people bring up when mentioning the Holocaust. That makes it vital at this level. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose agree with PointsofNoReturn here. Both are vital at this level. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Concentration camps were used for other purposes that extermination. They also predated the Holocaust. I don't see that big of an overlap as the OP suggests. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Dimadick (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose- These were the instruments of death for millions, and vital at Level 4. Jusdafax (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The term "concentration camp" is frequently misapplied to the extermination camps. This may be part of the reason why the article on the Nazi concentration camps is listed, rather than the article on the extermination camps. I am not certain if a proposal to switch the two articles would be successful. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "These were the instruments of death for millions, and vital at Level 4." The number of prisoners and casualties is disputed.: "The lead editors of the Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945 of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Geoffrey Megargee and Martin Dean, cataloged some 42,500 Nazi ghettos and camps throughout Europe, spanning German-controlled areas from France to Russia and Germany itself, operating from 1933 to 1945. They estimate that 15 million to 20 million people died or were imprisoned in the sites." The estimate includes the entire existence of the camps, from the foundation of the Dachau concentration camp in March, 1933 to the fall of Nazi Germany in 1945. It does not include only World War II prisoners, or casualties of The Holocaust (1941-1945).Dimadick (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 02:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Tartus

This city is vital at this level, since many Iraqi imports come through the port of Tartus to aid reconstruction efforts in Iraq, and is a popular destination for tourists.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support - In my consideration this is indeed vital at L4. The city hosts the only Russian base outside the borders of the former USSR, and as such, is of considerable interest on the geopolitical front. Add in the rich history of the place, and I’m convinced this is an unusual but valid addition. Jusdafax (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support By itself Tartus is not that important, but it closely connected with the island of Arwad, the ancient Arados, and its history reaches back to the 2nd millennium BC. Currently it is the second largest port city in Syria, following Latakia. Dimadick (talk) 08:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 10:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 22:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose That is a rather poor reason to include an article. ―Susmuffin Talk 16:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

To clarify, even thought the nom talks about Iraq, Tartus is a city in Syria. Anyway, it is quite a small city and only somewhat important because it has a port. The most notable Middle Eastern city missing IMO is Arbil, since it the biggest and most important city for Kurds and the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan. Also has a 7000 year old history. Gizza (t)(c) 03:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
2-4 after 30 days. It has failed to achieve 2/3 majority and has at least 3 oppose votes pbp 23:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Sacramento, California

Sacramento is no more vital than your average state capital and there are other U.S. cities more worthy of inclusion (Honolulu, Orlando, or Portland, Oregon come to mind).

Support
  1. As nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Sacramento has a relatively weak influence on Californian and American culture (at least for a California city). — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  15:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Due to Sacramento's vital role in the 19th century, though I consider that its significance declined considerably in the second half of the 20th century (along with its military significance). According to out List of United States cities by population, Sacramento is currently the 35th most populous city in the country. It is currently surpassed by (in order): New York City (1st), Los Angeles (2nd), Chicago (3rd), Houston (4th), Phoenix, Arizona (5th), Philadelphia (6th), San Antonio (7th), San Diego (8th), Dallas (9th), San Jose, California (10th), Austin, Texas (11th), Jacksonville, Florida (12th), San Francisco (13th), Columbus, Ohio (14th), Fort Worth, Texas (15th), Indianapolis (16th), Charlotte, North Carolina (17th), Seattle (18th), Denver (19th), Washington, D.C. (20th), Boston (21st), El Paso, Texas (22nd), Detroit (23rd), Nashville, Tennessee (24th), Memphis, Tennessee (25th), Portland, Oregon (26th), Oklahoma City (27th), Las Vegas (28th), Louisville, Kentucky (29th), Baltimore (30th), Milwaukee (31st), Albuquerque, New Mexico (32nd), Tucson, Arizona (33rd), and Fresno, California (34th). Sacramento is apparently the last city in the list to have over 500,000 residents. Dimadick (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - As noted below, Sacramento was added not long ago. It’s the capital of California, and should stay on the list here, as I see it. Jusdafax (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Weak oppose per my ridiculously lengthy rationale 5 months ago: as per the nominator and Dimadick. I do think though that 3 cities in the same area in Northern California compared with 2 around the bigger coastal Southern California area may be unfairly represented. Also which is more important: California vs Australia? Surprisingly marginally Australia. Which government is more important? Easily Australia. Thus, Canberra is more important federally/politically. I'm not an American so I can't judge Sacramento's importance economically and socially well, but from prior knowledge I don't imagine that Sacramento has a major or even mediocre influence within California on those two sectors. Also, my main reason for supporting Canberra was that the capital of a G20 member has a major influence. But then California as duly noted by pbp has a larger population. But Canada has a smaller population than Tokyo (and California), and I don't think anyone in their right mind could conclude that Tokyo is of greater importance than Canada. But the Japanese might interpret that as western bias even though they are basically Western too (or are they?). Getting back to the point California has arguably a greater impact on popular culture and the twenty-first century (well the servers of Wikimedia (us) would be different for one (and Google for that matter)). But then again I might be trying to be too anti-Australian as a New Zealander or being a perpetrator of recentism. Then the whole issue of western bias comes in fully: should we have either of them? Dimadick here I don't completely agree with: The article has a long history section is just natural bias issues coming into play and that it still ranks among the top cities in its region does not help the cause much (then that would be an argument for putting in tiny Whitehorse, for example) and the top 5 it only barely makes the cut (or perhaps not). It is currently overshadowed by Los Angeles and San Francisco implies that it takes 3rd place in California. It just doesn't. In response to the city apparently played a key role in the 19th century development of California: I doubt that and even with that key in this case probably means reasonable which then means about 3rd in that era. These days it is around 7th. I'm just going back and forth here with a load of thoughts with little impact. In conclusion we can always remove it from the list if this section gets over-quota (though it would require someone to remember), and its case is very marginal, and I do not know which way I would go if this was proposed while the 'Geography' section was one below quota. I might stay at Neutral or lean over extremely marginally one way (i.e. 'Very weak oppose'). However, we are not one below quota; we are 25 below quota here and that won't change much with the current proposals. Bias issues still prevail: is my position in the Pacific (NZ) encouraging me, one way or the other? Page views are not very useful here but here we go: [9]. That was some interesting results that show that despite our high American readership Canberra still trumps Sacramento. Sacramento is without doubt the next city in California at least ([10]). Being a capital (and an inland one not close to the centre of population at that) of a major state signifies importance in the 19th century in comparison with Canberra (which was built in preparation for being a capital in the 1910s) and that would be a reason why the low viewership. But then again just having the status of being a capital will trigger views... Sorry for the essay about it. See what I mean? J947 (c), at 04:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose There are a few cities on the list that are less important than Sacramento is. ―Susmuffin Talk 17:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

NOTE: This was just added to the list less than 5 months ago: see here. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

  • There may be other American cities more deserving than Sacramento that are missing from VA/4, but there are cities that are on VA/4 that are less vital than Sacramento. pbp 18:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
7-2, added. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add: Academic journal + others

In Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Mass media (54 articles), it struck me that Academic journal was not mentioned at all. As such, I propose we add such a section with the following 5 articles

There are other influential journals, but none that rival those in terms of historical significance. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Suppport
  1. Support per nom. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support The only way I could argue against this proposal would be to evaluate them on an unsuitable metric (e.g., Twitter followers). XOR'easter (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support These are journals that transformed the world and our society. (For example, Nature was the journal where the structure of DNA was first published, the basis of the huge bioinductry that we have nowadays). These journals have arguably had more long-term influence on the world than most newspapers. --Randykitty (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Academic journals are where new ideas, arguments, marshalling of evidence, begin. The journals themselves may have a limited and specialist readership, but their contents are then filtered through other media (newspapers, magazines, TV, blogs, whatever) and have a huge indirect impact on the world. I have a mild concern that the four titles listed above are all in the hard sciences – but I don't honestly think that there are any equivalents in the social sciences or humanities that possess the same central and seminal importance. GrindtXX (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
    1. Journal des sçavans is a humanities journal btw. But truth is, non-science (natural philosophy) journals all more or less nowhere near as impactful as those listed above, and all started to be published much later. Typically, the influential humanities stuff is published in books or in essay form (see e.g. List of important publications in philosophy). However, I agree that more could be included at Level 5.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support with the caveat that I expect at least one of the specific journals listed will be removed eventually. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose No information on wide circulation or any historical impact. Dimadick (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
    Not sure I understand here. Missing information isn't a reason to object (and that information is there for Science/Nature/PTRS), and both academic journals in general and the 4 journals listed clearly have huge historical impacts. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
    The main article Academic journal mentions nothing on relative circulation or historical impact. I don't see what is vital about such journals. I would rank them below most newspapers. Dimadick (talk) 12:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    Missing content is again not a reason to consider them not vital (WP:NOTFINISHED). While most journals aren't vital, the above 4 certainly are, and as a class, they're certainly just as important as books, newspapers, and magazines. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Opposee Journal des sçavans. First X != vital.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    That's a rather puzzling statement. Journal des sçavans, is the one that started it all. The English article is in a rather poor state, but fr:Journal des savants has a lot more. Or if you can read French. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
I definitely support adding Academic journal. I'm not sure which journals we need to list specifically, but your suggestions seem good enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
After further thought, I don't support adding any specific journals at this time. I think the existing magazines are on their way out. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
All academic journals mentioned above should be added, since it is absurd not to include these ones but keep some magazines (e.g. Rolling Stone) in the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Magazines have impact on the publishing industry and on the wider culture. I am not convinced that academic journals have sufficient impact. Dimadick (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Without academic journals, there is no research, no results, no science, no established (academic/scientific) knowledge, and the world's knowledge stagnates. Beyond that impact on society, it's a multi-billion dollar industry (~$10 billion for English journals alone). Elsevier journals alone generate near a billion downloads per year (that's an average of ~360,000 downloads per year for each of its 2500 journals). On Wikipedia alone we cite them millions of times. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
And where do we cover the topic of the industry? I found no relevant Wikipedia article after searching. Dimadick (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Again, WP:NOTFINISHED. But see The STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing, p. 6. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Academic publishing discusses the industry. --Randykitty (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
@Dimadick: still opposed? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I would prefer adding Academic publishing rather than any journal. Dimadick (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
But that discusses pretty much everything surrounding academic journals, which are the central aspect of academic publishing. Things like publishing reforms, open vs closed access, the publishing process and all that jazz is utterly non-vital. What matters is the idea/concept of a scientific journal. It's like saying we shouldn't have newspaper, because the industry aspect is covered by Newspaper production process. The vital article concerning the industries is publishing. Academic journals are akin to books, websites, newspapers, all of which are vital. You can't seriously argue that blog is vital, but that academic journal is not.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I can actually. There are a lot more bloggers than journal writers, and I think blogs have had more of an impact on culture. "On 16 February 2011, there were over 156 million public blogs in existence. On 20 February 2014, there were around 172 million Tumblr and 75.8 million WordPress blogs in existence worldwide." Dimadick (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
By that logic, we should remove newspapers from vitals since there are more blogs than newspapers and more bloggers than journalists and reporters. Bob's bicycling blog didn't change the world. Philosophical Transactions did. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
By the 20th century, Philosophical Transactions had more subscribers and impact in the United States than its native United Kingdom. "By the early 1970s, institutional subscription was the main channel of income from publication sales for the society. In 1970–1971, 43,760 copies of Transactions were sold, of which casual purchasers accounted for only 2070 copies. All of the Society's publications now had a substantial international circulation; in 1973, for example, just 11% of institutional subscriptions were from the UK; 50% were from the USA. Contributions, however, were still mostly from British authors: 69% of Royal Society authors were from the UK in 1974. A Publications Policy Committee suggested that more overseas scientists could be encouraged to submit papers if the requirement to have papers communicated by Fellows was dropped. This did not happen until 1990. Dimadick (talk) 08:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Not sure what that has to do with considering journals vital or not. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I am worried that this journal is only significant for Americans. Dimadick (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
A journal from the Royal Society of London significant only to Americans? The reason most institution subscriptions are from the US is simply because there are more universities in the US. There's about 130 universities in the UK. There's about 4100 in the US. A USA dominance in subscriptions is normal for pretty much any widely read journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED:

6-1, Stan Lee added to Writers section. feminist (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Jack Kirby and/or Stan Lee

I have noticed that this section contains only one of the two most influential people to have been in the American comic book industry. It is difficult to determine whether one of them has had more influence than the other. ―Gregorius II 07:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Status quo
Add Stan Lee, keep Jack Kirby
  1. Conditional Support If Stan Lee is added to this list, then my vote is here. ―Gregorius II 07:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. I'm not that big into comic books, but I've heard of Stan Lee before. He's an American cultural icon at this point. That being said, after looking at the lede for Jack Kirby, I think he is clearly just as appropriate to be listed as Lee based on his significant contributions to the genre. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support - Lee is vital. Kirby is too, but in a different way. Lee needed Kirby for many years, and the appearance of numerous Marvel characters is due to his drawing. Jusdafax (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 08:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Dimadick (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Add Stan Lee, remove Jack Kirby
Remove Jack Kirby
  1. Conditional support If Stan Lee is not added to this list, then my vote is here. ―Gregorius II 07:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 14:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

I am quite familiar with American comics and their history, though I am not an expert. The main problem here:

  • Jack Kirby was credited as an "artist" or "penciller" for most of his career, the one responsible for all the images and illustrations of the comic books (with other people serving as the "inker" and "colorist" for his images.) Kirby also contributed writing and plot for several comics, but received the majority of his solo writing credits in the 1970s (towards the end of his career).
  • Stan Lee has been credited only as a "writer", which is why he is famous in the field. For his often innovative scripts. Other than some uncredited inking work and proofreading early in his career, he has never drawn or illustrated anything. He did not contribute to the visuals. I am not certain if he qualifies as a "visual artist".
  • The Glossary of comics terminology gives some brief explanations of what the people responsible for a comic book do:
    • Writer: "Sometimes also called scripter, plotter or author, the writer scripts the work—scripting may include plot, dialogue and action—in a way that the artist (or artists) can interpret the story into visuals for the reader. Writers can communicate their stories in varying amounts of detail to the artist(s) and in a number of ways, including verbally, by script, or by thumbnail layout."
    • Penciller: "The penciller or penciler lays down the basic artwork for a page, deciding on panel placement and the placement of figures and settings in the panels, the backgrounds, and the characters' facial expressions and poses."
    • Inker: "An inker or finisher "finishes", and sometimes enhances, the pencilled artwork using ink (traditionally India ink) and a pen or brush to create a high-contrast image for photographing and printing. The extent of the inker's job varies depending on how tight the penciller's work is, but nonetheless requires the skill of an artist, and is more or less active depending on the completeness of the pencils provided."
    • Colourist: "The colourist or colorist adds colours to the finished artwork, which can have an effect on mood and meaning. Colourists can work with a variety of media, such as rubylith, paints, and computers. Digital colorists may employ a Flatter to assist them."
    • Letterer: "Normally separate from the writer, the letterer is the person who fills (and possibly places) speech balloons and captions with the dialogue and other words meant to be read. Letterers may also provide the lettering for sound, although this is often done by the artist even when a letterer is present. In the West, comics have traditionally been hand-lettered, although computer typesetting has become increasingly common. The manner in which the letterer letters the text influences how the message is interpreted by the reader, and the letterer can suggest the paralanguage of dialogue by varying the weight, size and shape of the lettering." Dimadick (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED:

6-1, added. feminist (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Éamon de Valera

De Valera was Ireland's most influential figure for over half a century, indeed over half of its existence as an independent state. He is surely just as vital as Michael Collins or Charles Parnell Stewart, if not more so.

Support
  1. as nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support de Valera often get's the lion's share of the blame for Ireland's problems. "Biographer Tim Pat Coogan sees his time in power as being characterised by economic and cultural stagnation. ... In recent years, historians have emphasised his failures, comparing him unfavourably to his great rival Michael Collins. Critics complain that de Valera's duplicity and betrayal of the Treaty process and his rejection of agreed upon democratic procedures led to civil war and nearly destroyed Ireland at birth. Liberals decry his conservative social policies and his close relationship with the Catholic bishops. He was morally certain to the point of arrogance with a keen eye for his own political self-preservation."Dimadick (talk) 09:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support For good or ill, an extraordinarily important figure in 20th century Irish history, from the civil war to the Irish Republic. I agree he is up there with Collins and Parnell in significance. Neljack (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 08:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support This nom took a while to sink in, but yeah. Jusdafax (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Éamon de Valera was one of the most influential Irishmen of the 20th century. ―Susmuffin Talk 23:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Both added, 5-0 pbp 18:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Edward III of England and Henry V of England

I was looking through the list and noticed that we do not have the man who started the Hundred Years' War, nor do we have the man who nearly conquered France during it. These were two of the most important figures in the history of England; both of them were exceedingly successful militarily. Edward III was also known for the various governmental reforms that occurred during his reign.

Support
  1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin Talk 19:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Edward III is one of the most significant rulers of the Kingdom of England: "he is noted for his military success and for restoring royal authority after the disastrous and unorthodox reign of his father, Edward II. Edward III transformed the Kingdom of England into one of the most formidable military powers in Europe. His long reign of 50 years was the second longest in medieval England and saw vital developments in legislation and government—in particular the evolution of the English parliament—as well as the ravages of the Black Death. Edward was crowned at age fourteen after his father was deposed by his mother, Isabella of France, and her lover Roger Mortimer. At age seventeen he led a successful coup d'état against Mortimer, the de facto ruler of the country, and began his personal reign. After a successful campaign in Scotland he declared himself rightful heir to the French throne in 1337. This started what became known as the Hundred Years' War. Following some initial setbacks the war went exceptionally well for England; victories at Crécy and Poitiers led to the highly favourable Treaty of Brétigny, in which England made territorial gains, and Edward renounced his claim to the French throne. Edward's later years were marked by international failure and domestic strife, largely as a result of his inactivity and poor health." Dimadick (talk) 09:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
    Henry V of England was a highly successful military commander, though his legacy was undermined by his early death and a problematic succession. "In his youth, Henry gained military experience fighting the Welsh during the revolt of Owain Glyndŵr and against the powerful aristocratic House of Percy of Northumberland at the Battle of Shrewsbury. Henry later came into political conflict with his father, Henry IV, whose health was increasingly precarious from 1405 onward and who had consequently started to withdraw from government functions. After his father's death in 1413, Henry assumed control of the country and asserted the pending English claims to the French throne. In 1415, Henry embarked on war with France in the ongoing Hundred Years' War (1337–1453) between the two nations. His military successes culminated in his famous victory at the Battle of Agincourt (1415) and saw him come close to conquering France. Taking advantage of political divisions within France, he conquered large portions of the kingdom and Normandy became English for the first time in 200 years. After months of negotiation with Charles VI of France, the Treaty of Troyes (1420) recognised Henry V as regent and heir apparent to the French throne and he was subsequently married to Charles's daughter, Catherine of Valois (1401–1437). Following Henry V's sudden and unexpected death in France two years later, he was succeeded by his infant son, who reigned as Henry VI in England and Henry II in France. The lack of unity and of a political consensus in Henry VI's regency government, coupled with Henry VI's ineffectual rule, would jeopardize Henry V's gains and undermine English rule in France." Dimadick (talk) 09:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support - Yes, I see both as vital at Level 4. Jusdafax (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED:

7-0, added. feminist (talk) 04:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Paul von Hindenburg

I find it strange that we list Ludendorff without also listing Hindenburg. Paul von Hindenburg was perhaps the most prominent German military leader of the First World War. During the later half of the war, he was functionally a military dictator. The German people viewed him as being more significant than the German Emperor himself. The personality cult that he developed was the fore-bearer of the various personality cults of the 20th century. I would also say that there is also a valid argument that he should be added to the political section. His popularity during the war lead to his electoral success in two presidential elections in Weimar Germany. Due to political instability, he functionally ruled by decree during the Great Depression. He was also the President of Germany who appointed Adolf Hitler to the position of chancellor.

Support
  1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin Talk 12:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support - Good nomination. Jusdafax (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 22:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support GuzzyG (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED:

6-3, removed. feminist (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Eugene V. Debs

Not as important as most of the other American activists. Samuel Gompers would be a better representative of trade unionism in the U.S. anyways. pbp 00:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 00:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Approximately 30.357% of the people in this section were Americans from the 19th and 20th centuries. Also, we do not need to have a representative of American socialism on this list. ―Susmuffin Talk 00:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support too local. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support the opposes are not as convincing as the supports. If his legacy was influencing Bernie Sanders (somebody who couldn't become president) then it's a weak legacy. It's not just the American bloat as Susmuffin says but too many people from the 20th century in this section. Some sections are inevitably recentist like film directors because the technology needed to make film is quite new. But the rebels, revolutionaries and activists section should be better balanced in terms of era and span all of history. We only have one person who lived before the Middle Ages in the section. And biographies as a whole are over quota. Gizza (t)(c) 12:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - Here again, as the article notes, a highly influential person in his field who was not afraid to walk the walk, and paid a notable price. Jusdafax (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
    He never obtained more than 6% of the popular vote in a presidential election. Also, we have seventeen Americans and only five Africans on this list; this section is horribly unbalanced. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose His legacy is underestimated: "Eugene Debs helped motivate the American Left to organise political opposition to corporations and World War I. American socialists, communists, and anarchists honor his work for the labor movement and motivation to have the average working man build socialism without large state involvement. Several books have been written about his life as an inspirational American socialist. In 1979, Bernie Sanders produced a documentary about Debs, released as a film and an audio LP record, as an audio-visual teaching aid: in the documentary he described Debs as "probably the most effective and popular leader that the American working class has ever had". ... It has been argued that Debs was important in first advocating for reforms which were subsequently implemented by more moderate left-leaning politicians, such as banking reform and child labor laws." Dimadick (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

How about a Swap with businessman Eugene Krabs?  Carlwev  18:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

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

6-2, removed. feminist (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Richard Petty

NASCAR was removed from the list ("a regional interest").

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support I do not believe that we should include the drivers of a recently removed racing organisation. ―Susmuffin Talk 17:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support NASCAR is reasonable I wouldn't have minded keeping it, more people will look that up than one, even the top one driver, we cannot really list a sportsman of a deleted sport.  Carlwev  17:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support I wouldn't mind swapping NASCAR back in but I don't see how Petty can be kept now. There are more vital sports tournaments/events than NASCAR missing such as Wimbledon that really should be a higher priority. Gizza (t)(c) 06:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. We need at least 1 NASCAR driver listed at this level and he's the most vital. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose mind blowing nomination, NASCAR should not have been removed either - so much for variety in what we list, should the motorsports section just be formula one, really? GuzzyG (talk) 05:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

@Rreagan007: there is Foyt, below. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

He wasn't a dedicated NASCAR driver. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED:

7-0, removed. feminist (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Villa Capra "La Rotonda"

Influential, but not as famous as other buildings at the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  19:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support As Carlwev points out, there are other, more vital, buildings not listed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support This building is far less influential than the Arc de Triomphe, which is not on this list. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 08:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 23:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I agree, it is probably less vital than some missing buildings like Buckingham Palace, the White House and Arc de Triomphe among others.  Carlwev  19:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

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

5-0, removed. feminist (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove The Souls of Black Folk

The author, W. E. B. Du Bois, is listed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support GuzzyG (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support We are fifteen articles over the quota in this section. Also, the author is already on this list. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support per above Gizza (t)(c) 23:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED:

7-2, removed. feminist (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove The Varieties of Religious Experience

The list contains 50 other nonfiction books and something must be cut because the quota is over. This article has nine interlanguage links and I think that Level 5 is enough.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  20:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support We are sixteen articles over the quota in this section. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support per above. Even if the art quota was increased to 700, I doubt this book cuts it among the 20 most vital modern works of nonfiction. Gizza (t)(c) 09:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support better at level 5. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose This classic text by William James has, as the article notes, never been out of print. It is a historical touch point in its field. Jusdafax (talk) 09:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Dimadick (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Early 1900s book about religion, there are several borderline religions slightly older or younger that are missing. I cannot expect an encyclopedia would treat this book as more vital than Jehovah's Witnesses or Scientology for example, or missing non fiction like Guinness World Records. We have removed several versions of the Bible too that seemed more vital.  Carlwev  20:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

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

7-0, removed. feminist (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove We Shall Overcome

I think we need only protest song at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support I Have a Dream is far more vital than this song. We don't have any public speeches but if we were to have only one, I Have a Dream would be a good candidate. Gizza (t)(c) 09:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support covering it in Protest song is enough, I feel. It's an important song, but it's not much of an example of anything stylistically speaking, and there are much more famous protest songs out there too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support I would also supporting adding I Have a Dream. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support We are presently sixteen articles over the quota in this section. Also, "I have a Dream" should only be added if we make an entire section for speeches. This would be impossible to do without removing a few articles so that we do not exceed the quota. ―Susmuffin Talk 16:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
4-3, not removed Gizza (t)(c) 04:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Asian Games

We don't list Pan American Games, European Games, African Games, or Pacific Games at this level so I don't see why we should list Asian games either.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 05:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support doesn't need to be here now that specific Asian sports were added. Gizza (t)(c) 01:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support the Commonwealth Games and the Universiade are more games that aren't listed here but should be on L5. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support I do not see how this is more important than the games from other continents. Also, we may need to remove a few more sports-related articles from this list. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I've read the lede and found out that Asian Games is the second largest multi-sport event on earth, thus more vital than other continental games.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC) fixed a spelling mistake 11:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose see reasons below... also I think this is more vital than a NASCAR driver, even one that has won other events like Daytona.  Carlwev  15:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per RekishiEJ and Carlwev. Gizza (t)(c) 21:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

The Asian Games seem to be more important than the other continent's games you mention. I would at least consider the Commonwealth Games. What is so bad at listing the Asian Games, when Asia has over half the world population, we already have more sports people from the USA than from the whole of Asia, plus we have leagues like NBA and NHL and which are one sport in one or two countries, as opposed to the Asian Games which are multi sport multi country events. Why can Asia not have it's games if the USA can have several individual sports leagues. We have a few individual nation Football (soccer) leagues too. Plus we still have 11 tennis players for example; are all those things more imprtant that the Asian Games? The answer could still be yes, just asking other's opinions. (I am aware NBA and NHL have a few Canadian teams, but point still stands.)  Carlwev  00:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

But why is the Asian Games more important for the English Wikipedia to have a high-quality article than the others? That's the standard for inclusion in this list. If anything it's less important than the others, as Asia doesn't have any English-speaking countries. And as the others aren't listed, this one shouldn't be either. The Commonwealth Games would be more vital to the English Wikipedia. The Asian Games would be more vital to the Chinese Wikipedia. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Asia has many English-speaking countries. Looking at the map here, by my count there are 17 countries who participate in the Asian Games where the English Wikipedia is the main Wikipedia used. And the map is out-of-date. There are many more countries in Asia and outside where the primary Wikipedia is English Wikipedia now [11]. In terms of the vote, I'm neutral now after Carlwev's comment which makes good points. Gizza (t)(c) 05:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
According to that map, it looks like there are just as many countries in Africa and and Europe where the English Wikipedia is the most popular Wikipedia, so by your logic we should be adding African Games and European Games. I've seen no compelling argument put forward for why the Asian Games are any more vital than the other continental games, so for the sake of consistency we should either be listing all of them or none of them. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that all types of cheese be removed and add all non-Asian continental games.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removal passes 7-3, addition fails 4-4 Gizza (t)(c) 22:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Columbia University, add University of Pennsylvania

Historically, Penn has won more Ivy League championships than Columbia and has a legitimate case for being the first university in the United States. Penn is ranked ahead of Columbia more often than not on the thirteen lists including either school at rankings of universities in the United States, and it is ranked ahead of Columbia on all four of the lists at list of universities by number of billionaire alumni. Penn has strong ties to the Founding Fathers of the United States (see University of Pennsylvania#Notable people) and would help diversify the collection of vital articles by removing another article on the list about New York.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Habst (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support The University of Pennsylvania seems to have been a pioneer in the field in the 18th and 19th century. "It was also home to many other educational innovations. The first school of medicine in North America (Perelman School of Medicine, 1765), the first collegiate business school (Wharton School, 1881) and the first "student union" building and organization (Houston Hall, 1896) were founded at Penn." Dimadick (talk) 09:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support addition. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support removal --Thi (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support removal We do not need to have 12 American universities on this list. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support removal power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support removal per Susmuffin and power~enwiki. Gizza (t)(c) 22:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Rankings are not everything (or anything really). Columbia is historically more important than Penn - exactly because of its location in New York. Nothing diversifying by swaping one Ivy for another one a couple of miles away. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - per Maunus. Jusdafax (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose addition --Thi (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose removal Rreagan007 (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose addition per Susmuffin and power~enwiki. Gizza (t)(c) 22:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

The vote tally I see is 3 in favor of a swap, 2 opposed to a swap, 1 in favor of including both, and 3 in favor of including neither. This appears to be "no consensus". power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No discussion or votes in 80+ days, no consensus Gizza (t)(c) 22:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Euphemism add Reference

Euphemism is not a central concept in semantics - reference hoever (i.e. referring to things with words) is the most central function in semantics. This would definitely be in the top 50 of topics to be covered by a basic introduction to language and grammar.

Support
  1. As nom.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Support removal, oppose addition
  1. Support the removal. --Thi (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. The article reference is not currently primarily about linguistics. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
It is about semiotics/semantics - reference functions also exists outside of human language.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  1. Support removal, Oppose addition. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Support addition, oppose removal
  1. Support addition - I know we're over quota, but I'd like to find a way to include both of these. If I were forced to pick one, I'd support the swap. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PARTIALLY PASSED:

Profanity: 2-7, kept. Pragmatics: 4-1, added. feminist (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Profanity add Pragmatics

Profanity is not central to the study of semantics, but pragmatics is the study of how meaning varies with context - i.e. what makes the difference between reference, profanity and euphemism (and many other things). This would definitely be in the top 50 of topics to be covered by a basic introduction to language and grammar.

Support
  1. As nom.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support the removal. --Thi (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support add only  Carlwev  20:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. The addition.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support addition Pragmatics is a subject that is required for any discussion on the topic of language. ―Susmuffin Talk 16:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I think you are confusing language with semantics, which is a narrower field than linguistics. Profanity is (unfortunately) a major aspect of many languages and it occurs in some form or another in all of them. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removal only  Carlwev  20:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
    I am not. Pragmatics is a wider field than semantics, and is central to the production of meaning both in language and outside of language. Profanity is just one particular social use of language (a speech act), there are literally hundreds of others that are more relevant to include. Furthermore the idea of "profanity" is based in a particular idea about language, namely that some uses of language are taboo because they are not aligned with a particular set of religious ideas about what one should say. Not all cultures have that idea, it is basically a eurocentric concept.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose removal, neutral on add: Profanity is a vital concept whether or not it is central to the theoretical study of semantics. Agree with Katolophyromai. pbp 15:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose removal, neutral on add per PBP. Jclemens (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose removal Rreagan007 (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  6. The removal.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  7. Oppose removal Profanity is a rather basic subject that covers the idea that some words are inherently unacceptable to use in most situations. ―Susmuffin Talk 16:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PARTIALLY PASSED:

Manx cat: 7-0, removed.

Domestic short-haired cat: 6-1, added.

Persian cat: 4-3, no consensus. – feminist (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Manx cat, add Domestic short-haired cat and Persian cat

For level 4 cats:

The Manx cat is more of a rare cat due to its difficulties to breed. But it still appeals to breeders and people who show cats. Even then, it only fell at #29 on the Cat Fancier's Association's Most Popular Breeds for 2017 list. The Domestic short-hair cat is the most abundant cat in the world, making up 95% of cats (along with its cousin, the domestic long-haired cat). It's the cat you find at the shelter or on the street, or being bred by most households. The Persian cat has been an established favorite to both the regular households and the breeder/show person for decades. Both are established breeds who have been around for centuries. It is good to have cat breeds at level 4 that are popular to households and to show. To better document the Persian cat's popularity, there are up to four breeds recognized, depending on the association, the one I added in the title Persian cat, a new breed the Exotic Shorthair, which has been voted the No. 1 breed for the last four years by the Cat Fancier's Association's Most Popular Breeds, the Himalayan cat (or Colorpoint Persian) and the Traditional Persian cat. dawnleelynn(talk) 20:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC) Together, the Siamese which was added to Level 4 by someone else, the domestic and the Persian are three of oldest cat breeds in the world. I agreed with Siamese, even if it doesn't hit the top of the most popular lists, because of its rich history and longevity. dawnleelynn(talk) 01:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC) I'd also add that these three breeds are global. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --dawnleelynn(talk) 16:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support removal --Thi (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support removing Manx and adding Domestic short hair, but not adding Persian. Plantdrew (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support - I’d suggest Manx be moved to Level 5. Jusdafax (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support removal We do not need one of the less important cat breeds on this list. If the Domestic Short-haired cat is the most widespread cat breed, then it may be a reasonable addition to this list. ―Susmuffin Talk 17:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  • Why is the domestic short hair any more vital than the Domestic long-haired cat? And if we're going to add it, shouldn't we also add Mongrel? Rreagan007 (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Good question. As per what I said above, the short hair domestic is the one that is one of the oldest breeds and is 95% of all cats. The long hair variety is a smaller portion of that 95 percent. However, there seems to be some problems with the content at the long hair's article, including its status as a breed. So I guess a case could be made either way. Who are the powers that be that decide how many cats can be level 4? If we can have the Persian, Siamese, domestic short and long haired at level 4, I would not oppose it. Thanks Rreagan007. And yes, I need a little time to read about the Mongrel but you should add it if you are sure it's same situation for dogs. Does Mongrel = Mutt? I know a bit more about cats. dawnleelynn(talk) 15:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC) Rreagan007 Oh, sorry for the late reply...these updates are hard to keep up with. I only noticed this today, including the last two support votes. This talk page is getting very busy, thanks for your questions. dawnleelynn(talk) 18:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Rreagan007 So, I have completed my research regarding what are essentially mixed breeds for cats and dogs. Even though the domestic short and long hair cats and mongrels are not "officially" breeds according to pet registries, I think we have to include them all because of the sheer size of mixed breed animals in the world. (And these are different than cross breeds.) The mixed breed of cats are 95% of cats in US households and there are over 500 million worldwide. And the mixed breed of dogs also comprise a large population in the world. I have sources for all this of course. But I value any input you have naturally. Also, the long haired domestic is really just part of the short hair domestic and they can both produce one of the other. I might have made the short & long hair one article, but that's just me. Anyway, that's why I didn't think it necessary to include the long hair in level 4. But not opposed to it either. Hope this helps. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. We probably don't need to list both at this level. From my understanding the domestic long-hair and short-hair are the same thing but for the length of the fur, which is an arbitrary distinction anyway based on length of the fur. These two articles could probably be merged into one. I have also seen references to "domestic medium-hair" as well, which we don't even have an article on. As far as dogs go, we probably should include the article on mixed-breed domestic dogs too. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Rreagan007 As you say, it is also my understanding that the domestic short and long hair cats only difference is the fur length. Also, each type can produce the other type. I'm glad you think it might be a good idea to combine the articles too. The medium hair is related to the short hair. Two Medium can produce a short hair. For now, we can consider Medium part of the domestic short hair the same we do the long hair. Yes, I agree with you that we should include the article on the mixed-breed domestic dogs. So, we should just end up with the Siamese, Domestic short-haired cat, and the Persian cat in the Level 4 category. And add the Mongrels article to Level 5 Dogs. Thanks. dawnleelynn(talk) 18:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED:

1-5, kept. feminist (talk) 03:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove all constellations (Canis Major, Cassiopeia, Centaurus, Crux, Orion, Ursa Major, Ursa Minor)

Simply put, professionals don't care about them one bit. No room for them when there's so many topics we can't cover. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose massive cultural significance. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Just because "professionals don't care about them one bit" doesn't mean that the general public doesn't. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose The constellations in question have influenced many different cultures throughout the world. ―Susmuffin Talk 02:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - per above opposes. Jusdafax (talk) 09:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. Why are Canis Major and Centaurus on this list? I suspect primarily because of Sirius and Alpha Centauri. Hence I suggest removing those two and adding Taurus (constellation) (Hyades & Pleiades) and Sagittarius (constellation) (galactic center and many fine deep sky objects) instead as constellations of greater interest to amateur astronomers. Both have greater cultural significance as well, and would make more interesting reads. Praemonitus (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-1, added. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Carbon nanotube

We currently list diamond and graphite, and I think we should also list the article on carbon nanotubes. They have some amazing properties and some really important potential uses, as they are the strongest material that has yet been discovered.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support as per nom. As the strongest material that has yet been discovered it should be subject to significant scholarly study, which is a degree of vitality to me. J947 (contribs · mail) 22:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support The article states that they are all already in use in a number of ships and aircrafts. Dimadick (talk) 08:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support I thought about this long and hard, and while applications are currently somewhat limited because of mass-scale production issues, the amount of research going into them is insane and the breakthroughs will be true revolutions in materials science. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. feminist (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose pending a better argument. I don't see how diamonds and graphite being vital, leads to automatic vitality of a little used and little known substance which habbens to also be made of carbon?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 11:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Jean-Philippe Rameau

Claude Debussy said that Rameau is the greatest French composer. "Acclaimed for his innovative and popular operas, he was also known as one of the greatest organists in France, and his theoretical writings continue to influence musical thinkers over two centuries later." (All Music Guide) "In France, his operas are performed often at the Paris National Opera and many of the regional opera houses. Alongside Berlioz and Debussy, he is held to be one of that country's great composers, promoted and performed with pride by many of its finest musicians, notably William Christie and Les Arts Florissants." [12]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support While Rameau's compositions fell out of fashion in the late 18th century and were ignored for most of the 19th century, he was re-evaluated in the 20th century and is now seen as historically significant. Part of the interest in Rameau is because he had an influence on a number of "reformist" composers, including Christoph Willibald Gluck. Dimadick (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not sure he is quite significant enough. I would be more inclined to add Gluck if we want another 18th-century composer. Neljack (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Classical music is over-represented in my opinion. GuzzyG (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above, especially since we're 9 over quota. Gizza (t)(c) 11:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3-3, failed and not added Gizza (t)(c) 23:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add György Ligeti

One of the most well-known avant-garde composers. His music was "among the most innovative of the last half of the 20th century — sometimes eerie, sometimes humorous usually fantastical and always polished" (The New York Times) [13] [14]. Previous proposal.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support As I said when this was previously nominated: Looking at the avant-garde section of the composers list, we have Glass, Stockhausen and Cage. Ligeti seems to me more important than Glass and perhaps Cage, and more or less on a par with Stockhausen. Neljack (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support His music is often used in films, and Ligeti has had an impact on popular culture. Dimadick (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose classical music is overrepresented.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Classical music is over-represented in my opinion. GuzzyG (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose not convinced we need a fifth avant-garde composer but I could support a swap per Neljack. Gizza (t)(c) 02:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Antipater

I think that he is not as vital at this level as Philip II of Macedon and Alexander the Great.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Didn't have that strong of a legacy. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  16:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Antipater is only notable for being the regent of Alexander's Empire for approximately a single year. He is almost certainly the least important of the various ancient Greeks that are presently on this list. ―Susmuffin Talk 20:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Weak support not convinced that we need Antipater per Susmuffin mostly though ideally, he should be replaced by someone of the same period of history and not by a person living in the 20th century which is most likely. Gizza (t)(c) 08:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support one of the weaker ancient figures on this list. pbp 16:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED:

2-5, kept. feminist (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove The Internationale

This is mentioned in the article Protest song and I think that it is enough at this level. [15]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 09:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose, actually I think we do need an example of a protest song, and after reading the article, I can't see any other that had this sort of international impact. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Headbomb. It was the first national anthem of the U.S.S.R. for pete's sake. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Headbomb. Highly significant and vital at this level. Jusdafax (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
It is clear that this will not pass. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Add the Book of Mormon

The Book of Mormon is the most important of the Mormon religious texts. Also, there are presently over 16 million followers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Support
  1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin Talk 20:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Less vital than the general article on the Latter-day Saint movement, which is not listed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Presidentman. Jusdafax (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. feminist (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
4-3, not removed Gizza (t)(c) 23:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Veganism

We currently list both veganism and vegetarianism at level 4. I really don't think we need to list both, since veganism is really just a type of vegetarianism.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support I recognize that veganism can be seen as more philosophical than dietary, but the vegetarianism article does make comparisons with vegansism. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support I support that we don't really need both at level 4. However, to be clear veganism is no longer just a type of vegetarianism. By typical definition, a vegetarian does not eat meat. A vegan has a wide definition that runs from one extreme of someone that doesn't eat any animal products to one who tries not to use any animal products at all. For example, leather shoes and jackets typically made from animal hide can now be purchased from other products not made from animals as "vegan leather." It also can include not participating in events that use animals and adhering to a policing of not owning or using any animals, for most extreme see Peta. But this can be made clear at level 5. dawnleelynn(talk) 22:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support no need for both at Level 4. feminist (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - As the article notes in the lede, veganism is also a philosophy, not just a diet choice. Seeing as the nom has it wrong, I strongly oppose on the grounds that they don’t understand the difference, and that veganism is vital at this level. Jusdafax (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Jusdafax's explanation. Dimadick (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I would prefer to keep this, it could be argued to be over 1000 years old, but at least centuries old. From a food point of view it seems more relevant than things like mustard. Even if it is thought of as a type of vegetarianism, which may or may not be correct, if we can have several types of sauces in addition to condiment and numerous types of liquor in addition to liquor, perhaps we can have another article for type of vegetarianism.  Carlwev  15:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-7, not removed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove United States Constitution

Simply put, this is incredibly US-centric. There's the United States Declaration of Independence, which kickstarted the whole thing known at the USA and influenced the modern world, which is absolutely something vital. But readers in Kenya, Canada, Sweden, or any non-US countries do not need to know the fine details of the US constitution. The Statute of Westminster 1931 is way more important, which I'll propose to add, separately. The US Constitution can be put at level 5.

Support
  1. Support As proposer. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - Vital at L4, obviously, in my view. Jusdafax (talk) 06:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Vital for understanding the politics of the United States. The constitution has been a model around the world. "A landmark document of the Western world" (Britannica). --Thi (talk) 07:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. It's absolutely vital for this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose A constitution based on the political ideas of the Age of Enlightenment, and using the Bill of Rights 1689 as a source. It is a significant part of legal history. Dimadick (talk) 11:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose The U.S. Constitution has played a large influence on the constitutions of other nations. Definitely, at the minimum, a level-4 VA. Zingarese talk · contribs 17:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  6. Oppose How is the world's oldest written constitution not vital for L4? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
    Constitutions existed well before the US one, e.g. Zakonopravilo, Great Law of Peace, etc.. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  7. Because the US Constitution has influenced many other nations' constitutions (from the lede of the article I've skimmed), this article is no doubt vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
  • I'm not going to vote yea or nay on this, but I think the nomination rationale is bunk. The Declaration of Independence is a symbolic document, not a governing one. The Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence, sets dictates on the role and limits of government in the United States. The Constitution was one of the first written constitutions and has served as a model for constitutions in other countries. pbp 17:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

  1. ^ https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Photography#Social_and_cultural_implications
  2. ^ Quelques propositions d’activités – Le roi et l’oiseau Archived 2012-07-10 at the Wayback Machine, Paola Martini et Pascale Ramel, p. 4
  3. ^ Rolando Caputo. Literary cineastes: the Italian novel and the cinema. In: Peter E. Bondanella & Andrea Ciccarelli (eds.). The Cambridge Companion to the Italian Novel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. P. 182-196.
  4. ^ Christina Britzolakis, "Conversation amongst the Ruins: Plath and de Chirico," in Connors & Bayley, eds., Eye Rhymes: Sylvia Plath's Art of the Visual (Oxford University Press 2007)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_58&oldid=952689042"