Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 67

Level 4 articles
This list has way too many articles on here. I plan on proposing a list of proposed removals from the list that we might consider. If you have suggestions on what to remove from the list, please let me know below. Please let me know your thoughts on these proposals. Interstellarity (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * If you're thinking the articles in subpages that are over quota - i agree. If you mean a cutdown from 10k in total, i don't agree. If you think we should remove untested historically contemporary junk like Judi Dench, Jean Giraud, LeBron James and Wim Wenders in the biography section in favour of people like Pierre Fauchard, Cesare Beccaria, Herod the Great and Louis Leakey - i agree. But i'll list some easy removals of the over quota pages.


 * 1) History - we're 11 over quota here - here's some articles that would be much better fit on the level 5 list and were added to this one before it was created. They mainly overlap. Oprichnina, Financial crisis of 2007–2008, Young Turks, Arab Spring, Mahdist War, Pechenegs, Union of Lublin, 1973 oil crisis, Unequal treaty, July Revolution, Belgian Revolution. When we're missing articles like Mongol invasions and conquests, these are not as important.


 * 1) Geography - 5 over quota - Town square, Adelaide, Konya, Sacramento, California, Perm all are the weakest on the list - would be better on the level 5 list.


 * 1) Arts - 2 over quota, super easy. - The Dark Side of the Moon and La mer (Debussy). Neither are definitely in the top 33 musical works produced worldwide. Maybe just France/UK/US.


 * 1) Philosophy and religion - 10 over quota - Queen of Sheba, Parapsychology, Camelot - i'm not comfortable saying anything else here. i'm not sure, but we should probably cut down the Abrahamic mythology figures to the most vital. I'm not sure why we have Ghost Dance over Mythologies of the indigenous peoples of the Americas. I'm not sure why Rastafari isn't listed under new religious movements either or why the most famous one's in the west like Thelema, Scientology, Satanism and Peoples Temple are not included - surely they're just as important as Wicca. NRMs are arguably the biggest development of religion last century. It wouldn't be bad to list the most notable ones, surely it's better than all of the Abrahamic characters - which would fit on a level 5 list


 * 1) Everyday life - 1 over quota - Teddy bear. We don't need both teddy bear and stuffed toy.


 * 1) Society and Social sciences - 11 over quota - Looney Tunes, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radio series), Rolling Stone, Mad (magazine), Reader's Digest, Punch (magazine), Christian democracy, Television in the United States, Charles University, The New Yorker, BBC. I don't know why we have more magazines than newspapers, we should cut down on TV shows to like 4-5, we dont need to single out TV in the US or only have one broadcaster - no matter how notable. This would cut this section down to the most vital.


 * 1) Biological and health sciences - 2 over quota - Cobra, Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy
 * 2) Health, medicine and disease - 1 over quota - Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy


 * 1) Basics and measurement - 1 over quota - Scientist - not qualified here at all, but at of all of these this seems the weakest. I don't think we list any other jobs.


 * 1) Technology - 4 over quota - Howitzer, Amateur radio, Electric stove, Flood control in the Netherlands - these are all ultra specific and would be better on the level 5 list.

Good luck if you wanna try and get any of these off, you'll need it! I'll support it - it's time we actually change this list for the better and have proper discussion of what's on it - thoroughly analyzing every section. I don't believe a cut from 10k is needed at all - this list may seem weakish - but it's only because of alot of contemporary stuff - which we have a new list for. Even in people - there's alot of important people missing in favour of athletes/actors. It'd be worse if it was cut down. But to get everything to quota is a goal i certainly agree with. GuzzyG (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I was saying that we cut down the list of vital articles from 10,043 pages to 10,000. I will list all of the articles you have listed to see if we can cut down the list into just 10,000 articles. Interstellarity (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree then and will support you. I'd wait for further consensus on what articles need cutting before you nom though so that you don't waste your time if there's resistance, we absolutely need to get it to quota, it's time. On another note too, it'd better if now that we have another level, we can finally go article by article on what's actually important on this one. A more extreme position would be that we should move away from people who are alive on the biography section - unless they're truly important to their field/the world like a Bill Gates, Angela Merkel, Noam Chomsky, Madonna or Michael Phelps (most olympic gold medals) - we can and should wait until we can actually make sure they're historical. We're in no rush. GuzzyG (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I will stop nominating articles. Maybe we can get more input about which articles need removing here before nominating each article individually. I believe based on what you are saying, it's a sensible approach. Interstellarity (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Remove Faisal of Saudi Arabia
Relatively unimportant Saudi king, Ibn Saud is enough. We list his one big event as well. (1973 oil crisis). GuzzyG (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Support removal. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support removal - Interstellarity (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Swap: add Louis de Broglie, remove Ilya Prigogine
Louis de Broglie made groundbreaking contributions to quantum theory. He is often mentioned as one of the most notable physicists. Prigogines views in his popular books were controversial. 


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Support removal per all, very reluctantly oppose addition solely because we're over quota. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Support removal - Interstellarity (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add John McCarthy (computer scientist)
Father of artificial intelligence who made significant contributions to Cognitive science.


 * Support
 * 1) As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Support RekishiEJ (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Dimadick (talk) 10:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Support  Heart  (talk) 03:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Rationale is now in page history. --Thi (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Not vital enough yet. GuzzyG (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Opposeper Guzzy -- Zelkia1101 (talk)  20:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Swap: remove Herman Hollerith, add Punched card
Hollerith developed an electromechanical punched card tabulator. In this case invention seems more vital than inventor. (Unit record equipment and Tabulating machine has fewer interwiki links than Punched card.)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 12:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Interstellarity (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  -- Zelkia1101 (talk)  19:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Seki Takakazu

 * Support
 * 1) As nom. Because he laid foundations for the subsequent development of Japanese mathematics, is credited with the discovery of the resultant and the determinant (is regarded as vital at level 4, and is one of the 500 most frequently viewed mathematics articles), and has been called "Japan's Newton", he is no doubt vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Per above. --Thi (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC) Rationale is now in page history. --Thi (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Not vital enough. GuzzyG (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I had proposed to add this figure in 2014, yet later it failed in the same year (cf. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_36).--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Add Dezső Gyarmati
As a player, Dezső Gyarmati is the first and only athlete (man or woman) to win five Olympic medals in water polo (three gold, one silver and one bronze). As a head coach, he is one of the most successful water polo coaches in Olympic history, and the only man to win Olympic gold in water polo as player and head coach in the last 100 years (1921–2021). He is also the first coach to lead a national water polo team to win gold at the Summer Olympics, World Aquatics Championships, and FINA World Cup. In 2013, FINA described him as a "legendary water polo player and coach", and "one of the best players the game ever seen and in fact the most decorated in history".


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Phikia (talk) 08:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Dezső Gyarmati (1927–2013) was a Hungarian water polo player and coach.
 * Discuss

As a player, till date he is the first and only athlete (man or woman) to win five Olympic medals in water polo: three gold (1952, 1956, 1964), one silver (1948) and one bronze (1960). He is the second water polo player to participate in five Summer Olympics, and the third athlete to win three Olympic gold medals in water polo.

As a head coach, he guided the Hungary men's national water polo team to three Olympic medals: one gold (1976), one silver (1972) and one bronze (1980), making him one of the most successful water polo coaches in Olympic history, and the only man to win Olympic gold in water polo as player and head coach in the last 100 years (1921–2021). He is also the first coach to lead a national water polo team to win gold at the Summer Olympics (in 1976), FINA World Championship (in 1973), and FINA World Cup (in 1979).

Gyarmati was inducted into the International Swimming Hall of Fame in 1976.

In 2013, FINA, the highest governing body for administering international competitions in swimming, diving, and water polo, described him as a "legendary water polo player and coach", and "one of the best players the game ever seen and in fact the most decorated in history".

As a team sport, men's water polo has been part of the Summer Olympics program since the second games in 1900, and women's water polo became an Olympic sport at the 2000 Sydney Olympics. Water polo is popular in many countries around the world. As of 2016, a total of 52 men's national water polo teams and 13 women's national teams from six continents have competed at the Summer Olympics. Among them, 19 men's national teams and 7 women's national teams have won Olympic medals in water polo.

I think Dezső Gyarmati should be listed on level 4. Thanks! --Phikia (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I ping you because of you mentioned Dezső Gyarmati twice (1, 2) in discussions about sports figures. --Phikia (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, i've mentioned him - but it's established on this list (unfortunately) that olympic sports are not really covered well. Water polo isn't as important worldwide as sports we miss like Volleyball or Badminton and i'd take Lin Dan and Karch Kiraly first over Gyarmati. Than we're getting into other important representatives of olympic sports like Dick Fosbury, Paul Elvstrøm, Hans Günter Winkler, Valentina Vezzali, Carl Osburn, Naim Süleymanoğlu, Anja Andersen, and Kevin Martin (curler). Gyarmati does not stand above everyone here and until it's agreed to cut down more American specific sports in favour of Olympic (which is needed); i can't support this - as i don't think water polo is the Olympic sport up next to add reps for like volleyball, badminton, high jump, sailing, equestrian etc. GuzzyG (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Oprichnina, Add Mongol invasions and conquests
Trying to get some unimportant articles removed because we are way over 10,000. Interstellarity (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) [nom]
 * 2) Oprichnina is already covered by Ivan the Terrible for the English Wikipedia. Mongol conquests seem more important. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support no-brainer IMO -- Zelkia1101 (talk)  21:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Clearly a much better swap and the Mongol article is a massive miss. . GuzzyG (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Neutral


 * Discuss

Remove Young Turks
Trying to get some unimportant articles removed because we are way over 10,000. Interstellarity (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) [nom]
 * 2) Support Too specific at this level. --Thi (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Per everyone. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  -- Zelkia1101 (talk)  19:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Neutral


 * Discuss

Remove Arab Spring
Trying to get some unimportant articles removed because we are way over 10,000. Interstellarity (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) [nom]
 * 2) Weak support Largely unsuccessful revolution except in Tunisia. However the article gives insight for current history of North Africa and Middle East. --Thi (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Its addition was probably a case of recentism. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. I think some 21st century articles can be kept but the Arab Spring was added too hastily. Gizza  (talk • voy) 08:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support not essential. GuzzyG (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose despite its relative failings, this was a defining geopolitical moment in the 21st century, and its consequences abound in that area of thw world to this day. The violence in Syria is in part a reflection of the Arab spring. -- Zelkia1101 (talk)  21:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Neutral


 * Discuss

Remove Mahdist War
Trying to get some unimportant articles removed because we are way over 10,000. Interstellarity (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) [nom]
 * 2) Support Probably too specific. --Thi (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support  -- Zelkia1101 (talk)  19:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support not essential. GuzzyG (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Neutral


 * Discuss

Remove Pechenegs
Trying to get some unimportant articles removed because we are way over 10,000. Interstellarity (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) [nom]
 * 2) Support Too specific. --Thi (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Not vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support removal per above -- Zelkia1101 (talk)  21:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support not essential. GuzzyG (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Neutral


 * Discuss

Remove Union of Lublin
Trying to get some unimportant articles removed because we are way over 10,000. Interstellarity (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) [nom]
 * 2) Support Probably covered sufficiently by other articles. --Thi (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Not vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per above -- Zelkia1101 (talk)  21:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support as redundant to the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. Gizza  (talk • voy) 23:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Neutral


 * Discuss

Remove Unequal treaty
Trying to get some unimportant articles removed because we are way over 10,000. Interstellarity (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) [nom]
 * 2) Support. Not vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support removal per above -- Zelkia1101 (talk)  21:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support not essential. GuzzyG (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Covered sufficiently by other articles. --Thi (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Battle of Kulikovo
This battle marked the beginning of the end of the Golden Horde's dominance in eastern Europe, while simultaneously transforming Muscovy into the nucleus of the future Russian state. According to the Russian historian Lev Gumilev, "Russians went to the Kulikovo field as citizens of various principalities and returned as a united Russian nation.--Catlemur (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support as nom.--Catlemur (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose I think that it is probably sufficient to list Dmitry Donskoy at this level. --Thi (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose redundant to the Grand Duchy of Moscow. Battles are rarely vital at this level. Even if the history quota rises slightly, battles aren't in the top 700 most vital history-related articles. The section is already war-centric. Gizza  (talk • voy) 23:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Taliban
Important political force in Afghanistan for over 25 years, controlling the country for much of that period. Involved in a series of wars notable for their length and chaos. Had a major impact throughout the Islamic World, Europe, and North America. History of Afghanistan is currently level 4.

Support "From 1996 to 2001, the Taliban held power over roughly three quarters of Afghanistan, and enforced a strict interpretation of Sharia, or Islamic law. The Taliban emerged in 1994 as one of the prominent factions in the Afghan Civil War and largely consisted of students (talib) from the Pashtun areas of eastern and southern Afghanistan who had been educated in traditional Islamic schools, and fought during the Soviet–Afghan War." Dimadick (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Support as nom. — Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 22:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Now a truly historically significant article. Per the main article's brief explanation of their origin:

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. If we were going to add another article in this area, it would be better to list War in Afghanistan (2001–present). Rreagan007 (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap: Add Pennsylvania, remove Alaska
Pennsylvania is currently the fifth-largest U.S. state, neck-in-neck with Illinois (which is Level 4) for that position, and contains the level-4 cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. It is also historically important for the colonial-era United States and the discovery of oil, etc. It was removed from the list sometime in 2018 alongside several other states that have subsequently been re-added. Alaska might have some more international stature with Russia, the Klondike rush, etc., but seems overall not as important. I could very well be mistaken on this, but Alaska appears to have been added sometime before 2013 and not had much discussion since. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Support addition Geography is important are in encyclopedia and I guess that there is room for both Alaska and Pennsylvania in English Wikipedia. --Thi (talk) 10:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose It is precisely because Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are on the list that makes it redundant to list Pennsylvania as well. Alaska is geographically and culturally exceptional: it has North America's largest oilfield and is responsible for half the fish caught in US waters; indigenous peoples make up 15% of its population – no other state has more than 10%. This swap would make the list's coverage of US geography worse, not better. Cobblet (talk) 05:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We list both New York City (at Level 3) and New York State, as well as Chicago and Illinois and California and multiple of its cities, so I don't get the "redundant" argument; besides, Pennsylvania has other such regions as Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, Allentown, and Erie. I'll somewhat concede Alaska, mostly because we also include Hawaii. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it more important to cover Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, Allentown, and Erie than Anchorage, the eight national parks in Alaska, the Prudhoe Bay oil field, the Arctic and Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuges, and the Alaska Natives? Are Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, Allentown, and Erie at the same level of importance as Buffalo, Rochester, Albany and the Adirondacks in New York, or the Inland Empire, the Central Valley, and the Californian kelp and redwood forests? I will add that I disagree with the addition of Sacramento (which was apparently a reaction to adding Canberra – not for the first time, one mistake begets another) and I would support the removal of Illinois. Cobblet (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say that those areas, along with Titusville with the "invention" of commercial oil and the Alleghenies, are indeed about as important as Upstate New York, Inland California, Downstate Illinois (which has the Quad Cities and Peoria), and Texas outside of Houston and Dallas (another Level 4 combination). Whether they're "more" important than Alaska is debatable, and I can reconsider the latter, but I think not including Pennsylvania is an omission when we have the other "Top 6" states. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The oil industry did not begin in Pennsylvania. I could live with swapping Pittsburgh for Pennsylvania, but listing both along with Philadelphia is like saying we need to list North Rhine-Westphalia or Rhine-Ruhr in addition to Cologne and Düsseldorf, or National Capital Region (India) and Gurgaon in addition to Delhi, or Gauteng in addition to Johannesburg and Pretoria. This kind of redundancy will be untenable if it is not limited to exceptional circumstances. I can buy the argument for California and Texas and New York, but I don't see Pennsylvania or even Illinois as exceptional from a global standpoint. Cobblet (talk) 06:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The American oil industry did begin in Pennsylvania, which was producing the majority of the world's supply (if briefly) in the 1880s; I would also be fine with swapping out Pittsburgh. There's also Florida and Miami, so at the risk of OTHERSTUFFing it such "redundancies" are precedented on this list without major incident and would require another discussion to remove, IMO. (There's also the argument that U.S. states are more important relatively speaking than subnational entities in other countries, although German states might be a slight counterargument.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that Florida's >65% more populous than Pennsylvania or Illinois and still we only list one Floridian city. Based on similar arguments made by others in the past, which have influenced my own thinking, I doubt a proposal to add Tampa or Orlando or Jacksonville would succeed today. Then again, I could be wrong – if we can decide to list both San Jose and Silicon Valley, anything is possible. It's also true that seven years ago, when I first joined this project, I would have supported adding Pennsylvania without hesitation. Cobblet (talk) 07:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Alaska is by far the largest of the 50 U.S. states, it has one of the highest per capita incomes in the country, it has a large population of Alaska Natives, a unique and colorful history (Russian colonization, Gold Rushes, the Aleutian Islands campaign), and is a key state in criminal history. Per the main article: "Alaska has the highest rate of sexual assault in the nation, especially in rural areas.". On the other hand, Pennsylvania is a rather forgettable state, with little impact on American history. Dimadick (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but Pennsylvania is a rather forgettable state, with little impact on American history. is a strikingly ignorant statement. Philadelphia is where the Declaration of Independence was signed, and its resident Benjamin Franklin is considered "the First American"; in addition, it's the only city other than New York to be constantly in America's Top 10 for the entirety of its existence. Pittsburgh was the capital of the steel industry for a large part of the 20th century, and Pennsylvania as a whole has been one of the Top 10 states for America's whole existence, constantly battling for the #5 spot with Illinois for the past ~half-century. It has also been a historical powerhouse of the United States with its coal and oil deposits, and pioneered in those fields. You might still not believe that it's worthy of Level 4 (as Cobblet and I discussed above), but to deny its significance in US history is gobsmacking. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Alaska is on here as a region (like the Canadian Shield). I'm neutral on adding Pennsylvania if there's a better swap. (maybe Victoria Island (Canada)?) power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 19:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose removal Known for its nature and history, especially gold rush. --Thi (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Alaska is unique geographically and culturally. Pennsylvania isn't much differentiated from surrounding states. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

If this passes, Alaska would still be Level 5 like all the other (non-Level 4) states. I would not oppose having both on the list, but having Alaska ahead of Pennsylvania doesn't seem right to me. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * Don’t know whether this is an option, but could see adding Pennsylvania and removing Pittsburgh. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Remove Konya
Trying to get some unimportant articles removed because we are way over 10,000. Interstellarity (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Interstellarity (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Not vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as above. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support not necessary at this level -- Zelkia1101 (talk)  20:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support the consensus. --Thi (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Neutral


 * Discuss

Remove Sacramento, California
Trying to get some unimportant articles removed because we are way over 10,000. Interstellarity (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Interstellarity (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, CA has enough cities. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support not necessary at this level -- Zelkia1101 (talk)  20:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per above. --Thi (talk) 11:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support not essential. GuzzyG (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Neutral


 * Discuss

Remove Perm, Russia
Trying to get some unimportant articles removed because we are way over 10,000. Interstellarity (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Interstellarity (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Not vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as above. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support  not necessary at this level -- Zelkia1101 (talk)  20:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support not essential. GuzzyG (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Neutral


 * Discuss

Add Burlesque
a popular form of entertainment, one that we miss. we don't cover alot of dance forms and this is one. i think we should be covering a lot more fields. maybe it might be a bit historical, but we should cover the timespan of dance. better than listing both Mae West and Josephine Baker without their dance.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  p  b  p  03:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Dimadick (talk) 10:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, in general I prefer genres before works, on a side note Vaudeville has crossed my mind a few times as well.  Carlwev  10:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per nom. Gizza  (talk • voy) 23:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Swap The Art of Painting for Las Meninas
the more acclaimed and studied version of the same type of painting. Las Meninas is one of the truly historic paintings to write a encyclopedic article on.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Easy choice, surely Girl with a Pearl Earring should be on here before this? Aza24 (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom. Qono (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Interstellarity (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove Nighthawks (painting)
Too much overlap with the painter, Edward Hopper, who is now listed in Artists. --Thi (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.
 * 2) Support  Carlwev  10:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom. Gizza  (talk • voy) 23:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Interstellarity (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, highly recognizable piece, but many are like that. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Nighthawks is an extremely well-known piece of American art, which deserve representation among the paintings. -- Zelkia1101 (talk)  21:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Swap out Oriental Orthodox Churches for Eastern Christianity
Broader topic that covers the entire concept and history of Eastern Christianity, which I think would be more vital in the English Wikipedia than covering the concept of Oriental Orthodoxy Churches (especially when the two most prominent such churches are included). Also, this article covers various denominations descended from the Church of the East and various smaller denominations like those of Protestant Eastern Christianity; neither are currently represented at level 4.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom Orser67 (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Support addition Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Support addition --Spaced about (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Support addition Gizza  (t)(c) 04:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Support addition. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose removal If we were to swap in Eastern Christianity for another article, I would prefer to remove a specific denomination. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Strongly oppose removal, very important topic for an encyclopedia. --Spaced about (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose removal per above. There are at least 5 less significant Protestant articles. Orthodox Christianity relative to Catholic/Protestant is underrepresented as it currently stands. Gizza  (t)(c) 04:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Move Nudity
While the topic of nudity cuts across many categories, Clothing and fashion is the last one I would think of, but Sexuality and gender might be the first.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support [nominator]


 * Oppose

Perhaps Nudity could be under Human Sexuality.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * I think this discussion is necessary on Wikipedia. I even thought starting an essay about that fact. The fact is that there is a lot of confusion when defining themes like Nudity, Naturism, Erotica and Pornography. WP: PR0N is an essay that deals with Nudity and Erotica like Pornography. This MfD also dealt with Nudity like Sexuality. Initially I am opposed to including Nudity in Human Sexuality, Nudity is a very simple and independent topic, which is basically linked to lack clothing.Guilherme Burn (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I am thinking is the opposite direction. The current category trivializes Nudity as a "fashion choice". I think Nudity needs to be part of the discussion regarding human sexuality and gender, but in opposition to the "pornification" of the body that is currently occurring.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Add consumption tax and poll tax

 * Support
 * 1) As nom. The former has been used by many countries to improve fiscal conditions, the latter, although now virtually obsolete, was once widely implemented by many countries.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. --Spaced about (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. We already list Sales tax and Value-added tax, both of which are forms of consumption tax. We don't need to list both at this level. And as the nom says, poll taxes are essentially obsolete. I see no compelling reason to list an obsolete form of taxation at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - more pressing economic articles are missing and we're over quota. Gizza  (talk • voy) 04:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Rreagan007. --Thi (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Swap: Add Work (human activity), Remove ???
So up-front, I'm the one that initially created this article, and it's definitely just start-class. It really needs references in particular.

I created it since it seemed like a major oversight in the English Wikipedia; all of the similar articles (job, employment, career) really only touch on paid-work in certain kinds of economies & social settings. Plus I had a lot of time on my hands last summer. I tried to be general and address the concept of work from several angles in the article though, so it represents a pretty basic & general topic.

I know the society section is currently over the quota, so there probably needs to be a swap, and I'm not familiar enough with this level to suggest one specifically. I just figured as an even broader look at the concept of work, I should still point the article out & see about listing it at a lower level, even if it's not very developed yet.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 06:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Swap with Job. Very similar concepts. We certainly don't need both at this level, especially since we also list Employment. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Swap with Job -- Laukku  TheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Swap with Job per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Swap with Job --Thi (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Swap Medal for Award
Medal as an article is more about the object, and less about similar items like ribbons, badges, pins and sashes. While Award is not as military-oriented, we can always add Order (distinction). w umbolo  ^^^  18:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support I assume that Wumbolo supports his own proposal.
 * 2) Support The article on awards has a more general topic. Also, this article should probably be moved to another section. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 23:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support removal. I don't think we really need to list either one at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Gizza  (t)(c) 22:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, probably best to discuss the merits of keeping or discarding Award in a different proposal.  J  947 &thinsp;(c) , at 09:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Support (Ios2019 (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)).
 * 7) Support per above and move to society - general section. --Spaced about (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose addition. We don't need either at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose The Award page has no military relevance. A better swap would be Medal for Military awards and decorations. EsEinsteinium (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Medals as art is quite important thing. Award and Prize are broad terms and their articles are currently short. Order (distinction) would also be important at least from historical perspective. --Thi (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Add Fourth Industrial Revolution
The world is being completely transformed by the fourth industrial revolution with massive job displacements. People need a great wikipedia article to understand what's happening.--3DNewEra (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3DNewEra (talk • contribs) 12:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose just a buzzword, not nearly important enough for level-5 even. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 19:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Reduce section quota?
Even though we don't do quotas at this divisional level, I think it's worth noting that "Computing and information technology" has all of 4 articles at Level 3 (plus arguably a few more in the adjacent "Media and Communication" section), and then suddenly balloons to 75 here. I think this is a reflection of how computer-inclined Wikipedians are, plus a bit of recentism. Do others support making some cuts? - Sdkb (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Reduce it slightly, to 65 or so, but it's the type of topic that generates more articles of importance than its higher-level percentage as you get lower.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at 04:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The number of IT articles should not be reduced, since IT transformed the world substantially (e.g. alters the way books are published), and there are some types of technology whose articles are more abundant in the list ("Industry", "Machinery and tools" and "Transportation").--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I just have been watching on your edits around main page of the level 4 and I noted you few times changed the quotas by WP:Bold. I do not mind about that because of I support idea that quotas should be only "near suggestion" how big should be (not very excatly requirement). On that bascis I will be ping and ask you: What do you think to add little bigger quota for religion and history meanwhile lower for technology? We are also way over quota in society section but I seriously doubt we need so many universites ahead of "education of country" articles and plenty other. I am also confused why we lis~t Sexual education in every day life if we do not list more universal educations like Physical education or Religious education. What do you think? Dawid2009 (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I would support a few removals of the weaker articles in the Computing and information technology" section. Don't know if we need to enforce a strict sub-quota but it is bloated relative to other sections in Technology. Recentism and Wiki's computing-inclined bias have made the section bigger than it should be. Gizza  (t)(c) 01:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I see that someone archived this discussion without listing a result. Could whoever did so say what that was? We seemed to be forming a loose consensus to reduce the quota. Sdkb (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

See this discussion for further development on VA becoming a consensus-building discussion. — J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at  21:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Remove 1973 oil crisis
Trying to get some unimportant articles removed because we are way over 10,000. Interstellarity (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) [nom]
 * 2) Support this event was rather important but there are many more important events and periods of human history that are missing from this list. This is a good candidate for removal -- Zelkia1101 (talk)  21:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Landmark in modern history. Oil crisis affected world politics and economy. --Thi (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. It had global ramifications. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose This is an event of global importance. Dimadick (talk) 05:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Neutral


 * Discuss

Remove July Revolution
Trying to get some unimportant articles removed because we are way over 10,000. Interstellarity (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) [nom]


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Important event in European history. --Thi (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I think it's vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Key event in French history. It turned France into a constitutional monarchy, permanently removed the ultra-conservative Legitimists from power, and marked the decline of French aristocracy. Dimadick (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Neutral


 * Discuss

Add Cooking stove
There's some messiness between Stove (level 3), Oven (level 4), and Cooking stove (unlisted even at level 5). I'm going to try to sort things out a bit at the articles, but I think the lack of cooking stove is an oversight to be remedied. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 00:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As nom. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 00:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. I think there's too much overlap with stove and oven to also list this article at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Stove is level 3 and every level 3 article can expand to roughly 10 level 4 articles, so the question is whether the type of stove used for cooking is 1/10 as important as the general concept (which also applies to e.g. wood stoves for heating a house). We currently list most other items in this realm at level 4, including refrigerator, dishwasher, sink, microwave, and even electric stove. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Consensus?
How many people would support transforming VA into a consensus discussion, say using this as a basis? "Choosing vital articles takes place via a consensus-building discussion.
 * A discussion may be closed after 30 days has passed since the discussion was opened or relisted if a consensus has been reached involving a number of participants.
 * If there is little discussion in that time period; then the discussion may be relisted for a further 30 days. A discussion may be relisted ad infinitum.
 * If the discussion has attracted a high amount of participation but a consensus cannot be found, then it may be closed as no consensus.
 * A discussion may be closed early in some circumstances but this is not to be abused.
 * Use common sense. If a viable option was proposed late in the course of a discussion then a relist may be necessary. There are many other examples where common sense should be exercised.
 * Closures may be contested via the bold, revert, discuss principle."


 * Basic draft; I may have missed something. Relists shouldn't be too fancy; just something simple like these. What do you guys think?  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at  21:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Tentative support Assuming we're all familiar with how consensus-building discussions work elsewhere on WP, we know that they're effective and I see no reason not to implement them here. I'm not sure if it's even necessary to spell them out. The main difference is that discussions here can remain open over much longer timespans, but since they still proceed similarly, that's not an issue with consensus building. I'm not sure how I feel about a formal relisting mechanism; it might be better to save something like that for when there's a more complete technical overhaul of the VA system. Sdkb (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've mulled over the relisting point and I think a relist mechanism would be a small positive in helping new contributors (which we need) understand VA easier and quicker, providing them with familiar processes. It would also aid closers in not deciding the result of a discussion if it has already been passed over, plus adding attention to a languishing discussion (which would be the subject of most relists I feel) by putting it in the recent parts of the revision history. However, I think 30 days is too short on reflection and 45 days to 2 months would be better.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at  22:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment It's already supposed to be a consensus-building discussion: !vote implies that. We should recognize that the current method has produced amazing results. How would a change be beneficial? I perceived the current method as a minimal standard for consensus because the proposals often don't attract a lot of participants.--Spaced about (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We do talk about !votes here, but the guidelines here are much more explicit than elsewhere on WP, and they are often interpreted rather inflexibly, and I often end feeling as though the ! is pretty hollow. I think the spirit of the proposal is that we ought to be a little less rigid. Sdkb (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm very wary of changing a system that seems to have worked very well up until this point. Yes, there are drawbacks to our more rigid voting procedures here, but I think changing the system now would create more problems than it solves. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I am concerned that a well-intentioned majority can be ill-informed and consequently hold incorrect opinions, something that consensus-building steers around. HopsonRoad (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds good in theory, but in practice, if a discussion on Wikipedia has a 2/3 majority of support, it's going to be passed as having gained consensus. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Rreagan007. --Thi (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Rreagan007. The criteria and reasoning everyone uses here is ultimately subjective and we need objective closing rules to counterbalance that (unlike other areas of Wikipedia where the policies are more explicit and rigid so the discussion on the issue and then determining consensus is more interpretative). This approach will just lead to countless edit wars and conflict when people disagree on whether there was contensus to add, remove and/or swap an article. Gizza  (t)(c) 12:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Swap Shintaro Katsu for Tatsuya Nakadai
"An icon of Japanese cinema, Nakadai's seven-decade-long career has seen him star in films that have become part of the cultural fabric in Japan and proved hugely influential internationally." https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tatsuya-nakadai-set-receive-tokyo-film-festival-lifetime-achievement-honor-1249965 Nakadai has worked with several of the country's most notable filmmakers including Akira Kurosawa, Masaki Kobayashi, Kon Ichikawa and others.

"Japan's most distinguished living actor" - NYT https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/movies/15raff.html

"Probably the greatest living film actor in Japan" - AMC: https://www.amc.com/talk/2008/06/an-evening-with

"Tatsuya Nakadai is a shining star of post-war Japan. Still active in the entertainment business as an octogenarian, the legendary actor’s work in film and theater has been acknowledged worldwide. The films he has appeared in have won awards at the Oscars and the “Big Three” film festivals in Berlin, Cannes and Venice." - https://www.tokyojournal.com/component/k2/item/923-tatsuya-nakadai-279.html
 * Support
 * 1) Support [nominator]
 * 2) Support removal per my previous nomination. --Thi (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Support removal GuzzyG (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support switch. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Interstellarity (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Previous proposals: 1 2.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at 04:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Remove Gavrila Derzhavin
Derzhavin is only marginally interesting for readers of English-language Wikipedia. Room for other figures from 18th and 19th century is needed. For example artist Antoine Watteau or writer Henry Fielding are more well known.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Support the weakest writer listed. not vital in comparison to who we're missing. GuzzyG (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Interstellarity (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support as per nom. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Swap Leontyne Price for Farinelli
Swap yet another 20th century singer for a area we don't cover at all. Farinelli is a "celebrated Italian castrato singer of the 18th century and one of the greatest singers in the history of opera. Farinelli has been described as having soprano vocal range and sang the highest note customary at the time, C6". The most known and influential castrato.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Leontyne Price is one of my favourite singers, but I could name a dozen other sopranos we don't have that have similar reputations to hers - whereas Farinelli is a figure who stands out in the history of opera. Neljack (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Support removal per above. --Thi (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Support removal - Interstellarity (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support removal Ms. Price is not influential or notable enough to be level-4 -- Zelkia1101 (talk)  20:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose addition I dont't think that there is any need for representative of castratos at this level. --Thi (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose addition I also do not believe Farinelli is vital enough to merit inclusion on this list -- Zelkia1101 (talk)  20:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

He's not just a castrato though, he's p much the most important male opera singer pre recording technology, atleast top 3 - we barely have any pre modern entertainers whose removals were a massive mistake and caused imbalance. Jenny Lind and Henry Irving should never have been removed, but Farinelli is of that caliber. GuzzyG (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Swap Daniel Ortega for Anastasio Somoza García
Ortega is a recent and serving political figure and i don't think we should list any unless they are super vital like Vladimir Putin or Angela Merkel. If we had to list a modern serving leader i'd rather Xi Jinping, Bashar al-Assad or Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. From this area i'd even prefer Evo Morales. Somoza is very historically important to the region, "Anastasio Somoza started a dynasty that maintained absolute control over Nicaragua for 55 years" and he's even well known in the US as the subject of the apocryphal quote "he may be a son of a bitch but he's our son of a bitch". Probably the modern Central American leader who had the biggest impact other than Jacobo Árbenz or Manuel Noriega, both i'd also support a swap with Ortega for.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  p  b  p  13:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Support removal - Interstellarity (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support removal, neutral on addition Ortega is not influential enough as a current or historical political leader to be considered on this list, especially when we don't list folks like Xi. -- Zelkia1101 (talk)  20:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose addition I prefer contemporary history and the inclusion of current dictator as more useful at this level. --Thi (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Remove Belgian Revolution
Trying to get some unimportant articles removed because we are way over 10,000. Interstellarity (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) [nom]
 * 2) Support swap with History of Belgium. --Thi (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support swap with History of Belgium. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support removal, oppose swap - Belgium as a country is not vital enough for its history to be included on this list -- Zelkia1101 (talk)  21:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support swap "historys of" are much better than specific events. GuzzyG (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Neutral


 * Discuss

Remove Teddy bear
Trying to get some unimportant articles removed because we are way over 10,000. Interstellarity (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Interstellarity (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Most toys are Level 5 stuff. --Thi (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support We're over quota and this is will be fine at level 5. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per above Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Hyperbolick (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove Financial crisis of 2007–2008
Trying to get some unimportant articles removed because we are way over 10,000. Interstellarity (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) [nom]
 * 2) Support, big event for the 21st Century, yes, but the Century is young. History has seen much more impactful financial crises. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose the defining event of the 21st century between 9/11 and COVID. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose The event had a global impact. Dimadick (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per above comments. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Neutral


 * Discuss

Swap: Remove Ghost Dance, Add Mythologies of the indigenous peoples of the Americas
Trying to get some unimportant articles removed because we are way over 10,000. Interstellarity (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) [nom]
 * 2) Support. Here the general, parent article you could say is more vital. Gizza  (talk • voy) 10:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support -- Laukku  TheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support swap. Ghost Dance, important subject, yes, but an awfully specific ritual to be argued as vital at this level. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Neutral


 * Discuss

Swap: Remove Queen of Sheba, Add Rastafari
Trying to get some unimportant articles removed because we are way over 10,000. Interstellarity (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support Interstellarity (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Support removal I don't think that Queen of Sheba is necessary at this level. --Thi (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support but Rastafari to religion instead of mythology. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support removal Way over quota so support removal, but Rastafari is already listed under Abrahamic religions. So no need for the addition. GuzzyG (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support removal. As stated above, Rastafari is already listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Neutral

Why have Rastafari as mythology instead of specific religions? Hyperbolick (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Remove Punch (magazine)
We have way too many articles at this level. We should try to remove less important articles to make room for more important articles. Interstellarity (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Interstellarity (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cartoon is listed at this level. --Thi (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 07:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. At the moment there are too many magazines (13). More than the number of TV shows and newspapers we have. Gizza  (talk • voy) 07:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose, likely will be the lone voice to, but Punch offers incalculable importance in the history of magazines. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Influential example of satire, with more than a century of history. Dimadick (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral


 * Discuss

Remove The New Yorker
We have way too many articles at this level. We should try to remove less important articles to make room for more important articles. Interstellarity (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Interstellarity (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Support-- I don't see a need for The New Yorker to be on this list, given that we have a good smattering of others like it Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support the consensus. --Thi (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per Zelkia1101. Gizza  (talk • voy) 08:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Neutral


 * Discuss

Remove BBC
We have way too many articles at this level. We should try to remove less important articles to make room for more important articles. Interstellarity (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Interstellarity (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Company that sets the standard, vital to know if you are interested in journalism or entertainment. World's oldest and largest public broadcaster. The brand of BBC is known around the world. Its journalism, radio and television programs are known for their high quality. --Thi (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose The BBC is one of the Western World's most recognizable news outlets, and one of its most respected. Per the reasons Thi mentioned, it deserves a spot here -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Worldwide impact. The BBC World Service broadcasts in at least 40 languages, and had a weekly audience of  210 million people in 2015. Dimadick (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per above comments. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Neutral


 * Discuss

Swap: Remove Anorexia nervosa, Add Eating disorder
This is broader category of disorders. Interstellarity (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support
 * 2) Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 07:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom. Gizza  (talk • voy) 01:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, sensible to go with the broader. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Swap W. H. Auden for Alfred, Lord Tennyson
No disrespect to Auden, but Tennyson is simply the more vital poet. In fact, when looking to see whether his inclusion had been proposed before, I found no such proposal, but a half dozen proposals for other poets being rejected on the argument that they, too, were behind Tennyson (sometimes among others, but Tennyson was the constant), who was missing from the list. Which is true, and I think for Auden being behind Tennyson, too. Incredibly long career of a sixty-one year stretch from his first published piece to his last, remaining to this day the longest-serving Poet Laureate of England, gave us innumerable remembered verses and phrases. "Nature, red in tooth and claw" is Tennyson. As is "'Tis better to have loved and lost / Than never to have loved at all", and the common paraphrase, "Ours is not to reason why, / Ours is but to do and die".

Somewhat unfortunate that poets and novelists are mixed together in the list, but if not swapped for Auden, would put Tennyson ahead of Enid Blyton, Roald Dahl, and William Golding as well. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support Hyperbolick (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Support According to the article on him: "Tennyson was the first to be raised to a British peerage for his writing.". His Idylls of the King was "arguably the most famous Victorian adaptation of the legend of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table." He influenced the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, whose members lionized him as one of their "artistic heroes". His lifelong struggle with depression resulted in the "common thread of grief, melancholy, and loss" in his works, and his reinterpretation of older myths and legends. Among his detractors we are quoting W. H. Auden in saying "There was little about melancholia he [Tennyson] didn't know; there was little else that he did." Yet I think that Tennyson had a much wider impact than Auden. On Auden's reputation, his article reports: "Auden's stature in modern literature has been contested. Probably the most common critical view from the 1930s onward ranked him as the last and least of the three major twentieth-century British and Irish poets—behind Yeats and Eliot—while a minority view, more prominent in recent years, ranks him as the highest of the three. Dimadick (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Thi (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Tennyson was the poet of the Victorian Age. Arguably up there with Charles Dickens in his wide-reaching influence on the English language --Zelkia1101 (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2021‎ (UTC)
 * 5) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Swap Marian Anderson for Mahalia Jackson
Americans were not that influential in Opera and Anderson wouldn't be in the top 10 opera singers throughout history. But Jackson is the top Gospel singer; an area we do not cover.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Big fan as I am of Anderson, whose had an outstanding voice and whose career was affected by racism, I have to agree. Jackson was also notable for her role in the Civil Rights Movement. Neljack (talk) 07:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Support removal per above. --Thi (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Support removal - Interstellarity (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support removal --Zelkia1101 (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2021‎ (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Marian Anderson's Lincoln Memorial concert was very influential.  p  b  p  17:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose addition Jackson is not nearly important enough to be deemed a level-4 biography. --Zelkia1101 (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2021‎ (UTC)


 * Discuss

Add Leonidas I
He is one of the most famous Greeks of all time. He is often mentioned in history books and encyclopedias and his story is known from several works of fiction.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Leonidas was the most famous member of the Agiad dynasty. His refusal to surrender and his death in a last stand made him an inspirational figure. His phrase Molon labe (come and take [them]) in reference to his weapons is famous. It became a military motto in modern Greece and Cyprus, inspired a slogan of the Texas Revolution (translated as Come and take it), and is still used by gun-right advocates in their defence of the right to keep and bear arms. Dimadick (talk) 23:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Any ancient figure as known as him should probably go on this list considering our massive bias of 20th century entertainers and athletes over any BC/first millennium figure, so we can handle clumps here. We need more Egyptians too GuzzyG (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC).
 * 5) THIS. HAS. PASSED!!!!!!! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove an English monarch
I think we try to remove some English monarchs. I think the weakest monarchs we have is Henry II of England and Henry V of England. I won't nominate any monarchs yet. I would like community input on which monarchs should be removed. Interstellarity (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I think all current English monarchs are vital. --Thi (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * We're 14 under quota in people, so we have no need to rush to remove people. The arguments to remove these two especially fall flat when we see in their articles ledes Henry II is credited with "Henry's legal changes are generally considered to have laid the basis for the English Common Law, while his intervention in Brittany, Wales, and Scotland shaped the development of their societies and governmental systems" and Henry V having "His military successes culminated in his famous victory at the Battle of Agincourt (1415) and saw him come close to conquering France.", both of which (English Common Law and Battle of Agincourt) are highly important for a English language encyclopedia to cover. It's only natural for a English language encyclopedia to have alot of English kings. Infact going further, i'd support Richard III of England being added too, because of his permanent place in pop culture so far (because of Shakespeare). I'm much more certain of Richard III's place in a millennium more than a Claudette Colbert or Michel Platini type. Since we're 14 under quota (with many of the pop culture topics like Colbert or Platini remaining), i don't see any reason to cut any figures from pre modern history. We need to be more diverse in our coverage of centuries and areas and politicians are the easiest bet here. Ignoring English leaders, this list should be filled with more leaders of centuries + areas/countries we miss than not, our removals should ONLY be mainly in balancing 20th century pop culture topics with topics like Ur-Nammu, Herod the Great, Songtsen Gampo, Kʼinich Janaabʼ Pakal, Romulus, Samori Ture, Khufu, Alara of Kush, Senusret I, Iry-Hor, Reza Shah, Jan van Riebeeck, Lachlan Macquarie, Seru Epenisa Cakobau, George Tupou I, Ismail Ibn Sharif, Osei Kofi Tutu I and Himiko, all of which stand against most of these actors and athletes. Thus one would think more cuts (if any) should only be in these areas than areas we already lack (pre-modern leaders). GuzzyG (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * English monarchs are more represented on our list than other kingdoms, but I'd expect that on the English Wikipedia list. Perhaps we could trim a few, but I'm also in no rush to do so when we're under quota in that section. Rreagan007 (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Henry II has had the largest legacy, as the de facto founder of the Common law system in England, and the one credited for popularizing the innovative standard of trial by jury. His Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland also introduced English military and political dominance in Ireland, and has had large effects on the overall history of the British Isles.


 * Henry V is seen as a towering military figure through his impressive victories in Hundred Years' War, and as a would-be empire builder that came closer than anyone else to unifying the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of France. His death at age 35, largely undid his life's work. Having one underage son and few other viable heirs, his death caused a power vacuum that would be one of the early steps towards the Wars of the Roses. Personally I view him as less vital than several other English monarchs.
 * I would not be opposed to adding Richard III, despite his short reign of 2 years and death at age 32. He introduced the Council of the North as the regional body responsible for administrating Northern England, and his system was maintained unchanged until 1641. He introduced the Court of Requests, to hear cases from the poor who could not otherwise afford legal representation. He ended legal restrictions on the printing and sale of books, laying the ground for a more literate culture. His legal reforms included orders to translate existing laws from French to English. He was the topic of many history books of the Tudor period, and debate over his historical assessment has been ongoing for centuries.
 * English monarchs have had lasting historical reputations, and their impact should not be neglected. Dimadick (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Remove Town square
Trying to get some unimportant articles removed because we are way over 10,000. Interstellarity (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) [nom]
 * 2) Support. Too much overlap with other articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support town is all that's needed at this level  -- Zelkia1101 (talk)  19:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support not essential. GuzzyG (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per nom. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 03:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove Adelaide
Trying to get some unimportant articles removed because we are way over 10,000. Interstellarity (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Interstellarity (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Support  not necessary at this level -- Zelkia1101 (talk)  20:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support not essential. GuzzyG (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. A major city in Australia, a major English-speaking country. There are less vital cities currently listed that could be removed first if we need to, but we're about at quota currently in this section so there's not a huge need to remove articles from this section. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose We're only 2 over quota in geography, and I doubt this is one of the two least vital. I'd rather get rid of New South Wales. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 03:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Per above. --Thi (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Neutral


 * Discuss

Add Arc de Triomphe

 * Support
 * 1) As nom. I know that the list is full yet it should still be added despite the list already contains 3 French specific structures (Eiffel Tower, Notre-Dame de Paris & Palace of Versailles) since Arc de Triomphe is as famous as the other 3 thing I mentioned in this sentence.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. It is the largest and probably most well known triumphal arch, so it should probably be listed here. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support A look at the article convinces me that the Arc should be Level 4. Jusdafax (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support France could use more representative structures in the list, due to its colorful architectural history. Dimadick (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support and I might also support triumphal arch. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 03:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Triumphal arch is the general article. My single-volume encylopedia lists triumphal arch, but not Arc de Triomphe. --Thi (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Add Postmodern architecture

 * Support
 * 1) As nom. I'm surprised that it is not listed, despite being a very widely used architectural style.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Triumphal arch
These famous landmarks exist around the world.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove Christian democracy
We have way too many articles at this level. We should try to remove less important articles to make room for more important articles. Interstellarity (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose for now. The weakest article is political ideologies is cosmopolitanism. There are no major political parties in any country of the world which identify as following cosmopolitanism (mostly theoretical) but there are Christian democratic parties. Gizza  (talk • voy) 07:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Christian political parties have been influential in European politics. --Thi (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose The European People's Party group, the largest political group in the European Parliament, is Christian Democratic. The impact of the ideology is far-reaching. Dimadick (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Remove Cosmopolitanism
Per user Gizza: "The weakest article is political ideologies is cosmopolitanism. There are no major political parties in any country of the world which identify as following cosmopolitanism (mostly theoretical)". --Thi (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. --Interstellarity (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per above. Gizza  (talk • voy) 02:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support and I'm barely convinced this is an ideology at all; it seems to me like a fugue state meditation on the definition of the word wikt:cosmopolitan. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 03:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Cutting the list down
Hello everyone, I want to make it clear that I will not support any new additions until we are under quota. We managed to get a lot of articles off the list. I want to try as many articles removed as possible. We are 21 over quota. The philosophy and religion would be a good place to get articles removed, however, I am not familiar with many of the subjects listed there so it is hard to judge importance. I could potentially nominate some people to be removed, but I would like some input on what articles we should remove. Interstellarity (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Why would people need removing when we're 10 under quota in people? The only sections over quota is History by 6, Geography & arts by 2, Philosophy and religion by 11, Society and social sciences by 2, Biological and health sciences by 4 and Technology by 6. Removing people won't do anything to fix the quota. There's no reason to hold up nominations in areas under quota IMO. GuzzyG (talk) 07:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Add Auguste Escoffier
We need a chef and he's regarded as the 20th centuries greatest. "one of the codifiers of French haute cuisine, but Escoffier's achievement was to simplify and modernize Carême's elaborate and ornate style. In particular, he codified the recipes for the five mother sauces. Referred to by the French press as roi des cuisiniers et cuisinier des rois ("king of chefs and chef of kings""

"Alongside the recipes he recorded and invented, another of Escoffier's contributions to cooking was to elevate it to the status of a respected profession by introducing organized discipline to his guests.

Escoffier published Le Guide Culinaire, which is still used as a major reference work, both in the form of a cookbook and a textbook on cooking. Escoffier's recipes, techniques and approaches to kitchen management remain highly influential today, and have been adopted by chefs and restaurants not only in France, but also throughout the world"


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Dimadick (talk) 08:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose this person's biography is not nearly notable enough in order to merit inclusion. While I understand the desire to curate a diverse portfolio of people who worked in various fields, we do not need to add absolute unknowns to a list of articles that are absolutely central to the encyclopedia --Zelkia1101 (talk) 04:31, 20 April 2021‎ (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose We need a chef - no we don't. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 03:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I don't think that addition would be vital improvement to this level. --Thi (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. I agree that we don't necessarily need a chef at this level, but out of all the chefs listed at Level 5, this is certainly not the one I'd pick for promotion to Level 4. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

User Cobblet said: "I don't think there's any chef I'd consider vital. Within any culinary tradition I'd rather list characteristic ingredients, eating habits, cooking methods, and dishes, before individual chefs." French cuisine itself has been influential but high end French cooking is not as fashionable now as it used to be. Perhaps Gastronomy is better choice. However, Escoffier influenced kitchen management, codified mother sauces and is influential in his field. --Thi (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Discuss


 * "However, Escoffier influenced kitchen management, codified mother sauces and is influential in his field" this is why i nominated him, he has a massive influence on chefs and on restaurants/cooking in general. Chefs wouldn't be out of the place with one representation and he's the perfect one. Especially if we have one Mafia representative, something with less of a impact than restaurant culture. GuzzyG (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't condescend me, i have no "desire" for anything. I'm just a hard stats person, (here's my watchlist, but more than 10k makes it hard to load,  so i only have that amount, but i have more in my excels) i do track data for tens of thousands of people as a 24/7 thing for my own project and including every field from as high as conquerers and religious founders - to what people would consider lowest, reality tv contestants and beauty pageant contestants (including 19th century/early 20th century dog fighters, not on wiki and i needed a ancestry sub for). 90% of my time is on this. I don't care for any figure personally or have any particular desire for any. I use data from many, many sources - from Wiki to google, to as small as paid subscription to NYT and newspapers.com. (for mentions), among many others i can't reveal. (would reveal methodology for my project). I also track many languages, especially ones with diff scripts like Russian, Japanese, Mandarin or Amharic etc. Here's a comparison of data in English of top figures from academic fields i put together before my nom of Vasari. . Notice he fits in with the rest? Hence the nom. You are just flat out wrong that Escoffier is unnotable and unworthy of placement here, you may not know of him, but that means nothing.

I don't know how to prove it without going into my stats, which is OR. But here's google trends with a bunch of entertainers we list, he gets searched the same amount as James Cagney lol. He may not get much in the US (where there's no big high culinary focus and where you're from), but notice the big three of France, Mexico and Japan he dominates all these entertainers? How does a chef nearly dead for a century beat out a actor in Star Wars and James Cagney? Notice he dominates countries with public reputations for food? You may not know him but 30k hits in google books (for comparison a normal actor listed here Peter O'Toole has 77k, taking into consideration the advantage actors have over 19th century chefs in tabloids this is decent. He has 2.6 million pageviews too , decent for a chef whos been dead for nearly a century and gets no push in the US. That beats many views of many people here. I don't know how to explain it other than you're wrong and it's no surprise as he's the most influential chef and restaurateur. Chefs (from Julia Child to Marie-Antoine Carême and the obvious G Ramsay, A Bourdain and J Oliver are the most undercovered field on wiki relating to their stats on this list. (aslo pro wrestlers and murderers are second and third, naturally i chose to nom a chef).

This is how i choose to nominate all my noms, of experienced research, not for a need or care of diversity. I do care about that for balance, but i would never force that on the level 4 list. Jerry Thomas (bartender) would be me forcing a service/restaurant figure on this list, even though if he had a bit of promotion he'd qualify. Notice i chose the person with stats to back them up? If he doesn't qualify all those promoted actors who don't have his worldwide attention that get less then him should be removed then too. I'd deserve condescension if i said Bugsy Siegel deserved listing because i liked the Flamingo in real life, don't lecture me out of some misguided notion i'm just adding anyone to give this list a diverse portfolio, when i'm doing this out of years of experience and can easily provide stats to counter everything you say. Please try to understand you may not recognise some figures but they can still be important. You tanked the Mahalia Jackson nom too and she had the stats aswell. These are all deserving and it IS better to cover different fields when they absolutely fit amongst the others here. If you tanked them because you thought i just wanted to be diverse, that would be incredibly disappointing, because as shown, they do fit. (i assume because you went against most of the women and the one Indian film but not the technically conventionally bland Euro artist like Antoine Watteau, which is admittedly odd) GuzzyG (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No one condescended you. Calm down. Escoffier may be a famous chief in France but he is not vital nor influential enough to be listed as a level-4 vital article on the English-language version of this website. It may be more appropriate to nominate him in the French-language version, as his legacy is more salient and germane to that country. We do not need chefs on a list of the 2,000-some most vital articles on this website, and even if we did I'm not sure this guy is it --Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2021‎ (UTC)
 * "calm down" is the definition of condescending, i actually love debates - so am calm already, but thanks for caring. :). that's changing the goal posts, it's not fame. he's the most influential chef (that is without a doubt) Le guide culinaire is still in print and used worldwide. That google trend link showed you his prominence in three countries on three continents. He beats other culture figures listed - so by your definition of influence, how is it justified to list the actors but not him, among many other figures? It seems you seem to have a problem with chefs, but irrespective of that, it's a major industry and deserves listing. He's not out of place with people like Estée Lauder (businesswoman) listed. (and no, she should not be removed. the Beauty industry is important too.). you called him a completely unnotable biography, which is completely false (worldwide). If we cover 60 actors and 98 athletes, some as minor as Colin Meads, than Escoffier is ok. Or is New Zealand more important than France? None of this makes any sense!!!!!!!!!! GuzzyG (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am confused why you think my opposition to Escoffier somehow translates to my support for the likes of Lauder or Meads being on this list. It's honestly baffling that they are on this list when we don't have Thomas Marshall, Henry George, Joseph Schumpeter, Benjamin Whorf, Harold Bloom or Stanley Milgram. Escoffier does not deserve to be on this list, and neither do Lauder or Meads. There are honestly quite a few people on the list of people whom I would like to strike or replace, but I haven't made those nominations since we are still under quota for people. I don't want to add more fluff at the expense of other more influential individuals who are still missing. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2021‎ (UTC)
 * Every single one of those could be added and still fit Escoffier, but alot are bad too and Whorf would absolutely not come before Roman Jakobson and Bloom holds no candle to Vasari or John Ruskin, we already list Edward Said. Nearly all my nominations recently are social scientists.... funny how you skipped over Al-Farabi.. since he's one of the most notable we're missing... mhm, could still fit Escoffier too though!. Can't just show off a bunch of academics (you could do the same with scientists, religious figures or politicians too) and try and act superior, you could do that with any entertainer or athlete. Escoffier is the top of his field, forget Whorf (in the top 15), we list Noam Chomsky, so yes - first best (in restaurants), beats top 15 in something we cover. That's how it should be. GuzzyG (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm perplexed by your assertion that Harold Bloom, arguably the preeminent literary critic of the 20th century (blows Said out of the water entirely), is not a peer of Vasari. I would be in favor of adding both, as both are vital and necessary. As for your comments about top 15s and top 1s or whatever, that doesn't really mean anything to me. Linguistics is a much more important field than connoisseurship. Benjamin Lee Whorf represents a field of linguistics that we do not cover, and it would be ignorant to merely lump him in with Chomsky whose theories, while influential, do not cover the breadth of the field as well as you think they do. There is simply no reason to add Escoffier to this list. He adds nothing significant to this project, especially when there are others who need representation. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2021‎ (UTC)

Any reason in particular the restaurant industry/chefs don't deserve a rep when Escoffier here beats out some actors we list in interest worldwide? If he doesn't make the cut, should we not remove the actors since they have a bigger tabloid push than dead for a century chefs and yet get lower interest? Should we not cover a major field if it's top figure can hang with most figures listed? GuzzyG (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Any particular reason to go against the established consensus of the experts on this? Because they'd pick him. Lemme guess, Anthony Bourdain and Gordon Ramsay cause they're on TV in the US, or were in Julia Child's case. Which would be funny, cause i don't know how else to say but everywhere else would be Jamie Oliver - which proves how futile it is to go to TV chefs. Maybe, Guy Fieri!. I'd love, if the answer was we're sticking truth and going Eugénie Brazier, Alexis Soyer, Marie-Antoine Carême, since they've held great status for centuries in some case, but they're even more obscure. Paul Bocuse is a student of Brazier, so would be "redundant" to her or is she a woman and auto redundant too? Maybe Joël Robuchon? One would think Escoffier creating the World Association of Chefs' Societies would mean something. Or are you Americans nationalistic and would prefer James Beard. Either way, let's ignore a rather wide consensus and choose Bourdain, he's been on TV and feels like the right answer!!! GuzzyG (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Remove Cathedral
I've proposed this before, but we are well over quota in this section and some more articles need to be cut. This article is redundant to Church (building), which is already listed, as, contrary to popular belief, a Cathedral is just a church associated with a bishop. Any church building can technically be a "cathedral" no matter how small or plain. And the main article on churches covers different styles of churches such as traditional gothic-style cathedrals, and we also list Gothic architecture under the arts section. We simply don't need this article listed at this level.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Support at this level. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Interstellarity (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per nom. Gizza  (talk • voy) 00:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove Iconoclasm
Very obscure topic. Not very important. Interstellarity (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Interstellarity (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Destruction of images and monuments has occurred in many different cultures throughout history. Byzantine Iconoclasm has its own article. --Thi (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose the term may be obscure but iconclastic beliefs and actions have been very common and significant throughout history. The destruction of Palmyra by ISIS and the Bamiyan Buddhist statues by Taliban are two recent istances of iconoclasm though it spans many cultures and religions.  Gizza  (talk • voy) 02:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Iconoclastic tendencies in both Christianity and Islam have driven their histories for tendencies, and were also at the heart of many political events. Dimadick (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose essentially on same reasoning as those above. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Neutral


 * Discuss

Remove Crypt
Detail of historical church architecture, probably not necessary at this level.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 07:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Agreed, too niche of a subject for this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, already have Cemetery at this level, which is death-locale enough. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Interstellarity (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Dawid2009 (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove Eleusinian Mysteries
This seems to be a weak article in this category. Not sure why it is included. Interstellarity (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Nom.
 * 2) Support. Don’t even have bar mitzvah at this level, why have a ritual no longer even existing? Hyperbolick (talk) 02:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Dawid2009 (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support If you want it this way. --Thi (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose They are among the best known and longest-lived Greco-Roman mysteries. I would place their importance above any of the Abrahamic religions. Dimadick (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Neutral


 * Discuss

Remove Chimera (mythology) and Garuda
We're still well over quota in the religion section so something has to go. Including the general article, we currently have 22 articles in the mythological creatures section and that's just too many. These are the two most obscure mythological creatures we currently list at this level. They would fit better down at level 5.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom. way too over quota. GuzzyG (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support removing at this level. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Interstellarity (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Chimera Dawid2009 (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Tenative oppose for Garuda, not Chimera. I think this one historically had too big impact on heritage in Dharma religons and not only. We can find that creature in National coat of arms of Thailand and National Coat of arms of Indonesia. Personally I think there are few other articles in section religion which are less important or have too much overlap and could go (additionally, 64 languages for ancient Eastern topic is plenty, note this is already more than for example Avalokiteśvara does). If in next/couple days someone give more rationales for removal then I will maybe reconsider it more but for now I am oppose because would like to see what other think. Dawid2009 (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Chimera has impacted modern languages, as its name has come to mean "anything composed of very disparate parts, or perceived as wildly imaginative, implausible, or dazzling." Dimadick (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Swap: remove Shangri-La, add Paradise
Shangri-La is not as famous concept as other listed mythological places. It is a fictional place described in the 1933 novel Lost Horizon by James Hilton and it is later used in popular culture. "Shangri-La is often used in a context similar to "Garden of Eden," to represent a paradise hidden from modern man." Paradise has longer history in art and literature. It is well-known religious concept used in many different cultures beginning from ancient Sumer. 


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Especially given nonmythological roots. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Paradise is a key concept in depictions of the afterlife, and figures often in eschatology. Dimadick (talk) 09:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Paradise is the more general concept.-- Laukku  TheGreit  (Talk•Contribs) 10:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Completely non-notable thing vs a super notable concept. Easy. GuzzyG (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - Interstellarity (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove Mad (magazine)
We have way too many articles at this level. We should try to remove less important articles to make room for more important articles. Interstellarity (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Interstellarity (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Not as influential and vital to know now as it was in 1950s. --Thi (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - magazines are over-represented relative to other media currently. Gizza  (talk • voy) 08:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Per nom Dawid2009 (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Neutral


 * Discuss

Swap: Remove Toad, Add True toad
Toad is not a scientific taxon. If we are going to list this group of frogs, we should list the actual family, not a colloquial term.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom. Gizza  (talk • voy) 02:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, if it makes sense do it. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Interstellarity (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove Scientist
We have way too many articles at this level. We should try to remove less important articles to make room for more important articles. Interstellarity (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Nom. Interstellarity (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. This is more of a dictionary term than an encyclopedia article topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per above comments -- Zelkia1101 (talk)  19:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support the consensus. --Thi (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 5)  Support I generally too much agree with Carlwev's comment here. Such generic/technical articles can go when we are over quota. Level 5 should be sufficient for that stuff. Even is some of their parent topics are listed on the level 1 or 2.
 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Elon Musk
Musk’s legacy is secure because of his contributions to space. Interstellarity (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support nom - Interstellarity
 * 2) Support. Looking over the people we currently list in this section, I think Musk is at least on par with if not above a few of them in terms of vitality. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support a preeminent modern-day businessman with investments in disparate projects and fields. The diversity of his portfolio and his ambitions, as well as his mass popularity, merit his inclusion to this list --Zelkia1101 (talk) 04:31, 20 April 2021‎ (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose No more alive people under 50 atleast should be added here, athletes (whose career is normally over by then and you can tell) are the only semi acceptable exception in my opinion. Musk does not stand significantly above Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos or Sergey Brin/Larry Page. His rocket contributions are low in comparison to Robert H. Goddard and Konstantin Tsiolkovsky and his overall American space notoriety does not outdo Buzz Aldrin or John Glenn. His automobile contributions do not stand significantly above Gottlieb Daimler, Wilhelm Maybach, Ferruccio Lamborghini or Enzo Ferrari. His involvement with PayPal does not match up to Satoshi Nakamoto and Bitcoin. So he has competitors, equals and people above him in business, automobiles, finance, rockets and space - all his main areas. There's no harm in waiting a decade or two here and waiting to see if his legacy matches up to or surpasses some of these people - we need to have perspective here - even if things might seem heading a certain way. We can't have every big celebrity name today when we miss so many similar historical people whose legacy has already lasted. GuzzyG (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Notable option, but his legacy is not sure yet. --Thi (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - easily another 20-30 people in business that are more vital. Per Guzzy. Gizza  (talk • voy) 06:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral
 * 1) Hmmmm. Would prefer to wait 10-15 years to see if many nascent irons in the fire pan out or flop. Privately gets us to Mars, then hell yeah Hyperbolick (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Add Paul Krugman
A noticeable miss from this list. We need someone to represent post-Keynesian international trade theory and international economics, which none of the current economists represent. Krugman is likely one of the most recognized living economists, and his influence extends beyond his work in the field. He is also a prolific social commentator and critic. We could use a representative of the New Keynesians, and Krugman is seen in many ways to be Keynes's successor.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom  Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Support  If nothing else, Krugman is one of the most vocal critics of several current economic theories because of their lack of "predictive power", and their overreliance on hypotheses which are consistently contradicted by empirical data. He has had an impact on the field. Dimadick (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. There's no way he's vital to list at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose From now on, i'm opposing most living people not named Xi Jinping or Mark Zuckerberg, he should not be one of the only living intellectuals on this list (he doesn't stand with Chomsky). Living people need time after they die for their legacy to settle in place. Once i clean up level 5 from it's mess eventually, there should be no place on this list for most living people, as their legacy isn't as clear as many others we miss. We should be extremely strict here regarding living people. GuzzyG (talk) 07:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Several other contemporary figures are at the same level of notability. --Thi (talk) 08:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose not particularly well known outside a handful of countries. Not studied in economics classes around the world at any level. Just one of many contemporary writers. Gizza  (talk • voy) 06:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Add Josephus
One of the most important of the ancient historians, especially regarding Jewish history, will probably be permanently remembered/important to history because of his mention of Jesus, documented with it's own article, Josephus on Jesus. This would be a good add to spread out our coverage of intellectuals.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Support His book The Jewish War is one of the main sources of the First Jewish–Roman War, and the only one of the available sources which was written by a veteran of the war. His Antiquities of the Jews is the best known source on Jewish history in classical antiquity. It also covers aspects of the history of the Hellenistic states, Parthia, Armenia, the Nabatean kingdom, and the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire. The popular medieval chronicle Josippon cited Josephus as its main source. Dimadick (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 03:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support key figure in the historiography of Jesus -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2021‎ (UTC)
 * 5) --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Swap: remove Krum and Ivan Asen II, add Simeon I of Bulgaria
Three Bulgarian rulers from the same era is too much. "Simeon's successful campaigns... led Bulgaria to its greatest territorial expansion ever, making it the most powerful state in contemporary Eastern and Southeast Europe. His reign was also a period of unmatched cultural prosperity and enlightenment later deemed the Golden Age of Bulgarian culture." Krum was a ruler from the early stage of Bulgaria and Ivan Asen from the later era. "Ivan Asen's reign 'ended at a moment of complete disaster', during the Mongol invasion of Europe... The minority of Ivan Asen's successor gave rise to the formation of boyar factions and the neighboring powers quickly conquered the peripheral territories."


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Krum was an expansionist who doubled Bulgaria's territories.: "spreading from the middle Danube to the Dnieper and from Odrin to the Tatra Mountains." His victories over the Pannonian Avars is what drove the Avars to became clients of the Carolingian Empire. By 829, the Avar state had collapsed. His victories over the Byzantine Empire destabilized it, and caused the downfall of the short-lived Nikephorian dynasty. His centralization efforts and legislation are credited with stabilizing the First Bulgarian Empire: "Khan Krum implemented legal reforms and issued the first known written law code of Bulgaria that established equal rules for all peoples living within the country's boundaries, intending to reduce poverty and to strengthen the social ties in his vastly enlarged state. " . Dimadick (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Add Xi Jinping
Considering the impact Xi has made on Chinese politics, in previous discussions many users raised concerns about recentism there, but I think that no longer applies anymore since his ideas are in the Chinese constitution. Interstellarity (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support nom. - Interstellarity
 * 2) Support China is predicted to be a superpower this century, as well some some predicting a Chinese Century. All signs point to Xi Jinping being the dominant Chinese 21st century politician, his thoughts are into the constitution and he has a big cult of personality in that we have a article on it. For this to be the case in one of the major powers with the biggest population, it means he has a big influence. The Belt and Road Initiative give's China and Xi massive international influence. All of this combined gets him onto the list imo and fits more with other major 21st century leaders we list like Vladimir Putin, Angela Merkel, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. Russia is not predicted to dominate this century and Putin is arguably below Xi in influence. There's no way he doesn't fit on this list and "recentism" concerns for him are irrelevant when we list currently still playing LeBron James. GuzzyG (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Dimadick (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support the most prominent leader since Mao and Deng. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 00:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support One of the world's most powerful statesman, and one who has had a profound influence on his country's politics and economy -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 04:43, 20 April 2021‎ (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Pope Francis
I also understand this has been discussed before six years ago. There were points there that it is too soon to add about his influence compared to Benedict XVI. I would put Francis above Benedict in this case. I also think recentism no longer applies since Francis has taken a liberal approach compared to previous popes. Interstellarity (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support nom. - Interstellarity


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose He may be ahead of largely irrelevant Benedict XVI, but considering recent popes; i wouldn't put Francis past Pope Leo XIII, Pope Paul VI or Pope Pius XII. That's without considering the long, long history of popes. Jean Parisot de Valette would be much more interesting (and cover something we lack). We could cover religions we don't with Mani (prophet), we could cover American figures responsible for conservative evangelical Christianity like Oral Roberts or Jerry Falwell Sr., founders of other forms of Christianity like Richard Allen (bishop), George Fox, Charles Wesley, Menno Simons, or Sun Myung Moon, important figures in other forms like Michael I Cerularius, Joseph Franklin Rutherford, Brigham Young, or Emanuel Swedenborg, important saints of Christianity like Óscar Romero, John Henry Newman, Mary MacKillop, Thérèse of Lisieux, Thomas Becket and Father Damien, figures of new movements of Islam like Mirza Ghulam Ahmad or figures of Islam like Muhammad Abduh, Jamāl al-Dīn al-Afghānī, Abdul Basit 'Abd us-Samad, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Al-Ash'ari, more modern figures of Judaism - which we lack like - Menachem Mendel Schneerson, Shneur Zalman of Liadi, Samson Raphael Hirsch, Abraham Isaac Kook, more Buddhist figures like Jinul, Buddhadasa or Shunryū Suzuki, more Hindu figures like Swaminarayan which we lack, any of the main new religious movements leaders like Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Marie Laveau, Elijah Muhammad, Anton LaVey, L. Ron Hubbard or Gerald Gardner (Wiccan) or heck even one cult leader like Jim Jones. These are all dead figures, with their legacy secure in their area. Much, much better choices than the active pope with no legacy in religion yet. Religion isn't just 21st century popes, we should prioritize covering many angles of it going by century and movement/religion - as such, these would all be much better to fully cover religion than Francis. GuzzyG (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose While widely seen as more liberal than his predecessors and credited for appointing women in "positions that were only held by men in the past", Francis has not made any major changes yet. The Catholic Church had its last major reforms in the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). Dimadick (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Dimadick. My personal choice for an addition would be History of the papacy. --Thi (talk) 07:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Add Robert H. Goddard
He's "credited with creating and building the world's first liquid-fueled rocket" and "Goddard's work as both theorist and engineer anticipated many of the developments that would make spaceflight possible. He has been called the man who ushered in the Space Age" and "his 1919 monograph A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes is considered one of the classic texts of 20th-century rocket science" and he has a NASA center named after him Goddard Space Flight Center. With him and Wernher von Braun, we would list both main rocket pioneers - considering space will probably be at the forefront of this century i don't see how it isn't vital to cover them both. Pioneering rockets is more of a secure legacy than either Alec Guinness or Michel Platini have, both of whom we list. Will still be significant aslong as spaceflight is.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Support because of influence. --Thi (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Dimadick (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support as per above. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

add Mount Pelée
Second largest eruption of voulcan in history of world. Physical geographu is underrepresented. Perhaps voulcans and waterfalls are two fields the most underrepresented at this level.


 * Support
 * 1) As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. --Spaced about (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support it's reasonable to boost our numbers of physical geography articles. They're a major part of traditional encyclopedias and Wikipedia has been relatively weak in their coverage, both in terms of listing here and their general quality. Gizza  (talk • voy) 00:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Carlwev </b> 16:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose

I'm thinking about Pelée. On the VEI Pelée was a 4. Measured by death toll Pelée is third behind Tambora and Krakatoa. Off topic but.... Krakatoa and Tambora are measured VEI at 6 and 7. We list Krakatoa, I thought of suggesting Mount Tambora a while back, it is both the biggest volcano eruption in explosive power (only nuber 7) and death toll (70,000-250,000) in recorded history, and lead to Year Without a Summer. It is generally said Krakatoa is more famous due to world telecommunication having reached the point where the news made it around the world as a world news headline that was not the case for Tambora. I am also interested in Toba catastrophe theory, but it's not universally agreed upon. <b style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl</b><b style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev </b> 15:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * Yes, this is true. According to List of volcanic eruptions by death toll actually Pelee is 3rd, Krakatoa is 2nd and Tabora is 1st. The only reason why I missed Tabora is fact that source based on which I made nomination (whithout checking it) was not quite reliable (small ecncyclopedia which I have in my home mention Pelee after Krakatao, not sure why but nvm anyway). I could support Tambora because of IMHO 250 k deaths in such span for me is enough; I am also ambivalent about having overlap beetwen War on terror and September 11 attacks as I am not sure how events like September 11 attacks or 2020 Beirut explosion (also overlaped with COVID for economy of the country at all) should be compared toGreat Chinese Famine which was recently failed. I would also support foundamental to knowlage (mountain is level 3 article) topics like "moutain pass", "moutain peak", "triangulation", etc. because of having so plenty specific moutains ahead of those basic topics (without which we could not know what is e g Topographic prominence) is like having plenty specific cities ahead of city, town etc., or to use other comprasion: Robert Waldow ahead of "Human Height" (maybe apples and oranges but I only try provide my point). Tambora maybe is not comparable to Mount Everest which influenced Flag of Nepal but worth consideration to be included here if we have Vesuvius and others Dawid2009 (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Remove A Season in Hell
Rimbaud is listed in authors. Duino Elegies represents poetic works from continental Europe.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom.  Gizza  (talk • voy) 23:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Interstellarity (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support removing at this level. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Printmaking
Central topic in visual arts. Engraving is listed but it is only one technique of printmaking.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Support It has had a long history as a medium. A number of significant artists, such as Albrecht Dürer and Hokusai, are primarily known for their prints. Dimadick (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - more suitable for this list than many of the artworks listed. Gizza  (talk • voy) 00:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Weakish support, but will Engraving need removal? Hyperbolick (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Skill
Learning is a level-3 article, so this should be level-4. Behavior and Preference also seem debatable, but I'm not going to nominate them at the moment.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. w umbolo   ^^^  19:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Tentative support. It carries a wibbly-wobbly dictionary-like feel for it, but it definitely needs attention, and unlike businessperson I think it could be made a FA. Suppose it's the kind of thing which is either at VA2 or lingers in a dirty unknown corner that isn't even level 5.  J  947 &thinsp;(c) , at 10:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak support Dawid2009 (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Support It is a vital topic. There is enough material to create a featured article; it has several subarticles like soft skills, hard skills, labor skills. --11:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC) <-- this support vote was added by me yesterday, something went wrong with the signature. --Spaced about (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Five tildes gives the date only (02:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)); three gives the signature only ( J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at ), and four gives the proper one:  J  947 &thinsp;(c)  , at  02:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, and over Craft, for is that not just a thing made with a skill? Hyperbolick (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. I think Craft would be a better choice to add. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Learning is at the level 3, because of knowledge is at the level 2. Preference is not listedd because of Hobby is at the level 5. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * what does preference have to do with hobby? w umbolo   ^^^  11:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Remove Looney Tunes
We have way too many articles at this level. We should try to remove less important articles to make room for more important articles. Interstellarity (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Interstellarity (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Support In a compilation of the 10,000 most necessary articles on English Wikipedia, I don't think that Looney Tunes is one that we should list -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Probably not so vital nowadays. --Thi (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Influential film series. Per the main article: 4 of its films were inducted into National Film Registry, 5 of its films won the Academy Award for Best Short Subject (Cartoon), and 11 of its films were nominated for the same Award. Animation is already underrepresented in the Vital articles. Dimadick (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I think it's too culturally important to remove. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, more historic and influential than much other pop culture. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Neutral


 * Discuss

Add Cesare Beccaria
"Widely considered one of the greatest thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment. He is well remembered for his treatise On Crimes and Punishments (1764), which condemned torture and the death penalty, and was a founding work in the field of penology and the Classical School of criminology. Beccaria is considered the father of modern criminal law and the father of criminal justice." "Beccaria’s book, Dei delitti e delle pene (1764), translated into English as On Crimes and Punishments (1767), significantly shaped the views of American revolutionaries and lawmakers." 


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Several of Beccaria's then-innovative principles concerning punishment for crimes, have shaped centuries of legal thought: "Punishment has a preventive (deterrent), not a retributive, function.", "Punishment should be proportionate to the crime committed.", "A high probability of punishment, not its severity, would achieve a preventive effect.", "Procedures of criminal convictions should be public.", "Finally, in order to be effective, punishment should be prompt." We also mention Beccaria as one of the writers who influenced Jeremy Bentham in founding the modern version of Utilitarianism. Dimadick (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support excellently reasoned argument. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support We so under cover law compared to things like Psychology and others so support. GuzzyG (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Donald Trump
I realize this may be extremely controversial, but Trump's tenure has defined an era in American politics and changed it significantly for better or worse, and prior to that he was a prominent celebrity-businessman. He's one of the few individuals who has his own WikiProject, and while there's the question of recency bias I doubt his legacy will be easily removed/escaped (Trumpism is here to stay for the time being). The main issue I see with this is that we'd have three consecutive presidents (Bush II-Obama-Trump) on this list, but as said above I support removing George W. Bush. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) as per the nomination. I disagree that he is "a key figure in the rise of the far right in the United States", and even if he was that does not make him less vital. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. For better or for worse, Trump's presidency was unique in so many different ways that I think it vital to list his article at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support had a big impact on how he see politics/politians in the 21st century.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 22:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Sadly influential p  b  p  19:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Support With his major influence on the culture of the Republican Party and the US in general it's clear that he is significant because of how he has influenced politics PBZE (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Heavily influential on United States and global politics. Ardenter (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) Support; he's been extremely influential. Also a very prominent businessman besides the last few years.  J947 's public account 21:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose While I think that Trump is a key figure in the rise of the far right in the United States, I am far from certain that he has had a global impact. What wars has he fought, what international organizations has he helped form, how has he impacted life in Europe or in Africa? 16:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)
 * He is influential in the opposite direction, withdrawing from such treaties as the Paris climate accord and the TPP and attempting to withdraw from the WHO. While most of his foreign policy has been/will be reversed by Biden, he is emblematic of the rise of such populist movements across the globe as Brexit, even if they, like those in the US, predate him. Even with those concerns, Trump's impact in the US, consistent with his "America First" policies, is sufficient to secure him on this list IMO. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose General article about far right (Radical right (United States)) is not at this level, Republican Party (United States) is. --Thi (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Will probably end up portrayed as the American Nero in history and thus ~could~ be one of the ones still in the minds of people in a couple of centuries (because of the intrigue), but his policies did not have high impact and he could go the route of Gerald Ford too. Either way - he has no hard legacy today that ties him to a time period or long term history (like Bush does with the war on terror or Obama with his symbolic victory) and thus shouldn't be on this list. Xi Jinping would have to be added first out of current world leaders, surely... GuzzyG (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree with wait and see, and currently oppose the addition.  I would have supported this 2 years ago, and will probably support this in 20 years, but am not so sure today.  Right now I think we'd be better off adding Boris Johnson. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 00:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Discuss
 * Wait and see. Ambivalent about this as things stand. Wait and see if influence carries on to the next election. Seems increasingly inevitable that 2024 will become a Trump–Biden rematch. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Swap: remove The Call of the Wild, Add Vanity Fair (novel)
Jack London is listed in People, William Makepeace Thackeray is not. Thackeray's main work is Vanity Fair, which has been adapted many times for the film and television. "The rich movement and colour of this panorama of early 19th-century society make Vanity Fair Thackeray’s greatest achievement; the narrative skill, subtle characterization, and descriptive power make it one of the outstanding novels of its period." (Britannica)  Becky Sharp has been considered one of the most vivid characters in English literature.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Support addition --Spaced about (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Support addition <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;"> // Timothy ::  talk  05:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose removal --Spaced about (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Strongly Oppose Removal <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;"> // Timothy ::  talk  05:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Add Sidewalk, Bicycle infrastructure, and Intersection (road)
I looked through the Road Transport subsection for this level and level 5 (where I made edits directly), and I noticed that there's a bit too much focus on vehicles as opposed to infrastructure. On a gut level, given that we include such more minor vehicles as Rickshaw, Van, Aerial tramway, and Chariot at this level, I think it makes sense to include equivalently important infrastructure as well. For context, we list Road, Bridge, and Infrastructure itself at level 3. Regarding my specific proposals: - Sdkb (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sidewalk: They're used throughout the world by pedestrians in cities. We already list Trail (an unpaved road) here at level 4.
 * Intersection (road): Every road in a place that's not extremely remote will have tons of intersections, which makes them an important part of road transport. Wikipedia has a more general article, Road junction, which covers both intersections and highway interchanges, but since highway interchanges are so much less common, I think it'd be best to leave the road junction/interchange articles for level 5. There are also some features of intersections that I think deserve to be at level 5 (e.g. Pedestrian crossing, traffic light), and listing intersections here will help justify room for them there.
 * Bicycle infrastructure: This article covers bike lanes, bike paths, bike racks, and all the other infrastructure used by the many millions of people who travel by bicycle worldwide. For context, we list Bicycle at level 3.


 * Support
 * 1) Support all three as nominator. Sdkb (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * One other thing to note: in other areas of infrastructure, we currently list at level 4 pages like sanitary sewer (separate from also-listed sanitation and sewage treatment), water tower, and electric power distribution (separate from also-listed electric grid and electric power transmission). Are those really any more vital? Sdkb (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Support per nom. I could imagine pedestrian crossing at level 4 as well. --Spaced about (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Support for sidewalk, think that's structurally distinct from a footpath. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Weak oppose all three Sidewalk. Can expand on my !vote if asked.  J  947 &thinsp;(c) , at 04:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be curious to hear your thoughts and discuss more if you are potentially open to persuasion, since this is a proposal I'd very much like to see passed. Everyday infrastructure tends to get taken for granted despite its importance, which has led to what I see as a very real imbalance with vehicles, which are more noticeable. I'd also argue that my suggestions are at least as vital as articles we already list here like Lock (water navigation). Sdkb (talk) 08:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've kind of taken a break from Wikipedia but I'll respond to this. Footpath is broader than Sidewalk and probably deserves to be listed. On reflection I'm unsure on the latter two, cycling infrastructure being a bit dictionary-like and intersection being perhaps unimportant, however common it is. I don't think Lock should be listed, so I'd be happy with a swap of Lock for Footpath.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at 03:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There's some complexity around pedestrian pathways given geographical language variation. Going by the article hatnotes, footpath is only for paths not next to a road, whereas sidewalk is only for those that are by a road. Footpath seems to overlap a lot with trail, which we list, so I'm not sure it's necessary at VA4. Sdkb (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't read the footnote and thought it covered sidewalk. Still think sidewalk is covered by trail however.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at 01:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose on the latter two. Weak oppose on Sidewalk, seems more like lv 5. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose now. Looks like they belong to Level 5, although cycling infrastructure projects are nowadays common topic in city planning discussions. --Thi (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. We're over quota here and these are better at level 5. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Discuss