Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 57

Swap Rita Hayworth for Meena Kumari
Only one indian actress is rather ridiculously low. Similar rationale for selecting carole lombard Lauren Bacall Rita Hayworth, excluding Mary Pickford as an early actor and having done some other stuff.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom, Rita won nothing of note and is of less importance in Hollywood and has less impact there compared with Meena's impact in Bollywood. This list should not rely solely on the AFI list. GuzzyG (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as this is very biased. Only one actress in the largest film industry in the world is preposterous.  J  947 &thinsp;(c) , at 05:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neutral, searching for consensus. --Thi (talk) 06:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gizza  (t)(c) 20:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose swap. Jclemens (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Hayworth, as the article notes, is an icon. Jusdafax (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Is she an icon to a population larger then India? Is a small amount of notable films with no awards won enough to be in a list like this? GuzzyG (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Lombard is not on this list, she was removed here. GuzzyG (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * Must've gotten it mixed up - was just going up the AFI list and searching our list.. Changed it to Lauren Bacall - though you may have a better choice because I frankly have no idea about most of the people here Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Rita Hayworth never won any major awards unlike Bacall, she's the better removal option in my opinion. GuzzyG (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Remove Hunter S. Thompson
Gonzo journalism was more a trend than a new genre. "He was indeed a standard-bearer of the 1960s counter culture. ... gonzo journalism is an embarrassing relic of a time that taste forgot." Thompson is not read for journalistic information but for entertainment. Thompson wrote one notable work, the novel Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, which is arguably not very good.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Widely influential journalist and cultural icon. A respectable encyclopedia would have an article on him.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose "relic of a time" These kind of relics are what shapes cultural history. Dimadick (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Add Astor Piazzolla
A good representative for Latin American music. "Astor Piazzolla is one of the most widely performed composers of the late 20th century. His reinvention of the classic Argentine tango caused him to be branded an artistic heretic by tango traditionalists and hailed as a genius by musicians and listeners worldwide." 


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I think I've made this proposal myself once.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Certainly vital. Other vital (in my opinion) Latin musicians are Carlos Gardel,Vicente Fernández and Selena GuzzyG (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Also a film score composer, with a rather long career. Dimadick (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gizza  (t)(c) 22:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Cambalachero (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Zingarese (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove Gary Player
The list contains four other representatives of this sport: Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer, Annika Sörenstam and Tiger Woods.


 * Support


 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Yeah, international golf tours are redundant encyclopedically, and Golf isn't that notable for 5 (should be 3) representatives. GuzzyG (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose

If we're going for international influence he's more important then Palmer. Especially considering his major impact on golf course design and his golf books etc.
 * Discuss
 * Agreed. If we have four golfers, we shouldn't have more than two Americans.  p  b  p  03:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you nominate Palmer i'll support that and retract my support for this. GuzzyG (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Add Tallinn
The capital and largest city of Estonia, one of the very few national capital cities not listed at this level.


 * Support
 * 1)  Support as nom power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 2)  Support --Thi (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 3)  Support  Carlwev  08:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 4)  Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per nom. Jusdafax (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Significant medieval city. "In 1285, the city, then known as Reval, became the northern most member of the Hanseatic League – a mercantile and military alliance of German-dominated cities in Northern Europe. The Danes sold Reval along with their other land possessions in northern Estonia to the Teutonic Knights in 1346. Medieval Reval enjoyed a strategic position at the crossroads of trade between Western and Northern Europe and Russia. The city, with a population of 8,000, was very well fortified with city walls and 66 defence towers." Dimadick (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) Support GuzzyG (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove The Hobbit
There are two books by J.R.R. Tolkien at this level. The Lord of the Rings is more vital.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss
 * It looks like this was just added unilaterally yesterday. Shouldn't it just be removed since it never went through the proper procedure to be added to Level 4? Rreagan007 (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Done. --Thi (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Remove White Christmas (song)
Both Irving Berlin and Bing Crosby are listed elsewhere.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I don't think Christmas music needs a song listed, though the genre might be worth including. (Christmas carol is included, but is slightly different) power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) support surely well-known and popular, but perhaps too well-known and too popular to be vital for an encyclopedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support removal. Jclemens (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose - Since it holds the distinction of being the biggest-selling single in history, it’s clearly vital at this level. Jusdafax (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I think we need to include at least 1 Christmas song, and the biggest-selling single in history certainly fits the bill. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose as per above. The fact that two related people are already mentioned doesn't make this less vital. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Agree with others as to why we should keep it.

If there's only one single listed it should be this....GuzzyG (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * biggest selling != vital. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A cultural keystone. Perhaps your definition of vital varies. Jusdafax (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have a definition of encyclopedic vitality? I do.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m sure it serves you well. Let’s agree to differ. Cheers! Jusdafax (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no necessity for yours to agree with mine, but I think it is a problem not to have a well thought out idea about what vitality is. Why do you think being the most sold single is an argument for vitality? Should we also include the most sold fiction book and the most sold car and the most sold hamburger? How do we know which records make something vital and what doesn't?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Maunus, you are the only one ever here to have a definition of vitality. Wait, you aren't. I have some definitions, especially in Geography, but they are just in my head.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at 05:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Neutral for now.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at 06:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

"Best-selling" isn't a be-all and end-all; Their Greatest Hits (1971–1975) isn't likely to even make the 50k list. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 19:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Add Portrait
An important topic in the history of painting.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support good catch. Gizza  (t)(c) 22:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Dimadick (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support -- Laukku  TheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 19:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Consequentialism
Consequentialism is contrasted with deontological ethics, which is listed. There are different versions of consequentialism, utilitarianism is just an example of consequential ethics.


 * Support


 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Neljack (talk) 11:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support The main premise of this theory is that "the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct." Whether these consequences were intentional or unforseen does not matter. Key concept in several philosophical systems. Dimadick (talk) 10:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support GuzzyG (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support An important type of ethics.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove Personal life
This seems to me more like an essay than encyclopedic topic.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support not an encyclopedic topic.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support It's a very awkward topic to write an encyclopedia article about. Bump it down to Level 5. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support to be frank I doubt whether it should be Level 5. It would barely survive AfD. Gizza  (t)(c) 22:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Vegetable oil
As many Wikidata entries as Cooking oil. Contains a few arguably vital oils.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. w umbolo   ^^^  12:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Dimadick (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Gizza  (t)(c) 22:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Thi (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss
 * If we are going to add this (and we probably should), then I think we should also remove Palm oil. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Remove Dominoes
Evidently not popular outside Latin America, not significant, inferior to the only other listed tile-based game, Mahjong, e.g. by impact and competition. Even though Wikidata shows the same numbers. When I look for RS about domino popularity, I get results about Domino's pizza popularity.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. w umbolo   ^^^  21:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 05:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. If we have to remove a tile game, I'd remove Mahjong first. Dominoes made it to the West about 200 years before Mahjong, and my general perception is that Dominoes is still better known and more culturally relevant. As you point out, there is a Domino's Pizza, but there is no Mahjong's Pizza. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I'd prefer to keep both dominoes and mahjong, Tile-based game is basically a list article and not a feasible swap at this time. The first "Sports and recreation" article I'd remove would be National Hockey League. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per power. Gizza  (t)(c) 01:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Dimadick (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Dawid2009 (talk) 07:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose: Maybe not as vital as Mah-jong, but vital enough to be on this list. p  b  p  12:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Add Finger
Seems vital. Certainly more vital than Fingerprint which is listed. Probably better than Digit (anatomy), which isn't listed either.


 * Support
 * 1) as nom power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 06:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Totally. I had to check it wasn't on already.  J  947 &thinsp;(c) , at 02:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Thi (talk) 11:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support GuzzyG (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per nom. I was neutral but had my doubts when fingerprint was proposed and added. Don't think it's the first subtopic on forensic science that should be added. Gizza  (t)(c) 22:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Swap Tadao Ando for Albert Speer
Swap a recent architect with no clearly defined architectural legacy yet for the major architect of Nazi Germany. Ando is the type of figure perfect for level 5.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. I new I took that intro to architecture class in college for something. Speer is definitely more vital. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support removal --Thi (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Swap Speer had a legacy as an architect. "Another legacy was the Arbeitsstab Wiederaufbau zerstörter Städte (Working group on Reconstruction of destroyed cities), authorised by Speer in 1943 to rebuild bombed German cities to make them more livable in the age of the automobile. Headed by Wolters, the working group took a possible military defeat into their calculations. The Arbeitsstabs recommendations served as the basis of the postwar redevelopment plans in many cities, and Arbeitsstab members became prominent in the rebuilding." Dimadick (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support p  b  p  14:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Support dawnleelynn(talk) 03:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Robert Burns
The national poet of Scotland is surely a classic encylopedic topic. His poem and song "Auld Lang Syne" is also listed.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support "Burns is generally classified as a proto-Romantic poet, and he influenced William Wordsworth, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, and Percy Bysshe Shelley greatly. His direct literary influences in the use of Scots in poetry were Allan Ramsay and Robert Fergusson. The Edinburgh literati worked to sentimentalise Burns during his life and after his death, dismissing his education by calling him a "heaven-taught ploughman". Burns influenced later Scottish writers, especially Hugh MacDiarmid, who fought to dismantle what he felt had become a sentimental cult that dominated Scottish literature." Dimadick (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 07:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support No brainer dawnleelynn(talk) 03:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) He influenced both liberalism and socialism a lot.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove Robert A. Heinlein
Heinlein's science fiction is now dated. All of his books have some problems and some are really bad.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Neljack (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gizza  (t)(c) 22:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose that a wikipedia editor does not like an author's books is probably the worst imaginable argument for adding or removing an author from this list, that their work is "dated" may be the second worst.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Highly influential writer. That his works are "dated" is hardly surprising since he died back in 1988. Dimadick (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Obviously, his works are dated, and IMO, works after Stranger are pretty bad.  Nonetheless, he is considered to have inspired enough SF writers that he should be considered "vital".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose He is still a science fiction pioneer with over a dozen honors whose writing techniques and inventions still influence modern science fiction. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 22:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose p  b  p  12:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) From the LA Times article I clearly know that he is indeed vital at this level, since he inspired the military science fiction genre and was the first science fictionist to land on the New York Times bestseller list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Remove Targum
The least vital Judaism-related article on the list. Today, only Jews from the republic of Yemen continue to use the targumim liturgically.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 05:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 08:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I don't think it's vitil at this level. Push it down to Level 5. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support GuzzyG (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 03:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Weak Oppose Targums are important to the history of the Hebrew text, which touches all Abrahamic religions. It's not the end of the world if this is demoted to level 5, though. Jclemens (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Add Old Norse religion
A significant ancient religion that is currently missing from the ancient religion section.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 06:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as it has modern impact. "Throughout its history, varying levels of trans-cultural diffusion occurred among neighbouring peoples, such as the Sami and Finns. By the twelfth century Old Norse religion had succumbed to Christianity, with elements continuing into Scandinavian folklore. A revival of interest in Old Norse religion occurred amid the romanticist movement of the nineteenth century, during which it inspired a range of artworks. It also attracted the interest of political figures, and was used by a range of right-wing and nationalist groups. Academic research into the subject began in the early nineteenth century, initially influenced by the pervasive romanticist sentiment." Dimadick (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 22:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 03:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose redundant to Norse mythology, although they could be swapped.  Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 01:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We list Ancient Egyptian religion and Egyptian mythology, Ancient Greek religion and Greek mythology, and Religion in ancient Rome and Roman mythology. I think this is on par with those. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Move Literacy to under Writing
There is no literacy without writing - it is the ability to read and write.
 * Support
 * 1) As nom.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) I'd put it under reading  p  b  p  15:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Caspar David Friedrich
Greatest Romantic landscape painter. He made spiritual art with new imagery. Previous proposal.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support While Friedrich's art is thought primarily to convey an "overwhelming sense of loneliness", he had a major influence on the art movement of Surrealism. "Friedrich's landscapes exercised a strong influence on the work of German artist Max Ernst (1891–1976), and as a result other Surrealists came to view Friedrich as a precursor to their movement. In 1934, the Belgian painter René Magritte (1898–1967) paid tribute in his work The Human Condition, which directly echoes motifs from Friedrich's art in its questioning of perception and the role of the viewer. A few years later, the Surrealist journal Minotaure featured Friedrich in a 1939 article by critic Marie Landsberger, thereby exposing his work to a far wider circle of artists. The influence of The Wreck of Hope (or The Sea of Ice) is evident in the 1940–41 painting Totes Meer by Paul Nash (1889–1946), a fervent admirer of Ernst. Friedrich's work has been cited as an inspiration by other major 20th-century artists, including Mark Rothko (1903–70), Gerhard Richter (b. 1932), Gotthard Graubner   and Anselm Kiefer (b. 1945). Friedrich's Romantic paintings have also been singled out by writer Samuel Beckett (1906–89), who, standing before Man and Woman Contemplating the Moon, said "This was the source of Waiting for Godot, you know." " Dimadick (talk) 06:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 03:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support GuzzyG (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Edward Hopper
One of the most famous American painters. .


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Large influence in film, particularly horror films and science fiction. "Hopper's cinematic compositions and dramatic use of light and dark has made him a favorite among filmmakers. For example, House by the Railroad is reported to have heavily influenced the iconic house in the Alfred Hitchcock film Psycho. The same painting has also been cited as being an influence on the home in the Terrence Malick film Days of Heaven. The 1981 film Pennies from Heaven includes a tableau vivant of Nighthawks, with the lead actors in the places of the diners. German director Wim Wenders also cites Hopper influence. His 1997 film The End of Violence also incorporates a tableau vivant of Nighthawks, recreated by actors. Noted surrealist horror film director Dario Argento went so far as to recreate the diner and the patrons in Nighthawks as part of a set for his 1976 film Deep Red (aka Profondo Rosso). Ridley Scott has cited the same painting as a visual inspiration for Blade Runner. To establish the lighting of scenes in the 2002 film Road to Perdition, director Sam Mendes drew from the paintings of Hopper as a source of inspiration, particularly New York Movie. " Dimadick (talk) 07:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 03:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support GuzzyG (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support absolutely. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove Mukesh Ambani
Not particularly vital at this level.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I understand he is on here because he is our choice for India's most important modern businessman, but there's so many more important people missing in various more important fields that he can't be justified being on this list when we also have a level 5. Is he more important then William-Adolphe Bouguereau, Robert Burns, Amin al-Husseini, Roland Barthes, Harvey Milk, Jefferson Davis, L. L. Zamenhof, Louis Braille, Rudolf Diesel, Jan van Riebeeck, Ilya Repin, Richard III of England, Sequoyah, Peter Carl Fabergé, William Morris and William Penn? I am just getting started too, there's alot more names. He's not even close to the top 2k in history in my opinion. Tata is good enough for Indian business. Plus, we are overlimit. GuzzyG (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support as per above comments. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 04:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Saga
For example Njáls saga is called as one of the world's greatest prose works. The sagas are possibly "the most important European work of the past thousand years." 


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 00:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Dimadick (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 04:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove Oklahoma!
This is covered in the article of Rodgers and Hammerstein.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 22:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support GuzzyG (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. It's Queen Elizabeth's favorite song . Seriously though, Oklahoma is more vital than Hair or West Side Story. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Remove Hair (musical)
Less notable then Oklahoma!, we are over the limit in art and this musical is not that well known or vital. 2 musicals is good enough for this level.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 03:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Swap Stock car racing for NASCAR
The generic term rather than a specific American organization.


 * Support
 * 1) as nom power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 23:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose While stock car racing is the more general article, NASCAR is the more vital article to list. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Discuss
 * I'm not sure about this. Stock car racing is the more general term, but NASCAR is by far the most important type of stock car racing. Would you also be for replacing Formula One with Formula racing? Rreagan007 (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A fair point. Formula One is world-wide, which is the main reason I didn't (and wouldn't) propose it.  However, most of the other stock-car racing circuits appear to be NASCAR-affiliated in one way or another. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 21 May 2018
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the pages as proposed at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 08:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

– Considering the existence of Vital articles/Level/5, which contains far more articles than Level 4 vital articles, calling Level 4 vital articles "expanded" isn't all that acccurate and helpful. feminist (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded → Vital articles/Level/4
 * Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts → Vital articles/Level/4/Arts
 * Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Biology and health sciences → Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences
 * Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Everyday life → Vital articles/Level/4/Everyday life
 * Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography → Vital articles/Level/4/Geography
 * Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/History → Vital articles/Level/4/History
 * Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Mathematics → Vital articles/Level/4/Mathematics
 * Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People → Vital articles/Level/4/People
 * Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People/Candidates → Vital articles/Level/4/People/Candidates
 * Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Philosophy and religion → Vital articles/Level/4/Philosophy and religion
 * Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Physical sciences → Vital articles/Level/4/Physical sciences
 * Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Removed → Vital articles/Level/4/Removed
 * Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Society and social sciences → Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences
 * Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology → Vital articles/Level/4/Technology


 * Support per nom. Paintspot Infez (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support --Thi (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support -- Laukku  TheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 19:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This will still leave "Level 3" at Vital articles, while the others will be at 1, 2, 4, and 5. Should 3 also be altered in some way? Dekimasu よ! 02:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it can be left as-is, though I would be OK with splitting the list to a subpage. feminist (talk) 04:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think Level 3 really needs to be moved. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom — python coder   (talk &#124; contribs) 22:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Add Pieter Bruegel the Elder
His paintings are very famous. "Bruegel's busy, often funny, often satirical canvases that depicted peasant life and religious proverbs are great fun to look at." . "Pieter Bruegel the Elder (c1525–69) is one of the most imaginative, original and captivating artists in history. He painted The Hunters in the Snow, that unforgettable image of hunched up peasants, cosy cottages and joyous skaters in a white winter world. ... Bruegel is one of western art’s most profound observers of the human condition." (Jonathan Jones, The Guardian)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Relatively influential in the Dutch and Flemish Renaissance painting. "The next century's artists of peasant genre scenes were heavily influenced by Brueghel. Outside the Brueghel family, early figures were Adriaen Brouwer (c. 1605/6-1638) and David Vinckboons (1576–c.1632), both Flemish-born but spending much of their time in the northern Netherlands.  As well as the general conception of such kermis subjects, Vinckboons and other artists took from Bruegel "such stylistic devices as the bird's-eye perspective, ornamentalized vegetation, bright palette, and stocky, odious figures.  Forty years after their deaths, and over a century after Bruegel's, Jan Steen (1626-79) continued to show a particular interest in Bruegelian treatments. " Dimadick (talk) 06:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support GuzzyG (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Both really important, and still really popular Johnbod (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Hans Holbein the Younger
A very famous portraitist. .


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support This Holbein owes his fame in part to being a court painter for the House of Tudor, and leaving detailed portraits of several of the dynasty's royals and their associates. "Holbein's fame owes something to that of his sitters. Several of his portraits have become cultural icons. He created the standard image of Henry VIII. In painting Henry as an iconic hero, however, he also subtly conveyed the tyranny of his character. Holbein's portraits of other historical figures, such as Erasmus, Thomas More, and Thomas Cromwell, have fixed their images for posterity. The same is true for the array of English lords and ladies whose appearance is often known only through his art. For this reason, John North calls Holbein "the cameraman of Tudor history". In Germany, on the other hand, Holbein is regarded as an artist of the Reformation, and in Europe of humanism. " Dimadick (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 03:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support GuzzyG (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Much the best Renaissance portraitist north of the Alps, & important in early Lutheran art.
 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Iannis Xenakis
"Iannis Xenakis was one of the leaders of modernism in music, a hugely influential composer, particularly in the later 1950s and 1960s, when he was experimenting with compositional techniques that soon entered the basic vocabulary of the twentieth-century avant garde." 


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support "Xenakis pioneered the use of mathematical models in music...and was also an important influence on the development of electronic and computer music." Dimadick (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose I am not convinced that Xenakis is quite at the level of vitality established by the other composers we have. Neljack (talk) 10:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) oppose classical music is overrepresented. Furthemore I have some training in classical music history and had never heard of Xenakis.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Add Narendra Modi

 * Support
 * 1) Support He is vital politician from India.User:Capankajsmilyo(Talk 18:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Modi is credited as the mastermind behind the 2002 Gujarat riots. "The Chief Minister of Gujarat at that time, Narendra Modi, was accused of initiating and condoning the violence, as were police and government officials who allegedly directed the rioters and gave lists of Muslim-owned properties to them. ... "Though officially classified as a communalist riot, the events of 2002 have been described as a pogrom by many scholars, with some commentators alleging that the attacks had been planned, with the attack on the train was a "staged trigger" for what was actually premeditated violence. Other observers have stated that these events had met the "legal definition of genocide,"[or referred to them as state terrorism or ethnic cleansing." Dimadick (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose we generally don't list modern leaders and there's more important people (and modern leaders) missing. Try level 5. GuzzyG (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Too recent. If we were going to add a current politician, I'd add Donald Trump. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose as per above. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per above, except I'd rather add Erdogan before Trump. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 00:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. May be appropriate for Level 5 but certainly not that influential on the world. feminist (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Swap Shane Warne or Muttiah Muralitharan for Sydney Barnes
IMO neither Muralitharan or Warne are overtly vital at this level. We've got 3 batsmen, 2 all-rounders, and two spinners; I'd say at-least one fast bowler needs to be there and I'd choose Sydney Barnes for In 1963, Barnes was named by Wisden Cricketers' Almanack in its hundredth edition as one of its "Six Giants of the Wisden Century". In 2008, he had the highest rating among bowlers in the ICC Best-Ever Test Championship Ratings. I could be convinced to change Warne to Muralitharan but there needs to be at-least one fast bowler.


 * Swap for Warne
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Warne Warne is listed on the Wisden Cricketers of the Century list, as the only bowler listed he shouldn't go before Muralitharan. I'd probably support that swap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuzzyG (talk • contribs) 19:39, February 4, 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose as Warne features on the WCOTC list.  J  947 &thinsp;(c) , at 04:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Swap for Muralitharan
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom, either; I can't really decide, really. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support this addresses recentism too, Barnes being born around 100 years earlier (good to add someone not born in the 20th century). I agree on Warne being marginally ahead of Muralitharan. Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 21:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per Gizza.  J  947 &thinsp;(c) , at 04:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Remove Muralitharan
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. The article of Sydney Barnes appears only in four language versions. We need to remove some articles and the list of 100 influential or important sportspeople is a reasonable goal. --Thi (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support i support this or the swap. GuzzyG (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose

In general for the cricket list, Bradman, Sobers, W.G Grace, and Tendulkar are definites, while the others can be debated. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * My 4 definites would be the same as yours but with Grace before Sobers. Barnes, Warne, and Richards in that order would be my other ones. I'm thinking about Jack Hobbs as well. The third WCOTC and a representative for English batsmanship after Grace should make the cut IMO. In coming years L5 will be way easier to decide with future stars like Smith, Root, and Williamson coming in as young captains. Brian Lara always comes to my mind when I think of great batsmen but we've already got two batsmen from the West Indies. I'm also thinking along the lines of perhaps Hadlee/Anderson/McGrath as a modern representative of fast bowlers but they are probably best suited for L5.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at 04:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, Dale Steyn could be an option in coming decades as he is considered by some to be the best quickie since WWII.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at 03:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , he could be though we would have to wait for some time I think. The proposal to add Richie McCaw didn't go through partially because he had only recently retired (and therefore there were recentism concerns). Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 21:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah; that's why I said in coming decades.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at 04:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I've reformatted it for both options; hard to tell IMO because both are modern and so rankings are less available + impact; that list was mid career for both. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think until time passes it's best to go with such lists, if opinion changes in a couple years we can always do a swap. But we don't create history and we only go off what the proper authorities think and that appears to be Shane at the moment. GuzzyG (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * . The list if there is one in 2063 will really set the standard but that is 45 years away.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at 04:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Adding History by Timeline
I was surprised to see that none of the timeline related articles are listed at vital article at this level. I recommend to add the below 30 articles under a new section called History by Timeline:


 * 1) Timeline of human prehistory
 * 2) 5th millennium BC
 * 3) 4th millennium BC
 * 4) 3rd millennium BC
 * 5) 2nd millennium BC
 * 6) 1st millennium BC
 * 7) 1st millennium
 * 8) 2nd millennium
 * 9) 10th century
 * 10) 11th century
 * 11) 12th century
 * 12) 13th century
 * 13) 14th century
 * 14) 15th century
 * 15) 16th century
 * 16) 17th century
 * 17) 18th century
 * 18) 19th century
 * 19) 20th century
 * 20) 21st century
 * 21) 1900s (decade)
 * 22) 1910s (decade)
 * 23) 1920s (decade)
 * 24) 1930s (decade)
 * 25) 1940s (decade)
 * 26) 1950s (decade)
 * 27) 1960s (decade)
 * 28) 1970s (decade)
 * 29) 1980s (decade)
 * 30) 1990s (decade)
 * 31) 2000s (decade)

Of course addition of these 31 articles may require removal of some of the existing articles listed. In my view the below 31 articles can be considered for reclassifying as Level-5 vital articles:


 * 1) Archaeological culture
 * 2) Bantu expansion
 * 3) Battle of Hastings
 * 4) Behavioral modernity
 * 5) Conspiracy Theory
 * 6) Control of fire by early humans
 * 7) Cossack Hetmanate
 * 8) Counter-Reformation
 * 9) Cradle of civilization
 * 10) Crusader states
 * 11) Enclosure
 * 12) Great Leap Forward
 * 13) Gulag
 * 14) History of Atheism
 * 15) Huguenots
 * 16) Little Ice Age
 * 17) Lower Paleolithic
 * 18) Meiji Restoration
 * 19) Middle Paleolithic
 * 20) Ninja
 * 21) Oprichnina
 * 22) Paris Commune
 * 23) Sinking of the RMS Titanic
 * 24) Slavery in Africa
 * 25) Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire
 * 26) Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire
 * 27) Unequal treaty
 * 28) Upper Paleolithic
 * 29) Wari culture
 * 30) Wends
 * 31) Young Turks

Please express your opinion below.  Arman  ( Talk ) 07:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The main problem I see with doing this is that these timeline articles are essentially structured as lists of events, and as a general rule we avoid including list articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this input. I agree that at present most of the timeline articles look like lists but ideally they should not be like that. There can be significant amount of content discussing how the interplay of events accross geographies and fields shaped the human society in that era. Timeline articles have featured prominently in mainstream encyclopedias as well. In fact one of the advantage of encyclopedia is that it can offer coverage of a timeline from a broad perspective which other books / publications cannot. I believe these timeline articles on wikipedia deserve a lot more attention and development and including them as vital article will be a step in the right direction.  Arman  ( Talk ) 08:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The century and decade articles are currently lists, and shouldn't be included at this level. Of the removals suggested, some are OK if we need space, a few (Counter-Reformation, Meiji Restoration) I would definitely oppose.  I'd oppose any bulk removal of this size. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Add Landscape painting
Seems vital to me.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 03:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) feminist (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 04:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) Support The style is prominent in the art traditions of China and Japan, and was particularly prominent in European art during the 18th and 19th centuries. Dimadick (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove Chinese dragon
We already list the general Dragon article which covers Chinese dragons at this level. But we don't list the article on European dragons at this level, so I don't think we need to include the separate article on Chinese dragons at this level either.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support GuzzyG (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 03:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 04:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove Academy (educational institution)
There is too much overlap with other similar articles we list like School, Boarding school, University, and College. Update: This article has been merged into Academy and turned into a redirect.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Rreagan007 (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 22:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Thi (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Too vague a term, used by all sorts of institutions. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove Pronghorn
I don't see any especial importance to this species (which had quite low populations in the early 1900s..)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Seems to be a fairly unique species in terms of its taxonomy, and it's also the "fastest land mammal in the Western Hemisphere". I think it's vital enough to keep. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I see them here in Wyoming. I have even seen an albino one. People who grew up here call them goats. Yes, it's the fastest animal in North America for sure, meant to evade now extinct predators. And it can run at those speeds longer. Also, it is running at high altitude to boot. Replace them with the jackalope? LOL --<i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 03:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Remove New Zealand parrot and Lories and lorikeets
I don't think we need this many different types of parrots. The page counts are somewhat misleading for Ara (genus) as Macaw has significantly more traffic.


 * Support
 * 1) as nom power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 18:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 08:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 03:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Word processor
After changes by, this article has been split to Word processor program and Word processor (electronic device). Which page should be listed? power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 01:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. It seems to me that the vital article is still word processor rather than either of those. And it still needs work, obviously as it's still a stub, but not as sadly as it did. It was more than half a century out of date, which may (hopefully) set a record for an IT related article, vital or no. That's why I was so bold. Andrewa (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If there is a vital article here, it probably is the main article on Word processor. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. 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 Kolyma River
A river in Eastern Siberia that is the 39th-longest river in the world, and seems otherwise unremarkable.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support there are more important articles relating to Siberia, such as the Tunguska event. Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 22:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Thi (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support -- Laukku  TheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 04:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap: Remove Alice Walker, add The Color Purple
Alice Walker is best known for her novel The Color Purple. I suggest a swap. "The Color Purple won the Pulitzer Prize and National Book Award in 1983 and quickly became a classic of world literature." 


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 03:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support GuzzyG (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support The book is more famous and more widely discussed in both scholarly and popular sources than the author, who is chiefly known only in association with the book. --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Yaşar Kemal
"Yaşar Kemal was a Turkish writer and human rights activist. He was one of Turkey's leading writers. He received 38 awards during his lifetime and had been a candidate for the Nobel Prize in Literature on the strength of Memed, My Hawk." His works were translated into 40 languages. 


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Dimadick (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 22:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose We don't have many winners, so being nominated means nothing and he is strictly vital for one book, the book would be better. GuzzyG (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose In order to be included on this list, an author needs to have had a significant, long-term impact on literature. So far, no evidence has been presented to indicate that that is the case here. I think we often include disproportionately more modern writers because they are better known today; whereas many ancient and medieval writers tend to be sidelined and ignored, even though they have had more impact. Being nominated for a Nobel Prize is hardly a determiner of significance; they give out a Nobel Prize in Literature every year and we cannot include every person that wins one, let alone every person who is nominated for one. --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Add Italo Calvino
One of the most well-known and translated Italian modern writers, a contender for the Nobel Prize for Literature. 


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Dimadick (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Lots of contenders for the Nobel prize, we can't fit them all.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose being a contender isn't enough when we do not list winners. GuzzyG (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose In order to be included on this list, an author needs to have had a significant, long-term impact on literature. So far, no evidence has been presented to indicate that that is the case here. I think we often include disproportionately more modern writers because they are better known today; whereas many ancient and medieval writers tend to be sidelined and ignored, even though they have had more impact. Being nominated for a Nobel Prize is hardly a determiner of significance; they give out a Nobel Prize in Literature every year and we cannot include every person that wins one, let alone every person who is nominated for one. --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I mean we don't even have space for all the people who do win the noble prize.not even a fraction of that. According that second link, best italian writer of the 1900s - is that enough? Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Discuss


 * Italo Calvino and Umberto Eco (listed) are two most famous modern Italian novelists. Their writing combined philosophy and humour, while many other modernist, post-modernist or experimental authors are considered too difficult or overintellectual by the common reader. Calvino didn't receive the Nobel prize because of his relatively early death. Some Nobel authors are little known outside their home countries, such as Patrick Modiano. "The contemporary novelists who have made the greatest achievements are Italo Calvino, Marguerite Yourcenar, Gunter Wilhelm Grass, Patrick Modiano, and Marguerite Duras." Calvino seems to be more universal than Günter Grass, whose main theme was the Second World War and its effect on Germany. --Thi (talk) 10:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Swap Anne Frank for The Diary of a Young Girl
Per the precedent set by people famous for only one work of art generally having the art listed. As unfortunate and sad as it is that Anne didn't get to live a rich and full life, she does not make the vitality on her own for this level in my opinion. Level 5 is perfect for her.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. I think the fact that she died at such a young age makes her biography article even less vital. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose readers are clearly looking for the article on Anne Frank, not the diary. The bio gets more than 5 times the views of the diary itself. The thing is, hundreds of people on the list are only famous for one thing and removing all of them would be silly. She is a more well known Jewish writer of the period than say, Isaac Bashevis Singer. Doesn't make sense to remove her. Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 22:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose The People section is crowded but it just needs cleanup. --Thi (talk) 08:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Anne Frank is the notable topic that people will look for. An encyclopedia without her would be lacking.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Dimadick (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose I would say she herself is far more famous than her book, even though, ironically, the book is what originally made her famous. She herself has become an icon of the Holocaust. There are far more sources covering her life as a whole than sources only talking about her book, and a person is more likely to have heard of Anne Frank than The Diary of a Young Girl. It is slightly telling that the book is often known as simply "the diary of Anne Frank" rather than by its actual, original title. --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Remove The Diary of a Young Girl
 * 1) Support as nom. The book article is about Background, Synopsis, Editorial history, Reception and some other things. The content is the main thing and it is told in the article of Anne Frank. People are looking for her life story, not related things such as copyright issues. And the quota is over in the Arts section. --Thi (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC) (What I was thinking, the book is currently in the Level 5.) --Thi (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Readers are looking for Justin Bieber and Donald Trump but they are not on the list and are not regarded as vital. Yes,most would be silly, inventors for example. Now if people like Ian Fleming or J. K. Rowling or anyone with a book series gets overlooked how can someone notable for a single book be listed? What impact did Anne herself have on the world,other then the impact THROUGH her book? Singer severely impacted and influenced Yiddish language writing and won a Nobel and Anne? Subject matter aside, if this was any other author in the same situation it would be obvious, (Margaret Mitchell? Try and get Harper Lee on here.) Tragic history yes, but life changing vitality no, sadly she never got the chance and situations like this stop me from taking this level seriously and it seems like a pick and choose type situation then a actual rule/guideline. GuzzyG (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Discuss


 * Her book and her life story are basically the same thing in an encyclopedia. For example some Youtube channel is not vital but the vlogger behind it can be vital. --Thi (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * More has been written about Anne Frank's life than has been written about her book alone and she herself is better known. The same cannot be said for Mitchell or Lee, whose books are more famous and far more widely discussed than they themselves. Anne Frank is widely known as an icon of the Holocaust rather than just as a writer. --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Add Alban Berg
"With two ground-breaking operas, the soldier drama 'Wozzeck' and the modernist tragedy 'Lulu', to his name, Alban Berg can make serious claims to be the most important opera composer of the 20th century." (The Economist) Lulu "seems an indisputable candidate for the greatest opera of the 20th century." (The Guardian and The Nation) His Violin Concerto is also a masterpiece of 20th century music.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Also a crucial pioneer of the twelve-tone system. Certainly more influential that some composers we have. Neljack (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support One of the most significant composers of the 20th century. Zingarese (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose classical music is overrepresented.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I agree with Maunus. Dimadick (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Manaus GuzzyG (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Add Olivier Messiaen
"One of the most important and influential French composers of the 20th century". "No other music sounds quite like his, with its mystical allure, ecstatic energy and elusive harmonic language, grounded yet ethereal." 


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Neljack (talk) 10:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) oppose classical music is overrepresented.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) oppose I agree with maunus. Dimadick (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Add Heitor Villa-Lobos
"Brazilian composer and one of the foremost Latin American composers of the 20th century, whose music combines indigenous melodic and rhythmic elements with Western classical music." Villa-Lobos became a national icon. His series Bachianas brasileiras is very famous. 


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support A relatively successful film composer. "His music for the film Green Mansions starring Audrey Hepburn and Anthony Perkins, commissioned by MGM in 1958, earned Villa-Lobos US$25,000, and he conducted the soundtrack recording himself. " Dimadick (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Not quite at the level of the composers we have and would not be my next classical addition. Neljack (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) oppose classical music is overrepresented.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Add Haiphong and Phuket Province
Southeast Asia (except Indonesia) is very under represented. These 2 are major centres, and will bring Vietnam up to ~24,000,000 per city, and Thailand to ~23,000,000.  J 947 ( c ) (m)   05:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nominator. Also, don't let the size of the Phuket City article fool you; it is a major tourism centre. Another city in Thailand with an underwhelming article is the much bigger Nonthaburi.  J  947 ( c ) (m)   05:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support for Phuket Province. --Thi (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Weak support for Haiphong. --Thi (talk) 07:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Jusdafax (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 22:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Support GuzzyG (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose why do people need to know of these places?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Because the rest of the world needs to be more known, Phuket is a tourist attraction and a useful transport stop and the other is cultural.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at 05:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I think we already include too many cities at this level now that we have level 5. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Adding Phuket Province (Phuket island) to Regions subsection is maybe a better choice. --Thi (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, probably. We might as well see how this goes, though, and perhaps propose a swap afterwards.  J 947 ( c ) (m)   03:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've changed it. Note to closer – put Phuket Province in the 'Islands' sub-section.  J 947 ( c ) (m)   19:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Add Essay
An important form of literature.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Dimadick (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 04:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support yes, this should be here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose

At first glance this doesn't seem like it's all that important to me. Can you elaborate a little on why you think it's important enough to add at this level? Rreagan007 (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Discuss


 * “For more than four hundred years [ Michel de Montaigne's Essais], the personal essay has been one of the richest and most vibrant of all literary forms.” (The Art of the Personal Essay by Phillip Lopate) Personal essays or narrative essays are not journalistic articles or academic nonfiction. Personal essay can feel like a short story. Both short stories and essays are published in literary magazines or collections. The definition and history of short story is a classic scholarly topic and it seems to me that the same applies to essay. --Thi (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Add Decorative arts
Important class of art product. p b  p  22:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  22:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support good find. Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 22:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Dimadick (talk) 05:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Add Polypropylene and Polyvinyl chloride
Polypropylene is used in "packaging and labeling, textiles, plastic parts and reusable containers of various types, laboratory equipment, automotive components, and medical devices. It is a white, mechanically rugged, and resistant to many chemical solvents, bases and acids."; second most used plastic after polyethylene. Polyvinyl chloride is the third most used plastic. Used in pipes but also in "plumbing, electrical cable insulation, imitation leather, signage, phonograph records" and "bottles, non-food packaging". Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Nom
 * 2) Support per nom. Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 00:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as the second and third most common plastics deserve a place on this list. This is my 300th edit on this page!  J  947 &thinsp;(c) , at 02:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Thi (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Sticker and Adhesive tape
Especially duct tape is often cited as a very versatile product.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support adhesive tape. Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 00:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Dimadick (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose sticker which is a type of label. Packaging and labeling is probably the better article. Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 00:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) oppose everyday stuff like this is not vital.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose This doesn't seem vital for Level 4 to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Add Driver's license
Essential.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. We don't list any other types of licenses at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose not sure even if we even need to add something like license. However, identity document could be vital (being a hotly debated issue). Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 00:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Discuss

So many organisms
Why do we have so many organisms? There are way too much; many are reasonably obscure. I don't see why we need 8 different breeds of horses or 7 species of turtles. We have things like Lophotrochozoa; certainly interesting but not vital certainly? Taxonomists faf around with a lot of clades a lot of time, it is just a proposed clade (basically categorization rather than something overtly important). I wouldn't even say Level 5 for it. I think we should limit them to 800 (at the very least, I'd say 700 or 600 maybe), and expand health medicine and disease quota to 300 or 350 with say 30 important drugs, which are surprisingly missing. Things like the antimalarial quinine, which allowed the colonization of africa; aspirin is another important one, plus ones like Benzodiazepine and amphetamine. And vaccines like smallpox vaccine and polio vaccine, which have saved millions of lives. (I was actually looking for DDT which is missing too, though not a drug). While I'm pointing out things missing from biology and health sciences: vitamin A, C, and D too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

More on that taxonomic thing; Ecdysozoa is there too. While it may contain a huge amount of species, in reality it isn't that important, just a categorization/grouping. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You can go ahead with the proposals. I've thought that there are a few too many horse and dog breeds for some time. There are also some organisms that should be listed but aren't here IMO. I would support adding more medicines, vitamins and other nutrients. Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 21:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We can certainly decrease organisms to 850 without losing much, and 800 is probably reasonable. I doubt we can get it to 600; a lot of the plants are notable as foods/spices, for example.  I'll try to add some proposals this weekend. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 05:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. Anyhow, getting it down to 800 can be a first target. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

There are currently 126 bird articles listed. I assume we can/should get that down to 100 if we're hoping for a total of 800 articles. I'm not entirely sure what articles should be kept there, and WP:WikiProject Birds appears to not be unusually active. Any suggestions on how to proceed? power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 16:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I've created a separate list for the birds and analysed them with the page views tool. The results are here. Page views is only one factor but a good starting point. I don't think we should be too hasty. Previous mass culls of articles where 20 were deleted in one go were highly problematic. We ended up adding half of the articles back over time. Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 22:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link; I agree that there's no rush. The very bottom entry, River kingfisher, would more likely be a swap for Kingfisher than a straight removal, and Tyranni is already proposed for removal (at a 4-0 vote).  I'll propose a few new suggestions tomorrow. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 22:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * A request for commentary on this could be listed at the bird project talk page. At a glance, having four articles about kingfishers seems excessive to the point of ridiculousness, when for example auks, a much more diverse group, are only represented by their family. FunkMonk (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you're looking at the level-5 list (where there will eventually be about 500 articles on birds) rather than the level-4 one being discussed here (Vital articles/Expanded/Biology and health sciences). The only article on kingfishers listed here is River kingfishers; Hornbill and Hoopoe are also listed and appear to be somewhat related.  I've generally refrained from notifying WikiProjects about the Vital Articles project, but this may be a good place to do so. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, I'd agree that kingfisher would be better than the more specific group listed. Though I was the one who nominated them for FAC, it seems odd that pigeons are mainly represented by extinct species (dodo, passenger pigeon), but they are pretty famous after all. A weird thing in the current list is that you have the unnatural group "ratites" (flightless palaeognaths), with the tinamous just listed under "birds", but you could list them together under palaeognaths, a natural group which they all belong to. It seems all other groups listed here are "natural". FunkMonk (talk) 04:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Add Cristiano Ronaldo, remove Paolo Maldini
Cristiano Ronaldo has won one time euro with Portugal national team and he has won 5 times UEFA Champions League with Real Madrit and Menchester United. In my opinion it is enaugh to added him to this list. I suggest to remove Paolo Maldini. This my proposal is not based on Cristiano has been better player than Maldini or not. It seems to me that generally Paolo Maldini is not vital as him. Cristiano Ronaldo has a lot of followers on Instagram and token role in films such like Ronaldo tested to the limit, there are premises for vitality. Currently we have on list one goalkeeper (Lev Yashin) and two defenders (Beckenbauer and Maldini). In case when Maldini is removed we will on the list one defender but on the list there are not also other famous defenders such like: Roberto Carlos, Cafu (they won two times world cup) Lothar Matthäus (a lot of played matches in national team). At the level 5 also there is not Seedorf (other defensive player) who won UEFA Champions League 4 times. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Ronaldo's achievements have got to the point where he demands inclusion. Maldini was a great player, but more at the same level of a number of others whom we don't list or have removed. Neljack (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support removal --Thi (talk) 12:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC) Weak support (consensus) for add. --Thi (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support yeah, it now makes us look foolish not listing him, he's outdone Messi. GuzzyG (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove Lenny Bruce
His disciple Richard Pryor is ranked as best stand-up comic of all time.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Not a guy we need when there are vital Americans missing in other areas  p  b  p  06:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support having a vital disciple doesn't make someone vital. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support may have been important in the US at some point, but outside of it is completely inconsequential. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Yes, very important for comedy, but his problem now is that only a little poor quality film footage survives, so he is only a name (if that) to anyone under about 60, or not American. Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose significantly important early comedian only on the level of Frank Fay. GuzzyG (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Vital, in my view. Jusdafax (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

IF this guy is removed, considering nearly all of the lists rank him as the third best comedian i better be seeing some more removals of comedians. especially considering this guy actually had impact on comedy considering the best comedian is majorly influenced by him.GuzzyG (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * The sources don't say he's the third best comedian of all time but the third best stand-up comedian (and that too by mostly American sources including one with a bias towards the 50s and 60s). The other comedians listed (apart from the stand-up comics ranked higher) are all film and television comedians which is more mainstream than stand-up. Bill Cosby was both an actor and stand-up and from the last proposal to remove him, was kept for a few different reasons, though I'm neutral on removing either Bruce or Cosby.  Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 00:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My rushed point was we should almost certainly list a historical stand-up comedian (why i suggested Fay, as well...) Carlin and Pryor are famous for the 70s. Cosby was kept and i strongly defended it as a representation of television, his stand-up career alone is non-vital. We have two stand-up acts from the 70s and we're gonna remove the most prominent earliest one, i guarantee you without Bruce both Carlin and Pryor would not be as prominent/culturally relevant. Say this was philosophy, if there were three masters but two were "disciples" of the third, who would you remove first? 10's a good number for comedians anyway, i do not see a reason for change. GuzzyG (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The category is 'entertainers', not 'comedians' and those listings tend to be very American-centric/stand-up centric in the first place. The Marx Brothers / Laurel and Hardy are known around the world, same for Carlin or Python. You may have heard of Lenny in the US, if you're old or super into the history of comedy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm neither of those three things but as an encyclopedia do you not think that we should be into the history of comedy? Or just the most recent? I've certainly never heard of Marcel Marceau anywhere, but that doesn't mean nothing. Carson and Sullivan are infinitely more regional to the US then Bruce. Every other field on here we list the pioneers, i do not see why we should remove Bruce. Like i've said above 10 is a good number for comedians. GuzzyG (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * So he's "very important" but he's not popular in pop culture because of only a little amount of film footage so he should not be on the list... then why isn't this same thing applied to Ellen Terry, Sarah Bernhardt, Isadora Duncan, Vaslav Nijinsky or Anna Pavlova and many other entertainers whose work is now relatively lost? If we're disregarding contributions for pop culture appeal then why Gene Kelly over Tom Cruise? Because Gene Kelly was around first and longer to have more biographies written? Well Bruce was around first too. If we apply a rule somewhere it has to be everywhere. I do not see the need to cut entertainers when we have less entertainers then athletes which is clearly not right. GuzzyG (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * To quote Francis Darwin "credit goes to the man who convinces the world, not to whom the idea first occurs." Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well why are we discussing removal? because by risking arrest, that was Lenny who convinced the world. Whatever, we need more recent pop culture figures on this list anyway, damn history and pioneering something, Pryor's main influence and who Carlin played supporting act to in his life be damned. Dane Cook might be next. GuzzyG (talk) 04:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Yawn, just like i suspected, Bruce has a more in-depth Britannica page - [] compared to Carlin or Pryor . More WorldCat  listings then Carlin  and just 30 behind  Pryor. He has more google scholar  hits then Carlin  AND Pryor . You can speak pop culture all night long but the written record speaks for itself and a removal lessens the credibility of such a list. Noone ever lists a "disciple" over their "teacher". This article  describes his impact on many figures listed on this list, something you would not find for Carlin. GuzzyG (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Re:"Noone ever lists a "disciple" over their "teacher"." You must be joking, right? By that logic, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is less vital than Leopold Mozart, since Leopold taught Wolfgang. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No but i knew you'd nitpick over examples and ignore the clear evidence of Bruce being more important. Unless you can bring up a reason why Bruce outdoes both his "disciples" 90% everywhere else but be less vital. Also teacher is not the same thing, ya know. There's a difference between coach/major influence. (Hint:Carlin and Pryor were never taught but would not exist without Bruce). GuzzyG (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * And neither would Wolfgang be Wolfgang without Leopold. If you want a different example, Black Sabbath was influenced by Cream, the Beatles, Fleetwood Mac, Jimi Hendrix, John Mayall Bluesbreakers, Led Zeppelin and Jethro Tull. Of those, 3 are vital. Must we then add the other 4 because they happened to influenced Black Sabbath? As for the claims Carlin didn't influence anyone of note, that's rather ludicrous. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)are
 * This is a pointless discussion because you keep choosing to nitpick over a offhand remark instead of addressing the quite sufficient evidence that scholars clearly are focusing more on Bruce out of the three, the fact that a professional encyclopedia gives him the longer entry despite having a significantly shorter career then Carlin or Pryor, or the fact he has more mentions in books over Carlin per WorldCat and only 30 behind Pryor (who also did film). Explain this or just admit that we are getting rid of someone more prominent in literature for someone more famous. There's no need for anymore comedy removals but it's outright stupidity to remove the one more covered in literature. In 100 years what are historians going to be looking at, the written record or name recognition from people that are living today??? If this list is going to focus on recent people over pioneers, then i might have to retire, this is absolutely absurd. GuzzyG (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Fine, more bluntly put then: If all knowledge of who Bruce Lenny was was somehow lost, the state of comedy would not be affected one bit. He's only of interest to people who would write books about the history of comedy. Lenny may have influenced some people in the past, but unlike Python, Carlin, or Pryor, he will not influence anyone of note in the future. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You can say that about any entertainer on this list. Sorry i did not know that an encyclopedias job is to WRITE ABOUT THAT HISTORY, encyclopedias write about the COMPLETE history of things, not just who was more famous. That's because influence is like breeding, Lenny influences Carlin and Pryor, Carlin and Pryor influence the next gen and then the next gen influence the next gen. There's not even a logical reason to remove anyone, we're not debating to remove Carlin, clearly he belongs, 3 stand-up people is good. It's just a complete joke to represent two people from the same decade and not who started something. Sucks that every academic source has Bruce on top and we are going against it and losing out. GuzzyG (talk) 03:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm... Bruce's limited exposure to modern audiences may derive from the less savory aspects of his biography, covered in his article. Nearly banned from television in the 1950s for apparent violations of the Broadcast Standards and Practices (a censorship code). Arrested in 1951 for impersonating a priest and running a scam operation (soliciting donations for a non-existent leper colony), arrested in 1961 for drug possession, and performing on stage under the influence of drugs. In his last performance (prior to his death), he was reportedly "whacked out on amphetamine". His cause of death was "acute morphine poisoning".

His article quotes a 1969 article concerning Bruce's impact on fellow comedians. "Perhaps the most profound and cataclysmic change in our popular culture the last few years-matching the "new sound" in music- has been the kind of humor exemplified by the Smothers Brothers, Laugh-In, Woody Allen, and that whole breed, whose secret source of strength was the late dark angel, Lenny Bruce. Bruce was the Gertrude Stein of comedians. Never popular himself-because he was too cryptic and too scatological for popular taste-he nevertheless influenced a whole generation of comics, just as Stein influenced Hemingway and that generation of writers. Her own work was a dead end (so was Bruce's), but out of that compost grew the buds of a flourishing school."

Note: Bruce's own mentor was comedian Joe Ancis, but we do not have an article on him. "Many of Bruce's later routines reflected his meticulous schooling at the hands of Ancis. According to Bruce's biographer Albert Goldman, Ancis' humor involved stream-of-consciousness sexual fantasies and references to jazz." Dimadick (talk) 23:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

"despite having a significantly shorter career then Carlin or Pryor" The length of a career does not necessarily indicate its impact. TV Tropes has a page discussing the concept, called Short-Lived Big Impact: "Sometimes a show, performer or franchise, for some reason or another, doesn't last too long. Perhaps Executive Meddling reared its ugly head and it was Screwed by the Network, perhaps Author Existence Failure was involved, or maybe it was simply ahead of its time. However, a few years down the road, the genre that it belonged to explodes in popularity, and when you interview the creative minds behind the genre, they ALWAYS put that particular work front and center as their biggest influence. Quite simply, it was a Short-Lived Big Impact. ... This trope is about something having left a noticeable impact on its genre, even though the work/artist was cut short."

"He's only of interest to people who would write books about the history of comedy." Wrong. Part of the wide interest in Bruce is because his arrests and trials for obscenity provided some landmark cases in the legal history of the Freedom of speech in the United States, and because he considered himself an activist against a fascist censorship regime. His 1964 trial attracted big-name supporters such as Woody Allen, James Baldwin, Bob Dylan, Jules Feiffer, Herbert Gans, Allen Ginsberg, Dorothy Kilgallen, Norman Mailer, and William Styron. Note that "obscenity" is still among the United States free speech exceptions, and there have been numerous legal cases trying to define or redefine the limits of free speech in that country. Dimadick (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Add George Balanchine
We only have Petipa out of ballet choreographers and he deserves it as the main one of the 19th century but i think we're a little underrepresented in ballet due to systematic bias so i propose the father and main influence of 20th century ballet: Balanchine. He had nearly total control over American ballet and many of the top dancers were his. He's in 35 different wikidata languages which is saying something for his field. GuzzyG (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Vital in his field. Jusdafax (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Balanchine was trained by Pavel Gerdt and he went on to become the ballet master of the Ballets Russes. Quoting from our article: "...the Ballets Russes is widely regarded as the most influential ballet company of the 20th century, in part because it promoted ground-breaking artistic collaborations among young choreographers, composers, designers, and dancers, all at the forefront of their several fields. Diaghilev commissioned works from composers such as Igor Stravinsky, Claude Debussy, and Sergei Prokofiev, artists such as Vasily Kandinsky, Alexandre Benois, Pablo Picasso, and Henri Matisse, and costume designers Léon Bakst and Coco Chanel. The company's productions created a huge sensation, completely reinvigorating the art of performing dance, bringing many visual artists to public attention, and significantly affecting the course of musical composition. It also introduced European and American audiences to tales, music and design motifs drawn from Russian folklore. The influence of the Ballets Russes lasts to the present day." Dimadick (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per nomination. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose the arguments here seem pretty weak when someone like Norgay is up for removal. Norgay's article is in 76 languages so 35 is quite small by comparison. Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 21:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Since Wikipedians would be more inclined to Mountaineering then Ballet i thought i'd check WorldCat and see who gets more results and look at the difference, 1,186 hits for Balanchine and only 126 for Norgay . Big difference, especially when you consider the popularity of explorers versus ballet. GuzzyG (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Norgay is a household name. Balanchine isn't. Balanchine is western. Norgay isn't. The ballet scholarly field must be pretty large for that anomaly or Norgay is extremely unwritten about. I'm a NZ'er and I think Norgay is just as important as Edmund Hilary. I'm not opposing only because Balanchine is a leader in his field. Marking as neutral currently.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at 05:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Normally i would take that anomaly as evidence that Balanchine is worthy of this list. GuzzyG (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) oppose ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Discuss
 * Obviously a explorer will have more attention then a Ballet choreographer, but Balanchine completely dominated his field and his low numbers only reflect Wikipedia's bias regarding fields like fashion and ballet, that do not fit the typical Wikipedian's interests. All of this should have no effect on his nomination. GuzzyG (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "like fashion and ballet, that do not fit the typical Wikipedian's interests" While I don't particularly care for ballet, I know about the Ballets Russes and some of their performances, because I happen to be a fan of Igor Stravinsky. He composed several of his notable works for this ballet company. Including The Firebird (1910) and The Rite of Spring (1913). (As a sidenote I don't typically like dancing in general, though I have bought tickets to the performances of a few singing and dancing groups from Russia. I love traditional Russian music.) Dimadick (talk) 07:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also by checking Google Books and thus written literature, Balanchine beats Tenzing and almost ties Hillary. - surprising when you consider Ballet has less interest. Says something pretty clear. GuzzyG (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Add William S. Burroughs
From Non-SF writer William Burroughs probably has more influence inside the genre's literary wing than Heinlein (which was used by Thi as the argument that Robert A. Heinlein is not vital at this level thus should be removed, however the proposal finally failed), and the lede of the article which says that his influence is considered to have influenced a range of popular culture as well as literature, this guy should be added to the list, since it is no less influential than Heinlein.


 * Support
 * 1) As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support bit of a poor explanation of his vitality, but he is vital GuzzyG (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Burroughs was one of the founders of the so-called Beat Generation (a literary movement) and had an influence on the Counterculture of the 1960s. He has been cited as an influence by many writers and musicians. His impact on science fiction is primarily through the New Wave science fiction and cyberpunk movements, where several writers shared Burroughs' themes. "Others noted that almost all traits claimed to be uniquely cyberpunk could in fact be found in older writers' works—often citing J. G. Ballard, Philip K. Dick, Harlan Ellison, Stanisław Lem, Samuel R. Delany, and even William S. Burroughs." Dimadick (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Agree with above supporters. Jusdafax (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Pete Rozelle
National Football League can be vital, but Rozelle's article is only in eight language versions. For example Donald Trump is more famous and would be more vital, even without his presidency.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 22:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I would not even consider the National Football League as a vital article, certainly not the people associated with it. What impact did Rozelle have outside the United States? Dimadick (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Was added just recently, only representative of sports business. GuzzyG (talk) 07:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Guzzy has a point. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 03:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Discuss
 * This was added within the year, how come there were no opposes? It makes us look silly if we add or remove something then change our minds so quick (like John Lennon). Certainly does not make this list seem reasonable with such a sudden flip flop. GuzzyG (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe a swap with one of these Kenesaw Mountain Landis, Avery Brundage or Pierre de Coubertin would be better. All three should be on over some of the athletes, honestly. GuzzyG (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Of the three, Pierre de Coubertin looks like the strongest having founded the modern Olympic movement, something that every country in the world is now a part of. Quite reasonable when the Olympics itself is Level 3. Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 03:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Remove Kenneth and Mamie Clark
Not very famous psychologists, just a few interwiki links (See also here). The list contains other famous civil rights activists. For example Maya Angelou was added and her article is in 98 languages.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 07:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 03:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support User:CamHat000099
 * 5) Support Not vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove Sinking of the RMS Titanic
Famous, but not sufficiently historically important.


 * Support
 * 1) as nom power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 04:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose It is not the fame that is important but major changes in maritime transport due to the sinking: "The disaster shocked the world and caused widespread outrage over the lack of lifeboats, lax regulations, and the unequal treatment of the three passenger classes during the evacuation. Subsequent inquiries recommended sweeping changes to maritime regulations, leading to the establishment in 1914 of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), which still governs maritime safety today." Dimadick (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose --Thi (talk) 06:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose It is one of the most famous disasters of all time. An encyclopedia would be incomplete without it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - Vital at this level. Jusdafax (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Add Berlin Alexanderplatz, Journey to the End of the Night, The Man Without Qualities and The Tin Drum
These are most famous books of Alfred Döblin, Louis-Ferdinand Céline, Robert Musil and Günter Grass. They are considered to be among the most significant novels of the twentieth century. Continental European literature is little underrepresented in the People section, but listing their major works at Arts section is equally good solution. The books clearly meet the criteria.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Does not in anyway compare to works like One Thousand and One Nights, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Don Quixote, Les Misérables, or War and Peace. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose We do not need so many more works of western twentieth-century literature; we already have more than enough. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Remove Fountain (Duchamp)
Not vital at this level.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support not more vital than urinal <b style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl</b><b style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev </b> 21:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as per Carlwev.  J  947 &thinsp;(c) , at 07:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I would recommend replacing with Laocoön and His Sons since there are currently no works of Greek or Roman sculpture on the list, but that is for another discussion. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my error above; the Venus de Milo is on the list, which is probably sufficient. I still support removal, though. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Being a major landmark in 20th-century art means that it is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose sparked a major change in the art industry. GuzzyG (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I will repeat what I said when this was first nominated: Arguably the most influential piece of 20th-century art, period. Cobblet (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose A major landmark in 20th-century art. Qono (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Add Concept
The Level 4 includes many basic concepts such as belief, beauty, experience and abstraction, so why not the concept of concept.


 * Support


 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 06:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support -- Laukku  TheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 03:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Actually there is a voluminous philosophical and psychological literature on concepts - references and discussion can be found in this article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Neljack (talk) 04:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support the Syntopicon has Idea, which also isn't on this list. One of them should be on this list, and I'm willing to go for concept. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 04:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, as vital as Principle, above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Concept is not itself an encyclopedic concept. Who has ever written a book or even an article about the concept of concepts?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Not really an encyclopedic topic. I added it to Level 5 feminist (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Remove Essentially contested concept
Probably too specific philosophical problem. The Philosophy section is relatively small at this level and many sub-branches of philosophical and ethical thought are not listed.


 * Support


 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 06:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Not really as influential or significant an idea as you might think from how often the phrase gets trotted out (often without much thought or understanding of what Gallie meant by it). Neljack (talk) 04:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support No. This is not encyclopedic, or important knowledge about philosophy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Support agree with nomination. Concept will be much better. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose

·maunus, did you mean to oppose this? Your rationale reads like a support for removing it from the list - I wondered if you'd misread and thought it was a proposed addition. Neljack (talk) 04:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * Quite right. I read it as an "add". Sloppy of me, my apologies.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Add senet
Senet is the oldest known board game; it is probably also the longest-played board game in human history, since it is attested as early as the fourth millennium BC and was still being played as late as the middle of the first millennium AD. It was extremely popular in antiquity and was played throughout most of the ancient Near East. It held such massive social significance in ancient Egypt that it was sometimes seen in a religious light. Additionally, it may be the direct ancestor of modern-day backgammon, which is currently on this list. Though forgotten for over a millennium, senet was rediscovered in the eighteenth and twentieth centuries and is starting to make something of a comeback (or at least a return from obscurity). If you are looking for more historical board games, you will not find a more sufficiently vital one than this. (Another good one to consider adding, though probably not today, would be the Royal Game of Ur, which is attested only slightly later than senet and was equally as popular, though it is not quite as famous nowadays.) --Katolophyromai (talk) 10:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom --Katolophyromai (talk) 10:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support The oldest and most significant game. Dimadick (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support it was removed but I believe an encyclopedia should cover historical recreational activities and games. Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 05:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak support per Gizza. If the opposers actually offer rationales more than 'per a link when we don't know what section you are talking about' I'll consider this more.  J  947 &thinsp;(c) , at 03:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support GuzzyG (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Per User:Maunus/Vitality.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose --Thi (talk) 09:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - Mybe it is the oldest board game worldwide In history of World - sorry for my English Dawid2009 (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC) but sources aren't very realibility. However it hasn't a ot of variants like to Nine Men's Morris worldwide (which mybe also is old like to senet?). Rules of this game are unknown. It isn't common like to Backgammon, Go or Wari (Mancala). Dawid2009 (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC) Actually it should be still at the level 5 Dawid2009 (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * How can you say that is isn't common despite being by far the most common game in the world for not centuries but milleniums? And opposing because it doesn't have enough variants strikes me as ridiculous. Are you saying that chess isn't vital. Yeah it probably isn't the oldest board game ever but does that even matter? All in all your comment strikes me as overly recentist, which we discourage here. Sorry if I was a little aggressive in my wording.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at 05:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Slight correction to your comment: We do not know if it was "by far the most common game in the world" because, for most of the time when the game was popular, we only have records for the part of the world where it was played (i.e. the Middle and Near East). It is possible that there was some other game that was more popular (perhaps in the Americas or someplace) that we do not even have record of. Even in the Near East, the Royal Game of Ur was extremely popular as well. The only reason I have not proposed adding that one is simply because it is not quite as old. This is just a minor quibble I thought I would point out. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The point you were trying to make is completely correct: the game was extremely popular for roughly around 4,000 years. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Senet has got nominate to 4 level while Nine Men's Morris is just at the level 5. Nine Men's also have been popular for milleniums and it is also common modernly (while Senet has got unknow rules, now). For this milleniums Nine Men's Morris have been popular in really much more teritorial scope than Senet there were . Nine Men's Morris for this milleniums also have gotten countless many variants in different regions. In my opinion comparsion of signifficant games like to: chaturanga (4 level), Senet (5level), Nine Men's Morris (5level) is quite difficult and value for disscussion. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That Nine Men's Morris has been around for at least 2,000 years is true. But senet has been around for more than 5000.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at 03:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Nine Men's Morris most propably is older than 2000 years because of it has been known in differeent regions 2000 years ago and in different variants. Research of this game are very difficult. According to some sources exit chronicles of this game from bronze age (http://web.archive.org/web/20100417180921/http://www.pionek.net:80/content/view/26/27, https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/11/02/nine-mens-morris-is-one-of-the-worlds-most-ancient-games/). Senet there were not popular in a lot of regions. Nine Men's Morris, Mancala (Oware), Backgammon (Tric Trac), there were popular for milleniums and these game there are popular still, actually. Every average person knows these games. Senet actually is not popular as gameplay. This game can know somone who for example is interested in history of games. In my opinion Senet can be will at the level 4 if Nine Men's Morris there is, it is all of all in my comment. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The oldest confirmed attestation of the game is in Ars Amatoria by Ovid: "There is another game divided into as many parts as there are months in the year. A table has three pieces on either side; the winner must get all the pieces in a straight line. It is a bad thing for a woman not to know how to play, for love often comes into being during play." Dimadick (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Something being particularly old or early does not mean that it is necessarily vital.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you read the conversation above? I was responding to Dawid2009's claim that Nine Men's Morris predates the 1st century. Dimadick (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Maunus wasn't meaning you despite the indentation.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at 04:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 *  It is possible that there was some other game that was more popular (perhaps in the Americas or someplace) that we do not even have record of@Katolophyromai, Nine Men's Morris is a game which there was much more popular teritorially (see: Nine Men's Morris BTW dmore difficult to research for genesis) and Pachisi is a game which there was very much more popular teritorially. According to realibe sources/etnographs adnd archeologs American games such like Boolik, Patolli reason to America for Syberia and Korea (and are from Asian games like to Nyout) and according to some archeologs nyout is just from Pachisi. Source: Gry świata według Lecha i Wojsciecha Pijanowskich ISBN: 978-83-01-14914-7. Something being particularly old or early does not mean that it is necessarily vital. @·maunus. We do not have for example Cuju and Kemari on the list. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Remove Pokémon, Pong, and Tetris
Out of all the video games that have ever been created, I really don't see why these three are the most important and should be listed here. None of them are still relevant and are hardly ever played today.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support swap replace them with more all-encompassing articles such as Video game culture, History of video games and Video game industry.-- Laukku  TheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I really do not see why we need any specific video games listed here at all; video games themselves are a recent invention and individual games do not tend to stay popular very long, because other games always come along soon afterwards to replace them. There are far more important subjects we should devote our efforts towards. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Tetris and Pokémon are still played today. Their popularity is enduring and crosses generations, which is more than can be said for many of the articles in the recreation and arts sections. Pokémon Go wouldn't have been downloaded 750 million times otherwise. Pong isn't played but is the one game that brought video games to mainstream culture around the world. Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 01:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose While Pong (1972) was not the first video game, it was a milestone in the development of the medium.: "Pong quickly became a success and was the first commercially successful video game..." Dimadick (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose <b style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl</b><b style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev </b> 14:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) On the contrary, this list should contain more video games, since Space Invaders, Pac-Man, Doom, Digimon and StarCraft are no less vital than these three games.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose this is about the right number of entries for video games; note that Mario is listed as a character. There are good choices as well; Tetris is a classic puzzle game and one of the few video games from Russia, Pong is a historic milestone (rather than a game notable for its gameplay), and Pokemon has been a very prominent franchise for 20 years (there's a reason it was the Pokémon test. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 04:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Video games are very popular today, and only getting more popular as time goes on. Video games article is in the vital 1000, which I agree with, it seems normal to expand on it here slightly. We have many examples of works of literature, painting, movies, board games, some sculptures and web sites. I don't think 3-4 examples of video games is too many. Just like movies, there are many notable ones, if we are to have some we have to decide which seem the most vital, and they seem pretty sensible choices. Many of our old works of art are hardly looked at today, some of our old movies are hardly watched today. If we picked very modern and currently played games people would bring up recentism issues more, and the game could become less relevant in short time. These games have fairly large and long lasting influence for video games. <b style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl</b><b style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev </b> 14:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * Agreed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Remove Pierre and Marie Curie University
This was added fairly recently, but it has been merged into the new Sorbonne University. I think it's too early to tell which of the successors of the old University of Paris will be notable.


 * Support
 * 1) as nom power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 21:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Thi (talk) 09:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 23:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Federalism
Common political system around the world. Easy add.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nominator.  J  947 ( c ) (m)   03:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Good find. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not my find; Gizza's.  J 947  (contribs · mail) 22:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Wide-spead political system, covering such significant countries as Australia, Germany, and Russia. Dimadick (talk) 09:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support --Thi (talk) 09:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Yes, clearly vital. Jusdafax (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support a topic with broad historical, political significance - something a well educated intelligent person can be expected to know about.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support GuzzyG (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Weak oppose Not sure this is a big deal outside the United States. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 04:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See Dimadick's comment. Federalism is actually found around the globe.  J 947  (contribs · mail) 19:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I'm changing my vote. We already list Federation at this level, and I don't think we really need both. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

quite a few major countries outside the United States are federations, including Russia, Germany, India, Brazil, Nigeria, Mexico, Canada, Venezuela, Australia, Sudan and Ethiopia. The only reason why I'm neutral is because we already have federation on the list. Granted, one article is about the type of state while the other is about the ideology but there is a reasonable degree of overlap. Gizza <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 22:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I think swap for federalism, I don't see much difference but that seems to be the more "general" article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * When I hear Federalism, the first thing that comes to mind is always Germany. Not certain whether the United States are particularly significant for the concept. Dimadick (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * US are extremely significant here.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at 02:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Remove Guanaco
Was thinking that one of Guanaco or Vicuna should probably go and Vicuna is the national animal of peru and seems more important


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose I think both South American camelids should be listed. After all, we list both Bactrian camel and Dromedary. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose No rational given for the removal. Dimadick (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Remove Thrips
6000 species isn't that impressive when knowing insects have a million species..nothing I see particularly important


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --<i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 03:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove Anatidae, Charadriiformes, Piciformes, and Tyranni
Taxons of birds with multiple representatives listed.


 * Support
 * 1) as nom power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Tyranni. --Thi (talk) 07:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC) Weak support for others. --Thi (talk) 07:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove Estrildid finch
Doesn't seem sufficiently vital; we have a lot of passerine birds listed.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 18:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 23:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove Tanager
Doesn't seem sufficiently vital; we have a lot of passerine birds listed.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 18:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 23:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Streaming media
Streaming media is now big business and optical discs are getting rarer.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Dimadick (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. Too much overlap with Data transmission. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Add Packaging and labeling
For example, consumers and industries are interested about sustainable packaging.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Dimadick (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose why is this vital? Does not seem to me a topic of vitality for a general encyclopedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Remove Airfoil
Probably too specific and technical topic at this level.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Wing is more vital and it isn't listed at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support a swap with wing. Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 00:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support a swap with wing. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 00:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support a swap with wing. Plantdrew (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove Bumin Qaghan
While Göktürks is a vital topic, this is probably not.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 07:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose unless this is swapped with someone who lived during a similar period of time. The latest additions have all been from the 20th and 19th centuries, exacerbating recentism bias on the list. And we have many founders (in fact multiple rulers) of empires that were smaller in size, last for a shorter period of time and left less of an legacy than the Turkic Khaganate. Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 22:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Swap Mohamed Bouazizi for Harvey Milk
Recentist protestor with no clear long term impact vs the most prominent and vital LGBT activist (of which we have no representative).


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support removal. --Thi (talk) 06:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support swap Milk had a wider impact. "However, Milk's assassination has become entwined with his political efficacy, partly because he was killed at the zenith of his popularity. Historian Neil Miller writes, "No contemporary American gay leader has yet to achieve in life the stature Milk found in death." His legacy has become ambiguous; Randy Shilts concludes his biography writing that Milk's success, murder, and the inevitable injustice of White's verdict represented the experience of all gays. Milk's life was "a metaphor for the homosexual experience in America". According to Frances FitzGerald, Milk's legend has been unable to be sustained as no one appeared able to take his place in the years after his death: "The Castro saw him as a martyr but understood his martyrdom as an end rather than a beginning. He had died, and with him a great deal of the Castro's optimism, idealism, and ambition seemed to die as well. The Castro could find no one to take his place in its affections, and possibly wanted no one." On the 20th anniversary of Milk's death, historian John D'Emilio said, "The legacy that I think he would want to be remembered for is the imperative to live one's life at all times with integrity." For a political career so short, Cleve Jones attributes more to his assassination than his life: "His murder and the response to it made permanent and unquestionable the full participation of gay and lesbian people in the political process." " Dimadick (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support swap Plantdrew (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Support addition, but see my comments below. p  b  p  13:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) Support swap User:CamHat000099 Bouzouki is one of the least vital people on this list
 * 8) Support The Arab Spring itself isn't even listed. No reason as to why one of its lesser-known activists should be. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Isn't the American section of activists pretty bloated at both Lv 4 and Lv 5? Shouldn't we be swapping out another American for Harvey Milk? p b  p  13:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * Maybe, but either way Bouazizi does not belong here. GuzzyG (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Swap Bernard Hinault for Ilya Repin
We really only need one cyclist and Hinault is the least vital. Repin is on the other hand the "most renowned Russian artist of the 19th century, when his position in the world of art was comparable to that of Leo Tolstoy in literature. He played a major role in bringing Russian art into the mainstream of European culture." and Repin was the first "Russian artist to achieve European fame using specifically Russian themes". Being the major Russian artist of the 19th century is more vital for an encyclopedia then a second cyclist.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support addition I do not see why two cyclists is unreasonable - it is quite a major sport. We have already pruned the numbers greatly from what we used to have. Neljack (talk) 10:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support addition per Neljack. Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 22:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Was surprised to see him listed at a mere level 5.-- Laukku  TheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Strongly support both removal and addition. I could be biased because I happen to be a fan of Repin's works, but I think he is definitely far more vital than some cyclist. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Swap Billie Jean King for Amin al-Husseini
We have 11 Tennis players (5 men, 6 women) and she is the least vital woman player listed, and 10 is the perfect number for Tennis. al-Husseini was a major statesman and activist for Palestine related causes and he had a direct influence on Hitler during World War II, definitely sounds more vital and it's a area which we cover less then Tennis.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support removal. --Thi (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support removal, procedurally I don't like a swap across categories like this. I'd probably be neutral on a stand-alone addition. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support removal Billie Jean King was clearly not as great a player as Chris Evert, whom we recently removed. I am not persuaded that al-Husseini should be included. He was certainly a major figure in Mandatory Palestine, but he lost influence after partition occurred. Neljack (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support removal We have more than enough tennis players as it is. Al-Husseini should remain where is presently is. &#8213; Gregorius  II  01:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss
 * I did a swap across different categories because we were at max capacity exactly. But in future i will do a separate removal and add. GuzzyG (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Remove The Book of Healing
Possibly not necessary at this level.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose It is a very significant work of medieval Arabic philosophical literature and, if we remove this one, we will not have any representatives of medieval Arabic philosophy, which was tremendously important and influential. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - per Katolophyroma. Jusdafax (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Remove Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung
It seems to me that Level 5 is better place for this.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) From the Chinese edition of the article I clearly know that this book has been very influential - so influential that some organizations claim that it is the second most widely circulated book in human history.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Extremely influential book. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Can't see an argument for the removal of that book, especially with such a wide distribution (even if it was mandatory). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Add Libretto
What is libretto? Wikipedia must provide the answer.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Opppose Not at all vital, even at Level 5. A libretto is a small book. Book is the concept, libretto is a specific format albeit one more strongly associated with music, much like a quarto is associated with poetry and plays. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose this is not a dictionary. At this level it's redundant to book or opera.  I'd probably support it at Level 5, where the concept of an opera in written form is probably worth discussing. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 04:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Remove Studio system
The Golden age of Hollywood is described in detail in the article Cinema of the United States. --Thi (talk) 11:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support


 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove Leprechaun
Other mythological creatures on the list are more well known.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. I know what a Leprechaun is but I have no idea what a chimera or garuda is. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Dimadick (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Remove Cloak
Now mainly used by some superheroes.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose The cloak is one of the most basic articles of clothing, worn by people of virtually civilization throughout history. Variants of the cloak include the Hebrew me'il, the Greek himation and chlamys, the Roman pallium, the western European mantle, the Ottoman dolman, and dozens others. Cloaks are also still worn by some clergy and, in some cultures, for ceremonial purposes. Also, do not forget that the modern coat, which is on this list, essentially evolved from the cloak in the eighteenth century. Just because cloaks in their original form are not commonly worn today does not mean they are not vital. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose We have an entire category with Category:Robes and cloaks from various eras and cultures. Historically significant type of clothing. Dimadick (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Discuss
 * Superheroes wear capes not cloaks.

Remove Coca-Cola
It's the only branded food product listed and I don't think it really fits at this level. Let's drop it down to Level 5.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Coca-Cola is the world's third most valuable brand, after Apple and Google. Along with McDonald's, it is the symbol of globalization. Unlike many of the companies listed, it has a complete global reach, being sold in 200 countries. In contrast, Walmart only has a presence in 28 countries, which I would remove first. Or one of the automotive companies. Maybe it could be moved from Food and Beverage to Business and Economics since that it is where its vitality comes from. Although it is probably more commonly consumed than some of the alcoholic drinks we have like gin and sake. Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 22:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose <b style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl</b><b style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev </b> 13:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok well what about removing Coca-Cola and replacing it with The Coca-Cola Company? Rreagan007 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Dimadick (talk) 09:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose there has been too much scientific coverage of it for us to remove it.&thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 15:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Add Social norm
Even more basic concept than Social order which is listed.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 06:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support -- Laukku  TheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Dimadick (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Affirmation and negation
All languages have different ways of expressing affirmation and negation. This would definitely be in the top 50 of topics to be covered by a basic introduction to language and grammar.
 * Support
 * 1) As nom.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 05:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Grammatical aspect
This is as central to grammar as tense, but less known, therefore a thing that people who want to be able to converse intelligently about language ought to know. This would definitely be in the top 50 of topics to be covered by a basic introduction to language and grammar.
 * Support
 * 1) As nom.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support hugely important. Anybody wanting to master the grammar of a language needs to understand aspect. Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 05:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose

The title of the article is actually grammatical aspect. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Move History of Earth to Earth science
See below.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Esiymbro (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support The Earth isn't something man-made, so it can be moved out of the history section. Under this same standard, Geological history of Earth should also be moved out of the History section. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 00:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Move Evolutionary history of life to under Biology
History is "the study of the past as it is described in written documents". "Evolutionary history of life" has history in the name, but the similarities end there. A level-3 topic, Human Evolution, is under Biology as well. Esiymbro (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Esiymbro (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Natural history books and books about biological anthropology are typically in the biology section in the bookshelf. --Thi (talk) 10:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support The more I think about this the more sense it makes. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. This is natural history and should remain under the history section. It's better to have all the history related articles concentrated in one place rather than having them spread all over. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

You do have a point but this concerns more than just one article. A while ago, whether correct or not, we moved all history articles to history instead of the thing they were histories of, history of agriculture is under history not tech - agriculture, history of medicine is under history etc etc. There are some areas that are not consistent, extinct lifeforms like dinosaurs, archaeopteryx, dodo, trilobite are among the other animals. But extinct species or branches of extinct humans like Neanderthals, Homo erectus, Homo habilis etc are under history. Perhaps we need to address what history should and should not cover, but the fact something is written down, although is one definition you suggest and I have come across before, may not be the best way to divide things. Any event or period from the Stone Age, like mesolithic, neolithic revolution etc would not by that definition be included in history, much of the Bronze Age and Iron Age peoples in some regions had no writing. Archaeology is another way to get information from the past. Entire continents where without writing until relatively later, often but not always bought by Europeans. Australian Aborigines had no writing, nor did much of Pre-Columbian America. The whole Inca Empire was without writing for example. The Stone Age and the Inca Empire are included under history, and normally are in other encyclopedias....Maybe the best cut of would be whether or not it is within humans past of before it, if we could agree on a cut off point, which could still move this article to the biology section. What are others' thoughts? and where do early humans belong? <b style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl</b><b style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev </b> 16:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Discuss


 * I'd use a simple criteria: A topic should be under history if it is studied by historians, as historians themselves know the most on what is within the scope of history and what is not. For example, history of medicine may be studied by both historians and scientists, so I see no problem about it being listed under history. Evolution of life, however, is entirely another matter. The topic is studied by biologists and geologists. The scientific methods used by researchers in this topic have nothing in common with those used by historians. The subject is taught in biology classes and research papers are published on science journals.
 * I found this problem when working on level-5 articles of biology. Evolution itself is listed under biology, so are evolution of mammals, birds, dinosaurs, etc. But evolution of life is under history! Rreagan is right that these are "natural history", but natural history is not history. Otherwise, what about history of Earth, or history of the Universe? Should the Big Bang be moved to history as well?
 * In my opinion "written documents" is an accurate way to define history. The Incan Empire was indeed without writing, but our knowledge on Incans rely heavily on 16th century documents, on books like Comentarios Reales de los Incas. The cultures that are not recorded at all, like the neolithic cultures of China, are part of archaeology. Personally I'd like archaeology to be made a new section under "social sciences", and Homo erectus, etc be moved to either archaeology or biology (under paleontology). But, at least, articles like Evolutionary history of life, and History of Earth should be moved to the right place. Esiymbro (talk) 10:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok I'm open to this, but I don't think "studied by historians" is a particularly good standard. I'd say the standard should be if it is something man-made, then we leave it under history, but if it's natural (natural history) then we can move it. So things like history of art, law, medicine, religion, etc. stay under history, but evolutionary history gets moved. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Remove Fahrenheit, Acre, Inch, Foot (unit), Gallon, Avoirdupois, Pound (mass) and Ounce
These are covered in the United States customary units and Imperial units.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Relatively outdated units of trivial importance. For example Fahrenheit: "By the end of the 20th century, Fahrenheit was used as the official temperature scale only in the United States (including its unincorporated territories), its freely associated states in the Western Pacific (Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands), the Bahamas, Belize, and the Cayman Islands. All other countries in the world now use the Celsius scale... "Dimadick (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. These are all vital for the English Wikipedia. All of these are far more common in the U.S. (the country with the most English speakers) than their metric equivalents. And saying we can remove them because they are covered by United States customary units and Imperial units is like saying we can remove Metre, Litre, Hectare, Celsius, and Kilogram because they are covered by Metric system and International System of Units. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 3)  p  b  p  18:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - per Rreagan. Jusdafax (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose I think that Avoirdupois is probably unnecessary at this level as Pound (mass) and Ounce are listed, but oppose the other removals. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 00:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Discuss
 * I would also like to know what articles you're planning on proposing to add to the measurements category that are more vital than these. If we remove all of these we will be 8 articles under quota in that section. It's not obvious to me what measurement articles would replace these if they are removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * If we remove Cubit, Mile and these we can reduce the quota by 10. --Thi (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You want to remove Mile too? I'm honestly going to be shocked if all of these are removed. They are the most commonly used units of measure in the U.S. It would just be really bizarre to me if they are not considered vital to the English Wikipedia. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Add Venn diagram
This seems important enough, but I'm not sure which subsection it would be listed under.


 * Support
 * 1) as nom power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 21:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. It should go in the "Discrete Mathematics" section as it is a subtopic of set theory. Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 00:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support but this will put us over the quota in math. Are there any mathematicians out there that can spot the least vital article currently listed? Rreagan007 (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've created a removal proposal. I expect I could find 10 other articles to remove if/when we need quota for additions.  Gamma function and P versus NP problem would probably be two; without something better I see no reason to remove those. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 16:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Support --Thi (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) I've skimmed the lede and found the article vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove Linear dynamical system
We're at quota and this doesn't feel important enough. Covered enough by Dynamical system.


 * Support
 * 1) as nom power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 16:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 03:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) SUpport Rreagan007 (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support -- Laukku  TheGreit  (Talk•Contribs) 15:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Replace Nonlinear system with Chaos theory
A higher-level and better-quality article on a similar topic.


 * Support
 * 1) as nom power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 16:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support A much better choice. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per above. Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 06:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support-- Laukku  TheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 15:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Updating talk page headers for Biology articles
I did a few changes such as, before I realized that there are over 1000 pages that would be updated. Is this change correct and useful to make on all the talk pages for L4 Biology articles? power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 00:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes. There is no Science section among the eleven sublists. --Thi (talk) 10:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)