Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Vital articles

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Charlestpt (talk | contribs) at 18:54, 29 January 2021 (→Cities: Annecy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconVital Articles
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Vital Articles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of vital articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and work together to increase the quality of Wikipedia's essential articles.Vital ArticlesWikipedia:WikiProject Vital ArticlesTemplate:WikiProject Vital ArticlesVital Articles
General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography Society STEM

Introduction

The purpose of this discussion page is to select 50,000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles.

Any article currently on this list may be challenged. The discussion is open to the following rules:

  1. Any discussion must run at least two weeks before being closed
  2. Any discussion must have at least four total votes before being closed
  3. Any article with at least 55% support for inclusion will be retained
  4. Any article with at least 55% opposition for inclusion will be removed
  • 14 days ago: 21:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Contents

People

Entertainers

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters#Entertainers for the list of topics in this category.

Actor quotas

In the arhives TRM pointed that there are too few actors from Asia. I also noted that @Philburmc: suggested addition of Michel Bouquet to the level 4 but he is not even on the level 5. Do you guys have any comment here? I personally do not but I am not sure at least why ballance beetwen Asia/West is other among men and women? Dawid2009 (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is true; as i have done with the music section; i will be going through the actors and correcting this. Bouquet is just not notable enough for this list. Because i did the majority of the women while the men had a massive dump of European actors particularly Russian at the start. Just stay with me on this one; im working on it. GuzzyG (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actors

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters#Actors for the list of topics in this category.

Actresses

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters#Actresses for the list of topics in this category.

Directors, producers, showrunners and screenwriters

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters#Directors, producers, showrunners and screenwriters for the list of topics in this category.

Dancers and choreographers

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters#Dance for the list of topics in this category.

Comedians

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters#Comedians for the list of topics in this category.

Television hosts and personalities

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters#Television hosts and personalities for the list of topics in this category.

Other entertainment and fields

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters#Other entertainment and fields for the list of topics in this category.


Sports entertainment/amusement park people section in entertainers, temp test

I've listed sports entertainers (pro wrestlers, olden roller derby, monster truck driving, Meadowlark Lemon) in the "other entertainment" section by cutting the models, magicians and radio/podcasts section down by ten each and the adult/other sections by five each. I strongly believe these figures should be listed here; we're a encyclopedia and we should go by established ways to label things, "Professional wrestling (often shortened to pro wrestling or simply wrestling) is a form of performance art[1][2][3][4][5] and entertainment[6][7] that combines athletics with theatrical performance." is how professional wrestling is described in the first sentence; we shouldn't differ from our main article; it's a form of entertainment and thus it's performers are entertainers and not traditional athletes like traditional wrestlers; the leading company describes themselves as sports entertainers and as entertainment; it's weird to list WWE; which is described on it's article as a "American integrated media and entertainment company" as a sports league which we do aswell. People like Jerry Lawler are being listed in commentators when they're playing a entertainment role; if we list wrestlers here; we can include everyone connected to wrestling in this one section; as they're all involved in the entertainment. We list P. T. Barnum here in circus so it won't conflict if we list a person like Vince McMahon either. We're low on actual combat sport athletes and boxing with missing people like Oscar De La Hoya too; which correcting this will fix. It's established that pro wrestling is entertainment and thus wrestlers are entertainers and we shouldn't change that. The point of these fields is to entertain; not to win and that's the difference and why they should be listed apart from traditional sports.

I also created a 10 person "Amusement parks people" section; since it's better than some being under "other artists" and under "inventors"; they'll all be in one place; they may be involved in the business of entertainment and not entertainers themselves but we list Barnum under circus and it's the same thing.

I've done the edit, so people can see how it looks; but i haven't removed them from the sports page / the amusement park people on their listed pages; does anyone have any strong objections to these two fields being listed here and just going back to the status quo? GuzzyG (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely favor listing these kinds of "sports entertainers" under entertainment rather than sports. Orser67 (talk) 04:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voice actor bias

This section is biased. Of the 30 people there, 28 are English-language and 2 are Japanese-language. There aren't even any predominantly-anime dub voice actors nor even those based in Texas where Funimation is. Thoughts? I'm informing WT:ANIME. ミラP 21:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Limit English-language VAs to 20
  • Increase Japanese-language VAs to 8
  • For Spanish-language VAs: add Rogelio Hernandez. No article on enwiki yet, but Alasdair Fotheringham acknowledged his voice as "indistinguishable from those of some of Hollywood's greatest stars"
  • Italian voice acting is the biggest of its kind if you don't count English and Japanese, so add one Italian-language VA: either Alberto Sordi because he is the best Italian voice actor, or Francesco Pannofino
Mitsuo Iwata, maybe? Yūki Kaji? Hyperbolick (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hyperbolick: I'm also considering Miyuki Sawashiro, Nana Mizuki and Rica Matsumoto ミラP 23:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All good. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree these are good adds, i always wanted to add some Japanese voice actors but didn't have the expertise, the section was filled by someone else before i could. I'd support cuts except the full simpsons cast since we list that at level 4. These are all good adds. Alberto Sordi is already listed under film actors. GuzzyG (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GuzzyG: Okay, for Italians we'll go with Francesco Pannofino. But I'm not sure we should cut all of the non-Simpsons VAs since some of them primarily do work for level 4 content like Looney Tunes, Mickey Mouse, and Mario. We should go case-by-case first and take this section into account. ミラP 20:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Urk, probematic section in general. Ouside very niche fandoms, people can't name them. Unlike actors, many people don't even know voice acting is a profession. I know V5 has room, but in all honesty I am not convinced any voice actors should qualify here. In the end, when we max 'actor' category, I bet we can find an example of a more impactful (notable, whatever) but not included actor for any voice actor we compare him or her with that is still present here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Let's see here, Japan has 126 million people and the US 327 million; and anime makes a lot of money and is taken more seriously in Japan more than cartoons are in the USA. Does that change anything? ミラP 02:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Miraclepine: Case by case basis. I know some voice actors are minor celebrities, the question is, are even the biggest VA celebrities more 'vital' than the Top x,000 actors we have room for? Right now me may have room for some, but once we hit our max items, I think they may have a tough time defending themselves. Through a few may survive. Again, I think this is not really an issue until we are out of room for new actors, the the 'vital mortal combat' will begin :) PS. For the record, I do think the current proportion are unfair to Japanese VAs. PPS. The ones which will IMHO survive are the ones which are also celebrities due to other reasons (idols, singers, in general). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First proposal

@Hyperbolick, GuzzyG, and Piotrus: My proposal for the 20 English-language VAs is up and ready. ミラP 04:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Mel Blanc
  2. Nancy Cartwright
  3. Dan Castellaneta
  4. Christine Cavanaugh
  5. Milton Cross
  6. Jim Cummings
  7. Jim Dale
  8. John DiMaggio
  9. June Foray
  10. Jennifer Hale
  11. Don LaFontaine
  12. Charles Martinet
  13. Don Messick
  14. Vic Mignogna
  15. Don Pardo
  16. Rob Paulsen
  17. Tara Strong
  18. Peter Thomas
  19. Frank Welker
  20. Billy West
I'd prefer all Simpsons cast to be kept, as that's the ultimate example of a American animated work, but i completely support all the rest. GuzzyG (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GuzzyG: I cut some of the Simpsons VAs became some of them are not as vital as the others. Marge and Lisa’s VAs have less variety in notability than Homet and Bart’s VAs, while Hank Azeris doesn’t voice anyone in the Simpsons family. ミラP 06:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Miraclepine: It's no issue and i am fine with those three being removed, it's just a shame the quotas are not big enough as they're important enough, either way you've did a good job, i appreciate the work you've done so far. GuzzyG (talk) 07:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GuzzyG: Thank you. I’ll consider whether or not expand the quotas later tomorrow. ミラP 07:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Miraclepine: No, i don't think that's necessary as everything's already filled out. Probably a bit weird to list every cast member of a show anyway, the only show we do that for in normal actors is Friends i think; also i forgot two that i was thinking of before, what do you think of Veronica Taylor and Adriana Caselotti; they both represent two important characters in animation history. What do you think on their chances? GuzzyG (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GuzzyG: We'll add them in. Now who do we swap out from the list? I'm leaning John DiMaggio but I'm not sure which one to do: Rob Paulsen or Billy West? ミラP 17:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Miraclepine:I'd support swapping both DiMaggio and West; Futurama could overlap with the Simpsons and Paulsen has Emmys and Annies, while West doesn't. Paulsen has the most wikilanguages on wikidata at 36 vs West's 27 and Paulsen's article has 2,324 edits compared to West's article having 2,208 edits. I think that makes it clear Paulsen has had the biggest impact on the field. GuzzyG (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GuzzyG: Keep only Rob Paulsen, got it. Now onto the Japanese. ミラP 18:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For Japanese language voice actors, I'd suggest Koichi Yamadera? He's not only a voice actor but he's also on a similar level to Mamoru Miyano, being that he's done lots of things in television, video games, and narration including being the host of Oha Suta (a kids' variety show) for more than 10 years. I'm also surprised to see Kana Hanazawa on there when there are more prolific veterans like Megumi Hayashibara or Maaya Sakamoto. (Or even Aya Hirano, even -- she pioneered the Japanese idol and voice actress crossover.) lullabying (talk) 03:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My few cents: Jennifer Hale doesn't seem to have won any significant awards. Ditto for Don Pardo, Milton Cross, Peter Thomas (announcer), Vic Mignogna, Charles Martinet, Don LaFontaine, Jim Cummings, Don Messick, Mel Blanc,Billy West. For me the line is drawn with comparison for example to Frank Welker "for his lifetime achievement". Others have won something that seems significant too. But the ones I link first haven't yet done so, and so I am uneasy keeping them over people from other fields (more actors, etc.) who have won so. For example, there are still many Emmy winners and I think some Oscar winners not on our list. The argument that we need to be 'representative' of various fields is fine, but weight is an issue, plus some fields are not represented. My vote is to cut the ones I named in my first sentence, keep the others. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

what awards are announcers like Pardo, Cross and Thomas supposed to win? How are 15000 people suppposed to be award winners? Emmy winners are television actors from one country, much less vital than oscar actors, and no; i personally added every oscar winner for actors/actresses/supporting actor/actress and director. If you wanna add the 850-1k best actors because you think we shouldn't list anything else than i strongly disagree, by that measure we should just up this list to 15k philosophers, physicists, politicians and saints. To deny MEL BLANC isn't a notable voice actor is ABSURD and a complete misunderstanding of voice acting. Also the clearest example of why this "awards only" approach to fields is wrong. Alfred Hitchcock never won a oscar, either let's remove him from the level 4 list. Also, exactly what entertainment fields are missing? We can add some,we cover everything from Cabaret Rodolphe Salis, to a jester Triboulet (yes, i'd support Stańczyk as well, to a geisha Mineko Iwasaki to a Koothu rep Mani Madhava Chakyar, i try to cover as much as possible, actors are exhausted; or are they not vital for not winning awards and we need Zac Efron (the level of actor, left)? GuzzyG (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mel Blanc definitely needs to be on a list of 20 voice actors. I'm not convinced we need multiple Simpsons voice actors. pbp 05:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that few editors (I also was something about it) suggested/"consensused" in the past that level 5 should cover topics which can not be added to the level 4 due to recentism and they somewhrere could be listed but why we gonna into it by such exccredation? We have now far more actors (listed in multiple sections) from USA than all figures from Abrahamic religions through whole milleniums human history. ITW? I could understand if the quotas of figures from Abragamic religions would be the same what actors from usa ( but it still would not be sensible for purly historistic encyclopedia BTW) but why we makes this list so much similar to WP:5000 (there is also list on wijiproject biography page) and why we removed religious figures wp:bold "when we were over quota" in religious section when our projesr is "highly under construction" an the wutas are only "suggestion", not "consensused process". We should wait couple monthst until we will make any votings entry by entry instead wp:bold as long as someone can give rationale on the page. In onther case nobody will consider 5 level seriously and it is serious issue because of on noticeboards at village-ideas suggested level 6! Some people suggested there that level 5 is too broad but main issue is that we missed too many broad articles. The only woman sport journalist and even the only non-English sport journalist on this list is Esport player (IMO wrongly because of I belive there are better woman and among non-English sport journalist at least founder of LEquipe would be much better choice) and this bios is not more vital than various soccer clubs which we miss and thesemissed siccer clubs also should not be FA before something like "Sport in Brasil" Dawid2009 (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You skipped Erin Andrews and Doreen Simmons....... and let's be honest, most women sports journalist will get criticized by the purists because their articles are mostly short and there's rarely awards in sports journalism. The esports article is the only representative of that sport, not because shes a woman. [1] esports and youtubers are getting as big as traditional sports so in a modern encyclopedia it should be covered, a woman just happens to be the best known. Also i planned to add Goddet, but the quota for journalists was reduced for yet more writers. (there's a massive recency bloat in writers in which i am yet to go through and fix). Either way it wasn't hard to swap in Goddet. GuzzyG (talk) 07:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There i just added Helen Rollason and Jacqui Oatley who i would've and planned to add before the quotas were cut; it's not hard; i do this all day; name something and we can find it; i more than likely have it in backup for my own personal 50k list. GuzzyG (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2

  1. Mel Blanc
  2. Nancy Cartwright
  3. Adriana Caselotti
  4. Dan Castellaneta
  5. Christine Cavanaugh
  6. Milton Cross
  7. Jim Cummings
  8. Jim Dale
  9. June Foray
  10. Jennifer Hale
  11. Don LaFontaine
  12. Charles Martinet
  13. Don Messick
  14. Vic Mignogna
  15. Don Pardo
  16. Rob Paulsen
  17. Tara Strong
  18. Veronica Taylor
  19. Peter Thomas
  20. Frank Welker
I think they're all very good additions compared to our current list, i support them all; they haven't won a Emmy Award lifetime achievement award but considering that's completely unrelated to their field and even country it doesn't matter at all. Good work on the good additions. GuzzyG (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great work! Mamoru Miyano should definitely stay for being a voice actor who has won many awards and has an active live-action and singing career. Koichi Yamadera has a very diverse voice acting profile and is pretty much well-known in Japan even by non-anime fans (since a generation of Japanese kids grew up with him as he was the host of Oha Suta). Nana Mizuki and Aya Hirano were part of the boom that pioneered the crossover between Japanese idols and voice acting. Maaya Sakamoto is also a good choice. lullabying (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unobjectionable. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Miraclepine: I think this is clear consensus for now atleast, you can do the swaps now, if anyone objects they can always start a discussion, it'll be better than our current listings anyway, it'll be best to have this section cleaned up. The only problem with the entertainers section after that will be that there's no sports entertainers section (for people like the professional wrestlers and Meadowlark Lemon and Joan Weston) in which the point of their career was to entertain first. it's weird to list pro wrestlers with actual olympic wrestlers, we can get space from the magician (10), adult (5), model (5), radio (5) sections. GuzzyG (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Remove Jerry Lawler

Discussion ran for two months, result: 66% support removing, which per the rules, mandates removal. starship.paint (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


Note: Lawler was added to the list without discussion [2][3] within the last year. He was neither the best wrestling commentator ever (see Jim Ross, Bobby Heenan, Gordon Solie, Lance Russell, Gorilla Monsoon), nor a national icon as a wrestler, because when Lawler was mainly performing as a wrestler, professional wrestling in the United States was mostly comprised of regional pro-wrestling companies, not national pro-wrestling companies. All his championships were regional ones, not national ones. starship.paint (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. per nom starship.paint (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. He'll always be king of Memphis but perhaps not king of the world.LM2000 (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree. Lawler is the King of Memphis, but not on a National or World level. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Adding to this list (as opposed to the higher levels) without discussion is not an issue (and indeed the norm) if I'm not mistaken. Nevertheless, I agree with everyone else. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 11:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Lawler crawled out of his regional cartoon outhouse and took the whole cruddy scene with him to the grand shining sewers of New York, where he and Kaufmann opened the doors for all sorts of famous pop culture moments. Hogan choking Belzer! Schultz toppling Stossel! Warrior mindf*dging Arsenio! We should have at least 30 spots in this Vital Vestibule, room enough for this shadow demon and five new and exciting members from the Far East and South-beyond-the-South. Cut no one! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. the quota isn't set yet. tv/dance/comedy needs to be cut, but i plan to up wrestlers a bit, there should be as many as radio people and arguably models, infact there would be if wrestlers were not in sports first and thus the quota already made before they went to entertainers. Lawler is one of the most visible wrestlers due to his Kaufman association. GuzzyG (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

On that note, this list needs to be balanced more, so i'd have to see with Lawler. we need a balance between women, old timers missing like Martin Burns/George Hackenschmidt/Toots Mondt, all three top Lucha stars Mil Máscaras aswell, maybe other Japanese stars like Keiji Mutoh/Jumbo Tsuruta/Jushin Liger, the short era of British popularity Giant Haystacks/Shirley Crabtree, a Puerto Rico rep Pedro Morales, Shawn Michaels lol and a stable like New World Order (professional wrestling) and a tag team like The Road Warriors. Since this is a entertainment field, arguably even a ref like Earl Hebner or a ring announcer like Howard Finkel. As many areas as possible need to be represented. i'm going to clean up the list eventually, since it's over quota and i messed up a bit, but pro wrestling will probably get more, Jerry can be reevaulated then imo. GuzzyG (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GuzzyG: - so what would be the new quota? Who decides it? starship.paint (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: Probably 10 more for pro wrestling, but one would include Jim Ross being moved out of journalists into pro wrestling. there's not really a deciding process for this list, but the quotas are not proportionate to the lvl 4 list and are not proportionate to anything else (radio hosts being as much as pro wrestlers despite the latter being more prominent internationally and pro wrestlers getting more attention on wiki, which means pro wrestler articles have more of a need to be of high quality), so since im responsible for that, i was going to re-do them to give everything more balance. this list has been largely abandoned and since i am responsible for most of the additions, i was gonna correct it myself. Articles like Marie-Thérèse de Subligny (too niche), Joey Greco (too niche/american based) and Seth Rogen (too recent/american based, we could replace him with articles like Ahmed Zaki (actor), can be all cut down and articles like Blue Demon added because they clearly represent a more diverse point of view of what entertainers are vital worldwide. it's a long process and will probably take me a month and a half to work on it to research everything, but i have big hopes for this list and i plan to re-do some of the inside quotas when required. GuzzyG (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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 Blue Demon

Discussion ran for two months, result: 100% support adding, which per the rules, mandates inclusion. starship.paint (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

"An icon in Mexican wrestling and culture", who "transcended" wrestling to become an "authentic" movie star, as described by ESPN. "Legendary", stated BBC. One of the "three greatest luchadores in Mexican history", who also acted in "cult films", stated the Los Angeles Times. One of "Mexico's most famous luchadores", stated NPR. Right now 20/25 wrestlers in the list were based in the United States, this would balance the list internationally. starship.paint (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. per nom starship.paint (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. per nom.LM2000 (talk) 08:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A huge lucha libre and Mexican icon. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. he was already gonna get added when teh quotas fixed/cleaned up, along with Mil Máscaras. GuzzyG (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Remove Chyna

Discussion ran for two months, result: 60% support removing, which per the rules, mandates removal. starship.paint (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


Note: Chyna was added without discussion within the last year. Relatively short career in the WWF (4 years - 1997 to 2001), unnoteworthy career outside the WWF. Did break the mold with intergender matches, but did not leave much influence. Did win a secondary men's title, but not a men's world championship. Intergender matches were hardly significant in the WWF/WWE after Chyna. She failed to lift up women's wrestling in the United States, which continued to be not taken seriously (women's matches being treated as toilet breaks) in WWE, the dominant company nationally and internationally, until an upturn beginning in 2014. However, the upturn in WWE did not feature wrestlers in the mold of Chyna.

Support
  1. per nom starship.paint (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. She left an impact in WWF during her short career but I think it'd be hard to make a case that she's a top 25 wrestler in that company let alone all of pro wrestling history.LM2000 (talk) 08:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. She was important, but not a huge influence or game changer, like Toyota. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Intercontinental Champion, Royal Rumble participant, popular ringside enforcer. Even as a genderless professional wrestler, that's pretty impressive! But as a woman, even slightly moreso. That she wasn't (couldn't have been) followed by a line of clones is a point in her favour, in my view. Part of having an extraordinary life story. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. one of the most dominant women, we absolutely need her. she's better then Trish or Lita and we absolutely need to cover this area of women's wrestling. GuzzyG (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Add Manami Toyota

Discussion ran for two months, result: 100% support adding, which per the rules, mandates inclusion. starship.paint (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

All three women on the professional wrestling list are Americans who largely wrestled in the United States. I propose a representative of Japanese women's wrestling (also known as joshi puroresu), Manami Toyota. While in the United States, the rise of women's wrestling to match men's wrestling is only currently happening, in Japan this happened much earlier. According to Dave Meltzer, the preeminent wrestling journalist here, Toyota was may have been the greatest woman wrestler of all-time, on a par if not superior to any male pro wrestler of the 1990s as far as athleticism and garnering a reaction from fans, one of the first generation of women stars respected by the male wrestling fans, boosting the popularity of women's wrestling in Japan in the early 90s. Toyota is also acknowledged by The Washington Post as perhaps the greatest female wrestler of all time. Similarly, the Baltimore Sun - Toyota was considered one of the elite workers in the industry – male or female – in the '90s while competing for All-Japan Women's Pro Wrestling ... perhaps the greatest in-ring female performer of all time

Support
  1. per nom starship.paint (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Basically joshi's Cena. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. per nom.LM2000 (talk) 08:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. One of the greatest, most influencial wrestlers in history. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. She was always going to be added in the new quota update. GuzzyG (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Visual artists

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Artists, musicians, and composers#Visual artists for the list of topics in this category.

Add Emily Kame Kngwarreye

Add Emily Kame Kngwarreye to artists/painters

Add Hilma af Klint

The Swedish painter was the first abstract artist. Predates Wassily Kandinsky, who is at Level 4. See this summary for more.

Support
  1. As nom. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Pioneer of abstract art. Exemplifies how theosophical ideas influenced modern art. --Thi (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Musicians and composers

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Artists, musicians, and composers#Musicians and composers for the list of topics in this category.

Musicians section is complete

I have completed the musicians section; all the fluff has been removed; compare the current state of the musicians section [5]] and compare it to what it was [6]. I've worked on the musicians non stop for two weeks; now im doing the artists section; than the entertainers, than sports than misc and so on. I am going through every single person and removing people that are fluff or in areas we already over represent cut and swap. Everything here is perfect except we could've used 5 more Opera singers and R&B placements; as we're light on vocal groups like The Flamingos. But there's just so many musicians in general; we have over 80 missing musicians in the rock hall of fame and the same amount of winning grammy winners. I would like people to specifically go over and criticize the musicians section harshly and where we could improve. I think this section should now require a vote for any swaps; since it's our one complete/stable section/no outright bad additions, what do you all think? I disagree on how i used to operate this list and my additions and completely changed in what i believe belongs on these lists.

Pinging everybody who's edited this area a bit. @Dawid2009:, @Purplebackpack89:, @Thi:, @Piotrus:, @DaGizza:, @J947: and @Miraclepine:; what do you all think? Are there any areas or really important musicians we are missing in areas of music you know best? @Neljack: you know alot about opera from what i've seen, is there anyone missing that jumps out of the 50 i've chosen? Pauline Viardot and Giovanni Matteo Mario seem to be the two biggest misses to me. Anyway i'm happy for any constructive criticism as this section is pretty much complete in my eyes and if we were the Britannica/a print book, our first section ready to publish, what do all of you think? GuzzyG (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very familiar with music, so I can speak mainly through the prism of WikiProject Poland contributor, and note that Polish presence in this list seems to be limited to a single entry (Chopin, also at lv 4). No other names mentioned in the lead of Music of Poland are included here. Witold Lutosławski and Krzysztof Penderecki should be added, and likely Karol Szymanowski and Henryk Górecki. Ignacy Jan Paderewski should be included in either this or the politician list. I really can't comment on pop music since I simply don't listen to Polish one much, but I would ask if you have went over the names mention in lead of this article (and other Music in Foo Country articles) and considered them? Polish section in pop-culture right now lists Marek Grechuta and Czesław Niemen, I'll note that Niemien is mentioned in the MoP article, but not in the lead, and Grechuta is not mentioned at all. I'd ping an expert on Polish music but I don't know any, uh, maybe User:Nihil novi or User:Volunteer Marek could say something, but that's a long shot :) Based on just the Polish case, I am afraid the current version may suffer from WP:SYSTEMICBIAS (through a quick glance at J-pop and K-pop does suggest to me it's ok, through I'd propose adding Yoko Kanno to J-pop list). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: First i just want to say that there's no systematic bias here and i've just found swaps for every suggestion of yours; i've tried to include every kind of non-western art music and instrument i can, Chinese opera, every foreign language i can among others; unless you mean towards pop and rock music compared to classical but on the level 3 list we list a 20th century pop and rock musician but no 20th century classical musician; 20th century classical music just hasn't had the same impact on culture and should be limited in comparison. I didn't add the pianists and i thought Ignacy Jan Paderewski was in politicians, i planned to add Karol Szymanowski but somehow forgot him, we listed Ichirou Mizuki for anime composition, so that area wasn't missing. @Dawid2009: added Marek Grechuta and he's Polish. Poland isn't a country known for it's pop music and i think 2 is enough; my method of adding people is clicking through every single article in wikipedias categories and reading them and adding them to my massive excel sheet that compares things like pageviews, pageedits, wikidata languages, google ngrams and scholar hits, worldcat hits, new york times mentions, if they have a britannica article and so on etc. it's a big process and it's not based on subjective feelings. realistically the area we're limited the most in foreign languages is Arabic music; but we just don't have the quota for it; i've always said we should've had a 25k quota; but people thought it's not possible to add that much. it is; there's so many different cultures not covered. Every country probably has 5 composers that they could list like you did; we can't realistically list them all. GuzzyG (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I am not insisting they are added, but I did want to mention them, through that said I really think Witold Lutosławski (FA, described in the lead as "one of the major European composers of the 20th century, and one of the preeminent Polish musicians during his last three decades") and Krzysztof Penderecki (from the lead: " The Guardian has called him Poland's greatest living composer") should go in - could you comment on why they didn't make the final cut? PS. Your method of calculating the entries is very interesting, would you consider sharing your excel with us? Ideally I'd suggest it it something that could be worked on collaboratively in google docs.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jacek Kaczmarski and Ewa Demarczyk. Volunteer Marek 04:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: I lost my edit i spent 40 mins on in a edit conflict so it probably won't be as indepth but, i wanted to thank you for your suggestions, i found good swaps for them and they're a improvement; they missed the final cut because i didn't come across them in my search; which is extremely time consuming to go through every countries musicians and sometimes i make mistakes. I can't share my excel sheets because it's apart of a independent website and project i am working on; but i've provided evidence they exist before and i've shown a bit of my acting sheet on how indepth they are (look at the sheets at the bottom) [7], i want to compete with sites like [8] so i don't want to go indepth on my formula; which makes them pointless to reference here but i just wanted to mention that i do have some kind of method since i am the main contributor to these lists; this is what i want to do as a career; i track anyone from politicians to reality television contestants; i want to create my own biographical dictionary; so it requires me to examine nearly everyone. I'll swap our two listed Polish singers for Marek's two. Thanks again for both of your suggestions, they're a improvement to our list. GuzzyG (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Demarczyk is probably a good addition. As much as I like Kaczmarski personally, I am not sure if he is really famous compared to 'some others'. Might be useful to look at Poland in the Eurovision Song Contest for some ideas of what people listen to now. Demarczyk is, IMHO, a famous name in Poland, but her fame dates to few decades ago... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kaczmarski is most definitely really famous. Also got Polonia Restiuta if I'm not mistaken. Volunteer Marek 09:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Since we list so many male Polish composers; the pop music section should list Ewa Demarczyk and Edyta Górniak, what do you think? Both represent two different styles of popular singing and both represent different eras; so there's no overlap; i think they'd be perfect representations; we don't need men because we added all of the composers and they are all men. GuzzyG (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GuzzyG: With the repeated note that I don't consider myself an expert in the field of music, I do recognize both of those names and I think they could be included, so no objection (and I think both are more famous than JK). Through I don't think that gender bias is a factor for vital inclusion. (In fact, I'd suspect that in pop music females are more common than males anyway). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GuzzyG: FWIHW Edyta Górniak IMO is better choice than Doda (singer) despite fact she is not mentioned in foo in Poland aeticle. Roksana Węgiel is now known in Poland as "The new Górniak". Dawid2009 (talk) 06:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gorniak is a good choice. Volunteer Marek 09:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some other suggestions (I'm not familiar with the criteria here) - Jerzy Petersburski, Stanisław Grzesiuk, Fanny Gordon. Volunteer Marek 09:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GuzzyG: You have done an admirable job - thanks for all the great work! Just a few suggestions.
There are two tenors missing who rang among the very greatest: Fritz Wunderlich, generally regarded as the greatest German tenor, and Lauritz Melchior, almost universally regarded as the greatest heldentenor. Among sopranos, there is Victoria de los Angeles, voted the third greatest soprano of the recorded era in a BBC Music Magazine poll of critics a few years ago, and Lotte Lehmann, the great German soprano of the interwar period. And two legendary baritones of the post-war years, Tito Gobbi and Hans Hotter, are must-haves - next to Fischer-Dieskau, they are probably the most acclaimed baritones of the recorded era. Christa Ludwig is widely regarded as the greatest mezzo-soprano and should be included ahead of Cecilia Bartoli.
It is of course necessary to make room for them. While Renee Fleming and Anna Netrebko are among the leading sopranos of today, they do not enjoy the same critical reputation of others on this list. Beverly Sills and Jessye Norman, while celebrated in America, never quite attained that kind of international reputation either. Mario del Monaco was famous as the world's loudest tenor, but received much criticism for his lack of subtlety. Emma Calvé and Lily Pons, while great singers, are also probably not quite at this level of reputation - if a French soprano is wanted, Regine Crespin would be the strongest candidate. I don't think I would even include Kiri Te Kanawa, despite my bias as a New Zealander.
Carlos Kleiber, the legendary though reclusive conductor who topped a poll of his peers as the greatest conductor of all time a few years ago[9], is the omission that stands out when it comes to conductors. Nikolaus Harnoncourt and Sir John Eliot Gardiner (who both also polled highly in that poll) have had huge influence in promoting historically informed performance and also warrant inclusion, in my view. I would suggest Seiji Ozawa, Zubin Mehta and James Levine could make way for them - they are all famous conductors of recent times, but have had less of a wider influence on classical music.
Dinu Lipatti, despite his short life, is widely regarded as one of the greatest pianists of the 20th century. I would suggest swapping him for Garrick Ohlsson. Neljack (talk) 09:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Neljack: Thank you! Thanks for your help and suggestions too! so here's what i've done:
I have removed Garrick Ohlsson and added Dinu Lipatti
Removed James Levine/Eugene Ormandy/Zubin Mehta/Seiji Ozawa and added Carlos Kleiber/Nikolaus Harnoncourt/Pierre Monteux/John Eliot Gardiner
For singers i've removed Kiri Te Kanawa/Renée Fleming/Beverly Sills/Jessye Norman/Mario Del Monaco/Cecilia Bartoli/Emma Calvé/Lily Pons and added Fritz Wunderlich/Lauritz Melchior/Victoria de los Ángeles/Lotte Lehmann/Tito Gobbi/Christa Ludwig/Hans Hotter/Regine Crespin
I've kept Anna Netrebko because i think we should have two contemporary opera singers; a man and a woman preferably and we already have Jonas Kaufmann. Especially considering the popular music section has so many contemporary singers; two contemporary opera singers does not hurt in my opinion. I think we cover all main styles of singing now; is there anything still missing? GuzzyG (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GuzzyG: Thanks - that looks great! Monteux is a good add - he's more important that Ormandy and provides a representative of the French tradition. The only type of opera singer we don't have one of is a counter-tenor, but they are something of a niche voice type (and we have castrati, whose roles they often sing) so I'm not sure we need one. I can't see any glaring omissions of the top of my head - I think you've done a great job! Neljack (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! GuzzyG (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for compiling much of the list @GuzzyG:. There is a lot to go through. Had a quick look at the 'Non-English language popular music' section and it appears that the biggest European country lacking representation in that section is the Ukraine. It stands out as there are smaller ex-Soviet countries with representation. Vitas spent his childhood in Odessa but I wouldn't consider him to be a Ukrainian singer. Someone like Ani Lorak or Sofia Rotaru to a lesser extent, would be useful additions. At the expense of whom? Probably a Russian since Russia has the equal highest number of articles (equal with Korea but K-pop has overall is influential and popular in the Western and English-speaking world than modern Russian music). Gizza (t)(c) 02:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DaGizza: Thank you! I didn't add much of the Russian musicians but it appears that Joseph Kobzon, Leonid Utyosov and Alexander Vertinsky are all from the Ukraine aswell. I think Laskovyi Mai can be removed for Ani Lorak and we could find someone else for Sofia Rotaru; but i wanted to know if those three changed your mind a bit? Even though ofcourse we'd still need a modern/independent Ukraine singer. It seems our list covers all styles of Russian music pop, rock, rap, jazz, undergroud folk and punk which is why there's 20. Also do you agree with the changes to the artists quotas? I tried to make "non-western art" more representative and cut down photography by a lot, and cut down comics to make room for sculpture/architecture which has been more important longer. I'd appreciate any suggestions, thanks again. GuzzyG (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just updating; i've swapped Laskovyi Mai for Lorak. A modern Ukrainian singer was needed. GuzzyG (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I miss some contemprary composers: Elliott Carter, Unsuk Chin (now added), Henri Dutilleux, Hans Werner Henze, Zoltán Kodály (pedagogue), Luigi Nono, Michael Nyman, Alfred Schnittke, Michael Tippett. Probably also Sofia Gubaidulina, Georg Friedrich Haas, Jennifer Higdon, Meredith Monk (National Medal of Arts), Rebecca Saunders and Pēteris Vasks.

Notable missing singers are Renée Fleming, Kiri Te Kanawa, Emma Kirkby, Cecilia Bartoli (Polar music prize), Jessye Norman, Diana Damrau, Joyce DiDonato and Barbara Hannigan. I would also add some instrumentalists: Sarah Chang, Julia Fischer, James Galway, Midori Goto, Hélène Grimaud, Janine Jansen, Gidon Kremer, Viktoria Mullova, Anne-Sophie Mutter, János Starker and Alisa Weilerstein.

Outsider music: Wild Man Fischer seems unnecessary. Bob Marley and the Wailers seems not necessary when Bob Marley is listed. Maybe not all sections need minimum of five articles. The Buggles can be swapped with Video Killed the Radio Star. Heavy metal section would benefit from Rainbow (rock band). I am not convinced that Skrewdriver is needed when RAC is listed elsewhere. Laibach would be more interesting as phenomenon. I wish Diana Krall would fit to the jazz section.

Rock music can be organized differently. I'm not sure if Post-Hardcore and emo and Alternative music or even Punk music are necessary categories. Many biographies in Alternative section could be in Rock, because alternative rock is a marketing term. Such bands as Dead Can Dance are more difficult to categorize. Hard rock, progressive rock and Rock and roll can also be used as section headers.

Some rock pioneers can be included instead of The Quarrymen and The Kingsmen: Link Wray, The Ventures, The Shadows, The Animals and The Sonics. ZZ Top would be definite choice and The B-52's would not be bad. The Stone Roses is important to Britpop and The Sisters of Mercy is maybe as important to gothic rock as Siouxsie and the Banshees. Progressive rock representation would need Procol Harum, Jethro Tull, Emerson, Lake & Palmer, Mike Oldfield and Porcupine Tree.

I am not sure if Eppu Normaali is vital for English-language Wikipedia. In this case some less popular genres can be more useful choice for the project and international audience, such as folk or world music, for example Hedningarna. --Thi (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can propose Basshunter from Sweden. What do you think? Eurohunter (talk) 10:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Writers

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Writers and journalists#Writers for the list of topics in this category.

Prose writers

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Writers and journalists#Prose writers for the list of topics in this category.

Poets

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Writers and journalists#Poets for the list of topics in this category.

Playwrights

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Writers and journalists#Playwrights for the list of topics in this category.

Journalists

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Writers and journalists#Journalists for the list of topics in this category.

Politicians and leaders

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Politicians and leaders for the list of topics in this category.

Canadian PMs

Considering the other full sets we have of various other types of political leaders, I've went ahead and added most of the remaining PMs from 1900 onwards, the exceptions being those in the 1890s who served very brief terms. Any objections? pbp 13:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am in general support of your idea, however I propose we remove the very short-term prime ministers (e.g. Kim Campbell) and replace them with other Canadian politicians of great significance, for example Rene Levesque and George-Etienne Cartier are fairly obvious additions; but we could expand the discussion to include people like Nellie McClung, Peter Lougheed, and Vincent Massey. NorthernFalcon (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-1911 Politicians Without 1911 Britannica articles, selected countries

An * denotes still politicking in 1911. Source.

Germany, Austria, HRE Sophie, Countess of Bar; Bernard VII, Lord of Lippe; William IV, Princely count of Henneberg-Schleusingen; Albert Frederick, Duke of Prussia; Friedrich Günther, Prince of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt

You ask, "Why these countries?" I'm operating on the fact that Britannica 1911 disproportionately covered British, European, American and Commonwealth topics, and therefore, being absent as a politician from those countries would be a particular indictment. pbp 13:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Te Kooti sounds to me more like a religious figure than a politician. Perhaps it can be moved to that section? feminist (talk) 02:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe military given that he has a war named for him and the lead in his article discusses his involvement in that war more than anything else.--Cincotta1 (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent van Gogh isn't covered either, should we remove him from the level 3 list? I mean if not being covered as a European is a disqualifier for level 5?, ignoring the fact that a "legacy" can be better documented after 100 years, or the fact women Martha Washington and indigenous leaders Te Kooti or figures from a country then without a established history like Australia who was only around 10 years old are going to be obviously missing and as such i don't think basing our modern list of a 100 year old source severely outdated with modern historiography is any improvement. GuzzyG (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even though historiography has evolved since 1911, I believe the 1911 Britannica to be a mostly fair assessment of certain aspects of pre-1911 society. If you're a pre-1900 white male political leader who didn't make the 1911 Britanncia, that's no slight indictment. Van Gogh isn't a great example because he hadn't been dead very long when the 1911 Britannica came out. pbp 19:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tuvalu

So just to be clear; are we making it official that out of every country; Tuvalu in particular is the ONE official UN country that will not have a representative? Is there one super important senator we're missing? GuzzyG (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In all honestly, I wouldn't mind cutting more. Micro-states in general as a rule shouldn't have their representatives listed here unless they also had an impact internationally. Somewhere someone said that such states are smaller than neighbourhoods in big cities, and it is a point. Impact is relevant to vital inclusion. A mediocre hip hop artist or such will have much more impact than a president or such of a tiny island or city state. Of course, this can be discussed on a case by case basis. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have an extremely limited/strict view of "vitality", the level 5 list is "vital" in name only, it was meant to be a representative coverage of pop culture topics and people who are popular now like PewDiePie because those articles are important to have written well as they are highly viewed and won't be covered by the level 4 list for decades., which means we cover alot of pop culture things like voice actors etc. We shouldn't dismiss microstates pop culture all because they're microstates. Choosing what people matter due to their population its wrong, it's absurd. This is also what's wrong with removals like Ana Kasparian we list commentators and we have a quota of 5 for web journalists, which other web journalist is more important than her? There's not 15k "strict vital" people. 2k is even pushing it. Laurence Fishburne may be more known than Mel Blanc or John Holmes for that matter but i'd rather cover the top 30 voice/porn actors than the 851st best actor, no matter what had the bigger impact, in that case we should list 15k philosophers and physicists. GuzzyG (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this approach, which does have some merit, is the usual 'where do we draw the border'. Paddy Roy Bates makes the cut, for example. What about the ~30 others from Category:Micronational leaders? Surely we won't include all of them...? Top 5? Top % of a category? Case by case basis. Show me the bio of that Tuvalu politician that may merit inclusion and I'll vote on it. But if there is nothing to it than to say 'he held this position for x years and had next to zero impact on anything we can identify', yeah, I'd rather add someone like Bates, because they had more impact, as in, for example, 'received international media coverage'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)There are bigger countries with no representatives at the moment. We should focus on adding people from those countries than the smallest. If we're at 2290 articles (with a quota of 2300) and we can't find anyone else, we could re-add a leader from Tuvalu. A few months ago, there were more Oceanian modern political leaders than African and almost as many as South America. It's not as lopsided now as it was but even if the remaining quota goes to non-Oceania, it will be still feel a touch imbalanced, considering the number of countries, area, population, recorded history, etc. in each region of the world. Gizza (t)(c) 07:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Paddy Roy Bates is listed in Misc under micronations and the two we list is enough; obviously porn and voice acting has had a larger impact than micronations and it is a case by case; section by section basis. Africa and South America are low unlike Asia because i haven't done them yet, it takes time. Obviously i believe every country should be listed, i just started with the easiest first (Oceania); this is the problems with these removals, i have a mapped out plan and people start nitpicking "why list Oceania when we dont have Africa etc" i cant operate when my quotas are being changed out from under me and made uneven. It messes up my mapped out process. GuzzyG (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to echo what DaGizza said. There are countries in Africa, as well as places like San Marino and Andorra, that have no representatives. I'd also point out that many of these teeny-tiny nations lack some of the things that you associate with a country. For example, many of the tiny Oceanian states are dependent on Australia, New Zealand or the United States for military defense. Also, if we are at or near quota, I'd urge everyone to consider the removals I proposed above. pbp 15:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We're 213 away from quota, so i don't see why we have to mass remove people, where are these 213 going to come from? Before a removal happens we should atleast know what for. 213 spaces and we can't cover a Tuvalu, Niue or Cook Islands person? GuzzyG (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am totally fine with adding more now. Later when we have the limit reached and we want to add more we can chat about replacing. That may be easier. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Post-1815 slant of Lv 5 politicians list?

The now-stable level 4 list contains 509 politicians of which 320 (62.9%) are from before 1815 and 189 (37.1%) are from after 1815. By contrast, the level 5 list contains 2192 politicians, of which 934 (42.6%) are from before 1815 and 1258 (57.4%) are from after 1815. Or, to put it another way, post-1815 politicians have increased 6.66-fold between Lvs 4 and 5, while pre-1815 politicians have only increased 2.92-fold. Are we too post-1815-heavy? pbp 17:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure. Consider the fact that post-1815 human population is much bigger, which means more people (and topics in general) are notable. But most of them are on average less notable than old luminaries (and concepts). So it makes sense, in fact, that as progress to less and less vital lists, the proportion of post-1815 topics would increase. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are two factors. As Piotrus says, one is that the human population of the world is higher post-1815 than pre-1815 and the other is that many parts of the world were not part of recorded history in ancient times. Having said that, while I agree that as the level goes higher, there will be more "recentism" in the list, the extent of the slant at the moment is still a little too high in my opinion. History is expected to be a well covered field in an encyclopedia. A ruler of an empire containing 5 million people a thousand years ago would have been much more influential than a president or prime minister of a country containing 30 million today. If you compare this list with a Britannica or another encyclopedia containing a similar number of biographies, my guess is that they would have more historical figures than us.
At the moment (and this is only one of many examples), we only have two Hittites, an important ancient civilisation. On the other hand, until recently we had three Palauans and even now we have two (one in political and one in revolutionaries). Comparing the two, the Hittites were around for much longer, had a larger population, and left a stronger legacy in terms of architecture, technology, art and literature. So yes, we have much more work to do with ancient historical figures. Gizza (t)(c) 21:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DaGizza: Let's collaborate on identifying at least three more Hittites to add to the list. And we should probably also have more Carthaginians, more Roman Republic, and more Ancient Greece. pbp 21:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right now as an approximation, ancient leaders have expanded by 2.99x, post-classical (medieval) by 2.55, early modern by 3.11, and modern by 6.67. Within post-classical, Asia and Africa have both only roughly doubled even though Level 5 overall represents a fivefold increase, the biographies target has multiplied by 7.5 and target for political leaders by 4.52. Ancient leaders need expansion too but the areas I mentioned have the biggest need to grow (and to be frank, even the Level 4 political leader and bio list is too recentist for my liking but it gets exacerbated here). To take another example, we consider the civilization of Elam to be vital at Level 4 and its main city of Susa as a vital archeological site at Level 4, but before today there were no Elamite leaders. I get it that it's easier to find modern leaders and expecting a 7.5, 5.0 or 4.52 increase for older periods to keep it in line with L4 is asking too much for the reasons discussed above but it should be much more than it is now. Especially when many ancient kingdoms, empires and civilisations currently have a zero-fold increase. Gizza (t)(c) 03:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd be satisfied if we could have a 3.5-fold increase. And we should probably change some of those zero-fold increases (0 to 0) to infinite-fold increase (0 to any positive number). pbp 04:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq

Is there some sort of quota on how many politicians Pakistan can have? Because I find it really odd that both Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq are not on this list considering how important these guys are (the former leading the country following its disastrous defeat in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971/Bangladesh Liberation War; the latter whose almost decade rule funded the mujahideen in Afghanistan and made political Islam a major force in today's politics). Saturdayopen (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom. Saturdayopen (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Add Ferhat Abbas and Ahmed Ben Bella

Unless there can only be two post-independent Algerian leaders, there is no justification for the omission of Abbas (who served as the political leader for the FLN during the Algerian War) and Ben Bella (who was the first full-fledged president of the country). Saturdayopen (talk) 05:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom. Saturdayopen (talk) 05:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Add Nur Muhammad Taraki, Hafizullah Amin, and Babrak Karmal

Look, you cannot talk about the Soviet–Afghan War without mentioning these three leaders, especially the last one since Karmal handled the war much differently than Najibullah. Considering how brief Taraki's and Amin's rule was, I don't have a problem moving them under the revolutionaries. Never mind, the revolutionaries section is full. Still, I do think it's important to include the two people whose chaotic and unpopular rule led to the Soviets invading Afghanistan. Saturdayopen (talk) 05:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom. Saturdayopen (talk) 05:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Add Edmund Muskie

Muskie served as U.S. Secretary of State, was the Democratic nominee for vice president in 1968 running with Hubert Humphrey, was a prominent contender for president in 1972, and as a longtime senator from Maine, authored the two most significant pieces of environmental legislation in living memory. This list includes several other unsuccessful major party nominees for vice president, none of whom did as much of significant outside their candidacy as did Muskie. OnAcademyStreet (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Nominator. OnAcademyStreet (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Discuss

Businesspeople

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Miscellaneous#Businesspeople for the list of topics in this category.

Remove Marshall Field, add Tadashi Yanai

Yanai is the richest person in Japan and a pioneer in fast fashion, basically a modern-day Amancio Ortega. Since we are already over quota in this section, someone needs to be removed. We have multiple founders of department stores, and Marshall Field's namesake chain has been defunct since 2006. I am open to other suggestions for removals. feminist (talk) | free Hong Kong 06:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nominator. feminist (talk) | free Hong Kong 06:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

One has a Britannica [10], is a historical figure with a ongoing legacy in Field Museum of Natural History and a pioneer in retail and the other is just the current richest person of a country, just like Ortega, who is still modern and with no britannica and not a historical figure yet. Eike Batista used to be the richest person in Brazil and on the 2k list too and now on neither level - cause he lost his contemporary importance. Either way, i removed Trump's dad and swapped him in - if one had to go it's certainly him. If Yanai loses his spot though, he should be swapped with whoever replaces him as the richest in Japan. GuzzyG (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Explorers

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Miscellaneous#Explorers for the list of topics in this category.

Jurists

 Completed

American slant of jurists list

Over half of the jurists on this list are American, and the list includes rather obscure Supreme Court justices and a lot of celebrity lawyers. If we decide to cut the size of bios, that would mean cutting ~20 jurists, and I think all 20 of the ones we cut should be American. pbp 14:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's what i would've done if misc was cut by a couple 100 so we could add 100 to a much needed science and politics and religion expansion, but since every section can be cut 500 with the proposed cut to the size of bios, i agree with this, at that point the whole of misc can be cut down by a significant margin (i'd propose down to 500-600). Infact before the proposed cuts happen; i hope there's a discussion into what the sub quotas will be for each section, because ones like military & activists, religion, science and social science can't be cut by 500, which means bigger cuts will have to happen to sports, artists & musicians, writers & journalists, entertainers and maybe politicians. My 2cents would be not touching the science/religion quotas, because they're significantly under quota as is. I still think law figures should be under social science, for what it's worth too. GuzzyG (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crime

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Miscellaneous#Crime for the list of topics in this category.

Philosophers

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists#Philosophers for the list of topics in this category.

Historians

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists#Historians for the list of topics in this category.

Add Bernard Bailyn

Very influential historian of early American history. He has won a substantial number of awards and honors and his writings have been very consequential for the direction of the field of early American history. He has been a professor at Harvard University since 1953; his list of notable students shows his impact on American history and historians. The Further reading section of his article notes some of the notable historians who have written about his impact.   // Timothy :: talk  18:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom   // Timothy :: talk  18:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Makkool (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Clayton Cramer

It appears this individual is known more for his political activism than his work as a historian. I see nothing in the article demonstrates that he is influential as a historian, especially when compared with others on this list.   // Timothy :: talk  19:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom   // Timothy :: talk  19:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Should be moved to political activists, instead of removing out-right. --Makkool (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Add Anne Applebaum

An influential historian of Soviet history, Stalinism and genocide. She has won numerous awards and honors and written several influential works, (Gulag: A History, Iron Curtain, Red Famine). Her works are notable for casting a light on Stalinist genocide and oppression and refuting Stalinist nostalgia and apologists.   // Timothy :: talk  19:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom   // Timothy :: talk  19:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Thi (talk) 09:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Makkool (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove James Bryce, 1st Viscount Bryce

Not notable as a historian, especially when compared to others on this list. Notable as a jurist, politician, aristocrat.

Support
  1. per nom.   // Timothy :: talk  20:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Should be moved to jurists, instead of removing out-right. --Makkool (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Henry Geldzahler

Not notable as a historian, especially when compared to others on this list. Notable mainly as an art curator and critic. If included belongs in the Art historians, musicologists and critics section.

Support
  1. per nom.   // Timothy :: talk  21:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Should be moved to art historians and critics, instead of removing out-right. --Makkool (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Józef Ignacy Kraszewski

Not notable as a historian, especially when compared to others on this list. He notable as a writer and historical novelist, but not notable as a historian.

Support
  1. per nom.   // Timothy :: talk  21:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Makkool (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Matrakçı Nasuh

Notable for many things, but not really notable as a historian, especially when compared to others on this list.

Support
  1. per nom.   // Timothy :: talk  21:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Makkool (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Trần Trọng Kim

Notable as a politician , not particularly notable as a historian, especially when compared to others on this list.

Support
  1. per nom.   // Timothy :: talk  22:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Makkool (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Yeah, Việt Nam sử lược has no influence at all. There's historians outside the west too, you know. GuzzyG (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Remove Julius Wellhausen

Notable as a theologian and biblical scholar, not notable as a historian, especially when compared to others on this list.

Support
  1. per nom.   // Timothy :: talk  22:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Should be moved to religious people, instead of removing out-right. --Makkool (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Kevin Brownlow

Notable as a filmmaker, not particular notable as a historian, but as a film historian, might be a better fit in Art historians, musicologists and critics section

Support
  1. per nom.   // Timothy :: talk  22:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Should be moved to art historians and critics, instead of removing out-right. --Makkool (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Frank Popper

Better fit in Art historians, musicologists and critics section

Support
  1. per nom.   // Timothy :: talk  22:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Should be moved to art historians and critics, instead of removing out-right. --Makkool (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Arlene Raven

Better fit in Art historians, musicologists and critics section

Support
  1. per nom.   // Timothy :: talk  22:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Should be moved to art historians and critics, instead of removing out-right. --Makkool (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Bernard Smith (art historian)

Better fit in Art historians, musicologists and critics section

Support
  1. per nom.   // Timothy :: talk  22:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Should be moved to art historians and critics, instead of removing out-right. --Makkool (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Social scientists

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists#Social scientists for the list of topics in this category.

Religious figures

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Religious figures for the list of topics in this category.

Thoughts on Protestantism, Mormonism and "Other Christians"

  1. When looking at the 50 Protestant articles, 27 (54%) are American (which includes some people active in both the US and Canada), 9 (18%) are British, 6 (12%) are German, 5 (10%) come from elsewhere in Europe, and 3 (6%) come from elsewhere (one African and two Australians)
  2. 36% of the Protestant articles deal with people active in the 20th or 21st centuries, 20% from the 19th centuries, 14% from the 18th, 8% from the 17th, and 22% from before that
  3. When also including Mormons and "Other Christians", there are 64 articles, of which 38 (59.4%) are American, 9 (14.1%) are British, 6 (9.4%) are German, 6 (9.4%) are from elsewhere in Europe, 0 are Latin American, 1 (1.6%) is African, 2 (3.1%) are Asian and 2 (3.1%) are Australian
  4. 21 of the 64 articles are about people from the 20th or 21st centuries, 20 from the 19th, 8 from the 18th, 4 from the 17th and 11 from before that
  5. In general, I think it's too heavily weighted toward those of the Pentecostal and Evangelical persuasion. My count gives us 15 from that persuasion, All but Brian Houston are American, all were active in the 20th or 21st centuries and five of them are still living.
  6. Of the Pentecostal/Evangelicals, I think the easiest cuts are Jim Bakker and Franklin Graham. Jim Bakker has only four interwiki links; and his ex-wife is also on the list. Franklin Graham's father is on the list. I would also rate Paula White, John G. Lake and Brian Houston as not safely on this list. None of those three has double-digit interwiki links; White and Houston also smack of recentism.
  7. I think it would be good idea to add back Alexander Campbell and John Dowie. Both make appearances in the 1911 Britannica. We don't have any representation of the Restoration Movement ("Stone-Campbell Movement") that spawned the Disciples of Christ and other Christian churches around the world. Also, it seems strange to have John Lake (who was influenced by Dowie) but not Dowie himself. Dawid mentioned William Wadé Harris above; that would be a solid option for a second African Protestant (or third if we keep Lake and consider his influence in Africa).
  8. On Mormonism, I think it's too heavily toward the early stuff, and should include at least one 20th or 21st century person to represent the faith's astronomical growth during that period. Gordon Hinckley would be my suggestion, swapped out for either Hyrum Smith or Sidney Rigdon.
  9. In general, the list could do with less recentism and more internationalism

pbp 00:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I support removing Bakker, and oppose removing Graham because he is connected to Trump, he called him his minister. That makes him permanently vital, he might be mentioned in history books someday. Paula White is also tied to Trump: she was the first woman to read the invocation at his inauguration.
  2. I don't think we need anybody from the restoration movement, so I oppose Campbell and Dowie.
  3. Instead, I suggest adding Katharina von Bora, Luther's wife, petty German nobility, and ex Catholic nun. She influnced Protestant family life and was the first Christian woman to marry a Christian clergyman. Another option for addition is Dirk Willems, Dutch Anabaptist. Both 16th century.
  4. Mormonism already has too many representatives (in proportion to its membership), I wouldn't add anybody and remove both Hyrum Smith and Sidney Rigdon.
  5. Also, I see no reason to keep William M. Branham on the list as he doesn't clearly represent protestantism.
  6. An adequate section covering the charismatic movement is needed and many on the list are part of it, esp. the newer megachurch televangelists: Joel Osteen, Paula White, Brian Houston, Tammy Faye Messner. These are very influential because unlike in previous centuries they reach people directly worldwide via satellite and the internet and for the purposes of this list, their biographies can't easily be replaced by an invention or work of art or TV program. The rising Charismatic movement might explain why we have so many Pentecoastal Evangelicals on the list, because Charismatics are often classified as such or come from this background. We list about 100 videogames, so it would be justified to have room for them on the list. The charismatic movement is viewed as inter-denominational or non-denominational.
  7. In terms of international diversity we have German Bonhoeffer, Swiss Barth, Canadian Lake, Australian Flynn, British John Stott, and Australian Brian Houston. Possible additions I found are: Martyn Lloyd-Jones, a Brit, and Chris Oyakhilome, Nigerian televangelism phenomenon.
  8. For denominational diversity, maybe Robert Schuller has a case: Reformed, went to a Calvinist college, American, drive-in megachurch, pioneering televangelist (Hour of power).

--Spaced about (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a case for keeping either Franklin Graham OR Paula White, but I don't think we need both. If I may ask, why no to the Restoration movement? Should I make the charismatic section a section separate from Protestantism? If I do, should I retitle the residue "mainline" protestantism? I could get behind adding Bora and Willems if we find the room. pbp 20:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Restoration movement is best presented by the article itself, we don't need representatives, and with a quota of only 500 religious figures we shouldn't add them for the sake of representing earlier centuries, because the recent overhang can be explained by the charismatic movement.

Charismatic movement, in my opinion, is a subsection of Protestantism for now, meaning in 2020. It might change in ten or twenty years. They are commonly perceived as Protestant. The opposite of charismatic is not "mainline". There is fundamental, mainline, evangelical, and charismatic, as I understand it, based on Internet research and experience. (I'm not an expert on Protestantism.) So, I would put only a subheading in Protestantism and nothing else.

Concerning room: William M. Branham is a controversial figure. I would take him off the list. The article, even though featured (recently), is misleading. He doesn't represent any denomination or movement within the Protestant church. We have no data on how large his followership still is, the article says (in the lead) they send out 2 million copies of material - that doesn't mean a thing. I have only limited trust in the rest of the article. He is widely considered a cult leader, portrayed as a prophet by his followers. Not a dangerous cult perhaps, but a cult, and that makes him not a good choice for a representative list of Protestant personalities. Sources that say he's a cult leader seem to have been ignored, maybe accidentally: Gomes, Alan W., Unmasking the Cults, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1995, page 26, confirms this view and is used in the lead in the corresponding German Wikipedia artcle, but not in the English article. The author, Alan Gomes, is affiliated with Biola University, so that's a reliable source. The English featured article names a piece by an author affiliated with Mercer University, also a reliable source, in the second sentence, to create the impression that there is a linear evolution from Branham to the charismatic movement, whose protagonists are not usually perceived as prophets. There are sources for that but I don't think that's the majority. This should be better reflected in the lead of the article. So, regardless of what our featured article says, I think Branham has no place on the list. --Spaced about (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I happen to live only a few miles from BIOLA, and while it is a university, it's one with a clear bent, and that bent is in favor of charismatic and fundamential Christianity (BIOLA is actually an acronym for "Bible Institute of Los Angeles", all students who attend are required to major or minor in Bible, and all teachers pledge to certain moral restrictions). If a BIOLA article is what's propping up his claim to influence, I'd agree that he can go. pbp 18:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw the article, I know it's a Christian college, but all the more they should know. If it were true that Branham is an early predecessor of the Charismatic movement, they would acknowledge that. He is not a Charismatic and he's highly criticized, so he's not a typical representative of Protestantism and should be removed.--18:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaced about (talk • contribs)

Abraham and Old Testament

Noting that "Abraham and other Old Testament figures are listed under Mythology and legend." under Judaism seems neither correct nor sensitive. Old Testament is a Christian term.--Jetam2 (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to: "Abraham and other figures from Judeo-Christian scripture are listed on the philosophy and religion subpage." Other options include "Tanakh" or "Hebrew bible". --10:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC) --Spaced about (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Ham (son of Noah), Shem, and Japheth

In the articles, there is nothing giving any importance to these sons of Noah.

Support
  1. As nom. --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Military leaders and theorists

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Military personnel, revolutionaries, and activists#Military personnel and theorists for the list of topics in this category.

Remove Hermann Balck

I'm a history teacher at a German Gymnasium (high school) and never heard of him. After reading the article, I don't find anything making him particularly notable. In general, I think 35 German military people are too much, if you compare e.g. with the few French (listed under "General"). --Rsk6400 (talk) 10:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Add Ahmad Shah Massoud

Seriously, this guy is not a vital article? Not only did Massoud led a guerrilla war against the Soviet Union and the Taliban, the dude is considered a national hero. Saturdayopen (talk) 06:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom. Saturdayopen (talk) 06:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Add Vazgen Sargsyan

Alright, this is getting annoying. How did the Armenian military leader for the Nagorno-Karabakh War who later became Prime Minister managed to avoid being on here? Saturdayopen (talk) 07:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom. Saturdayopen (talk) 07:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Rebels, revolutionaries and activists

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Military personnel, revolutionaries, and activists#Rebels, revolutionaries and activists for the list of topics in this category.

Swap Jimmy Sham for Martin Lee or Anson Chan

If I had to devise a list of noteworthy Hong Kong activists, Jimmy Sham would be nowhere near the top of the list. Martin Lee is widely recognised as the father of democracy in Hong Kong. Alternatively, Anson Chan is the first ethnic Chinese to serve in the number two position within the Hong Kong government. Either is a much more significant politician and activist than Sham is. I say this as the editor who created the article for Sham. feminist #WearAMask😷 17:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Swap for Martin Lee. feminist #WearAMask😷 17:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Scientists, inventors and mathematicians

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Scientists, inventors, and mathematicians for the list of topics in this category.

Quota too low?

I understand GuzzyG hasn't finished revising this part of the list. Nevertheless, I'm surprised that the quota for this section is so low. For example, 76 people are listed under chemistry and 113 people are listed under medicine. However, Category:Nobel laureates in Chemistry contains 185 people and Category:Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine contains 220 people. Given how obscure some of the people on other parts of the list are, I would've thought every Nobel laureate should automatically make the list. Moreover, since Nobel Prizes have only been awarded since 1901, and there are many scientists who as vital as any Nobel laureate but never received the prize, these categories ought to be even bigger. I'd suggest the final list should contain at least 300 people in both categories. If we keep the same proportions as the level 4 list, where chemists make up 10% of the scientists, this implies a quota of 3000 scientists, inventors and mathematicians on this level is reasonable. The current target number of 1100 seems much too low.

I realize on level 4, scientists only make up 12.5% of the people, while I'm suggesting they ought to make up 20% of the 15,000 people on level 5. I think it's fair to scale up the section this way. Few scientific discoveries are made by a single person: almost every Nobel Prize these days is shared, for example, and in almost every year there is a kerfuffle about someone else who ought to also have shared the prize but didn't get to. This makes it really challenging to suggest scientists for level 4 – a lot of people who co-discovered massively important things get left out completely because it's impossible to say one is more vital than the other, and the list is too short to have both. On level 5, that should be much less of a problem.

Maybe I'm just biased in favour of scientists. But I don't think so. For example, for musicians, we apparently have enough room among musicians to have Peter Sculthorpe represent Australian classical music composers. Meanwhile, Australia's only Chemistry Nobel laureate (John Cornforth) and seven of its eight Medicine laureates are unlisted: three of whom, Macfarlane Burnet, John Eccles (neurophysiologist), and Peter C. Doherty, have been named Australian of the Year, along with Cornforth. I actually rather like the choice of Sculthorpe (although he probably shouldn't have been listed ahead of Percy Grainger), because I performed his music recently in two online concerts for North American audiences (where he is unknown), but do any Australians here think he was ever Australian of the Year material? Meanwhile, based on my academic training, I think I can safely say that a majority of North American organic chemists will at least have heard of Cornforth's name. These scientists matter, and not just in Australia. (I'm focusing on Australians because I know GuzzyG's from Australia and is usually careful to include notable Australians in every field, while I'm not and have no skin in the game.) And you don't have to just take my word for all this: page views-wise, Sculthorpe is also less popular than most of the Nobel laureates.

This also calls into question whether the other quotas are scaled appropriately. I have specifically politicians in mind: on level 4, they make up 25% of the people. We made some extremely tough cuts to politicians on level 4, so this is another section I would've expected to scale more than proportionately at level 5. But 25% of the level 5 quota of 15,000 people equals 3750 people, which is already more than the current target number of 2300. The level 4 list also had two politicians for every scientist. Combining that ratio with my suggested quota of 3000 scientists would result in a quota of 6000 politicians.

I imagine there was some previous discussion that led to the current quotas. If someone could point me to them, that would be great. It's not my intention to get involved with building this list – I simply don't have the time for it – but these quotas just seem off to me, and I thought I'd say my two cents. Cobblet (talk) 05:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agreed with everything you said. Gizza (t)(c) 04:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see this before i quit from the level 4 list, i don't check the level 5 list page at all - cause the lists a disaster imo. (my fault). But the level 4 talk page history is my homepage, so i am only up to date on that talk. Sorry for the super late reply. I agree with everything you said, no doubt. I know coming from Aus it's suss to add Aussies but it's purely out of my "one person from every field/continent" philosophy - if i could find some people from the pacific countries i'd include them, but when i did in politics they were removed. I actually removed Grainger for Sculthorpe, reasoning being Grainger made music for the English - i thought they were both border cases so better to go with the one who represents Aus music better and there was no competition like Grainger has with other UK composers. I think 3000 scientists is a bit too much though, that means writers would have to be 3000 as well to match the level 4 list.

My ideal would be;

  1. 1900 writers/journalists
  2. 2000 Artists/musicians
  3. 1800 Entertainers/filmmakers
  4. 1200 social scientists
  5. 700 religious figures
  6. 2800 politicians
  7. 800 military figures/activists
  8. 2000 scientists
  9. 900 Sports
  10. 900 Misc

This should gut alot of the junk/rot and make the list alot less embarrassing. I'm willing to do it all - but would like some suggestions (like what awards to add people from) for scientists because obviously i'm no where near knowledgeable in science - i added everyone that won the Nobel physics award and gave up because i knew the quota wasn't going to fit the other awards - plus i put up alot of junk in medicine/invention when i was more reckless, so they will be cleaned up too. There's only 5 things i ask for -

  1. every country listed at List of sovereign states from Afghanistan to Transnistria + Greenland and Faroe Islands gets one rep in politics (certainly this is reasonable - everyone should be represented by this list)
  2. every pope from the year 1500+ atleast
  3. law figures to be moved to social science where they belong
  4. that there's still a sizable space for non-english artists/entertainers - that the cuts won't hit them. I'll do the cuts but i mean i hope noone complains if someone like Olivia Newton-John is cut but someone like Pumpuang Duangjan stays.
  5. That if we're adding every Nobel winner - we should try and fit most of the modern leaders from countries who meet in the G20. I know it looks sus i'm from Aus but if you want a "non-Aus" rule can apply. But we have every modern US/UK/France leader and it wouldn't be bad to expand that to India/China/Brazil/Nigeria/Russia/Japan/Mexico/Germany etc

Either way - i left this list very bad off and i think it can turn respectable, i truly care about documenting everything in every area of human activity but i rushed history a bit and added alot of newer stuff/niche stuff. Either way i wanna take responsibility for this mess, clean it up and make it look good. I know discussion has went bad previously, but i'm in full agreement with everything and won't be combative anymore, it's such a mess it's embarrassing so i want to fix it ASAP. @Cobblet: and @DaGizza:, i pinged you both because it was a old discussion, sorry if it's annoying and you don't have to reply. I just want to know if i change around the quotas ASAP and start cutting/fixing all of this, if not that's ok. GuzzyG (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sports figures

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Sports figures for the list of topics in this category.

Weightlifting Section Changes

The Weightlifting section is missing some key weightlifting additions, and has sports figures that have never competed in weightlifting. Hamma085 (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add Halil Mutlu

One of four weightlifters with 3 Olympic gold medals, 5 time World Champion, 10 time European Champion, set over a dozen world records. He is one of the most decorated weightlifters of all time. Hamma085 (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support
Oppose
Discuss

Add Kakhi Kakhiashvili

One of four weightlifters with 3 Olympic gold medals, 3 time World Champion, 4 time European Champion. Hamma085 (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support
Oppose
Discuss

Add new section for Strongman/Powerlifting

This is due to the fact that 3 of the most influential figures in Strongman and Powerlifting are in the weightlifting section (Ed Coan, Bill Kazmaier, and Louis Cyr) when they have never competed in an international weightlifting tournament. Hamma085 (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support
Oppose
Discuss

General discussion

@Hamma085: At the stage we are at on this level you can just add articles yourself, but before adding those you have to consider that we already have reached the prescribed quota of seven in weightlifting. You could propose a change in quota but what would be better is if you considered if these weightlifters are more vital that the ones on the list already. I have no opinion on the section split but if it happens the quota for weightlifting should probably reduce to four. J947's public account 01:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What J said. Identify two other sportspeople you believe should be removed and propose a swap pbp 02:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sport quotas and diversity

IMO there are several important points:

  1. Earlier @Hamma085: suggested to make new section for strongmen. I also found one cross fit person in athlets section.
  2. Ballance beetwen handball goelkeepers (more notable goalkeepers than in other team sports in comprasion to field players) and Bowling players
  3. One ski jumper but 30 figure skaters, C'mon, @Piotrus:, @Makkool:, @Thi: @LaukkuTheGreit: You four are from countries where this sport is popular (based on your userpages in native wikis), what do you think about that? While figure skating is notable sport (also dominated by womenwhat is important for this list) ski jumping in some countries is top winter sport I would said that for example one of the most common in Slovenia and Poland.
  4. When we list for example two Australian football coaches I think someone like Martin Strel could be included to this list.
  5. While number of sport people is high in comprasion to sport industry, sport clubs, events games etc at life section I would prefer not cut sport for now. I think we should first start complete this section. Beyond that if I anything cut, tenativelly I would prefer to cut every team sport -5 % (for esample soccer: 110-->105, Cricket: 60-55) where we list many mid-importance articles by wikiproject instead niche sports. There are sports which have superficial coerage (for example skiing) but some sports such like competitive eating at least do not deserve for separate categories ( Even though I am aware how Takeru Kobayashi is famous, he fits to DYK, not for featured article) I would consider just making categories more wide just as in User:SethAllen623/Vital articles/Expanded/Sports figures and I would support increase quota of religion people or businesspeople but only if other users would agree that team sports are better covered than many niches sports. Dawid2009 (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My "Strength athletics" section shouldve never been renamed weightlifting. Crossfit is athletics. Handball goalkeepers are not vital. Ski jumping is a niche sport compared to figure skating. Martin Strel is just not one of the 20 most important swimmers. I disagree on the rest; as you can see on the music/arts section, i'm working on the fluff but it takes time. Sports and every other section will be done. GuzzyG (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis

Replace Guillermo Vilas with Maria Bueno

Guillermo Vilas is a former world No. 2 with 4 Grand Slam wins (some argue that he actually was No. 1 but it is not reflected yet in the official rankings). On the other hand, Maria Bueno is a former No. 1 (in 1959), with 7 singles Grand Slam wins (3 Wimbledons, 4 US Opens) and a calendar Grand Slam in doubles (in 1960, with 11 doubles Grand Slam wins in total). So her resume is a lot more impressive than Vilas's, and if there is a need for a South American player in this list she is a much more deserving candidate to fill this slot. --Deinocheirus (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consider replacing Li Na with Naomi Osaka

Despite both winning a couple of Grand Slams in their careers, Li Na has never been a No. 1 while Naomi Osaka already reached the top position in the world rankings while most of her career is still ahead of her. There is no doubt that her record is more impressive. Yes, Li Na has been voted to the Hall of Fame by her fans, but is having fans a good enough reason to be included in the list of 50 most important players of all times? I don't think so, otherwise Kournikova should be included as well. --Deinocheirus (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd rather keep Li Na because she has had more of an impact on women's tennis and tennis in China (and Asia) in general. The Wuhan Open -- the only annual women-only Premier 5 (or above) tournament -- was started there because that is Li Na's hometown. Since her retirement, China also secured the right to host the WTA Finals, where they award a higher payout to the winner than any other men's or women's event. In general, Li Na is regarded as popularizing tennis in China. Osaka might have that kind of impact in Japan down the road, or maybe she'll just win a few more Grand Slams, but not yet. (And also, the HOF fan vote has little effect on whether someone gets inducted.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consider replacing Kim Clijsters with Bobby Riggs

Both Kim Clijsters and Bobby Riggs are former world No. 1s, both for pretty short periods of time (Clijsters for total of 20 weeks, Rigggs for incomplete 1 year in 1939). They have similar record in terms of Grand Slam wins (4 for Clijsters, 3 for Riggs), both are Hall of Fame inductees, both have additional achievements (Clijsters has been world No. 1 in doubles, while Riggs won the triple crown at 1939 Wimbledon - thus being a member of pretty exclusive club with just Budge and Sedgman, - and also has been world Pro No. 1 in 1946—1947). So no big difference in terms of achievements, but a huge difference in terms of high profile, although for all wrong reasons. Remember that Riggs was the moving force behind the historical Battle of the Sexes; yes, he was playing the role of a villain, but without him, where would be women's tennis now? Nobody knows but it would pretty sure be lagging behind its current status. There is an additional reason to prefer Riggs over Clijsters: her era (first decade of 2000s) is pretty well covered in the list (both Williams sisters, Hingis, Henin, Capriati, Sharapova are included) while his (1930s) not so much. We have Budge and Perry, and that's it - no Henri Cochet, no Gottfried von Cramm, no Grand Slam-almost-winner Jack Crawford. So a third name definitely wouldn't hurt. If not Riggs, then perhaps Crawford? --Deinocheirus (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Tennis quotas will be updated soon with Riggs and Bueno to be added, i'm just working on another section right now. Li Na is the only representative from China so she's staying. Cochet and von Cramm will be added too along with the likes of Anthony Wilding, Lottie Dod, and William Larned all of whom are more important than Riggs etc. GuzzyG (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to compare these two players, as they are very different and made totally different contributions to tennis. In general, as of now, Open Era players are better represented than pre-Open Era players. Though, men's tennis players seem to be better represented than women's tennis players of that era. There are eight men (Renshaw, Sears, Tilden, Lacoste, Budge, Perry, Gonzales, and Emerson) and only three women (Lenglen, Wills, and Connolly; and Bueno would make four). If we were to add Riggs, Crawford, or Cochet, I'd rather remove a men's player from that era (probably Sears). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coaches

Since just one slot is allocated to tennis, I would like to suggest a discussion. Currently this slot is occupied by Nick Bollettieri. He is no doubt successful coach but the fact that he has been nominated to the Hall of Fame several times before finally being inducted suggests that he is also a rather controversial figure. Wouldn't it be better to replace him with Harry Hopman who was by any standard no less successful (having worked with an entire generation of great Australian players in 1950s and 1960s), and not just inducted to the HoF but also had a rather popular competition (Hopman Cup) named after him? Definitely a higher-profile professional. --Deinocheirus (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which subsections for sports?

The People/Sports page lacks structure. How should the entries be grouped?

  1. Air sports
  2. Athletics
  3. Ball sports: sub-subsections: team, individual
  4. Extreme sports
  5. Martial arts and Fighting
  6. Racing sports
  7. Riding
  8. Running
  9. Shooting and Hunting
  10. Strength based sports
  11. Water sports
  12. Winter sports
  13. Mountaineering and Climbing
  14. Niche
  15. eSports
  16. Others

Is anything misssing? Do we need to group Olympic disciplines separately? --Spaced about (talk) 09:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Association football

Add Sergio Ramos

Hello,

Currently, there are only four defenders among the 60 european footballers (Baresi, Beckenbauer, Moore and Maldini) : barely enough to make a team ! Moreover, there is only Casillas from the generation that won 2 euros and the world cup. Sergio Ramos has most appeareance in the Spanish team, has won 4 Champion's League in the main team, has been 11 times in the FIFPro World11 and 8 times in the UEFA Team of the Year. He also has revolutionized the position, having scored more than 100 times over his career and more than 10 times in one season of Liga last year. He also is often viewed as one the best defenders of all times. I'm not sure with whom to swap him with, though. Maybe Ricardo Zamora, for a Spaniard vs a Spaniard ?

Regards, --Charlestpt (talk) 12:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous people

 Completed

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Miscellaneous (minus the explorers, crime people, and businesspeople) and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists#Pseudoscience for the list of topics in this category.

Misc section

In the archives thare was proposal to make section for "Military criminals", what do you think about section called "Outlaws" where we could also list highwaymans? In the past I kept in User:Dawid2009/outlaws some outlawery-related, quoted in academic books which maybe could be interesing to inclusion. I am also wondering about number of businessman (in the pas @Cobblet: has said on his own talk page that including explorers and businesspeople is not good idea and balance beetwen 1200 sports people and several houndrets explorers and businesspeople (combined) maybe is not the best idea. Is really 20-th YouTuber more vital than average businessmen mentioned in forbes (just for example Mateusz Mach)? Dawid2009 (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No; outlaws are rebels/revolutionaries. They fit there. KSI (entertainer) was the 20th YouTuber and yes, he's more important than Mach; [[11]] to Gen z; youtubers are as big as actors were in the golden age of hollywood. We list far too low web entertainers in that case. GuzzyG (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People notable for notoriety

I would like to echo that @GuzzyG: recently readded to the level John and Lorena Bobbitt (Now, I did not reverted it and started discussion here as it would be 3-revert rule by philosophy of Wikipedia). Personally IMO John and Lorena Bobbit are not example notoriety-bios with significant cultural impact but there are other biographies also notable for notioriety which had impact and sometimes their inclusion could be problematic. I personally for example see issue that we list maybe too many prostitutes whose anyway are way less notable than (missed, perhaps correctly) Sarah Baartman and inclusion of this one also would be problematic as there are far too many parent topics more vital than she (name of disorder, name of tribe, probably historical articles articles around her). Personally I do not take big issue with people notable for notoriety (We list Adolf Hitler on the level 3 for example) but I think we should finally start discussion how far we can let Vital article project to covering so much detalic things. I honestly verry, verry apreciate titanic constribution of GuzzyG (he done a lot of good additions to people sections) to that list but later or earlier I think we should finally discuss this issuea, especially that some of users (not me) even have been littly discouraged/disapointed to people section in the archives. IMO this post is good statement to say that we list for example too few tribes/languages and maybe number of people included to "Sex work" section is littly to big? I am also wondering about swap John and Lorera as I did not find how they are known outside UK and have larger impact on culture than e g recently removed fictional characters. What do you think? Dawid2009 (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)'[reply]

This 30!! year old case still gets TV documentaries Lorena and has a article viewership [12] of 6,325,804 total. Which mean's it's a highly viewed pop culture article; removing this won't do anything but leave a spot in the "other" section; so to replace it, you'd have to find a better swap there. Sarah Baartman should be listed somewhere. Sex work is the oldest job and one of the most written about; highly disagree on it being covered less; most people that have a disagreement misunderstand that this is a curated list based on pop culture; "vital" in name only; they're never gonna like this list. GuzzyG (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah Baartman and Ota Benga are now listed under case studies. GuzzyG (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Section for eccentricies in People/Miscellaneous?

One missing group of people that are sometimes included in encyclopedias, but that are missing from Level 5 vital articles, are people notable for the eccetricity or peculiar circumstances in their life. People like Florence Foster Jenkins, Robert Coates (actor), Mary Toft or Timothy Dexter. Could we have space for these kind of articles as well? --Makkool (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but it's all about finding room. When i get to the Misc section i'll see if we have room. Articles that get alot of traffic via "did you know" type lists are important to have featured articles on aswell. GuzzyG (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History for the list of topics in this category.

Back to contents

Basics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#Basics for the list of topics in this category.

Auxiliary sciences of history

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#Auxiliary sciences of history for the list of topics in this category.

History by continent and region

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#History by continent and region for the list of topics in this category.

History by country

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#History by country for the list of topics in this category.

History by city and ethnicity

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#History by city for the list of topics in this category.

Historical cities and archaeological sites

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#Historical cities and archaeological sites for the list of topics in this category.

History of science and technology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#History of science and technology for the list of topics in this category.

History of other topics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#History by topic for the list of topics in this category.

Prehistory

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#Prehistory for the list of topics in this category.

Ancient history

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#Ancient history for the list of topics in this category.

Post-classical history

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#Post-classical history for the list of topics in this category.

Early modern history

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#Early modern history for the list of topics in this category.

19th century

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#19th century for the list of topics in this category.

20th century

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#20th century for the list of topics in this category.

21st century

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#21st century for the list of topics in this category.

Remove Xinjiang re-education camps

Support
  1. Support as nominator --MarioGom (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

With History of Xinjiang and the more broad Xinjiang conflict already in the Level 5 article list, I think the presence of this single facet of the conflict is an overrepresentation. Other facets include the July 2009 Ürümqi riots or the 2011 Hotan attack, just to name a couple of them, which should be covered by Xinjiang conflict too. --MarioGom (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

Back to contents

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography for the list of topics in this category.

Basics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Physical#Basics, Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Cities#Urban studies and planning and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Countries#General for the list of topics in this category.

Physical geography

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Physical for the list of topics in this category (most fall under this).

Add Mayon Volcano in Geography/Physical > Terrestrial features > Land relief > Mountain peaks > Asia

Mayon Volcano is known for its symmetrical cone, and also as the most active volcano in the Philippines. –Sanglahi86 (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanglahi86:if you want to add it, just add it to that subpage by yourself, since currently adding articles to any subpage of WP:VA5 does not require any discussion, unlike removing.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the information. –Sanglahi86 (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geography by locations articles

Recently a lot of articles of geography by location have been listed in physical geography section. I have been thinking that it is too much, because we don't list any in Level 4. So the margin of growth is great. I think we don't need to list as many geography by country articles as history by country articles in Level 5. What do you guys think? --Makkool (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Physical geography quota

It seems to me that physical geography is one of those sections that should have more relative representation the farther down the list you go (i.e. more than 5x the amount of articles at level 4). I think upping the quota from 1600 to, say, 1900 would be good. I think we could take some quota from other sections to do this. My proposal is to add 300 articles to physical geography, and remove 200 from astronomy and 100 from philosophy to compensate. Does anyone have better ideas of what sections to quota-reduce? 2604:C340:AC:4:6531:DE8B:5111:CDEE (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I'm the same person that just added some articles to the page, but apparently my IP changed in that short timespan 2604:C340:AC:4:6531:DE8B:5111:CDEE (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Everyday life section seems to need reducing. I am not so fond of taking quota from Philosophy and religion, it is traditional encyclopedic area. --Thi (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. We could reduce from the sports quota, as the amount of those articles hasn't increased much. --Makkool (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delayed response. Taking your responses into account, I think reducing the sports quota by 50, astronomy by 150, and everyday life by 100 would be good. If no objections, I'll implement in a few days. 2604:C340:AC:4:40D0:4F50:72AC:5C61 (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and updated them. 2604:C340:AC:4:F517:92F2:FFE6:9490 (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Countries

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Countries#Countries for the list of topics in this category.

Regions and country subdivisions

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Countries#Regions and country subdivisions for the list of topics in this category.

Swap: remove Westmorland, add Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt

Based on Friedrich Günther, Prince of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt is going to be removed I suggest to swap Westmorland for Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt and also review this list. It is very odd that we do not list subdivision like Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes but subdivisions from Switzerland.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Makkool (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition: Historically small state pbp 22:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Add Christmas Island and Norfolk Island

While I don't think political "leaders" from this small outposts are notable, the outposts themselves may be. pbp 22:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. pbp 22:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

While population of this outpost nowdays is larger than VaticanCity I will not support this proposal. This outpost from supermely young and quite small country currently has 1500+ population. Is every town with +15 000 population and very long history automatically vital? Dawid2009 (talk) 10:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should have a more general discussion on whether all dependent territories are vital at Level 5. Or at least all inhabited dependent territories. The dependent territory article lists out all of them so you can get an idea of how much the list here will grow if we add all of them (not by much since many are already Level 5 if not Level 4). Gizza (t)(c) 11:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have been adding islands to the physical geography section and I have listed both there. While I agree with Dawid2009 in that these two entities are not vital as dependent territories, because of their short history, I think they should be kept in physical geography. We have still plenty of room there, and both Norfolk Island and Christmas Island are printed in most globes and world maps you can buy, which I think is grounds for listing them at Level 5. --Makkool (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add Research Triangle

One of the largest STEM concentrations in the eastern US. As a region anchored by multiple cities, this is more suitable to be added as a region than a city.

Support
  1. As nominator. feminist (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove East North Central states, East South Central states, Mountain states, Pacific states, South Atlantic states, West North Central states, West South Central states

Census Bureau Divisions that have little practical significance. Pacific states, for example, is much less common than and redundant to West Coast of the United States. This is to be contrasted with New England and Mid-Atlantic (United States), the two Divisions that have entered common parlance.

Support
  1. As nominator. feminist (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Remove some, keep some
Discuss

Add San Francisco Bay Area and Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex

Two of the largest conurbations in the US which are both anchored by multiple cities.

Support
  1. As nominator. feminist (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per nom.   // Timothy :: talk  01:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Listing Dallas and San Francisco is enough. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Add Great Lakes region

There are two major subregions of the Midwestern United States: the Great Plains (Lv 4 physical) and the Great Lakes. pbp 17:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. pbp 17:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Southern California and Northern California

Either is larger in area or population than many countries. There have traditionally been cultural differences and rivalry between the two pbp 17:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. pbp 17:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom and per number of views each receieves. (I'm biased though)   // Timothy :: talk  17:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support California is probably large enough and the two regions are probably distinct enough that they deserve to be listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Rhine-Ruhr

Another region anchored by multiple cities.

Support
  1. As nominator. feminist Wear a mask to protect everyone 11:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Germany (approx. 80 mill. inhabitants) has 15 articles, while Hungary (10 mill.) has 20, so I think some important German regions below the level of land should be added - and Rhine-Ruhr is really important. Rsk6400 (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Extremely important region of Germany and frequently referenced. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Cities

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Cities for the list of topics in this category (most fall under this).

PASSED
4-0, removed. --Rreagan007 (talk) 05:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. 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 Independence, Missouri

Suburb of Kansas City, Missouri which isn't even that large.

Support
  1. As nominator. feminist (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per nom.   // Timothy :: talk  00:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support a bit odd it was there in the first place. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

I'm of mixed emotions on this. It has some historical importance as one of the gateways to the West but not much present-day significance. pbp 17:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Remove Keelung

suburb of Taipei. We already have two cities in the Taipei metropolitan area. Viztor (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Oppose Physically distinct and serves as northern Taiwan's largest seaport. I'd rather remove New Taipei City if we have too many cities in the Taipei metropolitan area, as it is basically suburban Taipei legally administered as a separate city. feminist (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cities

Scotland Cities - add Dundee

There are 7 cities in Scotland. By population size they are Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Dundee, Perth, Inverness and Stirling.

At present Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen are included in Vital_articles/Level/5/Geography/Cities#Scotland but Dundee is not.

I would suggest that Dundee should be included as it has more in common with the 3 other "Large cities" in Scotland than with the smaller cities of Perth, Inverness and Stirling.

Evidence: Dundee has ancient Royal Burgh status and has had City Status since 1889 whereas the other smaller Scottish cities are late 20th and early 21st century creations. Dundee is one of the four Scottish cities with a ceremonial Lord Provost (equivalent to English Lord Mayor). 23 of the 25 English cities with Lord Mayors are included in the Level 5 city list. List_of_lord_mayoralties_and_lord_provostships_in_the_United_Kingdom The Scottish Government's Urban Rural Classification distinguishes between Large Urban Areas and other Urban Areas with Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee being the four areas classed as Large Urban Areas. https://www2.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/About/Methodology/UrbanRuralClassificationAndrewdpcotton (talk) 13:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right now you can add it by yourself most of the time at this level with out the need to ask. This however, is not most of the time as we have reached the quota in cities. If you want to add Dundee it is best to see what should be removed to accommodate it. Happy Festivities! // J947 (c) 19:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quotas for the subsections were already set. There is room for Dundee in the Scotland subsection, so I support the addition. --Spaced about (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replace Mesa, Arizona with Flagstaff, Arizona

Mesa is just One of several suburbs of Phoenix. Flagstaff is a significant city that represents a very different part of Arizona (environmentally and culturally) compared to Tucson or Phoenix.   // Timothy :: talk  01:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom. (strongly support)   // Timothy :: talk  01:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose; don't think Flagstaff is quite important enough. Mesa is marginal; if we need to add a city Asia/Africa is the best place right now. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 01:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss
  • Hi J947 //agree on Africa, but was curious what area of Asia do you feel is lacking? (honest question from someone that doesn't know that much about Asia). Hope all is well.   // Timothy :: talk  04:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove either Norfolk, Virginia or Virginia Beach, Virginia

Norfolk and Virginia Beach are suburbs of each other.   // Timothy :: talk  01:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom. (moderate support, think it merits consideration)   // Timothy :: talk  01:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. They are the largest and second largest cities in Virginia respectively. I think they're important enough to keep listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Add Pasadena, California

Pasadena has a significant history and cultural life.

Support
  1. As nom. (moderate support, think it merits consideration)   // Timothy :: talk  01:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose; don't really think it's big enough and different enough from LA. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 01:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Remove Fort Lauderdale, Florida

I don't see how this is a vital article that stands out significantly from Miami or its surrounding suburbs.

Support
  1. As nom. (moderate support, think it merits consideration)   // Timothy :: talk  01:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. pbp 03:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Fort Lauderdale is a major international tourist destination in its own right. We probably have enough cities in the LA metropolitan area already, though I won't be opposed to swap one currently on the list with another one. feminist (talk) free Hong Kong 15:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Add Wheeling, West Virginia

West Virginia seems very underrepresented, only Charleston, West Virginia listed, Wheeling has a rich history and represents a part of WV very different from Charleston.   // Timothy :: talk  01:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom (strongly support).   // Timothy :: talk  01:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Simply not an important enough city to list. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Rreagan, pbp. feminist (talk) free Hong Kong 15:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

The reason West Virginia is underrepresented is because it doesn't have large cities. pbp 16:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add Leiden and Haarlem

I was very surprised to find that the list of Dutch cities does not include Leiden and Haarlem. Both cities are as relevant as the other cities on the list, and arguably (considerably) more relevant than the currently listed city of Tilburg. Both cities have immense historical and cultural relevance. Both were and are important economical hubs in the Netherlands, especially during the Dutch Golden Age. Their historical inner cities are among the largest and best-preserved in the country, including nationally known museums and massive historic churches. Both cities were besieged in the Eighty Years' War, and in general played a vital role throughout Dutch history. Leiden contains the oldest and most prestigious university of the Netherlands, played an important role in the history of science, and was home to painters such as Rembrandt and Jan Steen, and academics such as Herman Boerhaave, Hugo Grotius, Jacobus Arminius and even Albert Einstein. Haarlem is a provincial capital, was home to Frans Hals and the associated Haarlem school of Golden Age painting. It used to be one of the largest cities of the Netherlands in early modern times. It contains the largest cathedral of the Netherlands and remains an important city in the Roman Catholic Church as seat of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Haarlem-Amsterdam. Finally, both cities are among the 20 largest of the Netherlands (which seems to be one of the criteria for the other Dutch cities included on the current list). Ealuscerwen (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom. Ealuscerwen (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Add Annecy

Hello. First of all, there is room in Western Europe in terms of cities (164/175). Annecy is one of the biggest winter sports cities in Europe and the 29th biggest city in France. It also has an important role in history, being the home of dukes of Geneva and then Savoy for centuries. Regards, --Charlestpt (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom. --Charlestpt (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Arts

Back to contents

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts for the list of articles in this category.

Architecture

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts#Architecture for the list of articles in this category.

Add Inca architecture

Support
  1. As nom. Now that Maya architecture and Aztec architecture are listed, it is illogical not to include it.--RekishiEJ (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Add Arch of Titus

Support
  1. As nom. Since it has provided the general model for many triumphal arches built since the 16th century (according to the lede), it is no doubt vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Cultural venues

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts#Cultural venues for the list of articles in this category.

Literature

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts#Literature for the list of articles in this category.

Webcomics

The digital art section is over-quota, and it currently has 9 examples of web-comics listed. I am asking for your opinions on should we keep them on this list or not. We could remove them, or perhaps move them to another section with free alloted slots, like in the internet subsection of Society.

Remove webcomics

Support
  1. --Makkool (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per nom.   // Timothy :: talk  00:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

I suggest we remove all examples of individual webcomics and move the webcomics article to visual arts. None of the examples listed have had a wide and lasting cultural impact, expect maybe Pepe the Frog, which is an internet meme rather than a webcomic. Webcomics fits better at visual arts, because all webcomics are not digital art, but drawn with traditional tools and scanned for distribution. --Makkool (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move webcomics

Support
Oppose
Discuss

Add Nursery rhyme

Not sure where, but I think it is missing? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I'd suggest Arts-->Literature-->Literary genres-->Forms of literature-->Poetry? pbp 01:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, added. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add Green Eggs and Ham

Well-known story with numerous adaptations. Still relevant today, and is notable for the low amount of words, as well as coming from a famous author. Scrooge200 (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support
Oppose
Discuss

Add Hunter x Hunter

High selling and long-running shounen manga with one of the most critically acclaimed animated adaptations. Written by a relatively famous mangaka who already has one of his lesser-known series listed.

Support
Oppose
Discuss — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.38.154 (talk) 02:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Music

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts#Music for the list of topics in this category.

Swap Synthwave for Eurodance

Synthwave is popular, but its wider success is too recent to be considered vital. Eurodance is a similarly popular genre of electronic music, but it has a more far-reaching history. Eurodance would also provide geographic diversity to the list. --Makkool (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. per nom. --Makkool (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Thi (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 05:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Swap Tricky (musician) for The KLF (or Orbital, Underworld, or The Orb)

Quite frankly I'm flabbergasted at this entry, as Tricky was a member of Massive Attack who are also listed. Tricky has never had a number 1 hit single or album in any country according to his article but wasn't an underground artist either; his article reports no awards won [I gather he won an NME Best Album award, however]; the genre he is co-credited with helping to pioneer is a continuation of his work in Massive Attack; and the article makes no claim that he has been an influence on any other artist.

The KLF made influential underground records and international number one hits; were BRIT awards winners as best British group; are co-credited with pioneering ambient house alongside the Orb (like the KLF, a duo of Jimmy Cauty+1) and (in some sources) trance music; earnt notoriety for burning a million pounds; have been directly influential on, for example, Scooter; have had at least 2 books written about them [13][14]; and are still getting write ups like this from The Guardian a quarter of a century since they deleted their back catalogue: "in the 25 years since their disappearance, nobody else has come up with anything that matches the duo’s extraordinary career". The AllMusic review called The White Room "the commercial and artistic peak of late-'80s acid-house". --kingboyk (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support
Oppose
Discuss

If the KLF are not acceptable, I would suggest Orbital (band), Underworld (band) or The Orb, all of whom are far more influential than Tricky as a solo artist and indeed more influential than some of the other artists listed imho.

Another idea would be to put KLF into pop music and replace Tricky with one of the other suggestions. --kingboyk (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swap Carillon for Marimba

This is my first time nominating an article so please bear with me. Instead of having carillon (which in my humble opinion is not necessary by the inclusion of bell) we should have marimba. The marimba has been an important instrument in shaping the musical culture of Central America (see how many times marimba appears Music of Latin America) and, of course, the Western world. The bulk of most keyboard solos are written for the marimba making it the predominantly used keyboard instrument in the soloistic percussionist's repertoire. I think the core five of the orchestra's mallet percussion section (xylophone, glockenspiel, vibraphone, tubular bells, and marimba) should all be included as Level-5 vital articles and all of them are except for marimba and glockenspiel. Let me know what you think. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google Trends[15] Wikishark[16]

Support
Oppose
Discuss

Performing arts

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts#Performing arts for the list of articles in this category.

Visual arts

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts#Visual arts for the list of topics in this category.

Proposed changes to Arts > Visual arts > Specific works of visual art

General discussion

Modern visual arts

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts#Modern visual arts for the list of topics in this category.

Fictional characters

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts#Fictional characters for the list of articles in this category.

Fictional characters

Right now, this section has few problems. One, is that it is overpopulated (177/150 articles), so should we increase its cap or start killing things? Second, sorry, Western folklore (44/40 articles) vs Eastern folklore (9/10 articles) is a clear systemic BIAS. Those should be equal in size. Seriously, right now this section seems to have one entry for Japan, China and India each. C'mon, people, Santa Claus's reindeer is hardly in the same league as Momotarō or the concept of Yōkai; each of those three countries probably should get 10 characters here. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We also need to trim Characters from film and TV, which is way over quota. I'm almost to the point of making BOLD removals. pbp 04:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If You want to drop western folklore, drop all christmas characters, except Santa Claus (I added many of them when I just continued and completed thd section), Krampus and Sinterkaals, including Father Christmas (currently we have nine characters from christmas if You count Befana and The Ginger Bread Mam but just Easter Bunny from Easter) or rather covered sub-articles just like Magic Mirror, Tom Thumb, Golden Goose (littly too many fairy tales, they are described in other articles and theit vitalness is comparable to Rumpelstilskin who is missed). If You want drop characters from TV series I would suggest drop: #Versions of Micky Mouse (While Micky is lovely character for many people, few non-English-language people realise that he is not female,mouse often is not masculine and Pluto IMO was even better despite not being anthropomorfic) #Remove Porky pig as he is not the most vital pig animated character #Swap Meena for another non-Japanese and non-Westerm character as it is article on TV, not character. BTW I also think we could have place for fictional places as we have section for biblical places on the level 4. We could have one sub artocle for Tolkien's World and I am not sure recent removal of Discworld from science fiction was ok. I do not have comment about quotas (while list is under construction, personally IMO 150 number probably is ok) but this list look strongly in comprasion to some overrepresented people/biographies meanwhile it looks quite weak in comprasion to mythological characters. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Yokai is already listed in philosophy and religion section but (mistakly) is not listed among mythological creatures (where we list only 62!). I have been watching (I gonna to archives on the level 4) how selections of "'fictional' creatures" were evolving and I found that @Carlwev: as first suggested to split religion/mythological creatures with art and later @Thi: suggested to split also folklore in art section. Folklore is more similar to mythology than literature/film, nodoubtly. IMO it is easy to decide when creature generally more represent art than spirituality/mythology/religion but not always (what do you (all pinged) think about Category:Fictional Christian saints or about UFO?). The bigger problem is in comparing media franchise to fictional character (while media franchise is more wide readers often more care about fictional character if Wikipedia wrote wrongly articles about related matters). @SethAllen623: putted all creatures in the same section at User:SethAllen623/Vital articles/Expanded/Fictional creations but I think that number of 50 000 is too small to create separate section for creatures and we could. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Swap Deadpool with Black Panther (Marvel Comics)

Full disclosure, this decision is heavily being influenced by the recent death of Chadwick Boseman. Still, I think that the fact that Black Panther is usually considered the first Black superhero, as well as the significant culture impact (and the more than a billion dollars box office returns) of his movie, gives T'Challa a bit more precedence than Wade Wilson. Saturdayopen (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom. Saturdayopen (talk) 06:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Philosophy and religion

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Philosophy and religion for the list of articles in this category.

Philosophy

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Philosophy and religion#Philosophy for the list of articles in this category.

Religion and spirituality

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Philosophy and religion#Religion and spirituality for the list of topics in this category.

Specific religions

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Philosophy and religion#Specific religions for the list of topics in this category.

Western esotericism and New religious movements

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Philosophy and religion#Western esotericism and New religious movements for the list of topics in this category.

Mythology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Philosophy and religion#Mythology for the list of topics in this category.

Everyday life

Back to contents

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life for the list of topics in this category.

Clothing and fashion

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life#Clothing and fashion for the list of topics in this category.

Color

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life#Color for the list of topics in this category.

Cooking, food and drink

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life#Cooking, food and drink for the list of topics in this category.

Sexuality and gender

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life#Sexuality for the list of topics in this category.

Sports, games and recreation

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life/Sports, games and recreation for the list of topics in this category.

Add more "Sport in country" articles?

What do you think about more "Sport in country" articles. We SUBJECIVELY list plenty of sport teams which are less vital than broader articles like Brazilian Football Confederation. Brazilian Football Confederation is nt more vital than broader article like Football in Brazil but the most vital IMO would be Sport in Brazil. Even if articles "Sport in" gets less hits we need to remember that these ones have more links and sontents, and according to guideline to featureed articles linked articles always have to be improved (everyone who have ever wrote featured article understand what I am talking about... and why if we correct article like "sport in", automatically we have more written thing than after improving article about team). Beyond that "sport in" should be compared to articles like Cinema of France, Italian cuisine, Music of the United States etc.. I do not think that sport and games should have separated category for now, because it can distract people from the list itself what could later resulting in extremally overrepresntation of games/entertaiment/sport. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dawid2009: I'd support replacing the organization articles with Sport in Foo countries, like replacing the listed Brazil organizations with the overview article for Sport in Brazil. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Board and card games

Quick link: Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Everyday_life/Sports,_games_and_recreation#Board_games_(46/50_articles). I am actually a big board and card game fan (and I've even published an academic article on this), so with this said, I am surprised that those sections get so many entries. I like this stuff a lot, but I think they could be trimmed to free up few spots for other stuff discussed above (whether science or folklore). The main issue I see, otherwise, is that there is a lot of super niche, historical stuff discussed that IMHO never was or is vital, things like Agon (game) or Alquerque - games that are historical trivia footnotes, never had much impact on their contemporary society and are forgotten now. And while modern board and card gaming is still a smaller industry/activity than video games, "Specific video games and series (99 articles)" raises an eybrow where modern board/card games get maybe ~10 entries. For what should be added, it's stuff from cross-comparing Spiel des Jahres and BoardGameGeek top game list ([17]), which speaking as someone very familiar with this field will give one an idea of what board and card games have been actually significant in the last decade or two. Titles like Gloomhaven, Terraforming Mars, Twilight Imperium, Dominion (game), Pandemic (board game), or more classic Puerto Rico should certainly be on that list, replacing the obscure historical footnotes that never had a significant impact on the society that I mentioned above (this can be easily noted as most of those obscure old games don't have much in way of sections that discuss their significance or reception; they are ludology trivia and nothing but). I'll be bold and do a bunch of adjustments in the near future. I recognize there is always a bit of subjective bias as to titles to add (but then so is the selection of the 99 video games - probably too many anyway - done using subjective criteria, as far as I can tell). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good on the WP:BOLD board games plan. Individual video games could and should probably be cut to 50. GuzzyG (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, but I'm not certain about using BoardGameGeek as a source, because it is slanted towards the hobbyist market. Hobbyist board games are a niche business (there are only handful of board game designers who can support themselves on design work alone, for example) and I think we should be aware of this. When choosing what articles to list we should remember to be as broad as possible, and include mainstream games as well, as they have more impact to society. --Makkool (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably replace Senet with Chariot racing on the level 4 as Senet is only one of many obscure-very old and nowday trivia board games (and BTW I would also reduce sportpeople on the level 4 as some listed there modern sport people are less vital than Leonidas of Rhodes) butI disagree that most of these games do not makes level 5 and I disagree we should swap them mostly for modern board games. Games like Nine men's morris/Senet had religional significance for milleniums (and based on some sources even for whole bronze age) and games just like Latrunculi had just it significance for centuries; what should not be ignored on this lesel. I added several go players (for example Oskar Korschelt) and most of thosee board games based on this academic source (it is competitive category beause of it also stand based on incredible researchers of board games just as H. J. R. Murray and important social scientists just as Marshall McLuhan). Dungerous & Dragons are important but generally from historical perspective less important for researchers than traditional games like Game of the Goose/Monopoly or Whist/Bridge. You can drop some old tabletop games for space for modern by wp:bold (we have too many video games in comprasion to modern tabletop anyway) but please do it tenatively quite careful if it is possible, some can be removed but not many of them as certain number of old board and card games also should be covered to point that these games exist longer time than video games. BTW this section is also wrongly selcted. Title "traditional games" is vague and wrong (as many games included in other sections also can be "traditional games"). These section are also so much puffed up ith neccesary detalics (as Makkool pinted) that include WP:OR, for example we do not need to list so many non-game/title video game topics and vague concepts like Race game, Wargaming, (I could also add Tile-based game or wrongly described Fox games article to this list if I would consider that adding theory game/classification topic is sensible) are uneless as this section should cover articles which can be possible for featured article without promotion of one type of classification (game theorists who publish books about games often classify games in differ/contradict way each other). Dawid2009 (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I ambivalent when it comes to keep or remove Race game, but wargame is a major thing and should be kept. I'll make other recommendations below. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Purplebackpack89, Piotrus, Makkool, and LaukkuTheGreit: My thoughts about changes in selection of games:
  1. Put "board" and "card" games under new sub-category titled "Tabletop games" (handful games like Mahjong, Air Hockey which currently are listed under section "traditional games" will be in tabletop games section but outside two subsections called: "board"/"card", excatly like here non-poker players are included ahead of Poker players without sub-sub section, we will not muck category for non-board and non-card tabletop games as it would be hard and unnecesary)
  1. Split two sub-sub categories for card tabletop games and for board tabletop games: for thhe board games we will have two: 1 traditional board games (aka Chess, Go, Royal Game of Ur etc.) and 2Role-playing and commercial board games (where de facto will be a lot of modern board games with one on the level 4 - monopoly), for card games: #1Traditional card games (with using traditional playing cards) and #2 collective card games. The only goal why we do selection is to make us easier to analyse the list (such like we list Abraham next to his son on the level 4). Here we need make reselection in a way we will can compare our historical coverage of human acitivities.
  2. Articles which revolve around list of types of games just like Game of skill, Game of chance, Street game "ALL" should be move to general next to game mechanic to not muck abuse when for example game game like jenga or solitaire can be added under many subsections.
  3. After moving all article which revolve around "list of types of games" to general section we can rename section traditional games on "other games and activities". Streetball surpringly is not listed on the level 5 yet but will not be under street game at general/terminology or next to games like mahjong but next to games like hacky hack, tag, musical chairs, cuuju etc. what also will be confortable for analyse list just as we are looking for Abraham and his sons' on the level 4.
  1. Quota (65) for toys is littly to big but I think we should create on Engish Wikipedia new article called Skill toy (currently redirect to list) to cover things like clackers, paddle ball, fidget spinner etc.. If we would add this article to VA5 it would not be next to articles like "game of chance" but listed under toys. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Makkool and Dawid2009: I will list proposed changes below:

Traditional games

remove 1) Calcio Fiorentino (we already have Cuju, whose lead states that FIFA recognizes it as a predecessor of football, and Mesoamerican ballgame is reasonably well developed and I think also culturally more famous). Also Episkyros, Harpastum, Kemari, Tetherball (how many historical ball games do we need?). Related to this is the concept of Hacky sack (remove). 2) Remove Beer pong, we already list drinking game and it is dubious if beer pong is the universally most common example of it anyway. 3) Remove Thumb war, Red Rover, Cornhole, Horseshoes, Knucklebones no evidence those topics have wider significance (note we already have Lawn game and I am fine with keeping that overview topic to a bunch of games here). 4) remove variants of tag (tag itself of course stays): Blind man's buff, Marco Polo (game)
Support, but for Knucklebones I am on the fence. It's an example of a game of ancient origin, that's played even today. I we decide to drop it, maybe we could include Shagai instead, which is a similar game known across many nomadic cultures. The Finnish game museum has an example of a shagai-like game played by the Sámi people for example. --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have too many ambivalent thoughts about whole list (which should have 50 000 topics and have many overrepresented and underrepresented areas) to stand on vote enrtry by entry per se but I would oppose removing of Blind man's buff more than for Knucklebones. When we can list Paintball despite fact we have either of shooting sport and tag, I think blind man's buff is vital here. I think tag is far more close to the level 3 than 5 and we list on the level 4 for example Winnie-the-Pooh which is mentioned in the other listed article on the level 4: Teddy bear - even as subtopic of Stuffed toy. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am on the edge when it comes to Musical chairs, I think the topic is known but the article is abysmal (no good refs/analysis, etc.). Ditto for The floor is lava which has a bit better refs but I am not sure if it is really that popular.
Both are maybe too commonplace games to have anything interesting to stay. --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a problem with guessing game with has been merged to guessing by User:BD2412, who was a sole participant of that merge discussion (in 2015). A redirect can't be a vital topic, so either we restore it or it should be removed (I am in favor of restoring it, as it is a parent concept to a number of popular games that are relatively famous and in either case may merit being added here: Hangman, I spy, Twenty Questions
Add: ball game (yes, the article is in a terrible shape, but it has tremendous potential for growth). Chariot racing (I agree it is one of the more famous ancient games, perhaps more of a sport?).
Agree that chariot racing is more a sport (and maybe ball game as well as ball sport redirects to it) --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I would support removing Calcio Fiorentino; I oppose removing tetherball and hacky sack.  (Also, tetherball is not a "historical ball game", it was played on my generation's playgrounds and probably still is).  Episkyros, Harpastum, Kemari, I'm ok with removing.  
  2. Beer pong you can take or leave.  I'm unsure how common it is outside of American frat parties
  3.  Horseshoes should stay but Thumb war, Red Rover, Cornhole, and, Knucklebones I'm ambivalent to.  
  4.  OK with removing tag variants.  
  5. I would keep musical chairs but drop The floor is lava I'm OK with adding Hangman and 20 Questions
  6. I thought ball game was on already but add it if it's not. Chariot racing is already on there
  7. Finally I echo Dawid's comment about renaming "traditional games". My suggestion would be "traditional and children's games" pbp 00:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to the merge, "guessing game" was a stub tagged as needing additional references. A separate article could exist, but not in the state it was in. BD2412 T 20:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Board games
Board games (disclaimer: I tried to use SdJ and BGG to back my personal views, but a sanity check and more opinions are always welcome, particularly due to a hobby COI, ie. subconscious tendency to list games I like and not ones I don't care for; for what is worth a while back I also read the book on modern board games Eurogames: The Design, Culture and Play of Modern European Board Games which you can probably download from Library Genesis):
Remove: Agon (game), Alquerque, Halma, Hex (board game) (that one also has a better replace wit hex map) as very minor history footnotes for ludology with no evidence of wider significance (either cultural impact or scholarly analysis). Also History of chess (the summary in chess article should be sufficient)
Support Agon and Alquerque, Oppose Halma and Hex - Halma is a canonical board game along with Chinese checkers, Checkers and Nine men's morris. Hex has received a lot of research in AI, mathematics and game theory. --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Alquerque and Halma neutral on the rest. Alquerque as direct procedesor of Checkers is less obscure than The Royal Game of Ur, Senet, Latrunculi etc. It is very similar game to checkers; comprasion Checkers to Alquerque is like comprasion Halma to Chinese checkers. When we can list five regional variants of chess such like Korean chess/Janggi + history of chess, I think we could kept as well two board games proved by Arabian to Europe (This one and Shatranj/Arabian chess). Dawid2009 (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ambivalent but would like to hear other thoughts regarding removal: Game of the Goose, Jungle (board game), Ludus latrunculorum, Peg solitaire
Oppose Game of the Goose - it is a predecessor to the roll-and-move type of board games, Ambivalent on the rest - Jungle is an example of board game played mostly in Asia (Should we list one?); Peg solitaire is more a puzzle than a game and it could be moved with other puzzles; Ludus latrunculorum is a Roman historical board game, but I'm not sure is it obscure or more well known. --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Game of the Goose as 16th century "THE first commercial board game" and "THE first role-playing game" is surely vital enough at this level. I added the Jungle because of this game originally was creted based on acient board games from Asia and it influenced Stratego (already listed too). Latrunculi and Solitarie are perfect good ocassion to compare them with other historical European and non-European ball games nominated to removal. I am ambivalent about removing or keeping them them on the level 5. You currently sugest to remove some/many of them but I would like echo that @DaGizza: very strongly were defending coverage of historical human activities on the level 4, even consider inclusion Calcio to level 4 years ago and recently said there that also Hasbro is more vital among 100 000 articles so while I can remove one obscure board game from the level 4 (especially when we already have history of games there, we list Go/Mancala ahead of Mesoamerican ball game on L4 and we even removed Coloseum as parent topic for Chairot racing from the level 3 to the level 4), I can not support swap so many historical games for more than handful modern ones (even when we have so big stuff of modern video game designers for example on this level). Dawid2009 (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ambivalent but would like to hear other thoughts regarding addition: Go-Stop, Hanafuda (classics). Transitional: Diplomacy (game). Modern: Agricola (board game) (winner of SdJ, Top 30 on BGG list, one of those titles that you can on occasion see in your local supermarket, so transitioning from niche to popular), 7 Wonders (board game) (Top 50 in BGG, bunch of awards, number 3 on BGG family list), Arkham Horror, Scythe (board game), Rising Sun (board game), Brass (board game) (all popular high rankers that I'd suggest should replace some video games), concepts of Murder mystery game, legacy game
Support Go-Stop, Hanafuda, Diplomacy, Agricola, 7 Wonders, legacy game Oppose the rest, see my last comment --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Add: 1) more famous/impactful traditional games: Mensch ärgere Dich nicht, Karuta, and transitional Talisman (board game), HeroQuest and Acquire - all are at least as vital IMHO as stuff that I suggest removing and seem a likely step above the above ambivalent consideration 2) Hex map as a concept to replace the too niche Hex (board game) 3) modern games that gained popularity with in the last ~20 years, some even <5 but just like in video games and such, recent doesn't mean not vital, based on sources I mentioned above: Gloomhaven (number 1 on BGG general list since its release in 2017 as well as on the thematic list and strategy list) Dixit (card game) (popular simple family game, very often found in supermarkets, a ton of gaming awards), Terraforming Mars (Top 3 on BGG list since its release in 2016, some awards), Pandemic (board game) (probably the most famous/enduring board game coop-type game, its recent version has been in Top of BGG list - 2nd on Overall, Thematic and Strategy lists, bunch of awards), Twilight Imperium (enduring classic, Top 6-7 on BGG overall/strategy list), Dominion (game) (the game that created/popularized the concept of a deck-building game, bunch of awards, Top 100 on BGG, that listing is not best for games of its type as it is composed of a bunch of stand alone items ranked separately), Codenames (board game) (bunch of awards, #1 in BGG list of party games: [18], Azul (board game) (another high ranker with a bunch of awards, Top 10 in overall/family), Twilight Struggle (high ranker in strategy with a bunch of awards, representative of historical simulations) 4) game concepts: Amerigame (crucial counterpart to already listed eurogame), deck-building game, Cooperative board game
Support Mensch ärgere Dich nicht, Karuta, Talisman, HeroQuest, Acquire, Dixit, Pandemic, Dominion, Codenames, Azul, amerigame, deck-building game, cooperative board game, Oppose the rest, see last comment --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest Cosmic Encounter instead of Twilight Imperium, because CE is an earlier example of a variable player powers type board game that is still available today. --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ambivalent to most of these adds or removals expect murder-mystery game, which I think is a good add.  Also, if we're wanting to add more brand-name board games, Candy Land would be my first choice. pbp 00:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mensch ärgere Dich nicht is already listed along with Ludo as subtopic of Pachisi. Probably we should remove one of them to keep more space in game section. I think Mensch argere Dich nicht is better choice (this article should be translated from German Wikipedia where is incredibly long and include informations about recent competition in that game. When we list French revolution ahead of America revolution on the level 3 I also see here exception where non-English article is more vital). According to the articles, Ludo is older 14 years but Mensch ärgere Dich nicht has been recognised as the most promient "modern version of Pachisi" and FWIHW article about Mensch argere Dich nich is worse on ENwiki than minor like Sorry! (game) (I am ambivalent about keeping race game when we have Pachisi Game of the goose etc.).. @Piotrus: Among many commercial modern board games which you nominated to addition, which ones are closest to best products like: Yathzee, Battleship (game), Jenga and which ones you would add ahead of Scattergories? (BTW d:Q897014 finally should have new article on English Wikipedia - you can try to DYK ;)) Dawid2009 (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard of Scattergories and I don't see anything in that article to suggest it should be vital, so I'd say "all of them" I'd add ahead of that particular title. pl:Państwa-miasta is amusing but I haven't heard of it before, not sure if there are any good sources, a quick search in Polish failed to find any. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Shape of the pl:Państwa-miasta indeed is totally undourced but de:Stadt, Land, Fluss and es:Tutti frutti (juego) are going to be on similar level what The floor is lava on EN wiki and the categories just is traditional (and still popular just as battlespip and gomoku on the paper) precursor of Scattegories (Categories are more popular than Scattegories and it is not particular game. It just is [common paper and pencil word game, although it has average number of language versions, although it has quite few wikies at the moment, it overweight by hits Hangman and quite canonical board game like Reversi in many western countries: [19]/[20]/[21]), beyond that that game is described in this academic source and called there as „Inteligencja” (I quite proved another article about Paper soccer which even is not mentioned in any academic source about games, purely based on Internet sources to 15 000 bytes so Categories based on verifiable sources surely could be in better shape than for example Concentration (game)) so I belive that creating as stub that article and later maybe proving to DYK could be useful for Wikipedia. I also created years ago article on musical chairs at PLwiki in minimally longer-meritorically version than on the ENwiki but now I found musical chairs actually more difficult to describe than the Categories, especially that musical chairs apparently have obscure translations; for example I found (BTW missed in wikidata) article cs: Hra s židlemi which confuse musical chairs with many other games where chair is used (probably educational childern games similar to Fruit Basket Turnover and perhaps indoor verdion of Scavenger hunt with chairs as I can see) but on the other hand the categories (d:Q897014) just have wikisource on CSwiki… Either way if you never heard about categories, I will ask in abother way: which ones (among many commercial games which you suggested) are more vital in your opinion than Chess variants/Fischer random chess? Actually I ask only about games younger than 70’s-80’s because of I maybe could consider removal of Hex but certainly not for plenty very recent board games, younger than 80’s. I would like be interested in removal of hex because of being notable in math/AI research is not enough arument if we are going to make massive cut in video games but on the other hand I am afraid with listing so many very recent geek-board games if they have lower significance than e g Fisher's random chess as there are quite many skill toys and casual board games like Connect Four Some older (and perhaps the most canonical very recent to represent newest generation) seems be OK for me. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Card games
Remove: Right now we have 8 poker-themed articles. I think that's too much. I'd suggest removing Community card poker, Five-card draw , Five-card stud, Seven-card stud and perhaps also Draw poker and Stud poker. Instead I'd suggest adding Online poker and Strip poker as wider phenomena that more people have heard about (than poker variants which are not generally of interest to anyone but poker players)
Support --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ambivalent (consider for removal perhaps): Concentration (card game), Crazy Eights, Schnapsen (listed under Mariage (card game), do we need both?),
Support --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Add War (card game) (traditional and famous), Android: Netrunner to CCGs (high BGG ranking, awards, example of a more mature game to complement MtG, whereas Pokemon and Yugioh are more geared towards kids and teeneagers), Hearthstone (the most popular example of the Digital collectible card game)
Support War, Hearthstone Oppose Netrunner, because we would have two games from the same designer (this and MTG) --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that there are too many and/or the wrong variants of poker.  Strip poker can be added.  Wikipedia doesn't have an article on online versions of board and card games (sort of the "parent" to online poker, among other things), which is too bad, because that would be a good add.  Concentration I'd keep but I'd drop some of the others.  War I'd add. pbp 00:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It may be helpful to establish some qualifying factors e.g. that a game is one or more of the following:
  • National card game
  • Very popular card game
  • Historically important card game
  • Progenitor of a family of card games
  • 'Type' of a family of card games
On that basis, Concentration would probably drop out as would the two variants of Stud Poker and maybe some of the other Poker variants. Schnapsen (national and v popular), Mariage (historical and progenitor) and Crazy Eights (type) would probably stay. BTW why do some of the games have Level 4 against them but most don't? Bermicourt (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Video games
Remove: History of Eastern role-playing video games and History of Western role-playing video games (we don't list the history of other types of games). And then History and consoles, sigh, do we need 41 articles in that subcategory? I'd remove all but History of video games for being too detailed. C'mon, what other protonema gets 3+ dozens of history articles? Through I'd keep articles on prominent video game consoles like Game Boy, PlayStation, Xbox, maybe few others, but there is an overivew at Video game console and such anyway. But we certainly don't need industry trivia like Video game crash of 1983 or historical curios like Magnavox Odyssey or TurboGrafx-16 that only die hard geeks and fans remember. Similarly do we need to list all eight articles on video console generations (when we are not even listing articles on real generations like baby boomers...? Priorities, please, my fellow geeks). Oh, and Specific video games and series (99 articles) has in fact 111 entries. I think we should prune it down to below 50. As a start, how about we remove all examples of franchises? Like, Final Fantasy series can stay, but no need to list individual entries, same for GTA or Zelda and such. One game per series or the series itself is sufficient (like we list Wolfenstein but not the likely most famous milestone Wolfenstein 3D, tough choice, but we need variety, ditto for the 'how can you not list FF7', sorry, we list the series, that should be enough). Bottom line we should keep one example of a prominent game genra, plus popular franchises. And historical 'firsts' from 20th century should go away too unless they are very famous (so keep Space Invaders but remove Zork, etc.).
Support - comment: We list all "history of..." articles in the History section and they should be moved there. --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the following examples of video games: Passage (video game), Animal Crossing, Colossal Cave Adventure, Contra (video game), Defender (1981 video game), Duck Hunt, Dune II, Five Nights at Freddy's, EarthBound, Fortnite, GoldenEye 007 (1997 video game), Kirby (series), Katamari Damacy, Max Payne (video game), Ms. Pac-Man, Ōkami, Papers, Please, Passage (video game), Pitfall!, PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds, Prince of Persia, Punch-Out!! (NES), Quake (series), Rez, Red Dead Redemption, Roblox, Rock Band (video game), Rogue (video game), R-Type, Shadow of the Colossus, Spacewar!, Star Fox, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, The Walking Dead (video game), and Zork. - none of which is the dominant example of its genre and for each I think a better example is already present in the list
Support - comment: Should we list one example of video games as an artform? (so Papers Please or Passage?) And if we remove both Zork and Colossal Cave Adventure we don't have any examples of text adventure, which was a major genre of computer games. (Zork is more famous, but Colossal Cave Adventure is the first, don't know which should stay) --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fortnite removal, recent but one of the big esport games, Fortnite World Cup winner made more than a wimbledon champ. GuzzyG (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ambivalent removals: Gran Turismo (series) or Need for Speed (not sure which is a better racing game in the list)
Ambivalent adds: Incremental game, Tower defense as new genras that are raising in prominence, and Mortal Kombat and a major franchise that's not on the list and The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt as an example of the most prominent open world game (I think a better add than the Witcher franchise)
Oppose see my last comment --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
add concepts of Loot box (could also go to gambling), game design concept Open world and to section on Video game genre: tile-matching video game, Shoot 'em up, Eroge, Music video game and/or Rhythm game, Real-time strategy, Turn-based strategy, and 4X.
Support the rest except for eroge --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, add Reiner Knizia to Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/People/Artists,_musicians,_and_composers, game designers section (arguably the most prolific designers of eurogames).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose to proposed removals of Colossal Cave Adventure, Rogue, and Spacewar!. These are games of massive historical importance; Colossal Cave Adventure and Rogue each have an entire genre named after them (adventure game and roguelike respectively), and Spacewar "is one of the most important and influential games in the early history of video games" and "was named to a list of the ten most important video games of all time". I'd rather remove NetHack than Rogue.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@LaukkuTheGreit: I don't dispute they are important for History of video games but we need to ask, how many entries that are important for this particualr subfield of history do we list. I like video games, but frankly, I don't think any particular games notable only for being historical milestones are important. I think having entries on genre such as adventure games, roguelike and such, which should mention historical milestones, plus the overview article on history of vg should suffice. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have opposed some of your recent game submissions, because in the project FAQ anti-recentism is listed as one selection criteria. Maybe we should have a discussion how to interpret it. Maybe set a cap at some number of years where a game is too recent to be added? --Makkool (talk) 19:16, 11

December 2019 (UTC) I support the suggested title removals and also the removal of some of the minor consoles.  In addition, I'd remove the "daughter" articles like Final Fantasy V (daughter of Final Fantasy) and Call of Duty 4, with Mario Kart being the one possible exception.  We need genre articles for tower defense.   As for the recency thing, I think a video game should be 5 years old before being added to this list. pbp 00:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As Polish instead listing either of Open World and the Witcher I would definietly prefer keep for the diversity variant of tags (Blind man's buff and Paintball) but I also would not mind to keep either of Open World and the Witcher as you agreed each other.. When we list Computer chess, Computer Go, Deep Blue and Alpha Go at technology ection, I think AI player should be added elsewhere. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply by Dawid2009

Thank you @Piotrus: for effort to put about 150+ new suggestion in that area. That’s important point and perfect ocassion to we discuss whole life/recrearion sections and to we later compare it to currently listed 1200 sport bios. My general thoughts:

In my opinion number of listed games looks weak in comprasion to traditions sections but not weak in comprasion to stuff bios whose we list among sportpeople. While I can say that e g missed wedding reception (wedding party redirect there) is more vital than for example musical chairs (popular on wedding parties but also as children’s game) or many other less important games, suggested to remove by Piotrus, on the other hand I am ambivalent about fast removal of so many games when we list (probably to many) dozen video games personalities: 20 Video game designers ( seven Esport players+ Sjokz among sport journalists and Narcissa Wright among entertaiments (BTW also speedrun and couple esport competition ahead of olympic/worl-cup sport articles in this section).

First of all the name: „traditional games” should be renamed (why chess can not be under traditional games, and why we can not list Gomoku next to Tic-tac-toe) or whatever?). I would suggest to split it onto „outdoor games”, and „other (as non video and non tabletop) games” or whatever, something not-complicated to we do not create our imaginate new clasification.

I am ambivalent about adding technical articles like tabletop game or ball game but in general I am weakly oppose addition of new board game types/mechanic-related articles: Hex map, sub-eurogame topics. As there are many few-viewed mentioned list of types of games whose abuse could be probleatic here. Guess game IMO is not very needed when we have already puzzle, riddle, maze, charade.

Removing Schnapsen as redundand to mariage seems be OK as long as we do not Blackball (pool) (subtopics of English billiards); but I also noted that I (maybe just mistaly) putted Mahjong as Trick-taking game ( also parent topic for mariage) at „traditional games” and if we do not list game like Madiao, probably we could remove Ruff and honourswith purly historical importance. We already habe whist and contract bridge on the level 4 (BTW I think it i salso good point to we find discuss where put trick-tking and how all names of the sections should be selected). Your suggestions about Poker-subtopics swaps and adding War sound reasonable to me. Eventually we can swap the war for another card game mentioned in children’s card game template. Karuta as representation of another Japanese game also is interesing addition when we list Jianzi and Kemari which already have something common withCuju but I am definietly unsure about removal of the Kemari.

I think Calcio florentino is less vital than Cuju and Mesoamerican ball game. Potentially calcio could be sufficently covered by historical articles about soccer which are already listed in history section (mob football or history or soccer) but on the other hand I can not stat what I reasonably think about your suggestion because I have ambivalent thoughs when I see / or I am aware that we list cuple sport journalist who aruably are not more vital than game historians like the Murray. I like your comprasion "history of video games topics" to baby boomers . You have said that we list many video game histrical topics in comprasion to games but I would said that number of video games in general is big in comprasion to any historical entertaiment or any non-entertaiment topic listed in history section. On the other I think chess are actually easy enoug vital for this level when we are so highly under quota. I think that Hacky Sack(seems be more vital than strip poker which you just have suggested toadd) could be kept or swapped for freestyle football when we already list Streetball for basketball Dawid2009 (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dawid2009: Do you really think 30 people representing video games (which is the highest earning form of entertainment and most popular, [22] is too much when we list 1000 musicians and 900 actors??? If anything we are under representing them and with traditional sports causing brain injuries; i wouldn't be surprised if more youth get involved in esports. Where do you get this over represented idea from? Why is 30 too low for the most popular form of entertainment when we list 30 magicians? Who do you think will have and currently has the biggest influence on gen z and under people; Logan Paul or Timothée Chalamet? We shouln't cover new actors because they have no influence, but video games/youtube/esports IS the new thing; so if we cover this centuries entertainment than they must be covered. We can't just keep saying 30 video game people and 20 web people is too much when we list 1,900 people from last centuries forms of entertainment. [23] these people completely dominate this century; we shouldn't be behind the times. These articles are popular and this is a pop culture list first; they are vital to have featured and well written/looked after in this culture; if that changes than they can be removed and the quotas lowered; if anything the web quota should be 30 considering magic is. GuzzyG (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Our fellow editors just have started discussion about the issues/ removals around the parent topics (games, including the video games) so of course I had to point that we should also have discuss about the questionable 1200 sportpeople and quotas for so many esports included there. when topics like calcio florentiono just have been suggested to removal by three users (I just remind that @DaGizza:suggested Calcio on the level 4 in the past, and, BTW, FYI I will remind that Gizza even probably thanked 01.10.2019 @Cobblet: for this edit where he pointed that we all made list is too similar to WP:5000) that's important point. In the FAQthere is NO informatin that level 5 toward more pop culture than in contrast to other levels but there are also a lot of important topics related with recreation such like calcio or zanza which IMO do not fit to the level 4 but can make material on the level 5. Pay attention that we just list the olympics on the level 3 ahead of IOC but we do not have World Cup ahead of FIFA based on fact 2026 FIFA Wolrd Cup event (maybe biggest in history such entertaiment event) because of we do not make encyclopedia based on future. While video game industry is important topic, video game designers and Esport players still are far from video game core topics (including some suggested for removal in this section) just as architects of the Notterdame are less vital than Notterdame itself but Louis Armstrong is much more vital than his many creations (honestly and authentically there are no video game perosality on the level 5 who has more language versions than for example "niche" ski jumper like Adam Małysz so for now I actually find it with hardly arguable benefit of being a productive dispute to say that it is underrepresented especially if in the past even @Purplebackpack89: suggested to keep 60 all video game non-bios topics among 50 000 all articles).I do not dispute that fields like youtubers/esports/game designers are interesig and growing dominated part of 21th century ( + strong top of representtive field if we are going to whatever represent from21th century) but on the other hand it is difficult to say whose among them are the most vital as every biography in that field can be out gone by other fellow biograpy from the same. I appreciate your big effort of creating this list and appreciate fact that you are probably the biget constributor but your stating about 30 video game people vs 30 magicians when just you earlier controlled theose two quotas by WP:bold littly is uncalled-for in light of tentive process (We need suggestions from a much larger pool of editors with expertise in a range of subjects, and a slower process to add articles with more long-term planning on how the list should be structured and organised). Personally I am afraid that numbers of sport-people and entartaiments on this level is currently exaggeration if we do not list all languages more vital than Dolly Pentreath who is already on the list. Beyond that for example, seriously/honestly Cricket have biographies with mind-importance statement by wikiproject... meanwhile William Wadé Harris (top-importanc christianity topic which also represent Africa) is not listed among religious figures. Either way I already opened new section about FAQ . if you have something interesing to say about fact that the FAQ inaccurate describe recentism on L, kept comment there (where I just pinged you), but please no longer reply here, under this subsection, because of here is hard discussion about games but not about thousand topics among whole 50 000 list. Cheers Dawid2009 (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Some of the changes you mention weren't me. I continue to believe that the space devoted to video games (especially individual titles) is excessive and drastic pruning is needed. As for sportspeople, nearly all my work at this level is in either basketball or Am football. I was also just about to suggest some changes to Protestant religious leaders. pbp 23:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we list 50 games. the personalities don't conflict, every single one of those 20 designers is vital in modern day American or Japanese culture; that's where you don't consider; video games are massive in Japan and people like Lim Yo-hwan and Faker (video game player) are vital to modern South Korean sports where esports is one of the biggest sports already; the fact that you outright lied while saying "honestly" and said no video game makers have close to the ski jumper (Shigeru Miyamoto and Markus Persson do and 8 others come extremely close) in Wikidata languages makes it hard to consider what you mean. Also you have to consider that competing in the Olympics is automatic notability and editors routinely create multiple articles for a Olympian; which shouldn't even be a factor, by your method Corbin Bleu is more important than Shakespeare, Picasso and Mozart. Are you saying creating a Level 4 franchise (pokemon), isn't enough to list Satoshi Tajiri? We list one video game designer on the level 4 list, is it really that much of a leap to have 20 here? I think there should be 5 esports people; i just havent got around to cutting the others yet; im constantly working but i cant do everything at once, there's so many culture and fields to examine; i posted about how musicians were done but i discovered i was wrong instantly and will do more cuts to popular music; it just takes time and trying to rush everything is a waste of time. There's two competitive eaters because one is the most vital in America and the other in Japan and i didn't want to be bias. Cricket is the 2nd biggest team sport and you're using it as a example of something covered too much? If we had one athelte on the 129 list based off of good stats only we'd list Don Bradman, i don't understand your methodology in that case? Entertainers will get a massive cut when i get to that section; but still web people won't; i linked a study showing web influencers are just as known but better liked than Lebron who is a level 4 article; do you have a source saying that web entertainers don't compare to actors? Articles like porn stars, youtubers and criminals are integral to this level and i stand by that. People like Linda Lovelace, Hulk Hogan, Bonnie and Clyde and PewDiePie are vital, their fields just don't have the seriousness factor to them so they're not in the level 4 list. I strongly disagree with Cobblet when it comes to this level and his method of "what an encyclopedia should prioritize"; we shouldn't play god on this level; we should mostly go by what field is popular and not what we subjectively believe we should prioritize if youtubers articles get over 10 million views we should prioratise that to be a featured article. By Cobblet's method William Wadé Harris is more important than Pablo Escobar to have featured because of the seriousness of Harrises field compared to Escobar, but Escobar is one of the few articles with over 100 million views combining all the languages; what article is more important to have featured? Clearly linking to a years old post when my methodology has clearly changed is wrong too; i'm sure Cobblet wouldn't have such a reaction if he seen what i've done to the artists & musicians page; except we don't have ancient composers, people like Kassia, national anthem composers, more non western art musicians and foreign language musicians like Clarence Wijewardena but it takes time; you're citing things that will get removed in due time, like when you started the Randall Munroe discussion early, you have to just be patient. I did try to get others opinions too, when i asked everyone in my "musicians is complete " post and i incorporated the feedback; the only section that got swapped completely was the Polish musicians which you had added. Basing vitality off of things like wikidata stats or wikiproject importance ratings is not the way to go in my opinion. Every section of artists & musicians, sports, entertainment, misc, writers and such will get a complete makeover; the writing/activism section is terrible; but i can't change everything at once and musicians/artists will be my focus for a bit as i figure out what to cut. GuzzyG (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also the problem with considering scientist biographies that people don't realize is that nowadays they work in teams; for every vital discovery it's a team; i get we need every nobel winner just because the award has a big amount of respect to it; but let's be frank that makes us list 3 relatively minor people like Robert Coleman Richardson, David Lee (physicist) and Douglas Osheroff who are known for the exact same thing and there's many three pairings in Nobel history. We could find hundreds of bios of teams members like this; but for the general sake i still stand by that a article like Charles Manson is more vital to have a featured article for the sake of the people who read this site. If we play activism based on "who deserves" a placement this list would only be scientists, religious people and philosophers. Since this site depends on readers, we can't dismiss what people are actually interested in too. GuzzyG (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually after examining the data again; i take back the point; i'm not in favour of any esports cuts while the niche quota itself remains. Esports is the most popular sport that's ever existed in the niche category; this year the Leagues of Legends event passed the superbowl in total viewers [24] and it's being debated for the olympics in a serious way; unlike any other of the niche sports we list [25] (also from that article is:"Esports will be a medal event at the 2022 Asian Games") and there's a Olympic sanctioned tournament at the next olympics for Street fighter [26], which calls into question the removal of Daigo Umehara before. Players of a more recent tournament win more prize money than players who win Wimbledon. [27] Honestly; for a sport of this level of viewership it's undercovered and should be ten; all because Gen Z is in a position where their interests aren't reported on as much as traditional sports, that doesn't mean it's not important too; we don't have to build a "encyclopedia for the future" just accurately cover what is actually popular right now; i'd love to see ski jumping independently get 100 million viewers. The focus on ski jumping and not skiing itself is weird too. Even in Poland the president is advocating for esports. [28]. If one of the highest watched, with one of the highest prize pools sports isn't worth 7 spots than we should cut our sports quota by 400 atleast, since 400 people wouldn't make it if their sport was held to the same standard. GuzzyG (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also last point: but actually looking into ski jumpers; the next ones we'd list would be Sara Takanashi, Simon Ammann or Kamil Stoch; the fact that you chose Adam Małysz over them is odd considering he's less successful than them, but he does have more wikidata languages than most of the video game designers unlike the others; also the fact that Takanashi is not as popular in her home country as the esports players despite being the greatest female ski jumper of all time; signifies the importance of esports players it'd seem and the fact that Małysz has more wikidata languages than them signifies how much of a unreliable system just depending on that alone is. sports is the one section that should be recent leaning; athletes don't have that much historical value unless they hold a record or they're a anomaly like Babe Ruth, as such we should be more focused on current athletes. GuzzyG (talk) 04:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Purplebackpack89#@GuzzyG:,_@Dawid2009:_and_Vital_articles - here we both already discusset and said enough related matters (on PBP's talk page). Either way I just echo my last and main point: Calcio Fiorentino is not more vital than Mesoamerican Ballame but enough vital for this level if we consider what else we cover on this level, even despite fact we list articles related to history of soccer. It is more vital game from Florence than Game of the Goose (first commeecial game) which is also from Florence so Calcio automatically is more vital than most commercial video games. This centureies game is also so traditional game that Italy it is the only country n Europe where name of soccer is not called there by Linguistic purism as foot+ball (see it:Calcio). I am not sure how to compare articles like Fortnite or Ninja (video game player) (really global but the most recent and in near future will be easier to compare) but Calcio and Game of the Goose, certainly are more important to FA than most games like Passage (video game). Dawid2009 (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FAQ

Althoug the FAQ refer about „anti-rcentism”, currently we have often discussions about fact that some fields (just like films or video games) need this rigoristic limit less than the others (just like literaturę, oral tradition etc.). Is someone interested to correct there? Another interesing thing i salso „tiloring to readers of the English Wikipedia” as it also is going to be more confused on lower (L4 and L5) levels and contradict to WP:Bias which whay active participitians have differ definitions about vitalness in that project. In the past @Power~enwiki: tried start this discussion on Jimbo’s talk page here but it did not get tany attention. Maybe now on the level 5 (when talk on L5 is more than double times more viewed than talk on L3) we could hve any consensus here? I also echo discussion above where Calcio fiorentino and a lot of parent bvideo games are suggested to the removal meanwhile @GuzzyG: defend Esport players. I am generally ambivalent as I only will wait for consensus among larer number of ditors but I would like to ping @Headbomb: who added almost all video game topics on this level and @Carlwev: who originally pointed in the past that we often miss parent topics on the level 5 (as Carlwev also speciffically were reffering to fact that we were listing for example Esport players before video games, meanwhile we now we again are going to cut video games back). Dawid2009 (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: who added almost all video game topics on this level I did? If I did so, I added generations + biggest members of the generation, and some historically important games / franchises. No real strong feelings about particular target number of articles, but IMO the generations, the big consoles, and those historically important games should stay. (@Dawid2009: Also your above post contains a rather large number of typos which makes it hard to understand.) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
111+ individual games seems rather high though. Cutting down by ~50 ish should leave plenty behind. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the current list, I'd purge the following

  1. Angry Birds
  2. Animal Crossing
  3. Assassin's Creed
  4. Asteroids (video game)
  5. BioShock
  6. Call of Duty
    1. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
  7. Candy Crush Saga
  8. Castlevania
    1. Castlevania: Symphony of the Night
  9. Civilization (series)
    1. Civilization
  10. Colossal Cave Adventure
  11. Counter-Strike
  12. Contra
  13. Dance Dance Revolution
  14. Dark Souls
  15. Digimon
  16. Donkey Kong
  17. Defender (1981 video game)
  18. Deus Ex
  19. Doom (1993 video game)
  20. Dota 2 Dota
  21. Dragon Quest
  22. Duck Hunt
  23. Dune II
  24. EarthBound
  25. The Elder Scrolls
  26. Elite
  27. Fallout (series)
    1. Fallout
  28. FIFA
  29. Fire Emblem
  30. Final Fantasy
    1. Final Fantasy
    2. Final Fantasy IV
    3. Final Fantasy VII
  31. Five Nights at Freddy's
  32. Fortnite
  33. Frogger
  34. Galaga
  35. Gauntlet (1985 video game)
  36. GoldenEye 007 (1997 video game)
  37. God of War (franchise)
  38. Grand Theft Auto
    1. Grand Theft Auto III
    2. Grand Theft Auto V
  39. Gran Turismo
  40. Guitar Hero
  41. Half-Life (series)
    1. Half-Life
  42. Halo (franchise)
  43. King's Quest I King's Quest
  44. Kirby
  45. Katamari Damacy
  46. Kingdom Hearts
  47. League of Legends
  48. The Legend of Zelda
    1. The Legend of Zelda (1986)
    2. The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past
    3. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
  49. LucasArts adventure games
    1. The Secret of Monkey Island
  50. Madden NFL
  51. Max Payne
  52. Marvel vs. Capcom
  53. Mario (franchise)
    1. Mario Kart
    2. Super Mario Bros.
    3. Super Mario World
    4. Super Mario 64
  54. Metal Gear
    1. Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game)
  55. Mega Man
  56. Metroid
    1. Metroid Prime
    2. Super Metroid
  57. Minecraft
  58. Minesweeper
  59. Mortal Kombat
  60. Ms. Pac-Man
  61. Myst
  62. Need for Speed
  63. NetHack
  64. NBA Jam (1993 video game)
  65. Overwatch
  66. Ōkami
  67. Pac-Man
  68. Papers, Please
  69. Passage
  70. Pitfall!
  71. Planescape: Torment (could be replaced with Baldur's Gate)
  72. PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds
  73. Pokémon (Level 4)
    1. Pokémon Red and Blue
    2. Pokémon Go
  74. Pong (Level 4)
  75. Portal
  76. Prince of Persia
  77. Pro Evolution Soccer
  78. Punch-Out!! (NES)
  79. Quake
  80. Rez
  81. Red Dead Redemption
  82. Resident Evil
  83. Roblox
  84. Rock Band
  85. Rogue
  86. R-Type
  87. Second Life
  88. Shadow of the Colossus
  89. Silent Hill
  90. SimCity (1989 video game)
  91. The Sims
  92. Sonic the Hedgehog
    1. Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game)
    2. Sonic Adventure
  93. Souls series
  94. Space Invaders
  95. Spacewar!
  96. StarCraft
  97. Star Fox
  98. Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic
  99. Street Fighter
    1. Street Fighter II: The World Warrior
  100. Super Smash Bros.
    1. Super Smash Bros. Melee
  101. Team Fortress 2
  102. Tetris (Level 4)
  103. Tomb Raider
  104. Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six
  105. Tekken
  106. Ultima series
  107. The Walking Dead
  108. Wii Sports
  109. Wolfenstein
  110. World of Warcraft
  111. Zork

That would remove 37 entries. A couple of those could be trimmed/replaced with the franchise entry. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would also trim the following: Call of Duty 4, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Civilization I, Legend of Zelda 86, A Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, Super Mario Bros, Super Mario 64, Super Mario World, Metal Gear 98, Super Metroid, Pokémon Red and Blue, Sonic 91, Street Fighter II, Super Smash Bros Melee pbp 00:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support PBP's suggestions except; Pokémon Red and Blue, Super Mario 64, Super Mario Bros. and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time all are super important on their own; the last two i'd rather list over their franchises aswell before they were removed. Super Mario Bros. is the The Birth of a Nation of games and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is the Citizen Kane of games. I also have no clue why Level 3's anti recentism rule is cited at level 5; where all the listed examples of who not to list are listed at level 4, except Trump. GuzzyG (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Dota 2 should be swapped with it's bland franchise article; it's one of the highest paying esports and is regarded as one of the greatest games itself. GuzzyG (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's strange how we list rarely any of the Game canon [29], with these proposed removals we won't have any of the top 10 of metacritics highest rated games [30], not that we have many of them now anyway. Do we really need to cut video games down? [31] it's the highest selling form of entertainment. Nearly triples films revenue; what articles will replace them in the sports and games section that's so important? More sports teams? Space Invaders has grossed in total more than nearly triple Dallas Cowboys are worth and even super recent Grand Theft Auto V has made more in gross than the Cowboy's are worth. Do we have any replacements planned or are we just cutting to cut? GuzzyG (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are only a few here I'd cut, like Digimon, Passage (video game), and Ultima (series). Many of these are listed in the list of video games considered the best which indicates, to me at least, that they shouldn't be cut (e.g. BioShock and Assassin's Creed, two of the best selling game franchises. In fact, I'd make some additions and modifications to the list:
I'm very much opposed to the cuts that Purplebackpack89 proposed. Every single game they listed has been influential in some way. Similarly, Dota 2 is undeniably more popular than anything else listed in Dota and should not be cut. Other games, like The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, could be added to this, though this discussion is not the place for that. Anarchyte (talk | work) 10:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Anarchyte:: The thing is, I'd like the titles section to have about half the titles it does now. I just find it excessive to have 100+ video game titles. And I think it's unnecessary in most cases to have multiple titles from the same franchise or series. pbp 14:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have 523 total sport-related vital articles. For swimming we have, among others, Synchronised swimming, Swimming (sport) and Water polo. For gymnastics we've got Balance beam, Pommel horse, Uneven bars, etc. That's no different to having a few Mario games that sold more than 70 million units and another series that sold over 135 million units. Pokemon Red and Blue were the first games in what is now the biggest media franchise in the world. I don't think the same can be said for the floor. Anarchyte (talk | work) 16:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion seems to have stalled so I'm doing another proposal to get things moving and arrive at a quota. What about we do a vote on how many specific games/series we want, after closing take the median value and (for the sake of aesthetics) round it to the nearest number divisible by 5, or divisible by 10 if the median happens to be exactly halfway between two numbers divisible by 5. For the record, my vote would be 80 games. (The other video game subsections seem fine to me in terms of size.)--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestions are that we should:
  • Remove Animal Crossing, Civilization (series), Colossal Cave Adventure, Contra, Defender, Duck Hunt, Dune II, Fallout (series), Five Nights at Freddy's, EarthBound, Fortnite, GoldenEye 007, Half-Life (series), Kirby (series), Katamari Damacy, Max Payne, Metal Gear, Ōkami, Pitfall!, PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds, Prince of Persia, Punch-Out!!, Quake, Rez, Red Dead Redemption, Roblox, Rogue, R-Type, Shadow of the Colossus, Souls series, Star Fox, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, Street Fighter
  • Definitely keep Assassin's Creed, BioShock, Civilization (video game), Dark Souls, Deus Ex, Doom, Dota 2, Elite, Fallout (video game), Final Fantasy VII, Grand Theft Auto III, Grand Theft Auto V, Half-Life (video game), Metal Gear Solid, Pac-Man, Pokémon Red and Blue, Pong, Resident Evil, SimCity, Space Invaders, Spacewar!, StarCraft, Street Fighter II: The World Warrior, Super Mario Bros., Super Mario 64, Super Metroid, Tetris, The Legend of Zelda (video game), The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, The Secret of Monkey Island, Tomb Raider, World of Warcraft, Zork --Makkool (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll follow suit - my votes for the procedure I proposed below:

Sports teams

Basketball

I've added Harlem Globetrotters to three NBA teams. This team popularized the game more than any single NBA club. --Deinocheirus (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Association football

I strongly suggest replacing R.S.C. Anderlecht with AFC Ajax. The Dutch club won the Champions League and its predecessor 4 times (the Belgians never won it) while also adding an Intercontinental Cup and a couple of UEFA Super Cups. All Anderlecht has got is two Cup Winners' Cups (Ajax actually also has one) and one UEFA Cup (Ajax also has one). So I don't see any reason to keep Anderlecht on the list in place of a much more successful club. --Deinocheirus (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stages of life

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life#Stages of life for the list of topics in this category.

Society and social sciences

Back to contents

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences for the list of topics in this category.

Generations

I think we should add all entries from Template:Generations sidebar here. As far as I can tell neither is listed here, and those are big concepts (Millennials, Baby boomers, etc.). That's 7 articles. And Generation should be level 4 vital at least, I guess I'll go to V4 talk page and propose adding it there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support adding the articles for specific generations. Sdkb (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support from me as well. --Makkool (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How many languages and tribes should be included on the level 5?

In my opinion number of lanugages and tribes included to the level 5 (when language is level 1 article and tribe is level 4 article), could be veeeeeeeerrrrryyyyyy bigg. I would like point that we list Dolly Pentreath who is less notable than Cornish language. What do you guys think? Dawid2009 (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Basics for the list of topics in this category.

Anthropology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Anthropology for the list of topics in this category.

Business and economics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Business and economics for the list of topics in this category.

Add BlackRock

World's largest asset manager, arguably more significant than many banks we currently list. feminist (talk) | free Hong Kong 14:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nominator. feminist (talk) | free Hong Kong 14:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Add ASML Holding

Largest technology company in Europe by market capitalization. Arguably the most important (read: vital) semiconductor company in the world. feminist (talk) | free Hong Kong 14:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nominator. feminist (talk) | free Hong Kong 14:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove United Microelectronics Corporation

Not insignificant, but having TSMC should be enough. Among semiconductor foundries, we don't list the slightly larger GlobalFoundries. feminist (talk) | free Hong Kong 14:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nominator. feminist (talk) | free Hong Kong 14:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove 3dfx Interactive, Creative Technology, NortonLifeLock, and Unisys

These are, simply put, among the least significant technology companies on the list. Creative Technology is a niche computer audio company and is IMO less significant than Realtek. As for NortonLifeLock, it's much preferable to make Antivirus software a good article rather than a specific software provider. feminist (talk) | free Hong Kong 14:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nominator. feminist (talk) | free Hong Kong 14:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Culture

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Culture for the list of topics in this category.

Education

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Education for the list of topics in this category.

Ethnology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Ethnology for the list of topics in this category.

International organizations

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#International organizations for the list of topics in this category.

Language

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Language for the list of topics in this category.

Law

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Law for the list of topics in this category.

Add Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam

It is considered "High importance" by Wikipedia's Human Rights project. It is often at the centre of discussions on whether Islam's understanding of Human Rights is compatible with a Western understanding.

Support
  1. As nom. --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Journalism and Mass Media

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Journalism and Mass Media for the list of topics in this category.

Remove mass media companies

These are not particularly significant in contrast to the cultural significance of the media franchises they own. I added them, but I feel that they are a magnitude less important than what we have under the Companies section.

Support removal
  1. As nominator. feminist (talk) | free Hong Kong 14:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal
Discuss

National organizations

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#National organizations for the list of topics in this category.

Add Fatah

Proposal to add Fatah to the "Political parties" subsection.

Support
  1. Support as nominator --MarioGom (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

One of the most notable organizations in the Middle East, specially in the second half of 20th century. --MarioGom (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Politics and government

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Politics and government for the list of topics in this category.

Psychology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Psychology for the list of topics in this category.

Society

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Society for the list of topics in this category.

Digital divide

Add Digital divide to society topics? Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Racial groups missing

It appears we don't list white people or black people, and possibly a bunch of other ethnic groups. Where should they be added? Sdkb (talk) 06:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences, either to anthropology or sociology/Society sections. The white/black duality is the classic one and so I support both of the above terms. Worth noting that Mongoloid is already under Society, as is Negroid and the Caucasian race, all subset of Race topic - this is probably where the two terms you added should go. Asian people is not listed here yet. Through one issue to discuss is whether we need two articles that are to some degree very similar (ex. white people ts the Caucasian race). One is more about the social aspects and the other is more about biological ones, but the overlap is big, and I could see some people arguing we have room for one but not both concepts. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Race categories like those we already list are historical and not used in modern language. It would be better to replace them with modern terms like "white people", "black people", "asian people" etc. --Makkool (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with those above. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just added "White people" and "Black people" to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Ethnic groups, hoping that is the right place. Since that group is not complete, more articles can be added there. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FWIHW, IMO we should have separated section for racial names from Biological anthropology perspective and from Folk taxonomy perspective, both are important. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sociology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Sociology for the list of topics in this category.

Subcultures

So a third of it is dominated by subcultures. Not sure if this is far inclusion. Might be worth splitting subcultures to their own section, including them under sociology is very arbitrary. In either way, I'd suggest:

  • removal of Pickup artist (minor) Also higher level concepts missing that should be added here are dating, Courtship and Intimate relationship, but they are all vital 4 already. Shouldn't they be added here, or are they present at another Vital 5 subpage and I missed them?
  • removal of Preppy - not well known outside US, where it is limited only to a part of the country
  • removal of Riot grrrl and Straight edge - I think it's enough to keep Punk subculture
  • why is Skinhead listed under youth subculture, unlike punks and such? Just a technical note it should be moved one level up in the listing
  • removal of Greaser (subculture) - IMHO not as famous as hippie and others which are known internationally.
  • removal of Mod (subculture) - ditto.
  • to add: Otaku

Thoughts? Anyone feels we should vote on any of those? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these are my additions, and I'm ok with them being trimmed. Otaku is already covered by Geek and Anime and manga fandom, and I would replace either one with it instead of adding it out right. --Makkool (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

War and military

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#War and military for the list of topics in this category.

Biology and health sciences

Back to contents

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences for the list of topics in this category.

Basics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology#Biology basics for the list of topics in this category.

Anatomy and morphology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology#Anatomy and morphology for the list of topics in this category.

Biochemistry and molecular biology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology#Biochemistry and molecular biology for the list of topics in this category.

Biological processes and physiology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology#Biological processes and physiology for the list of topics in this category.

Botany

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology#Botany for the list of topics in this category.

Cell biology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology#Cell biology for the list of topics in this category.

Ecology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology#Ecology for the list of topics in this category.

Zoology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology#Zoology for the list of topics in this category.

Animals

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Animals for the list of topics in this category.

Plants, fungi, and other organisms

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Plants for the list of topics in this category.

Health, medicine and disease

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Health for the list of topics in this category.

Please add an article (Vaccine hesitancy)

Hello. --Алёна Пескова (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from article (It is identified by the World Health Organization as one of the top ten global health threats of 2019.). --Алёна Пескова (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this myself to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Health since it is still far below quota. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Physical sciences

Back to contents

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences for the list of topics in this category.

Basics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Basics and measurement#Science basics for the list of topics in this category.

Measurement

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Basics and measurement#Measurement for the list of topics in this category.

Astronomy

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Astronomy for a complete list of articles in this topic.

Chemistry

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Chemistry for the list of topics in this category.

Earth science

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Earth science for the list of topics in this category.

Physics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Physics for the list of topics in this category.

Fourth, fifth, and sixth derivatives of position

I see that Fourth, fifth, and sixth derivatives of position was just added by User:Cincotta1. I dispute this. The topic is barely worth having an article at all. It is certainly not a vital article; not even at level 5. I propose it be removed from the list.--Srleffler (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technology

Back to contents

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology for the list of topics in this category.

Agriculture

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Agriculture for the list of topics in this category.

Biotechnology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Biotechnology for the list of topics in this category.

Computing and information technology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Computing and information technology for the list of topics in this category.

Electronics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Electronics for the list of articles in this category.

Engineering

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Engineering for the list of topics in this category.

Industry

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Industry for the list of topics in this category.

Infrastructure

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Infrastructure for the list of articles in this category.

Machinery and tools

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Machinery and tools for the list of topics in this category.

Media and communication

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Media and communication for the list of topics in this category.

Medical technology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Medical technology for the list of topics in this category.

Military technology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Military technology for the list of topics in this category.

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Navigation and timekeeping for the list of topics in this category.

Optical technology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Optical technology for the list of topics in this category.

Space

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Space for the list of topics in this category.

Galileo (spacecraft)

Galileo (spacecraft) is listed as a level-5 vital article, but I've recently split it into two articles: Galileo (spacecraft) and Galileo program. Which one should be the Vital article? Or both? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Textiles

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Textiles for the list of topics in this category.

Transportation

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Transportation for the list of topics in this category.

Mathematics

Back to contents

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics for the list of topics in this category.

Basics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics#Basics for the list of topics in this category.

Algebra

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics#Algebra for the list of topics in this category.

Calculus and analysis

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics#Calculus and analysis for the list of topics in this category.

Discrete mathematics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics#Discrete mathematics for the list of topics in this category.

Geometry

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics#Geometry for the list of topics in this category.

Probability and statistics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics#Probability and statistics for the list of topics in this category.

Other

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics#Other for the list of topics in this category.

General discussions

Back to contents

Add more National flags, Coat of arms and National athemns

Is someone interested in addition of more flags, coats of arm and national athemns? Personally I think National flag and Coat of arm, both clearly should be level 4 article. We are more and more close to the limit at the level 5 and if we pass limit I belive many topics could be swapped for coat of arms or flags. In my opinion Coat of arms of Armenia or Flag of the United Kingdom are clearly vital articles and if we have specific olympic iteration or video game topic I would even except to list all national flags. Interesing would be also inclusion coat of arms for cities. Thoughts? Dawid2009 (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea. You can find relevant articles listed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. Dimadick (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Feminist:, @Purplebackpack89:, @Power~enwiki: What do you think about it? Are you also still interested in estabilising cities and subdivisions? Dawid2009 (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already added all national flags. I think all of them are certainly vital (Flag of Nepal has comparable Wikipedia own's statistic to Tenzing Norgay who is listed on the list with five times harder requirement). During that time I found two interesing things: 1Flag of Russia, Flag of China and Flag of USA are listed among history section too (IMO adding more "History of country would be better for that section) 2 Flag of India and Flag of South Africa got rate from Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team but never have been nominated to the level 4. Dawid2009 (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this, It is very posible that I accidentally missed one or handful countries; now I have problem to review it and found among ~~200 ones. I hope that I did not missed any important country but it would be nice if someone could help review this list. Dawid2009 (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of basic science terms

I think we should add the following to Vital 5 (if not higher), but I am unsure what sections would be best, some kind of general section for sciences? (I will note that IMHO equivalent terms like Axiom, Paradigm, Hypothesis, Theory, Deductive reasoning are a V4 article in Philosophy; Experiment and Observation are V4 in Physics, Conjecture is V4 in Math, Academic journal is V4 in Society, Belief is V3 in Philosophy, Scientific method is V3 at Science). In V5 from the concepts I was reviewing I just found Academic publishing (V5 in Society). Some of what I propose below could go to Philosophy, but probably not all of it.The following are IMHO relevant concepts that should be V5. Some of those might warrant a discussion at V4 level.

Separately, I will also list the concept of Clinical trial, as rather important, through not to all branches of science. That one can probably be added to medicine or health section or such. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support adding these. Maybe the best place is Science - Basics? --Makkool (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would add most of them to science - basic (but not all). IMO all should be tenatively listed elsewhere when we are under quota, Scientific community surely is more vital than plenty listed bios on the level 5 and article like Peer review for nodoubtly deserve nomination to the level 4. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek

Add Star Trek. Not sure where to add as franchise as a whole is more significant than the work in any specific media. Show creator Gene Roddenberry is in under TV people, but media has far surpassed his involvement (compare, both George Lucas and Star Wars--specifically the franchise--included). Hyperbolick (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a swap of Star Trek the franchise for the fictional characters listed. BTW, fictional characters needs clean up: I tried to clean it up, but some of my proposals were archived. pbp 22:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hadn't realized there were characters. Agree with that swap. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is this discussion about? The article "Star Trek" is already listed in fact it's actually listed at level 4 under TV shows....The article is about the franchise in general, but it is listed under TV shows presumably because it was that first, and it is that most people associate it with being. If a general encyclopedia were to cover the topic, I think the general article about Star Trek would be the one it would list, and it would be the one most people would search for. I believe it would be silly to swap it for another, just so we can pigeon hole in comfortably in our existing lists in this case of other TV shows. Other franchises are listed at other places within level 4, for example Star Wars in movies is about the franchise not the first movie, and Pokemon is listed in videogames, is about the franchise as a whole not one specific game, I agree these articles are the ones we should list. On a side note, I personally think the articles on Star Trek: The Original Series and Star Trek: The Next Generation would be better than the listed Captain Kirk and Spock at level 5.  Carlwev  18:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Much more than TV shows, though. Thirteen feature films, video games, comics. Franchise as a whole is significant apart from TV. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of agree with you. I have not been following the level five list as much as the others. At least at level 4 there is no "franchise" section at present, TV shows would be the best place, although technically wrong, same as best place for Star Wars is movies but again technically wrong also. We could discus having a "franchise" or cross media work or another name section, for things like Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Pokemon, Mario, James Bond and others. Perhaps near fictional characters. Characters are based on a single character but are still kind of franchises, like Superman, Batman, Tarzan, Harry Potter, James Bond etc, where as Star Trek Star Wars Pokemon are not about single fictional people. In short, we could discus having a "franchise" section to include articles I mentioned and more.  Carlwev  19:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems nothing but support. What now? Hyperbolick (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified flying object under "Film, television, animation, comics, and video game"?

Seems inapt. UFOs may be much represented in fiction, but the term comes from real life. Sociological, maybe. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add Dungeons & Dragons

The cultural impact of this game is extremely significant and it should be at Vital 5, if not higher. Not sure which section of Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts would be appropriate. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is listed in Everyday section among games (Level 4 include Mahjong and some games which earlier were removed from level 3 just as chess). BTW this section need to reworking (compare quotas for video games in life and quotas for tradition in society, Is Video Game Culture really mire vital than Reformation day, Easter monday or whatecer from non-western traditions Why we limit traditions two times more rogoristic?). IMO we have too many all games but on the other hand way too many films on the level 4. Film jump not-proportionally in comprasion to games from level 5 to the level 4. A lot of articles related to video games are also listed in technology but I am surprised why AI player is missed. I am also not sure missing Super Mario Land is good idea (while rated mid-importance by wikiproject, it was one of few games which have ever been ob the top.). In general I think it is not right if video games gets 185 quota meanwhile culture et 105 (Is really Video game culture more vital than Name day?) Dawid2009 (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I concur it should be the other way around.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

remove Randall Munroe and xkcd

IMO both are less vital than many articles which we removed recently in arts by WP:Bold. Xkcd is famous in many laguages but is younger than Penny Arcade and not more influential than Hetalia: Axis Powers or Pepe the frog. Probably Webcomic and Internet meme are anough to cover such articles among 50 000 core topics.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Munroe should be kept; webcomics are one of the most important forms of comics, one rep should be kept. I'm still going through artists and this section will be fixed. Stay with me. GuzzyG (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

I support removal of Munroe but I'd rather keep xkcd or remove Pepe the Frog. This is purely subjective, but I have heard of Penny Arcade, Hetalia and xkcd but of the two other topics. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same. I support removing Munroe, but I'd keep xkcd, because it's an example of a webcomic with a wide readership. --Makkool (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just updating that Munroe has now been removed, i did big cuts to increase our representation of non western arts. This is why votes like this in non complete sections are a waste of time, because i'm constantly changing things up. GuzzyG (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible voting method to prune sections

It's mostly agreed upon that lists of video games and fictional characters are in need of pruning. (Deciding a specific quota for video games is a separate issue from what I'm going to suggest, although it's needed for the final step.) However I think the existing methods to remove entries by consensus are inefficient when there are very many to remove. What I propose is a procedure in which each entry in a section to prune is assigned a priority score (calculated from the votes it gets) and only the entries with highest priority scores are kept.

First, every user posts a comment where they list A) the entries they wish to keep, and B) the entries they wish to remove. Not every single entry has to be voted on, only those the user has a strong opinion on. (It's acceptable - though not preferable - for an entry to receive no votes at all!) This stage goes on a while - let's say for a month or two or until enough people have voted.

Next, voting is closed and priority scores calculated. Something like the following formula is used: P=(K+2)/(K+R+4)*100, where K is the amount of keep votes and R remove votes an entry has gotten, and P is the priority score as a percentage of keep votes. The +2 and +4 essentially add dummy votes (2 keeps and 2 removes) so that an entry with only a few votes for one side does not instantly get a 100% or 0%. So what happens is that the default P is 50%, and the more votes it gets on one side or the other, the more it approaches 100% or 0%. Entries everybody thinks "obviously belong" on the list get a high P (in video games these would likely be Doom, Space Invaders and such), controversial ones or those with few votes get around 50%, and those that "obviously don't belong" get a low P.

Finally, entries are sorted by their P and only the highest ranked ones that fit within the quota are kept. The cutoff point for P isn't necessarily ~50%; if it's higher then the controversial or overlooked entries will not make it, if it's lower then they will.

Thoughts?--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea. We would still have to have a single section for every single entry which is inefficient for this level at this stage. Individual letters, for example, were added to the language sections, A to Z. Then, obviously someone was trying to give it global scope and added the first five letters of the Hebrew alphabet and then just stopped. All of these, English and Hebrew, should be removed without much discussion at this point. Maybe with a general discussion about bulk removal. Another aspect is that we can make room for some sections that are over quota by reducing the biography quota which is currently 30%. --Spaced about (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like a smart way to manage this. If you decide to use this voting method, I have listed my suggestions for what articles to keep and remove in the previous thread. --Makkool (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One potential problem is that there'd turn out to be no clear cutoff point (e.g. the cutoff P for video games is 40% and there are ten games with that P, but only some of those fit within the quota) - in that case we could wait for more votes, temporarily err on the side of inclusion, or even do a separate voting round for the ambiguous entries. In any case, the situation should already be much better than what we began with, and then we can proceed with the familiar one-at-a-time voting method to fine-tune the list. Also, I think entries on other levels should be exempt from this process (Tetris stays no matter what) and be separately discussed on the appropriate level.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Complete"

If a section is 98-99% complete, shouldn't we tag it as "complete" and mandate any other additions to be discussed? pbp 19:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplebackpack89:No, since it is still not 100% complete.--RekishiEJ (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RekishiEJ: If there's only a few empty slots in a section, shouldn't we discuss those additions rather than BOLD additions? pbp 18:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Purplebackpack89:No, we shouldn't, since the list still isn't full (e.g. the religious figures subpage - the page that still lacks some vital such people).--RekishiEJ (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say tag everything as complete, I said tag SECTIONS. Also, we seem to be disagreeing with complete: does it mean FULL or does it mean STABLE? pbp 22:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Purplebackpack89:If a section is complete then it is no doubt FULL.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change to wording at WP:VA5

I re-worded a paragraph to reflect the reality that we have several completed sections where additions and removals should be discussed. pbp 22:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Old paragraph read:

This list is in the process of being created. Everyone is welcome to participate. If you see an article that you think should be included, then add it to the list. If you are unsure, then you can propose it on the talk page. Please do not remove articles which have some reasonable chance of staying here upon completion. If something was added which seems obviously not able to stand as one of the 50,000 then you can remove it, with discussion if contested, always assuming good faith. Mass deletes of articles should always be preceded by discussion. We should ideally wait until we are close to the quota in each section before engaging in serious debate over what should stay or go.

New one reads:

This list is in the process of being created. Everyone is welcome to participate. If you see an article that you think should be included in an incomplete section, then add it to the list. If you are unsure, then you can propose it on the talk page. Please do not remove articles which have some reasonable chance of staying here upon completion. If something was added which seems obviously not able to stand as one of the 50,000 then you can remove it, with discussion if contested, always assuming good faith. Mass deletes of articles should always be preceded by discussion. Additions AND removals to sections that are complete or nearly complete should be discussed. Sections that are at 98% or more of their capacity have been tagged as "complete" below.

Everybody OK with this change? pbp 22:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplebackpack89: Additions AND removals Sometimes there are situations when addition of obvious vital thing to the VA is less worth discussion (for example Triangle inequality to mathematics when we are under quota would not be worth discussion) than something what was already earlier nominated by !voting (For example you earlier made nomination of Streetballer despite fact that nomination was ealier already technically passed). Maybe we should not be so strict. I think that in complete section additions are much more worth discussion and process than the removals when we are at the lmit. We should courage readers to reading talk page but we should not mislead community that whatever is complete got better consensus and should be more seriously/strict treated (which why I changed word "done" for "complete?"). The only problem with removals can be "massive cuts" but removing five not vital articles from complete section is less problematic than addition of 70 new topics to section where we are even highly under quota without discussion. Dawid2009 (talk) 08:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should start individual proposals in stages, starting from the top. And also, I was thinking we should start the discussion after a moratorium. This would enable users to make some last changes that they have had in the back of their minds but never got around to make, in an uncomplicated way. It would also enable users to review and research proposals in a more organized way. So, more precisely, this would mean discussing
--Spaced about (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of final total and subquotas outside people section

I think we should discuss quota for sections other than biographies first. If the biographies are complete, than additions and removals could be discussed in only that section. For sections like Art, social sciences, and also health, and probably several other sections, it's too obviously insane to call them "complete" other than meaning it has reached the arbitrary number in the table on the front page. The quotas for sections outside of people were never discussed. Now the people section is full and it sets the pace. The other sections should match the people section in its depth. That means for Arts approximately 5000, and for Social sciences about 8000, Health: a reasonable estimate would be about 5000. I haven't had a closer look, those are just preliminary estimates.
The most obvious is the social sciences tab. There are 14 (!) topics on there. Most of these fields you can get a PhD in.
At the discussion where the subquotas for people were discussed and total number for people was set at 15,000 it was clearly stated that the total number of articles on level 5 still needs to be set - that was like 2 years ago and it never happened. What should the total be: 100,000? Should we start increasing in 5000 or 10000 steps and see how it goes? 55,000 for a start or maybe 75,000?
A discussion for every single entry (in analogy to other levels) for 100,000 with a half finished list like the current one, like you seem to be suggesting - that won't work, in my opinion. I would prefer longer discussion and thinking this through before plunging the project into such a crisis. Level 4 is already pretty unwieldy. Can you imagine that times 5.
Other solutions might be:
  • moving the current people section to a level 6 with 100,000 and reducing it to about half for level 5.
  • moving current people section to the core biographies list as a level 2 there, and reducing it to half its size here.
Thoughts? --22:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)--Spaced about (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to show how distorted the socalled target number is: If we extrapolate the table from level 4 to this level it would look approximately like this:

List No. Section Level 4 Level 5 (L4x5) L5 proportionate to people
1 People 2,000 10,000 15,000
2 History 675 3,350 5,025
3 Geography 1,200 6,000 9,000
4 Arts 670 3,350 5,025
5 Philosophy and religion 430 2,150 3,225
6 Everyday life 485 2,430 3,645
7 Society and social sciences 925 4,650 6,975
8 Biological and health sciences 1,475 7,350 11,025
8.1    Health, medicine and disease 275 1,330 1,995
9 Physical sciences 1,100 5,500 8,250
9.1    Basics and measurement 80 390 600
9.2    Astronomy 195 900 1,335
9.3    Chemistry 270 1,350 2,030
9.4    Earth science 260 1,300 1950
9.5    Physics 295 1,490 2,200
10 Technology 740 3,700 5,550
11 Mathematics 300 1,500 2,250
Total 5,000 50,000 75,000
  • I was under the impression that the total was always 50,000. I think that was set before the size of the sections was set; I believe it was set in the initial discussion to create Lv 5. I don't have much of a problem with people being a greater percentage of Lv 5 than of Lv 4. There are some topics that just can't have a fivefold buildout from Lv 4 to Lv 5. For example, we have every country at Lv 4...how do you build that out to Lv 5? pbp 16:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the discussion where the people quotas were set is on L4.There was no talk about other quotas. Just that it remains to be seen how large the total will be. No matter how it was back then, we are now facing the fait accompli of a disproportionately large people section for 50,000 articles.
I'm not saying that simply multiplying the quota is the solution. Some sections might need more, some less. The social scienes section to me is the most obvious needing more. The effect of this deficit can be felt on the top level 1 where people feel we need more coverage of social sciences.
The other thing is the health section. More and more people look for medical information on the internet, and the articles get a surprising amount of page views: random example: Norovirus 120,000 in the last 30 days, Hantavirus 20,000. Both are not listed on any level. I think we are underestimating the need and the potential of a larger health section. --Spaced about (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would not support a reduced quota for people in total, biographies are one of a encyclopedias most visited pages, what i will and want to support is a 100 person cut in entertainers, musicians, writers, sports and misc to add 100 to politicians and 250 to science and 150 religion. We don't have enough to list every Nobel winner and religion is severely underrepresented. I had the wrong idea for these lists originally and now it's way over bloated, i believe in a expanded strict level 4 model for this list. The writers section is a complete mess filled with niche sci fi writers and the entertainers/musicians section is way too focused on current pop culture. I'm not set on the quotas still, rock and hip-hop and pop need a cut for more composers and classical instrumentalists and non English music. In Entertainers, comedy, dance and TV could be cut by 100 each to add to directors. I really messed this list up and take full responsibility. I want to completely reorganise the sports section eventually too. I've just had writers block about this list, daunted by the writers page. I don't think we should set up votes for the writers page, there's so much fluff alot of it could be cut instantly. The musicians and artists section could start votes though - it's iron steamed and i've cleaned up alot of the mess i had caused before, the other sections are not as clean. GuzzyG (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. But the hip hop section in musicians is still too large and we would be starting discussion of musicians with 100 over quota, if I understand you correctly. Would it be possible to reduce the revolutionaries section by 100 instead? It has a quota of 1000 and we currently have about 900.--Spaced about (talk) 11:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not large when you consider it's had the same amount of years as prominence as Jazz and it's been more mainstream worldwide than R&B and those sections have 80 each. Rock is the main massive bloated section with 40 heavy metal, 40 alternative and 30 punk bands etc. Rock should be at 150 total. No the music/artists section is perfectly at quota, that bot has ruined most of the counters and made them mostly wrong, and it's demolished the layout. I meant to cut 100 from this section and move it to science,possibly cutting another 100 musicians to increase the arts quota, and redistributing the modern music like hip/hop, rock and pop quotas down a little and giving it to classical/non English music. Non English rock music is not as well covered as non English rap/pop. I'd support cutting 10 off Jazz/R&B to give another 10 to Latin and Caribbean sections. Either way people like Adrian Willaert and Kassia are missing and they're more important than any contemporary rapper, rocker and pop star because they've actually survived history, the others can wait. But really i don't know if we should be so strict with discussions, bold actions aslong as they're not overly bad are good, and any individual change can be discussed if someone has a problem. It would've been a nightmare for me to have cleaned up that section if i had to vote for everything. [32] look at how much the section has been changed before i reworked it.

It'd be hell and impossible to have voted every change since then, so i'm not in favor of big changes while this list still needs major renovating. Yes, i'd support a 100 person cut to the activists section alone, no to any cuts in military, we still don't have any of the older military figures, the activists section is horrible and could use major cutting. Plus Pirates and outlaws need moving from the "revolutionaries" section to the criminals section, which i will reorganize to include them by cutting down the murder/organized crime/thievery people, Osama bin Laden and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi are arguably more of a "revolutionary" military figure than Blackbeard or Dick Turpin/Sundance Kid but they're listed in criminals, so should pirates/outlaws. This list needs a massive re organizing, i agree - but i think a cut from 1,000 is still too much considering we're still missing whole countries in politicians and heaps of very important award winners in science. We just need to shift from the recent pop culture articles, i had a massive focus on pop culture while making this list, because i thought it wasn't fillable with historical people and i had a "everyone fits" mentality, which was wrong.

Would anyone have a problem with me cutting these sections and reorganizing the list

100 writers from the quota and adding it to science
100 entertainers and adding it to science
having a quota of 100 for TV people, Dance and Comedy (because they only have small amounts on the 2k list) and increasing actors/actresses/directors to 500 each emphasizing more of a non US film slant :making the quotas between areas of actors/actresses completely equal in all the sub quotas (like equal amount of stage, american, asian, european etc)
cutting 100 from the revolutionaries/activists section to add to science
cutting 100 of the musicians/artists quota to add too religion
cutting 100 from the musicians quota to add 100 to the artists section
cutting 100 athletes to add to politicians to focus on more old politicians
reorganizing the sports page completely including a section titled "olympic sports"
cutting 100 of the misc section to add to religion
also in the arts section, 50 individual visual art works should be cut to add 50 films, an article on a film is more important today than a article on a painting/sculpture, which is why we list more films on the level 4 list. i think 200 films is way too low and 250 would be more perfect.


in my opinion, all of these cuts would make this list more perfect and less pop culture focused. i would do it boldly like i have done before, but there's been strong resistance to removing pop culture figures on level 3 and level 4 like Richard Wagner and Judi Dench, so i thought i'd see if all of you also agreed. Because if Wagner makes level 3, it's fair if Common (rapper) makes level 5, and it's fair if Dench makes level 4, Zac Efron makes level 5. But if Wagner were on level 4 and Dench on 5, that would set the boundaries for each respective list. Anyway i just wanna improve all 3 of these lists and would want outside figures to be happy with them, so i think we should be light on pop culture, but i'd like to know what all of you think. GuzzyG (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with overproportional cuts to the artists section and also I see no need to give dance or TV or comedy even less quota. The dance section is already too small, it's a huge recreational sport for many. I don't see why you say you want to cut TV here only to add an estimated 100 TV shows only hours later? I didn't delete them, but I think they should be removed. How is a soap opera vital? I think the entire section should be deleted with the exception of 5 or 10 - we can find more vital TV shows. --Spaced about (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly where did i add 100 soap operas??? huh? Makes no sense. Don't lie about things to suit your point. (in your edit summary). Where did i say i wanted to cut TELEVISION ITSELF, when i clearly meant TV people, you know television hosts being less vital than their program???? If you think 200 dancers, 200 tv hosts and 200 comedians is not covering too much than why do we only cover 9 comedians, 15 dancers and 3 tv hosts on the level 4 list? do you believe in a 3 to 200 jump? Where on earth did i ever mention a cut to ARTISTS? when i was talking about musicians? How on earth is dance "too small"? If you honestly think shows like Guiding Light are unimportant to American broadcast history or culture than Ed, Edd n Eddy or Gravity Falls than that's on you, but every respectable TV historian knows how vital soap operas are. Unless you meant the foreign shows i added, in which surprise, soaps are the dominant form of television worldwide and the oldest form of narrated fiction on television with subjects like The Archers undoubtedly vital and shows you base your opinion of your own preference and not any actual concept of what is big in television. I added "100 shows" obviously in expecting most of the fluff popular today shows like all of the animation shows and stuff like Brooklyn Nine-Nine and Stranger Things deleted. Unless you have a problem with covering non-American TV, which would'nt make sense because those shows from Asia are watched by the whole continent mostly, which you know has a bigger audience than the US, unless you have a problem with diversity?? Why did you remove the WHOLE TELEVISION SECTION? Why should we list 200 TV PEOPLE BUT NO SHOWS? HUH? I'm bewildered, no words. GuzzyG (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the addition you're trying to play down. There is not a sentence in your post that justifies 350 (!) TV-shows that are not vital for a list of 50,000 or 35,000 under any circumstances, and to add to that you're adding them to social sciences. And to add to that, without discussing it first. The section you have just inserted is a dump that has accumulated over years. It should be cut in bulk. Why can't you give a reason for adding 350 TV-shows? Maybe the fact that you have no words says it all. Why not is not an answer. (Why not list every single pokemon? Oh, wait, maybe I should check first if they're hiding somewhere in the everyday section...) --Spaced about (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you continuously misrepresent people? how did i add 350 TV shows? i didn't add the whole section in one edit, i added foreign/older shows/shows that hit number one in the Nielsen ratings/reality shows that were underrepresented compared to animated shows/atleast one live action disney/nickelodeon shows because we list so many of their animated shows, although i'd support removing the lot, i just wanted to balance the list so it's not all recent and animated shows, and than we would cut down, that's always how this list is edited. Because shows are broadcasts and thus listed there, would you call Today (American TV program) or 60 Minutes art? Why get on my back about Pokemon, which i would clearly not support? I didnt remove any because the animated shows have been contested before. I added shows like The Mary Tyler Moore Show, ones we were clearly missing, if there's one section that needs bulk removing in that section it's every flag or every coat of arms, especially the latter, why did you not debate those additions? I would support a massive cut to TV shows, but not the whole section. Stop lying and continuously misrepresenting peoples intentions. GuzzyG (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You added them here. Yeah, you'll support cuts I'm sure. You obviously just added them. So, no, you're not cutting them. And you are unable to provide the shred of a rationale. Which doesn't surprise me, 35,000 but The Today Show must be added - that is hard to rationalize. --Spaced about (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know my own edit, i didn't add the Today show, please stop lying - at this point i'm going to call it a outright lie. It's the FIRST MORNING TALK SHOW IN THE WORLD, how is that not vital? YOU have not provided ANY rationale for ANY of your votes, and when you get provided rationale, you ignore it and change the subject. Obviously i would support cuts of my own additions, this isn't life or death, i was just balancing the list away from post 2000 animated shows and adding actually important shows like the Mary Tyler Moore Show. GuzzyG (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait i just noticed you tried to mislead people by linking the edit of when i readded what you removed, into thinking i added every show and the Today show. Just to note. GuzzyG (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify my actual edit is here; [33] just thought i'd give a clear link, because Spaced about linked a edit of mine where i reverted his wholesale removal, trying to claim that i added "350 soap operas", i clearly note in the edit summary that this list needs massive cuts (i'd support, 50-150 shows covering American, UK, the rest of the world etc)

Now to clarify my actual additions:

I added the top examples of the top television shows from countries with their own articles like Korean drama, Chinese television drama, Hong Kong television drama, Japanese television drama, Indian soap opera, Philippine television drama, Arab television drama and Turkish television drama etc. Personally, i think Spaced about has a problem with these additions, as he seems to have outright disdain that stuff like Telenovela is the dominant form of television worldwide, if he has a problem with Mexicans or Filipinos and what they watch that's on him. Guiding Light, Coronation Street, Home and Away etc i did not add in that edit, but all are clearly vital to the broadcasting history of their respective country, no matter the "high culture" disdain for soaps.

I added early history shows like Texaco Star Theatre and Arthur Godfrey's Talent Scouts to balance the list out from the post 2000s bloat and animation shows bloat. Also to add every show listed as hitting number one in the Nielsen ratings [34].

I added lots of shows from the 1950s to 1980s like Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In, The Carol Burnett Show, I Dream of Jeannie, Wagon Train, The Bob Newhart Show, Petticoat Junction, The Addams Family (1964 TV series), The Golden Girls and Baywatch all of which have had strong impact on American popular culture and some on television history itself, which i tried to balance agaisnt the post 2000 shows. Shows like Baywatch may seem tabloid but it's estimated as the most seen television show in history, just like we list the film equivalent The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) on the level 4 list.

I listed some of the top shows from this best written list [35]

I added some reality shows like The Osbournes, Keeping Up with the Kardashians, Jersey Shore (TV series) and The Simple Life. All of which are debatable (except the Kardashian show, like it or not, it's the most impactful non competition reality show), i only added these to counter the animation shows and add balance, i wouldn't care if they were removed except the Kardashian show. But these are the essential reality shows, i didn't add anything erroneous.

Now the questionable ones, i added Hannah Montana, Lizzie McGuire, Drake & Josh because if we have so many Disney/Nick cartoons why not a live action? I don't see a reason to dismiss children's TV, but i wouldn't care if we lost em all. It's not life or death, it's just looking at the options and finding balance. Again these are not erroneous, they fit if we're including a live action Disney/Nick show.

Now what i personally support, i'd support cutting the TV programs down to anywhere between 50-150, i'm not a stickler and no not one by one. I've been on this list for 6 years and my suggestion was the foundation for this level, if that makes me have a COI, fine. But this is a hobby for me, i've spent years researching various fields and their figures and television is one of my biggest interests. The only things i have strong bias towards because are Graffiti - which my father was apart of and i was raised in, Skateboarding - what i grew up on, and mixed martial arts which is my current interest. Joan Crawford is the only person i would be considered a "fan" of, and i'd support her removal at level 4 if you wanted it. Everything else is just a interest to me and apart of what i do - i've cleaned up the film section recently and i don't think anyone can call my edits erroneous, when i get dismissed and get told i added 350 soap operas repeatedly without giving me a chance to go into detail about my edits, than obviously it's gonna be hard to have a decent conversation, i tried my best.

I just want it clear that none of my edits are erroneous and can be explained and clearly i have a passion for this list and am not a COI. I strongly support adding the TV shows instead of lots of TV hosts and actors though. Also all because we're over quota that shouldn't hinder addition of shows like The Mary Tyler Moore Show, Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In or The Carol Burnett Show all of which would clearly make even a 50 tv show quota. GuzzyG (talk) 11:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About reorganizing the list (100 writers from the quota and adding it to science etc.). I would keep the quota of Prose writers, they are the most popular authors. Number of poets and Librettists is quite high. There are too many journalists and media personalities. Quotas for Broadcast journalists and commentators, Critics and Publishers and editors, Radio and podcast hosts and Television hosts and personalities seem to me too big. For example actors would be more useful choice. Readers are likely to be interested about careers of actors and actresses in the future, but it is not easy to predict which other media personalities will be popular. I wonder why 40 Chefs, bartenders and winemakers are needed in encyclopedia. Perhaps they are more useful people than Criminals, whose number (240) is high. 20 Sex workers is too much, most of these peoples are not central for cultural history. Quota of 1,000 would be good for sportspeople. I would keep the artists and musicians quota, these sections are important. 250 for films and 100–250 for television shows seems reasonable. --Thi (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Affirmation of VA5 at 50,000

When founded, the plan was for VA5 to be at 50,000 articles. Everybody still on board with this? pbp 21:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. pbp 21:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I am; it's already hard to handle at the moment with this few editors. J947 (c), at 02:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I support 50k. The only other logical progression from 10,000 is 25,000 or 50,000, 25k is too small, 75k while doable is too daunting, would mean more less vital topics added and would be pointless and there's no reason to skip 50k. 30k or 40k are too arbitrary and 20k too small. 30k or 40k are probably too small if we're covering things like every single flag and every single coat of arms too. GuzzyG (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 50k still feels right to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose because cutting the people section by 50% will be difficult, and I'm not sure if we need level 6. --Spaced about (talk) 08:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Conventional encyclopedias had about 250,000 articles. It has been done before. I would also like @Dawid2009:'s opinion on this, he also mentioned the problem of the final total. What is your opinion on the currently bloated people section, Dawid2009? Should we cover social sciences and other sections in equal depth as the biography section or largely ignore them like we currently do? --Spaced about (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spaced about: That 250,000 number seems high for print encyclopedias.  Per Wikipedia:Size comparisons, the 50,000 list would have slightly more entries than a print Britannica or Americana, and three times as many entries as a World Book. pbp 23:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only number I could find was for Brockhaus Enzyklopädie, and it was about 250,000 in the German article - the English article says 300,000. The number in the table you're linking to might not be reliable because it's from the last print edition 2013. The print editions were downsized considerably in the last few editions due to the changing market. Judging by the page number, 36,000 pages, for the 32 volume Britannica 2010 it might have had even more articles than German Brockhaus which had 24,000 pages. Smaller editions for Brockhaus were always also available, starting with only 2 volumes, the last one they tried to sell was 5 or 6 volumes, I believe.--Spaced about (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spaced about: I am oppose estabilishing people section at 20% at all (3-5) levels, no matter we choose 50 000 or something other what you propose here because of in the archives people reached to the consensus that 200 people on the level 3 is way too big (see this comments by Cobblet and Thi on L3 : [36], [37] months or years ago). While we have on the level 5 quota of "50 000 all articles instead "100 000"; I tend to agree that 25%-30% (about 12k-15k) maybe is better than 30% (15k). I could support that J947's idea but for now, when we are under quota in most non-biography sections we should get much more patient approach. While J's proposal does not compatibile with your completly, quite honestly I consider J947's suggestion as kind of compromise because earleir GuzzyG even suggested quota of 20 000 people and if anythink we should get pattient approch (firstly change in selection of people, later addition non-bios etc, later back to not cut people to 10 000 big time or increase VA 5 big time to "100 000" just to have the same percentage what on the level 4). Discussing about people is not ignore other sections because of quite honestly most sections has been added by WP:bold (and it was plan during starting VA 5). Among biography section just" Politician and leaders" has "more numerous" consensus than section about arts and section about games.
If you want increase quota for society section I would suggest you (but it is just my humble opinion, we are quite under quota in all sections): 1Decrease life section (which one seems be really littly pointless) by say -150 links (I say about "life" section, not sport and games, where we maybe could swap video games for "foo in country" or sport clubs. Sportspeople should be swapped with other biographies, not with society at least as long as we are under limit in non-bios FWIHW) 2 Move national flags and national coat of arms to history section (where we have handful of duplicates) to keep more space in society section (From history section, personally I would also remove articles like History of Wyoming or swap with stuffs like Category:History of the United States topical overviews to keep more space there) 3 wait when other sections will be nearer limit (For now, I belive that maybe technology section is littly to big but it is just idle guessing). After reading this discussion and comments here I am not sure which area in society section is maybe the most underrepreented but I think that opinion of Piotrus (who is profesional sociologist and started discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology#Sociology VITAL articles two months ago) would be much better than me. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Affirmation of VA5 people section at 20%

A simple ratio of 20% (like on VA4) is best. Nobody has made any discussion contribution that indicates that the people section needs more or how we could justify the gross negligence of the other areas like social sciences. On the contrary, in the past few months we had to delete people that barely pass notability standards. --Spaced about (talk) 08:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support --Spaced about (talk) 08:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - (although I'd compromise at 25%) The people list is out of hand, and it will be fixed with a sledgehammer, not a scalpel. Spacepine (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support a reduction to 25%. Possible further once the list at this level is much closer to 50,000. It is true as the list grows, so does the relative proportion of biographies. But 30% is a huge jump. Glancing through the sub-lists, I tend to see far more glaring omissions of non-biographies than biographies throughout Level 5. For comparison, the Britannica Micropedia (consisting of 65,000 articles) has 17% biographies. We don't have to blindly copy them but it tells you that there is a lot, lot more to the sum of all knowledge than biographies. Even non-biography sections are filled up by easy topics instead of topics which require expertise or at least just some sort of understanding of the area. Basic business and economic concepts are missing while there's a huge number of companies, some of questionable vitality at this level. And it's similar with universities vs academic learning/teaching concepts, art theory vs art works, video games vs organic chemistry concepts, etc. The entire list is affected (some but not all Level 4 subpages are close to the right balance between technical and non-technical while every subpage here is off). Gizza (t)(c) 09:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support if people want to take a sledgehammer to a list that's had thousands of hours of research into sculpting it, because they have a problem with shit like supercentenarians, sex workers, reality stars, criminals, porn stars, esports, video game designers and every other section that's gonna be obviously cut, than i can support it. If Ice V is more important for our readers, i can support it. if something as basic as Reality television can't even make the lvl 4 list, most likely because of the disdain for it, than it's not surprising to understand why these drastic cuts are made. I actually want to see how 5k cuts would work. I can support a cut so we can cover the "breadth of human knowledge", which is why the biography section has every field, i just didnt get the memo that things that have societal disdain dont fit into "human knowledge". GuzzyG (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Guzzy, I'm confused by your vote. Your phraseology suggests that you'd prefer that there not be cuts. Although, to be fair, I myself contemplated an "aw, to hell with it" change of vote within the past 48 hours. pbp 15:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I'm not in favour because it'll cause a mess and alot more "well why list this person, this other one is of equal merit" votes will come up. But i just give up, just give them the sledgehammer, there's certain things people think are fluff but are hiding behind the term "fluff" in general, just let them sledgehammer biographies and give them the cut so they can add fluff like Ice V, they'll see what a mess it'll be and how inactive this project will be. they just don't think big picture, every person is listed for a reason behind what they do is bad; Ned Kelly seems like a irrelevant local thug to anyone not familiar with Aus history, ignoring he's Aus's most written about person; he's also subject of the first full length feature film; The Story of the Kelly Gang; something unknown without specialized knowledge. Same as Ivan Milat a local tabloid insignificant killer, yet Wolf Creek (film), is one of the most impactful modern films in Aus cinema history; but you wouldnt know that without specialized knowledge of Aus cinema; now i understand Aus is a small country in world history; but there's actual history between alot of these adds people call fluff and it's just tiring to see people dance around their dislike of it, so i'll just give them the cuts and let them sledgehammer it. Let's see what the alternate is, and if Ice V can ever move beyond a stub; since it's more important than DiCaprio. I've put alot of time into specialized knowledge of various fields and that was always my reasoning for additions, i'd like to see how this would look like via someone just doing what they want; maybe that will be a improvement, let's see. I just didn't know when i had 100 leftover quota in misc that adding a couple quotas to "fun" subjects that are popular online in a "did you know" sense would cause so much shit, i thought it'd be good to have a featured article on names people commonly search because they see them in trivia online everywhere, didn't know this list was such a serious thing that it needed academic esque strictness too it.lol. I feel like alot of editors have a personal moral sense of "this person shouldnt be given such a honour" which is not how i'd go about things. Just like professional wrestlers have so many, but they're far and large the most edited biographies on this site; which would mean we should have them featured. There's so much more reasoning that's possible, but i don't wanna type a post, noone will read anyway. Sometimes you just gotta laugh that these biographies have to go for us to cover "the wide breath of human knowledge" but that caused so much trouble as my reasoning for including most fields in biographies. GuzzyG (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Just gotta note; i find it strange the rush to rid this level of tabloid fluff biographies but Richard Wagner, Claude Monet, and Charles Dickens are all on the level 3 list over important figures like James Watt, Francis Bacon, and William the Conqueror and nobody wants to change that or people like Ang Lee, Judi Dench, Jean Giraud, Aubrey Beardsley, Alec Guinness, Doris Day, Isabelle Adjani, Ed Sullivan, Sam Cooke, Joni Mitchell, and Wim Wenders and many, many others are on the level 4 list when we're 10 over quota and missing many scientists, politicians and religious figures of equal stature. Maybe the organic chemistry section on level 4 needs a bump? Why is there a big rush for level 5 but nowhere else? That's my question. GuzzyG (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, my issue is not with subjects people perceive as "fluff". My issue is that this list implicitly takes the Great man theory of history, and uses people to represent ideas. I have no significant problem with the weighting of the different people categories. I have a problem that there's 15k of them. --Spacepine (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose People is 0% of VA1 and VA2. It's 13% of VA3 and 20% of VA4. People grows relative to other sections. There are subsections of VA where if you kept the ratio, you'd have to have greater than 100% of the articles on the project in that topic. pbp 14:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We perfectly understand what the problem is and that was well summarized. You would be supposed to give a rationale for causing such a problem in a serious !vote. Why the exclusion of real encyclopedic topics? (You can't seriously believe that 14 social science disciplines can be covered in 4000 articles.) I fully understand the commercial interest of an overly large biography section. But it is not supposed to be like that. --Spaced about (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

#Oppose per PBP, just to clarigy, there IS useless fluff on this list, but cutting the quota down isn't the solution, it's cutting down the misc/writers/musicians/entertainers/sports/activists quotas down by a 100 or two and re attributing it to science, religion and politicians, areas where we are significantly under, we can't add every Nobel winner currently, cutting it down further won't help, as the person who added most of this list, especially the "fluff" i know exactly where i miscalculated stuff. It's the misc/activist/sports/entertainers/writers/musicians section. GuzzyG (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The problem is not in the people section, it's in the other sections, most notably social sciences. I think this answer clearly shows that there is more going on than just ignorance. And this person here even has a declared COI. I listened to hours of abuse by this person and explained where the problem is. After all the discussion, you would find some trace of catching on to the problem if the person would seriously be !voting and not just serving some other interest. He is not even trying to hide that he is promoting something else. --Spaced about (talk) 08:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Remove some useless fluff and put in more important people, maybe downsize a bit to 13/14K (I originally proposed 12K) but I'm not a fan of that big a cut. J947 (c), at 04:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @J947: In !voting, you should give a rationale that clearly responds to the problem. So, tell us, why exactly do you not want a social sciences section? We are not talking about a small psychology section, for example, we are talking about having none at all. Abolishing it completely for this level. Wikipedia on level 5 seriously thinks that psychology is a list of emotions, and a very long and tedious list. The rest in this subsection is just the skeleton from level 4. And here you see people fully aware of this and trying hard to make it impossible to remedy that situation. Other areas on social sciences tab, similar thing. What is so terrible about not making the social sciences section a total joke? It has it's merits in being funny. Education is a long list of universities. Journalism: 350 soap operas. No way to remedy the problem. They are going to be telling you that they will be putting up 350 soap operas individually to decide if they want to delete them. Deleting an individual entry on this list will typically take months. I think the soap opera case clearly shows there is a commercial interest explainging the weird behavior and it fits with promoting biographies. --Spaced about (talk) 08:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spaced about: I believe there should be more topics in social sciences, but not at the cost of 5,000 people. J947 (c), at 19:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose 12,500 is reasonable quota. --Thi (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. The current quota seems appropriate to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Let me guess, by "serious" social sciences you mean linguistics/adding more languages? GuzzyG (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you imagine that a social scientist actually deals with real stuff during his PhD studies? Maybe you really can't. The question you are asking here shows just how far you are from being able to provide a decent judgment on what would constitute adequate content for an encyclopedia. If the fact that courses of study actually exist in these 14 disciplines doesn't open your eyes I'll not be able to educate you here. One more try: Why don't we cut the history section to 250? That should clarify everything. --Spaced about (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, i can't ever imagine being a social scientist or being involved with history. I'm asking because there's one other confrontational editor, whos very similar to you, that complains about social science too. Comparing history where we list every world event to other social sciences is pointless. Listing 3000 articles of psychology, sociology, education, economics and linguistics etc each is pointless technical fluff. We list separate sections for the two most important, history and philosophy. But hey if television is art, and i do believe fictional shows should be under art, than just think of it as we're covering art history, you know a branch of history. GuzzyG (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, you understand that people have continuously stated the obvious, the coverage is biased. And you understood the comparison with history. At this point you should be giving me a rationale for not covering these 14 disciplines. Your rationale is: it's pointless. Um, what's the point you are missing? Why do random (or seemingly random?) disciplines get coverage and have a point and others don't? You seem to understanding that you are creating a biased list, which is certainly against policy, but you're still doing it without giving a reason? --Spaced about (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"two" people, who are VERY alike, (you and Dawid) have said that the social science section is under represented. You have provided no rationale on what "14" social sciences deserve 1000s of representation each, please say exactly what 14 so we can consider. Do you really think we should have 1000 psychology or economics articles? You've provided nothing. For someone who wants Judi Dench on the level 4 list, i find this highly odd and VERY weird. GuzzyG (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read the talk page of level 1. The lacking social science aspect is visible and discussed there, too. Several people are discussing adding society, culture or anything they can think of as an adequate social science article at that level. So it's not just two people. And in a discussion like the one here, I know for a fact that 99% of people wouldn't engage, and would just leave, also due to the circumstances of this project: it's complicated to navigate between so many pages, subpages, talkpages, and so on. You might be living in a bubble and no one can tell you.

I'm giving you the numbers in 4 subdivisions, the subpage should be divided into four pages. The numbers in brackets are the rounded current quotas or article counts: 1800 to 2000 would be adequate for each subpage.

  • Law (600), Business and Economics (600): should be 1800- 2000
  • Politics (200), Social issues, Organizations (250), War and Military (200): should be about 1500
  • Ethnology and Anthropology (150), Sociology (50), Psychology (250), Society (200), Culture (100), Education (300): should be 1800-2000
  • Communication (50), Languages and Linguistics (600), Journalism and Mass Media (850): should be 1800- 2000

--Spaced about (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments for the level 1 list does not apply here. I wouldn't think this project is so hard to navigate when in your very first edit you added a complicated template to a article and than instantly joined in on the discussions here. Seems like if brand new editors can do it, experienced ones can navigate it too. What type of articles are missing to you, what would fit the proposed quota? If you mean articles like every flag and every coat of arms, than no i would no support it. GuzzyG (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The outline-articles are probably the closest approximation of what I think is missing, f.i. Outline of business management, Outline of economics. The lists, like universities, organizations, flags, and such, take up large amounts of quota and are probably quite complete, because a lot of people are adding articles to them. But what I'm trying to get at is that those listings are not the most important articles in an encyclopedia. The meat is in theoretical academic articles on scientific results (from natural and social sciences) written in a way everybody can understand.

For sections other than social sciences, even if I have been lurking before, I can't produce such detailed numbers yet. But the situation must be about the same there. --Spaced about (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Spaced about:: I don't appreciate that you're shouting down everybody who disagrees with you.  While it's clear I often disagree with Guzzy, I think the shots you took at him were gratuitous and mean-spirited.  And the people who disagree with you have rationales, they're just not rationales that you agree with.  And remember that your ask by this proposal is a very big one: you're proposing one-tenth of the entire quota for this list be reassigned.  If you want the social sciences section expanded, you should propose that either instead of or in addition to slicing the biographies section.  And if the proposal is to expand to a number greater than 5,000, I will probably oppose it.  And I'm not buying your argument that there's "no psychology section at all".  I also worry that the expansion you envision would lead to listing arcana that would be meaningless to those who don't have advanced degrees in the social sciences.   Finally, your comment "For sections other than social sciences...the situation must be about the same there", that's just guesswork. pbp 23:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here we have your grand rationale: Business is arcana. Law is arcana. Economics is arcana. That is kind of what I was guessing the secret thing you call "rationale" was going to be. Arcana. Of course. (The world turns around these "arcana". Good information on those topics is hard to get as opposed to the fervently defended soaps. Policy asks you guys to include it.) You are obviously just making fun of people who don't accomodate your interests. Adding 400 soap operas to cover social sciences in 4000 articles and then locking the page the next day in unison speaks for itself. And the worst is how it's done: through shouting, abuse, misrepresentation, a lot of distraction, outright lying, accusing the victim of ones own actions, "the victim brought it all about". The works. And it works. Most women run much earlier than I do. Oh, and don't forget to complain time and again that there are no editors on this page. Oops, how did that happen. I have no idea what interests this group is pursuing but pbp joining the bullying indicates what I have suspected before: they are working as a group, a promotional nest. Wasn't even necessary. One abuser would have been enough. I'm sure GuzzyG gets that job done every time. I'm out of here.--Spaced about (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I need to clarify what I mean by arcana. What I mean is that by the time you get to the 800th or 900th-most-important topic in business, law or economics, you've reached arcana. Are there many important topics in those three fields? Sure, just not 800-900 of them.
@Spaced about: I would like you to continue to participate in the project, but I don't like how you've berated me, Guzzy and others. pbp 23:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Spaced about: has a point, and their frustration is understandable. This curation is dominated by a very small number of people, who feel ownership/custodianship over it, and get defensive when challenged. It's a momentous task to create a balanced list. Personally, I'm sure there are many important subjects I understand very little about, and some inconsequential ones I'm overeducated educated in. However, I do not know what I do not know, and the only way to find out is to listen!
I think the best way forward is to be bold in reallocating quotas, and allow editors with different views the authority to make changes. @Purplebackpack89:, what do Wikiprojects say on quotas/inclusions? --Spacepine (talk) 06:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Spacepine: We've asked them and they rarely give clear answers. And the re-allocation that was proposed is just too large to be done boldly; it was proposed to reallocate TEN PERCENT of the ENTIRE LIST. It seems reasonable to not want such a drastic change, and unreasonable to complain when such a drastic change isn't enacted. Also, above, when you said "the people list is out of hand", are there particular sections you believe to be particularly out of hand? pbp 14:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resonable/Unresonable or not, you hounded them off they have now left the encyclopedia.
I suspect "people" is too long in all categories, but my area of knowledge is Astronauts, Scientists and Revolutionaries. The VA5 seems to implicity subscribe to the Great man theory of history, where incuding a range of people is more important than the actions or even concepts surrounding them. For example:
  • we have about 30 astroanuts, and couple of level 3/4 articles on space exploration, but none on the ISS, Apollo 11, Apollo 8, Mercury, Gemini, Soyuz, JAXA, Private Space Companies, The Voyager probes, Mars rovers etc... These programs are far more important in describing the world than the individual people.
  • In the revolutionaries category there were lots of LGBTQI activists and no Stonewall riots. A barely notable individual PUA, but no Red Pill movement.
  • Scientists/Engineers/Inventors doesn't have that problem, but it's still too long, putting undue weight on people rather than concepts.
In general, I think the people section has got out of hand because it's an easy category to add to. If I want to add another sports person, it's obvious where they go, but if I want to add Murujuga, a peninsula containing the world largest collection of petroglyphs it's not clear where to put it. In the (tiny) ancient art section? In geography? I went to bed before figuring it out. Let's make it equally hard to add another bloody soccer player by cutting the people section and enforcing some quotas. --Spacepine (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not hound them off the encyclopedia. If anyone was hounding, it was Spaced About. Look above, where they reply to EVERY SINGLE person who opposed a proposal. pbp 23:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, please consider my you plural and general. --Spacepine (talk) 02:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GuzzyG: looking at your usepage, you have a significant interest in biographies. I suspect that has influenced your weighting of their importance to human knowledge as the person who added most of this list. What do you think, and what do you see as a solution?
@Purplebackpack89: do you resist the idea of such a dramatic change because you think it's detrimental to the encyclopedia, or because you've invested so much time into the current state of the list without much help? Why do you think a list containing 30% biographies best spans the breadth of human knowledge given the ratio is much lower in the level 1/2/3/4 VAs, in Brittania Micropedia, and editors have flagged other important subjects as underrepresented? @J947:? --Spacepine (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FTR I think there should be a huge reduction in people, but it should be represented across levels. J947 (c), at 02:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no solution in my opinion, it's going to be a mess either way. A big reduction in biographies is going to make this list regress to a more western based art/music/entertainers, a more US and Europe based political leaders, we're going to have to try and decide what nobel winners are more important than each other in scientists rather than list them all, in sports the American team sports will win out more than the olympic sports and a wide variety of other issues that will just make this list more US based, there's no clear difference in the worth between someone who would make a 10k bios list and a 15k list one, the 5k bonus that was added has only allowed this list to become more diverse. I've said many times i support changing around the quotas though, and i agree with cutting the artists/musicians/entertainers/writer biographies to add more to Art, every major art/film/literature/music genre should be added over individual writers/musicians/artists/filmmakers/actors etc. We have over 800 actors but only 300 articles for film itself. People are just always going to nitpick the things they personally consider fluff on a list like this, like comparing the video games section, which has 212 articles to chemistry which has a quota of 1,200 - on a pop culture encyclopedia, which is what the point of Wikipedia is, i don't see why the biggest entertainment industry having 212 featured articles would not benefit the average Wikipedia visitor more than the 1201 chemistry article being feature would. chemists wouldn't even use Wiki anyway. Improving the article on Ferricyanide won't improve this site for the average readers, it'll only marginally improve the sites reputation to a niche audience who won't even use the site and are always going to be against it's existence. I'll support a 5k biographies cut though and see how messy and western and bad it gets if art can get 1k of the quota to add more basic art concepts and genres. GuzzyG (talk) 03:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just actually checked the chemistry section and if we're choosing articles like Ice V over biographies like Leonardo DiCaprio or video games like Super Mario Bros. as a improvement, i'm not so sure of that, britannica only has the latter two, more generalized niche in-house stuff may make us look more smart, but it doesn't help our average reader at all. That's my take. GuzzyG (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Guzzy, I agree, changing the quotas is the best way of getting some control over this.
I think if this was about the average reader we'd start improving the top 5000 most read articles and be done with it. My interpretation was that this is supposed to sum up human knowledge/experience.so fuck it, I'd support Ice V over Leo.
I agree that many people at this level are basically equally notable. I do not care whether one Nobel winner is chosen over another. I do care that we've implied that 30% of human knowledge is in biographies. I'm happy to blaze through, cut 5k biographies, and let people nitpick over the rubble.I'm not American, so my bias won't be there. --Spacepine (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You not caring about which Nobel winner is concerning when we have to get it right, do you know every field and genre listed to do cuts? The difference between Régine Crespin and Christa Ludwig or Andrea del Verrocchio and Bertel Thorvaldsen? Or are you going by personal opinion? Because these people were not chosen by anyones personal opinion, a system was in place. Leo being described in a way where he'll be cut is weird because that type of figure is what this list was meant to cover since it's a important bio to have featured but wouldn't fit on a lvl 4 list. i strongly disagree with cutting by name recognition/personal opinion as that's the worst way possible to judge vitality. GuzzyG (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, tone over the internet is difficult. Leo was the example you gave, so Leo was the example I used to emphasise that:
  1. I really support cutting this people list.
  2. I support cutting a US figure, and see no reason why cuts need to create a western bias.
Realistically, the way I can assist is to cut areas that I have some knowledge of: Science, Revolutionaries and Astronauts. --Spacepine (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Spacepine: I'd really rather you didn't "blaze through". With 3 for and 3 against, there's not really a consensus to do that (though my gut tells me you may soon gain the consensus you want). And again, we ARE talking about a sizeable chunk of the entire list. Perhaps a better way to approach this would be to make mock-ups (in userspace) of sections of the people list at various sizes. I'd help you with this if asked. pbp 14:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, happy to work on the sections I have knowledge about. --Spacepine (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And whatchya know...since I posted, it's now 2-4. Looks like I'm going to lose this one. But I'm NOT going to exit the project in a huff. pbp 15:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dude... lay off Spaced about. No matter what your personal feelings towards them, it's a net negative to the encyclopedia that they have left, as you acknowledged. As an outside observer/potential contributor, this sort of exchange would put me off wikipedia. As she mentions in her last post - it does put a lot of women off. --Spacepine (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spaced about's activity period always coincided with Dawids inactivity; consistently followed me around to places i edited like [38], shared the same kind of articles interest with dawid, used his exact argument logic/phases, would only pop in to vote when dawid was under attack like in [39] and first edits were adding a pageviews template (something no new editor would do) and edit this page. They had good spelling though, so it wasn't Dawid, but evidence does go into that spaced about was very connected to him, probably the biggest evidence is that dawid is the only person to stay arguing with me, while everyone else ignores me lol, spaed about stayed too. not surprised the acc was started soon before dawid posted to pbp's talkpage about his issues, with me. since i perceived spaced about as a way to vote stuff in dawids favour; and i made them leave; i'll leave wiki and this project. since i'm such a bad harasser lmao (that they followed me to articles). so yeah, i'll quit, have your sledgehammer; because i wouldn't wanna edit a list where someone legitimately believes Judi Dench and Wim Wenders are level 4, implied i was a idiot (attitude like dawid) for using the list that the film project uses for their core list [40] as a source, anyway. if it's wrong for that person to leave and i'm responsible, i'll leave and have fun with your pseudo anti-great man theory, there's still gonna be 10k "great" people on the list. Funny you mention women and stuff, because in all my edits women were included everywhere (even in baseball) and whole non western arts/music sections were built, i'd never intentionally chase off women as editors considering from the start i've included them in articles etc and would add more. that angle is weak. GuzzyG (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually i find it hilarious because most of the hate agaisnt this list is directed towards the sex workers, porn stars, reality stars and articles like Jeanne Calment, you know - women who get attacked most in society. Just to note. GuzzyG (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually i'll be serious once, i have used the 15k people quota to add more women and non western people, because there's space and western people are covered to an extant that people won't compare notable western men to the non-western people and women, without the safety net of that, they're most likely going to be compared and non western people/women removed. Most of my arguments with people here are relating to women and non-western people, case in point we don't cover every island country in oceania in politicians because everyone decided they were not notable, which is a shame. This cut that you want, will only cause more of a imbalance in the long run. the "great men" theory is rubbish in reality, women and non-western people just didn't get credit/attention, women were at the forefront of most things, from Kassia (composing) to Jennifer Ringley (internet culture) - they're just not given credit, the world is centered by American interests anyway and it's just a shame this list is heading in that direction. but i am genuinely curious on the cuts. good luck, i'll give you custodianship of the list. GuzzyG (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, lots of points there @GuzzyG: I'll try to address them all:
  1. If you think Spaced about is a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet do something about it.
  2. We agreed earlier that the difference in notability between 10k and 15k is negligable. I see no reason why non-western people and women will be removed without the 15k safety net.
  3. I am not accusing you of being anti-woman. The great man theory of history is an old concept, I interpret and use it to mean great person. I appreciate your selection of people. We disagree on the total number.
  4. I suggested a 5k reduction in biographies to create a more balanced list. I volunteered to do the cuts because I follow through (per WP:SODOIT).
Beyond that I will not take custodianship --Spacepine (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Spacepine: In answer to your question, I think it's a little bit of both. I also believe that, in certain non-biographical areas, a 5-fold build-out is impossible. We can't have 5 times the countries at Lv 5 because every single country is Lv 4 vital. pbp 05:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Purplebackpack89:, I acknowledge that a 5-fold build out is impossible, but I think the principle of it provides structure, and exceptions prove the importance of setting smart quotas. I'm happy to blaze through and make the proposed people cut,if that helps and fill in some of the technical topics I mentioned earlier. --Spacepine (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I'm lucky enough to have a job that's busier due to coronavirus. I won't be doing these cuts anytime soon, barring a moment of extreme procrastination. Wishing everyone well. --Spacepine (talk) 11:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spacepine:: Stay safe and healthy! pbp 22:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Purplebackpack89: - you too -- Spacepine (talk) 09:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Global proposals

Move History of video games and Olympics events to history section

Article like History of video games should be listed in history section agaist articles like Generation X. Article like 1896 Athens or History of chess should be listed in history section against articles like history of ballet or History of the FIFA World Cup. Why we list all these historic articles in every day section? And why we list so plenty specialistics terminology to video games? Should we also list endless topics for terminologies related to chess gameplay or clasical music (including very few viewed pages just like altissimo) in art section? Dawid2009 (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts:
  1. First off, at Lv 5, sports should be spun off from life onto its own page
  2. Specific iterations of the Olympics, or any other sporting events that make Level 5, should be listed under sports
  3. History of...'s should be at history
  4. Video games need to be pruned bigtime pbp 20:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Consensus discussion?

As a heads up, there is a discussion on making VA a consensus-building discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4#Add Pocahontas. J947 (c), at 22:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Jiffy (time)

Why is jiffy (time) a vital article? It is an obscure term that is little used in any field and has no universally recognised definition. It is more along the lines of a scientific joke. I don't see any discussion in the archives. SpinningSpark 08:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SpinningSpark and suggest to remove it.

Support
  1. As nom. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - the articles listed below are more important. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Agree with nom. Better to replace it with a scientifically consistent measurement. Gizza (t)(c) 06:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 11:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose for now. According to the article, there are multiple uses of "jiffy" as a unit or measure across various disciplines. We're still well under quota in that section. I suggest we wait and see what things look like once the section is closer to being complete. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What quota are you referring to? I'm not all that familiar with this project. Is it the 340/400 basics and measurement articles? I don't see how multiple meanings makes for a vital article. That puts the page in WP:DICT territory which means it shouldn't exist at all as a standalone page. I think it is embarrasing having this collection of nonce-like uses as a vital article. By the way, most of those uses boil down to a technology use, not a science use so it's potentially in the wrong section anyway. SpinningSpark 00:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the quota for the measurements section is 400 and we are well under it currently. And it's not in the wrong section. It belongs in the measurements section as the article is about a unit of measurement. You can find all the quotas for each section listed in the chart on the Level 5 main page. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Off the top of my head, I can think of numerous basics and measurement articles that are way more vital than the ridiculous jiffy, but are not listed at all. Some of these should even be more than level 5.

Systems of measurement
Historically important units
Measuring instruments

There does not even seem to be a section for this

Not sure if these strictly count as measuring instruments, but they are definitely vital

Measurement recording

Again, there is not even a section

Measuring instruments are listed in Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 07:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hanif Al Husaini: As most of those articles would be listed under the Technology: Measuring Instruments section, they wouldn't affect the quota of the measurement section. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further proposed additions

The first few on this list potentially belong in a higher level. SpinningSpark 12:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetic potential

Magnetic potential is now a dab page and has been split into magnetic vector potential and magnetic scalar potential. This has caused your bot to remove the project template (it had ended up on Talk:magnetic vector potential after the split). I don't know which of these (or both) that you now consider vital. SpinningSpark 11:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge

Why is Cambridge, Massachusetts listed but not Cambridge in Cambridgeshire? The one in Cambridgeshire is a standalone settlement, the original and the one normally associated with "Cambridge" since although the Massachusetts one has 2 internationally known universities they don't have the name "Cambridge" in them and are often only considered to be in Boston while the original one's university is clearly in the Cambridgeshire one. The Cambridgeshire one is also a standalone settlement (and slightly more populated) while the Massachusetts one is a part of Boston. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals, June 2020

Add Crossover (fiction) to Arts/Literature/Literary genres/Fiction

A notable form of fictional setting. It can be found in literature, comics, films, video games, animation, fanfiction, in every genre of fiction.


Add Multiplayer online battle arena to Strategy video game

MOBA genre was the most popular video game genre on the planet in the 2010s. Still very popular.


Add Real-time strategy to Strategy video game

RTS is one of the most notable terms in video gaming.


Add Defense of the Ancients to Specific video games and series

Defense of the Ancients (DotA) is a GCD of League of Legends, Dota 2, Blizzard Entertainment, and Warcraft franchise. DotA is the originator of the MOBA genre, and notable example of strong community and modding.


Add Orc to level-5 vital articles

It's weird to not be on any list.


EchoBlu (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ordering

Hi! I've never really checked out these pages, but I knew about vital articles. Could I ask why the cue sports are listed as such:

  1. Cue sports (Level 4)
    1. Carom billiards (Level 4)
  2. Blackball (pool)
    1. Pool (Level 4)
      1. Trick shot
      2. Nine-ball
    2. Snooker (Level 4)
      1. World Snooker Championship
    3. English billiards
  3. Eight-ball

This seems a bit backwards, as things like Eight-ball are cue sports, and snooker isn't a type of blackball. Could I suggest:

  1. Cue sports (Level 4)
    1. Carom billiards (Level 4)
    2. English billiards
  2. Pool (Level 4)
    1. Trick shot
    2. Blackball (pool)
    3. Nine-ball
    4. Eight-ball
  3. Snooker (Level 4)
    1. World Snooker Championship

Is there a reason for its current locations? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vitality estimator

The idea of a tool/bot estimating article vitality was brought up earlier, and although discussion stagnated I still believe this project needs one. To recap, the estimator would be a program that looks at an article's statistics (amount of - or global enwiki rank by - pageviews, other language versions, page watchers, wikilinks to the article, WikiProject importances; modified by year of article subject's origin to penalise newer subjects) and, based on those, assigns an "estimated vitality" score to the article. Page statistics are from time to time already cited in VA debates to imply an article's degree of vitality, and a well-crafted algorithm (a hand-tuned one or one made via machine learning) could consolidate them into a single handy score to inform discussions. One of the criticisms of this project is the amount of subjectivity involved, and by adding much needed objectivity it could gain more reputation and support. Humans would of course have the final say on what level an article should be on, but the greatest use of the estimator would be to quickly find large discrepancies by showing least probably vital articles listed on a level and most probably vital articles not yet listed on that level. Should obscure topics like Tivoli circuit or minicomic really be listed while Cogito, ergo sum isn't yet?--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would perhaps be best implemented as an external tool like the ones at https://pageviews.toolforge.org. Massviews is already somewhat useful for both listing articles in VA subpages and listing articles in a category, but query options are limited (no combined queries for example) and pageviews alone are not optimal (just because Doki Doki Literature Club has been an Internet fad for the past couple of years doesn't mean it's comparable to The Brothers Karamazov in real-world impact - the hypothetical "estimated vitality" score would take into account that the latter has significantly more page watchers, other language versions, is rated top-importance in two WikiProjects and has a subject that is more than a century older).--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization of the Literature branch

How important is the organization of the categories on the Project Pages? Because some of the literary works seem mis-categorized to me. Several important Asian & Middle Eastern works from what would be Europe's Middle Ages are categorized under Antiquity--but I don't know of any literary scholarship that would use that categorization. And the list of "World Literature" is basically just Europe. I know it's difficult to periodize World Literature given that European periods don't apply to non-Western history, but these categorizations seem very out of date. If the organization of the categories isn't crucial, then maybe it's not an issue. But if the organization of categories is an important part of the Vital Articles project, then I say we adjust these until they line up with academic categories. Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vital article and Category:Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in an unknown topic

Right now, 8,000+ articles are in Category:Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in an unknown topic. Many of them are in the category because they use the "link" paramenter instead of the "topic" or "subtopic". Bots that update the template shouldn't be deleting the "topic" or "subtopic" parameter because it breaks categories. @Cewbot: or somebody else, could you look into this? pbp 18:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5&oldid=1003592496"