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

What's happening to this list?
This list is currently 318 articles over 10,000, which means 318 articles need to be trimmed out. How did this get so out of hand with such diligent watchers? GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  22:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't dilligently watched; and people have been adding a few articles here and there over time (I admit that I am guilty of this), and suddenly, we're 300 over.  p  b  p  00:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So, its wrong when I add articles to level 3 (which is currently well under the 1000 article limit), but if you want to add them to a list that is 318 article over the limit, then that's fine. I'm confused. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's 3 percent over, and usually I discuss them... Also, a number of the one's I've added recently were ones you added to Lv. 3 p  b  p  00:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (That 30% was a typo) You sound like a statistician. Yes, its only 3% over, but that translates to 318 articles! I'll ask again, why did you feel the need to stop my additions to a list that was under the limit, while you allowed and contributed to additions to this list that is 318 articles over the limit? We had better start these discussions soon, because this could take a couple of years to hammer out a consensus. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Question. - Has anyone recently verified that this list is at 10,318? If so, how was this accomplished? A tally of the section totals is not always accurate. I determined the current L3 tally by counting each individual sub-list, not just the section totals. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I updated that the other day, I just added the tally at the top of each page. I didn't go through and verify each individual section. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 02:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your effort Nick! FWIW, when I went through each of the L3 sections, I found several sub-tallies that were not accurate, some were off by as many as 5-10. I'm certainly not attempting to task anyone to count the L4s (I wouldn't do it, and there should be a bot for that anyway), but we may not have an accurate count at this time, like we do at L3. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Systemic bias
If the article in the title was looking for examples, this would be a perfect one. Many of Wikipedia's systemic biases are on glorious display here.

I recommend that everyone proposing additions or deletions here read the article Systemic bias, thoroughly, right through to where you will see "Read about the perspectives and issues of concern to others. Attempt to represent these in your editing. Invite others to edit. Be respectful of others. Work to understand your own biases and avoid reflecting them in your editing. Avoid topics or discussions where you expect that you are biased, or where you don't wish to make the effort to overcome those biases."

This could mean NOT proposing players of your favourite sport. Find someone from a sport you've never heard of to nominate. HiLo48 (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree 100%; this is way too 20th century, global north and Sports/Entertainment oriented: That's why I proposed culling the athletes section (i.e. dropping 20 baseball players and 5 basketball players) above. If you agree with culling in the area, which it sounds like you do, go ahead and participate.  p  b  p  16:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Systemic bias is an essay. "Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." 2) It relates to articles, not this list, which isn't an article. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  16:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Where exactly does it say in the guidelines, "This doesn't apply to project pages"? p  b  p  16:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines". If they are not policies or guidelines, then why would it apply? Per Don't cite essays or proposals as if they were policy and Essays are not policy: "It is not a good idea to quote essays—including this one—as though they are Wikipedia approved policy. Essays can be written without much—if any—debate, as opposed to Wikipedia policy that has been thoroughly vetted. Giving a link to an essay without explanation risks misrepresenting it as more than it is—the opinion of one or more editors." GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, those themselves are essays, so they could be summarily discounted as well, as your quote reveals. Anyway, two people think there's systemic bias in this; only you don't.  I don't understand why you feel obligated to post three or four replies to every single comment I make; this appears to be some brinkmanship game to you rather than actually improving the list.  p  b  p  17:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:AGF (an actual guideline). Do you really think that I would have manually counted 2243 articles last night if I didn't want to improve the list? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * GabeMc - Yes, it's clear that you want to make this a great article. It's also obvious that certain cultures are represented far more than others. Even these discussions are distorted. The heading "Formal proposal to cut athletes to 100" is actually talking about sports people, not athletes, if we are to use a global perspective, where athletes are only people who do athletics, not all sports, as in North America. And any reference here to hockey, without adding "ice" in front, is again North American. Given Wikipedia usage, it's positively confusing. I come from Australia, a country obsessed with sport, but there's not a lot of Australians in the list. If I stuck to the guidelines in Systemic bias I would ignore that fact and propose a player of European handball. When I see all those players of American football, rather than proposing some players of Australian football, I might hunt out someone who played Gaelic football. This is a very difficult project. Don't leave it with its North American bias. And please don't dismiss constructive suggestions made in good faith. I didn't say "take Systemic bias as an absolute set of rules". I suggested reading it, which it seems you have done, so that's good. HiLo48 (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * FWIW, according to this website, the top-ten most popular sports in the world are:
 * 1) Association football
 * 2) Cricket
 * 3) Tennis
 * 4) Baseball
 * 5) Basketball
 * 6) Table tennis
 * 7) Hockey
 * 8) Volley ball
 * 9) Rugby
 * 10) Golf

As far as I can tell, we currently have no representatives of Table tennis, Volley ball, or Rugby. Also, I don't see any reps for field hockey, only ice hockey. Perhaps adding a few from these neglected sports and removing a few from others that are overrepresented (baseball, auto racing, and cycling come to mind), would be a good start. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  17:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * We had an Edit conflict when I made my post two above. That's an interesting list you've just posted. I would note that it excludes American football and boxing, not hugely popular outside North America. HiLo48 (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's why I've proposed cutting a lot from baseball and Am. football. There's been a little pushback on Am. football, no comment on baseball.  I think that athletes in general are overrepresented on this list, and athletes from American sports are way overrepresented.  I think that the top four sports, plus track and field, are the only sports that deserve more than five sportsmen on this list, and 100 total is the right number  p  b  p  19:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * To me, American football is the real problematic one. It's simply not played at a high level outside America. To my knowledge there is no international competition. Yes, I know it's huge inside the US now, but that wasn't always the case. Baseball was the iconic American game until maybe three quarters of the way through the 20th century, hence the game has spread much more than American football. I don't know how we can handle American football. HiLo48 (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * To be fair, there is an international competition for both men and women for American football. On the flipside, no one gives a crap about it with the event receiving very little media coverage.  Despite having a world championships, I suspect most players would struggle to pass WP:GNG.  And yeah, that list has systematic bias.  I think it would be better to fold it into other football codes including Aussie rules, international rules, Canadian football, Gaelic football and touch football. --LauraHale (talk) 01:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought a bit before about adding players from unrepresented team sports, but didn't get around to posting before. For rugby, I think Gareth Edwards is the most obvious player to nominate, and my second pick would be Jonah Lomu. I know something about rugby, while I don't know much about field hockey or volleyball. Still, it seems to me there should be at least one player from each of these sports. From internet research only Dhyan Chand seemed like he might be a good pick for field hockey.--Rsm77 (talk) 06:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Field hockey barely survived getting the cut from the Olympic program. My inclination, with an understanding that I have an Australian perspective, would be to put Nova Peris as a field hockey representative if there was one: She was the first Australian Aboriginal to win a medal at the Olympic Games.  (She beat Cathy Freeman by one cycle.  Peris's impact is still felt when talking about Aboriginal sport participation in Australia and she remains a figure in Australian culture, namely with the recent political stuff.)  I am more convinced of a desire to whack down Gridiron to "All other footy codes other than football/soccer" than I am to add more sports, because at that point, you begin to need rather good sport historians to talk about them and need them from a more internationally focused perspective.  (Which gets hard based on sourcing, because most sport books are written from a national perspective based on dominant sporting codes in those countries.) Tom Wills should be on the list for footy stuff for Australian rules, and yes, he should be added at the expense of an American footballer.  Heck, Dwight D. Eisenhower should probably be on the list for American football given his large impact on the game, which changed radically because of safety rules implemented. Sports people should not be on there for their accomplishments alone, but for how they shaped the totality of the game. --LauraHale (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's probably correct, in that we should balance out the few people we have from Am. Football with a few people from field hockey and Aus. football. FYI, I believe Ike is in political leaders, as is Teddy Roosevelt, who also had a major effect on the playing and regulation of sports (both those men have entries in the ESPN Sports Almanac)  p  b  p  16:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see any massive need for Australian rules footballers myself, as there is extremely limited interest outside Australia. Surely rugby union is more significant.Rsm77 (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wills is not a player persay. There is extensive research that suggests he is the father of the game and akin to James Naismith for Basketball and Ludwig Guttman for the Paralympics.  The importance of the Australian rules game is in understanding Australian culture in the same way that understanding rugby union v association football explains some class and social and regional differences in the UK. I do not think I would include more than one person from AFL or Gaelic football. --LauraHale (talk) 07:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * HiLo48, pbp, and Laura, no offense, but you do not seem to understand what WikiProject Countering systemic bias is attempting to do. 1) the templates relate to articles, i.e. "The examples and perspective in this article". 2) You keep using this project page (is it a guideline, policy or essay?) as a reason to remove American content, however; what the page actually says is: "Generally, this project concentrates upon remedying omissions (entire topics, or particular sub-topics in extant articles) rather than on either (1) protesting against inappropriate inclusions, or (2) trying to remedy issues of how material is presented. Thus, the first question is 'What haven't we covered yet?', rather than 'how should we change the existing coverage?'" You are misrepresenting what the page actually says, and you keep using it as a reason for removal of American topics, something the page expressly discourages. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, it doesn't encourage deleting or gutting articles because they're American. Taking an article off this list doesn't take away its GNG; I doubt if ever any of the removed articles will be nominated for deletion successfully.  But the logical next step once everything is covered is, "what is deserving of being covered in more detail?"  The theoretical goal of this project is to get all 10,000 articles to GA or FA.  And Wikipedia wouldn't be well-served if GAs and FAs of important topics were disproportionately American (which, actually, they are), and if Start- and Stub-Class articles of important topics were disproportionately Asian and African.  p  b  p  01:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume that you are aware of the other Wikipedia projects in other languages? Per Vital articles: "This list is tailored to the English Wikipedia", and the US is the most populous English speaking nation on Earth. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have edited the French Vital list. There are Americans on the French one, likewise there should be Frenchmen (and people from many other cultures as well) on this one.  Again, to reiterate: if things were proportional, American civilization (which has only existed for 405 years and currently represents 5% of the world's population) should have maybe 50-60 bios.  They have several hundred now; even with the cuts I and others propose, it will still be over 200.  There's a limit to how disproportionally American this list should be.  We have reached that limit and exceed it; it's time to backtrack  p  b  p  02:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

"Modern", "Early Modern"
People use the terms "Modern" and "Early Modern" to divide large subsections of history and biography. From what I can ascertain, is it:


 * Early Modern = Renaissance-1815
 * Modern = 1815-Present

Is that about right? p b  p  16:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

FWIW: Core biographies
Probably all 200 of this bios should be on this list. Note that out of the 200, there are only 6 (3%) athletes; therefore we should probably consider limiting our athletes to ~3-4% p  b  p  20:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, so recentism and systemic bias don't apply here, but an argument to avoid in deletion discussions does? p  b  p  01:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Deep analysis/Missing from this list
Most of the 200 core bios are on this list. This includes:
 * 28 writers (20 of which are from after 1800)
 * 45 leaders (9 ancient, 8 medieval, 14 early modern, 14 modern)
 * 4 activists
 * 4 explorers
 * 3 military leaders/tacticians
 * 36 in the fields of science and math (5 ancients, 11 physicists, 3 chemists, 4 biologists, 7 inventors, 5 mathematicians and a computer scientist)
 * 17 philosophers
 * 9 historians or social scientists
 * 8 religious figures (5 from Christianity)
 * 6 sportspeople
 * A single man of commerce (Henry Ford)
 * 6 people associated with cinematic or dramatic arts
 * 11 artists
 * 6 musicians

However, the following 13 people were unlisted:


 * W.H. Auden (Writer, UK/USA)
 * Edmund Burke (Philosopher/Political Leader, IRE/UK)
 * Cai Lun (Inventor of Paper, CHN)
 * Columba (Religious Leader, UK/IRE)
 * Louis Daguerre (Inventor of Photography, FRA)
 * Frederick Douglass (Activist, USA)
 * Henry II of England (World Leader)
 * Joseph Lister (Surgeon, discovered antiseptic, UK)
 * Ezra Pound (Poet, US/EUR)
 * Ptolemy (Mathematician, GRE/EGY)
 * Margaret Sanger (Activist, USA)
 * Henry David Thoreau (Author/Philosopher, USA)
 * William Wordsworth (Poet, UK)

I am inclined to believe that every single one of these people belong on this list. Thoughts? p b  p  03:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, add away! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I support also. Thanks for working to internationalize this.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   18:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Geography
Under the sub-list "Continent", we currently have "Americas" along with "North America" and "South America". Also, the list includes: "Eurasia" along with Europe and Asia. So once again, if you take a look at almost any section of the VA/E list you will find some rather obvious redundancies. Perhaps we should go through each section and trim out the most obvious excess before spending anymore time debating whether to include 5 or 7 American footballers. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  23:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * For another example of excess, look at "Oceans and seas" (70 articles). There are currently 65 sub-seas listed under 5 oceans. Surely a dozen or so of these could be trimmed out, such as: Irish Sea, Koro Sea, Sulu Sea and many, many others. It would seem the list is attempting to be comprehensive, and not that concerned about how vital an article is to the project. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose: North and South America are notable regions, as is Eurasia. These are hardly the least notable of regions; Massachusetts is on this list!  Many of those seas on this list are notable independent of the oceans the are arms, they're certainly more notable than some dude who threw a pig bladder around for a few year.  I'm also a bit disturbed that each of the seas or regions you've proposed to drop are non-American, which makes the globalization problems worse rather than ameliorating them.  p  b  p  00:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * More of your personal opinions masquerading as facts. Per your above comment: "they're certainly more notable than some dude who threw a pig bladder around for a few year". Ask any given person who Joe Montana is, then ask them where the Koro Sea is. Anyway, I thought this wasn't about notability, which, according to you, is subject to recentism. Are you using the term "notable" here as a synonym of "vital"? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) That's inaccurate, because if you were to ask anybody outside the U.S. or Canada, they probably wouldn't even know what American football even is, let alone who Joe Montana. Sounds like more personal opinion, personal opinion clouded by U.S.-centrism. Its also your own personal opinion that the Koro Sea is redundant to an ocean. Oh, but I forgot, personal opinion is OK, so long as its your personal opinion, not mine. p  b  p  01:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Those were just random examples, sorry if they weren't the best. I'm sure there are a few better ones on the list, I was just trying to make a general point that if you absolutely insist on trimming out 250 bios for the primary reason that this list is over 10,000, then lets first take a look around at some other sections to see where a few dozen should be trimmed. Is that really such an unreasonable suggestion? If so, why? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "Cities" currently includes: 9 from Nigeria, 3 from Algeria, 7 from Egypt, 4 from Morocco, 3 from Sudan, 2 from Cameroon, and 2 from Ghana. In total, there are 68 cities listed from Africa (1 billion people, 14% of global population), which seems a bit much when you consider that the list includes 173 cites from the Asia (4,200,000,000 people, 59% of global population), and significantly more vital cites in terms of the global economy. Africa is currently allotted 16.1% of the cities list, and Asia 41%. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please provide an example of an important Asian city that isn't on this list. I'm not going to support getting rid of a bunch of African cities so we can keep Joe Montana and other American sports figures of marginal notability p  b  p  01:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The content of the cities list should not be competing with the content of the sports figures list, nor vice versa. They should stand on their own. We have magicians and criminals on the list, are they more important then sports heros? If so, why? You really need to read-up on logical fallacies in general, particularly the strawman argument. I thought this was about balance, but now its about which African city is less notable then Joe Montana. FTR, Pokémon, Donald Duck, Scrooge McDuck, Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Gandalf, Harry Potter and Mickey Mouse are all on the list, yet somehow, they are immune from anti-recentism and anti-pop-culture arguments. Also, I don't think "notable" and "vital" are the same thing at all, but you seem to, I think you are wrong about that. Sure, there would be some overlap in a Venn diagram, but they are not synonymous despite your use of the terms interchangeably during these discussions. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In terms of a Venn diagram, it'd be like this: Notable's a big circle. Vital-Level 4 is a smaller circle contained within notable.  Vital-Level 3 is a smaller circle contained within Vital-Level 4.  Of the pop culture people you've listed, some of them are some of the more notable items of pop culture; had you listed others, you would have found me in agreement with their deletion (and remember, I am for deleting Scrooge).  And why can't various of your proposals be taken together, i.e. that you want to keep Joe Montana but delete something else to solve the over-10,000 problem?  It's not a strawman, it's you: you want to keep Joe Montana but delete geographical features, indicating you view Joe Montana to be of more importance.  I want to keep geographical features, but delete Joe Montana.  I'm perfectly fine with all of my suggestions being taken as a whole, so should you  p  b  p  02:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not at all about Joe Montana (is he competing with cereal, rice, or wheat, which are both subsumptive with grains BTW, an article not currently included on the list)? Can we please move on from the "it needs to be more notable then Joe Montana" argument? I was speaking in terms of a Wikipedia based Venn, not a purely logical one, but still, are "letter" and "furniture" more globally notable subjects then pop-culture stars? Or are they not so notable per se, but vital to the encyclopedic content of the project, or both? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As for magicians and criminals, we have nine total. Two of the criminals on this list are Al Capone and Osama bin-Laden, both of whom I'm sure you'd agree were pretty important.  Meanwhile, nobody's thrown out a number for sports heroes that's less than 100.  Therefore, sport heroes could be seen to be at least 11-12x as important than criminals and magicians  p  b  p  02:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * China, with 19% of the total global population, has 35 cities listed, and India has 38 (17% of global population). However, Europe has 87 cites on the list, despite holding only about 10% of the total global population. China and India combined have 73 cites on the list (36% of global population) versus Europe's 87. In terms of the current weighting of the list, with 422 total cites listed, Chinese cities represent 8.3% of the list, India about 9%, and Europe about 20.6%. So, 36% of the global population is currently represented by 17.3% of the list, while 20.6% of the cites list is devoted to Europe, with only 10% of the world's population. This list lacks balance throughout, not just in the bios section, but not even especially in the bios section; other sections are even more off balance. If I am understanding pbp's logic, I think he would agree that at least 43 European cities should be cut from this list. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, if only biographies were anywhere near that balanced! Actually, what is also shoving China and India out isn't just Europe, but is the rest of Asia.  Asia and Africa combine for, as you noted above, 57% of the list.  In the bios section, it isn't even a quarter.  This is considerably more balanced than either biography or history, and I see no need for it to be any more.  This is just an attempt to try and trip me up in some way, I won't stand for it.  I repeat: "Name an Asian or African city that isn't on this list and should be".  p  b  p  01:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody's attempting to "trip you up". Chill-out a bit, you seem to be losing it man! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Defining recentism
Per Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions: "There are no 'set in stone' guidelines for WP:VITAL. Since it encompasses so many topics, a single overarching criterion for inclusion would be irresponsible. Over time, however, certain commonly held notions have become prevalent. This applies especially to the most frequently revised area, the People section."


 * "Anti-recentism: of the 135 individuals currently in the People section, only two of the Beatles are still living. While living individuals, such as Vladimir Putin, George W. Bush, Tony Blair or Queen Elizabeth II, have tremendous current notability, they are avoided because their place in history is difficult to ascertain."

It seems the only criteria suggested by this "guideline" are 1) that recent implies living, and 2) that living people "are avoided because their place in history is difficult to ascertain". Which would seem to imply that if a living person's place is history is not at all difficult to ascertain, then this anti-recentism notion would not apply to them. I think we need to more clearly define what "recent" means in the context of WP:VITAL before we add/remove articles based on this vaguely defined concept. Any thoughts? GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  00:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * First off, since WP:VA is a parent page of this, there's no need to have discussions both here and there. But to your point, I define recentism as an overemphasis on people and events that occurred after 1900  p  b  p  02:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Is 1900 a number from a guideline or policy, or your own personal opinion? Remember, you've argued for the inclusion of Harry Potter, from a book series that started just 15 years ago (isn't that a pop-culture popularity argument?). I quote: "Harry Potter is ... the most influential fictional character of my lifetime." GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, there are some pretty sensible reasons than "before/after 1900" makes more sense than "living". The practical implication of "living" would be to delete all the living people (that's half the actors, most of the athletes and many of the musicians), then fight over adding them back or not each time one of them dies (which would happen several times a year).  Also, my suggestion doesn't outright forbid anybody after 1900, it suggests de-emphasizing things after 1900 in favor of things before 1900 (I.e. categories that are almost excusively composed of people and events after 1900 should be smaller; categories composed of both should have a better balance between before and after 1900).  As for my lifetime, if there are 50 things in a category, it makes pretty good sense to have 1-2 of them from the last 25-50 years, and then the remaining 48-49 from the rest of history.  And I see no reason why whether or not it's my opinion has any bearing on this; most of the things you've posited are nothing more than your opinion  p  b  p  02:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you mean to say that a person must have been born before 1900, or that they should have made their significant impact before 1900, in order to avoid recentism? Per your commment: "As for my lifetime, if there are 50 things in a category, it makes pretty good sense to have 1-2 of them from the last 25-50 years", the list which includes Harry Potter has 82 total entries. Are you saying that Harry Potter is a character from "literature", because J. K. Rowling (born 1965) is not even listed as a writer? Are you saying lists with 50+ entries are allowed to have 1-2 topics from the last 25-50 years, but no more than 1-2? Because many other "people" from that list with your hero Harry Potter are from the last 50 years, including: Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock, Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker, Mario and Pokémon. Are you suggesting that Harry Potter has been more globally influential during the last 50 years than Star Trek, Star Wars and Nintendo? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, 50 fictional characters seems like about the right number. And if the list spanned all of human history, there shouldn’t be that many from the late 20th and into the 21st century.  For example, on the world leaders front, it's total overkill to have each of the last five U.S. presidents; in terms of religion, Billy Graham and Pope John Paul II are fine, but you don't need Jerry Falwell, Angelo Scola and Thomas S. Monson in addition to those two.  Since this list really only deals with characters from since 1900, more than 1-2 can be added, meaning there’s room for Potter, Spock, Skywalker and the plumber (and, sorry, but a character from a franchise that sold over a billion books and then made over a billion dollars in its film franchise is in a league with Spock, Skywalker and the plumber).  I believe that there really shouldn’t be a particular bias to a particular time period; were you to examine the fictional characters, you’d note that an inordinate number of fictional characters that debuted between 1919 and 1945.  As for the “after 1900”, mostly I’m referring to significant work, and like I said, I never said, “cut everybody after 1900”, I said “there shouldn’t be an inordinate number of things after 1900” (and in lists that span all of human history, inordinate is more than ~25-30%).  Oh, and in regard to your shot across my prow in the edit summary, “You added Harry Potter, didn’t you?”, I did NOT.  TBH, I've made relatively few additions to the bios list, and can support each addition I've made with a logical argument.  But asking that rhetorical question was unnecessary and you should not have done it.  p  b  p  21:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Per Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions: "While living individuals, such as Vladimir Putin, George W. Bush, Tony Blair or Queen Elizabeth II, have tremendous current notability, they are avoided because their place in history is difficult to ascertain." I would say that Harry Potter's "age" of 15 years would certainly put him in this category. I predict that in ten years (hopefully less), you will look back and feel a bit embarrassed at the amount of praise you have given a fad that will soon pass. I think you like Potter because he came out when you were 8 years old, so you think its not as recent as someone twice your age might. Also, I thought you said record sales were not a "germane" factor in determining the popularity of rock music, why are book sales and box office receipts an important factor for the inclusion of Potter? FWIW, every 3 years more rock albums are sold in the US alone then total Harry Potter books ever sold globally, which is around 250-400 million, not 1 billion as you stated above. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  21:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * On the Harry Potter fad:
 * "Ten Years Later, Harry Potter Vanishes From the Best-Seller List".
 * "British Sanctuaries swamped by unwanted owls, post Harry Potter fad."
 * "For many, of course, Harry Potter is just a passing fad, yet another in a long line of consumer crazes like Pet Rocks, Beanie Babies and, of late, Sudoku."


 * Other "recent" topics to avoid from post-1900: Comics, Salvador Dalí, Alan Turing, Ernest Hemingway (1899), Neil Armstrong, Werner Heisenberg, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Soviet Union, Women's suffrage, World War I, World War II, Great Depression, The Holocaust, Cold War, Arab–Israeli conflict, Islamism, Korean War, Civil rights movement, Cultural Revolution, Space exploration, Revolutions of 1989, Modernism, Postmodernism, Popular culture, Folk music, Hip hop music, Jazz, Pop music, Rock music, Analytic philosophy, Video game, Environmentalism, Feminism (1894), Globalization, European Union, International Monetary Fund, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, NATO, Nobel Prize, United Nations, World Health Organization, World Trade Organization, Pharmaceutical drug, Birth control, Antibiotic, Vaccine, HIV/AIDS, Big Bang, Black hole, Oceanography, Global warming, nuclear physics, quantum physics, Theory of relativity, Artificial intelligence, Biotechnology, Genetic engineering, Nanotechnology, Nuclear technology, Email, Internet, Mobile phone, Radio, Telecommunication, Telephone, Television, Video, World Wide Web, Global Positioning System, Solar energy, Integrated circuit, Semiconductor device, Transistor, Nuclear weapon, Tank, Jet engine, Magnetic resonance imaging, Moon landing, Rocket, Satellite, Hubble Space Telescope, Spaceflight, Space Shuttle, Space station, and International Space Station. All of these articles are currently included at VAL3. Any thoughts? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * TLDR that laundry list...what's your point?  That doesn't look to be 25-30% of the total entries, I didn't put any of them on the list, and I am not advocating for the removal of most of them.   Also, a number of those things, such as vaccines, folk music and Women's suffrage began in the 19th century; the Big Bang began 14 billion years ago  p  b  p  21:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My point is that your arbitrary demand that "everything post-1900 is recent" is ridiculous! Yes the Women's suffrage movement began in the late-19th century, but no country on Earth actually allowed women to vote until 1907. I meant modern vaccines, and folk music wasn't defined as such until the 20th century (of course it existed prior). Also, the topic of the Big Bang theory is from the 20th century, it still has not been definitively proven that it actually did occur, its still a theory, but the theory is that it occurred 13.77 billion years ago, not 14 million years ago as you stated above. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wyoming gave women the right to vote in the 19th century. Also, you're missing the forest for the trees. For the third or fourth time, I have NEVER said that EVERYTHING recent should be deleted, just that we shouldn't have half this list devoted to stuff that happened in the last hundred years.  1900 ain't going anywhere.  On the other hand, people die every day.  Therefore, I believe 1900 to be less arbitrary than living v. dead  p  b  p  23:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I said no country gave women the vote until 1907, which is true. Anyway, according to Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions: "Chronological diversity: the topics represent the entirety of human history." I assume "the entirety of human history" would include the last 113 years, not? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Defining vital
Per Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions: "There are no 'set in stone' guidelines for WP:VITAL. Since it encompasses so many topics, a single overarching criterion for inclusion would be irresponsible."

During many of the above threads the terms "notable" and "vital" are being used almost interchangeably. According to Notability: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article ... Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject.

Per WP:LISTN: "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables ... There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in What Wikipedia is not."

According to Vital articles: "Vital articles is a list of basic subjects for which Wikipedia should have corresponding high-quality articles, and ideally featured articles."

I think we need to more clearly define what notable means in the context of WP:VITAL, before we move forward with arbitrary cuts or adds. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  00:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy close: There's a thread with the exact same text at WP:VA. Reply to that one instead.   p  b  p  02:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not everyone who watches VAL3 also watches VA/E. Further, you are not proposing the removal of 250 articles at VAL3, as you are here, so there is no valid reason why this conversation cannot take place at both talk pages. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm up to 250 yet, and anyway, other people are proposing the removal of 25 articles (25/1000 = 250/10000) at WP:VA. And the answer to your question should be the same at both WP:VA and WP:VA/E, so there shouldn't be two different discussions with two different answers  p  b  p  02:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary limits
There is a discussion regarding the VA limits occuring here. Your input would be appreciated. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  00:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)