Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive 7

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

Pinging everybody who's edited this area a bit. ,, , , , and ; what do you all think? Are there any areas or really important musicians we are missing in areas of music you know best? you know alot about opera from what i've seen, is there anyone missing that jumps out of the 50 i've chosen? Pauline Viardot and Giovanni Matteo Mario seem to be the two biggest misses to me. Anyway i'm happy for any constructive criticism as this section is pretty much complete in my eyes and if we were the Britannica/a print book, our first section ready to publish, what do all of you think? GuzzyG (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not very familiar with music, so I can speak mainly through the prism of WikiProject Poland contributor, and note that Polish presence in this list seems to be limited to a single entry (Chopin, also at lv 4). No other names mentioned in the lead of Music of Poland are included here. Witold Lutosławski and Krzysztof Penderecki should be added, and likely Karol Szymanowski and Henryk Górecki. Ignacy Jan Paderewski should be included in either this or the politician list. I really can't comment on pop music since I simply don't listen to Polish one much, but I would ask if you have went over the names mention in lead of this article (and other Music in Foo Country articles) and considered them? Polish section in pop-culture right now lists Marek Grechuta and Czesław Niemen, I'll note that Niemien is mentioned in the MoP article, but not in the lead, and Grechuta is not mentioned at all. I'd ping an expert on Polish music but I don't know any, uh, maybe User:Nihil novi or User:Volunteer Marek could say something, but that's a long shot :) Based on just the Polish case, I am afraid the current version may suffer from WP:SYSTEMICBIAS (through a quick glance at J-pop and K-pop does suggest to me it's ok, through I'd propose adding Yoko Kanno to J-pop list). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * First i just want to say that there's no systematic bias here and i've just found swaps for every suggestion of yours; i've tried to include every kind of non-western art music and instrument i can, Chinese opera, every foreign language i can among others; unless you mean towards pop and rock music compared to classical but on the level 3 list we list a 20th century pop and rock musician but no 20th century classical musician; 20th century classical music just hasn't had the same impact on culture and should be limited in comparison. I didn't add the pianists and i thought Ignacy Jan Paderewski was in politicians, i planned to add Karol Szymanowski but somehow forgot him, we listed Ichirou Mizuki for anime composition, so that area wasn't missing. added Marek Grechuta and he's Polish. Poland isn't a country known for it's pop music and i think 2 is enough; my method of adding people is clicking through every single article in wikipedias categories and reading them and adding them to my  massive excel sheet that compares things like pageviews, pageedits, wikidata languages, google ngrams and scholar hits, worldcat hits, new york times mentions, if they have a britannica article and so on etc. it's a big process and it's not based on subjective feelings. realistically the area we're limited the most in foreign languages is Arabic music; but we just don't have the quota for it; i've always said we should've had a 25k quota; but people thought it's not possible to add that much. it is; there's so many different cultures not covered. Every country probably has 5 composers that they could list like you did; we can't realistically list them all. GuzzyG (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I am not insisting they are added, but I did want to mention them, through that said I really think Witold Lutosławski (FA, described in the lead as "one of the major European composers of the 20th century, and one of the preeminent Polish musicians during his last three decades") and Krzysztof Penderecki (from the lead: " The Guardian has called him Poland's greatest living composer") should go in - could you comment on why they didn't make the final cut? PS. Your method of calculating the entries is very interesting, would you consider sharing your excel with us? Ideally I'd suggest it it something that could be worked on collaboratively in google docs.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Jacek Kaczmarski and Ewa Demarczyk.  Volunteer Marek   04:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I lost my edit i spent 40 mins on in a edit conflict so it probably won't be as indepth but, i wanted to thank you for your suggestions, i found good swaps for them and they're a improvement; they missed the final cut because i didn't come across them in my search; which is extremely time consuming to go through every countries musicians and sometimes i make mistakes. I can't share my excel sheets because it's apart of a independent website and project i am working on; but i've provided evidence they exist before and i've shown a bit of my acting sheet on how indepth they are (look at the sheets at the bottom), i want to compete with sites like so i don't want to go indepth on my formula; which makes them pointless to reference here but i just wanted to mention that i do have some kind of method since i am the main contributor to these lists; this is what i want to do as a career; i track anyone from politicians to reality television contestants; i want to create my own biographical dictionary; so it requires me to examine nearly everyone. I'll swap our two listed Polish singers for Marek's two. Thanks again for both of your suggestions, they're a improvement to our list. GuzzyG (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Demarczyk is probably a good addition. As much as I like Kaczmarski personally, I am not sure if he is really famous compared to 'some others'. Might be useful to look at Poland in the Eurovision Song Contest for some ideas of what people listen to now. Demarczyk is, IMHO, a famous name in Poland, but her fame dates to few decades ago... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Kaczmarski is most definitely really famous. Also got Polonia Restiuta if I'm not mistaken.  Volunteer Marek   09:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Since we list so many male Polish composers; the pop music section should list Ewa Demarczyk and Edyta Górniak, what do you think? Both represent two different styles of popular singing and both represent different eras; so there's no overlap; i think they'd be perfect representations; we don't need men because we added all of the composers and they are all men. GuzzyG (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * With the repeated note that I don't consider myself an expert in the field of music, I do recognize both of those names and I think they could be included, so no objection (and I think both are more famous than JK). Through I don't think that gender bias is a factor for vital inclusion. (In fact, I'd suspect that in pop music females are more common than males anyway). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIHW Edyta Górniak IMO is better choice than Doda (singer) despite fact she is not mentioned in foo in Poland aeticle. Roksana Węgiel is now known in Poland as "The new Górniak". Dawid2009 (talk) 06:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Gorniak is a good choice.  Volunteer Marek   09:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Some other suggestions (I'm not familiar with the criteria here) - Jerzy Petersburski, Stanisław Grzesiuk, Fanny Gordon.  Volunteer Marek   09:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You have done an admirable job - thanks for all the great work! Just a few suggestions.


 * There are two tenors missing who rang among the very greatest: Fritz Wunderlich, generally regarded as the greatest German tenor, and Lauritz Melchior, almost universally regarded as the greatest heldentenor. Among sopranos, there is Victoria de los Angeles, voted the third greatest soprano of the recorded era in a BBC Music Magazine poll of critics a few years ago, and Lotte Lehmann, the great German soprano of the interwar period. And two legendary baritones of the post-war years, Tito Gobbi and Hans Hotter, are must-haves - next to Fischer-Dieskau, they are probably the most acclaimed baritones of the recorded era. Christa Ludwig is widely regarded as the greatest mezzo-soprano and should be included ahead of Cecilia Bartoli.


 * It is of course necessary to make room for them. While Renee Fleming and Anna Netrebko are among the leading sopranos of today, they do not enjoy the same critical reputation of others on this list. Beverly Sills and Jessye Norman, while celebrated in America, never quite attained that kind of international reputation either. Mario del Monaco was famous as the world's loudest tenor, but received much criticism for his lack of subtlety. Emma Calvé and Lily Pons, while great singers, are also probably not quite at this level of reputation - if a French soprano is wanted, Regine Crespin would be the strongest candidate. I don't think I would even include Kiri Te Kanawa, despite my bias as a New Zealander.


 * Carlos Kleiber, the legendary though reclusive conductor who topped a poll of his peers as the greatest conductor of all time a few years ago, is the omission that stands out when it comes to conductors. Nikolaus Harnoncourt and Sir John Eliot Gardiner (who both also polled highly in that poll) have had huge influence in promoting historically informed performance and also warrant inclusion, in my view. I would suggest Seiji Ozawa, Zubin Mehta and James Levine could make way for them - they are all famous conductors of recent times, but have had less of a wider influence on classical music.


 * Dinu Lipatti, despite his short life, is widely regarded as one of the greatest pianists of the 20th century. I would suggest swapping him for Garrick Ohlsson. Neljack (talk) 09:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Thanks for your help and suggestions too! so here's what i've done:


 * I have removed Garrick Ohlsson and added Dinu Lipatti


 * Removed James Levine/Eugene Ormandy/Zubin Mehta/Seiji Ozawa and added Carlos Kleiber/Nikolaus Harnoncourt/Pierre Monteux/John Eliot Gardiner


 * For singers i've removed Kiri Te Kanawa/Renée Fleming/Beverly Sills/Jessye Norman/Mario Del Monaco/Cecilia Bartoli/Emma Calvé/Lily Pons and added Fritz Wunderlich/Lauritz Melchior/Victoria de los Ángeles/Lotte Lehmann/Tito Gobbi/Christa Ludwig/Hans Hotter/Regine Crespin


 * I've kept Anna Netrebko because i think we should have two contemporary opera singers; a man and a woman preferably and we already have Jonas Kaufmann. Especially considering the popular music section has so many contemporary singers; two contemporary opera singers does not hurt in my opinion. I think we cover all main styles of singing now; is there anything still missing? GuzzyG (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks - that looks great! Monteux is a good add - he's more important that Ormandy and provides a representative of the French tradition. The only type of opera singer we don't have one of is a counter-tenor, but they are something of a niche voice type (and we have castrati, whose roles they often sing) so I'm not sure we need one. I can't see any glaring omissions of the top of my head - I think you've done a great job! Neljack (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! GuzzyG (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for compiling much of the list . There is a lot to go through. Had a quick look at the 'Non-English language popular music' section and it appears that the biggest European country lacking representation in that section is the Ukraine. It stands out as there are smaller ex-Soviet countries with representation. Vitas spent his childhood in Odessa but I wouldn't consider him to be a Ukrainian singer. Someone like Ani Lorak or Sofia Rotaru to a lesser extent, would be useful additions. At the expense of whom? Probably a Russian since Russia has the equal highest number of articles (equal with Korea but K-pop has overall is influential and popular in the Western and English-speaking world than modern Russian music). Gizza  (t)(c) 02:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I didn't add much of the Russian musicians but it appears that Joseph Kobzon, Leonid Utyosov and Alexander Vertinsky are all from the Ukraine aswell. I think Laskovyi Mai can be removed for Ani Lorak and we could find someone else for Sofia Rotaru; but i wanted to know if those three changed your mind a bit? Even though ofcourse we'd still need a modern/independent Ukraine singer. It seems our list covers all styles of Russian music pop, rock, rap, jazz, undergroud folk and punk which is why there's 20. Also do you agree with the changes to the artists quotas? I tried to make "non-western art" more representative and cut down photography by a lot, and cut down comics to make room for sculpture/architecture which has been more important longer. I'd appreciate any suggestions, thanks again. GuzzyG (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just updating; i've swapped Laskovyi Mai for Lorak. A modern Ukrainian singer was needed. GuzzyG (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am fairly sure that Brian Jones' article can be considered vital, given that he founded and named The Rolling Stones, one of the most successful bands of all time. GreatLakesShips (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Untitled

 * After a one minute read on the page, I noticed the Ancient part of non-European litterature is featuring a bunch of authors that are definitely post-classical. I must precise that the Ancient period finishes in 500 AD, and that every authors whose work was written after that date is post-classical. So, requesting for a consensus on what should be done with Zuhayr bin Abi Sulma (520-609) (consider the fact that he's pre-Islamic) ; Al-Farazdaq (641-728) ; Ibn al-Farid (1181-1234) ; Al-Hariri of Basra (1054-1122) ; Al-Ma'arri (973-1057) ; Abdallah ibn al-Mu'tazz (861-908) ; Al-Nabigha (535-604) (pre-islamic) ; Al-Akhtal al-Taghlibi (640-708) ; Abu al-Atahiya (748-828); Jarir ibn Atiyah (650-728) ; Bilhana (11th century); Buhturi (821-897); Badi' al-Zaman al-Hamadani (969-1007); Hanshan (poet) (unclear but the Tang dynasty under which he allegedly wrote started in 618); Liu Zongyuan (773-819); Kakinomoto no Hitomaro (653-710) ; Zhang Hu (poet) (792-853); Amr ibn Kulthum (526-584) (pre-islamic); Labīd (560-661) (kinda pre-islamic) ; Xu Ling (507-583) ; Ariwara no Narihara (825-880) ; Umar ibn Abi Rabi'ah (644-712) (kinda pre-islamic too) ; Antarah ibn Shaddad (pre-islamic) ; Abu Tammam (796-850) ; Han Wo (842-923) ; Yu Wuling (born in 810) ; Adi ibn Zayd (6th century) (I assume he's pre-islamic).
 * Wikipedia page Ancient history says "The span of recorded history is roughly 5,000 years, beginning with the Sumerian cuneiform script, with the oldest coherent texts from about 2600 BC.[2] Ancient history covers all continents inhabited by humans in the period 3000 BC – AD 500."
 * My position is : either expand the post-classical authors number, or remove the ones outside the boundaries of ancient history. I can see at the very most the pre-islamic arab authors stay in this category, but I'm afraid all the others will have to go. And I'm afraid this is not a lonely problem. Larrayal (talk) 06:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So, I just moved everyone that was listed ancient that was born after 500 to post-classical. Whether we just leave it like this or not is up to you guys. Saturdayopen (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Canadian PMs
Considering the other full sets we have of various other types of political leaders, I've went ahead and added most of the remaining PMs from 1900 onwards, the exceptions being those in the 1890s who served very brief terms. Any objections? p b  p  13:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am in general support of your idea, however I propose we remove the very short-term prime ministers (e.g. Kim Campbell) and replace them with other Canadian politicians of great significance, for example Rene Levesque and George-Etienne Cartier are fairly obvious additions; but we could expand the discussion to include people like Nellie McClung, Peter Lougheed, and Vincent Massey. NorthernFalcon (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Pre-1911 Politicians Without 1911 Britannica articles, selected countries
An * denotes still politicking in 1911. Source.

Germany, Austria, HRE	Sophie, Countess of Bar; Bernard VII, Lord of Lippe; William IV, Princely count of Henneberg-Schleusingen; Albert Frederick, Duke of Prussia; Friedrich Günther, Prince of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt
 * US: Abigail Adams, Dolley Madison, Martha Washington, Peter Burnett, Joseph Gurney Cannon*, William R. King, Benjamin Tillman*, William Tweed
 * UK/Britain: John Balliol, Diarmait mac Cerbaill, Constantine III of Scotland, Cunedda, Domnall mac Ailpín, Ælfweard of Wessex, Spencer Compton, 1st Earl of Wilmington, Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale, Mary of Teck*
 * Canada: All listed
 * Australia: Lachlan Macquarie, Arthur Phillip, Edmund Barton, Alfred Deakin, Chris Watson, George Reid, Andrew Fisher (only two pre-1911 figures listed)
 * New Zealand: Te Kooti
 * Rome: Constantius II, Romulus Augustus
 * Greece Gorgo
 * France Chlotar II, Pepin of Herstal, Pepin the Short, Rollo, Anne of Austria, Louis Antoine, Duke of Angoulême

You ask, "Why these countries?" I'm operating on the fact that Britannica 1911 disproportionately covered British, European, American and Commonwealth topics, and therefore, being absent as a politician from those countries would be a particular indictment. p b  p  13:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Te Kooti sounds to me more like a religious figure than a politician. Perhaps it can be moved to that section? feminist (talk) 02:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Or maybe military given that he has a war named for him and the lead in his article discusses his involvement in that war more than anything else.--Cincotta1 (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Vincent van Gogh isn't covered either, should we remove him from the level 3 list? I mean if not being covered as a European is a disqualifier for level 5?, ignoring the fact that a "legacy" can be better documented after 100 years, or the fact women Martha Washington and indigenous leaders Te Kooti or figures from a country then without a established history like Australia who was only around 10 years old are going to be obviously missing and as such i don't think basing our modern list of a 100 year old source severely outdated with modern historiography is any improvement. GuzzyG (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Even though historiography has evolved since 1911, I believe the 1911 Britannica to be a mostly fair assessment of certain aspects of pre-1911 society. If you're a pre-1900 white male political leader who didn't make the 1911 Britanncia, that's no slight indictment.  Van Gogh isn't a great example because he hadn't been dead very long when the 1911 Britannica came out.  p  b  p  19:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't see any argument for keeping them, but I'd keep Martha Washington and Abigail Adams. Britannica of 1911 was very gender biased. Today they are seen as more influential then scholarship of 100 years ago would say. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm perfectly fine with keeping them p  b  p  15:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Tuvalu
So just to be clear; are we making it official that out of every country; Tuvalu in particular is the ONE official UN country that will not have a representative? Is there one super important senator we're missing? GuzzyG (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In all honestly, I wouldn't mind cutting more. Micro-states in general as a rule shouldn't have their representatives listed here unless they also had an impact internationally. Somewhere someone said that such states are smaller than neighbourhoods in big cities, and it is a point. Impact is relevant to vital inclusion. A mediocre hip hop artist or such will have much more impact than a president or such of a tiny island or city state. Of course, this can be discussed on a case by case basis. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You have an extremely limited/strict view of "vitality", the level 5 list is "vital" in name only, it was meant to be a representative coverage of pop culture topics and people who are popular now like PewDiePie because those articles are important to have written well as they are highly viewed and won't be covered by the level 4 list for decades., which means we cover alot of pop culture things like voice actors etc. We shouldn't dismiss microstates pop culture all because they're microstates. Choosing what people matter due to their population its wrong, it's absurd. This is also what's wrong with removals like Ana Kasparian we list commentators and we have a quota of 5 for web journalists, which other web journalist is more important than her? There's not 15k "strict vital" people. 2k is even pushing it. Laurence Fishburne may be more known than Mel Blanc or John Holmes for that matter but i'd rather cover the top 30 voice/porn actors than the 851st best actor, no matter what had the bigger impact, in that case we should list 15k philosophers and physicists. GuzzyG (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem with this approach, which does have some merit, is the usual 'where do we draw the border'. Paddy Roy Bates makes the cut, for example. What about the ~30 others from Category:Micronational leaders? Surely we won't include all of them...? Top 5? Top % of a category? Case by case basis. Show me the bio of that Tuvalu politician that may merit inclusion and I'll vote on it. But if there is nothing to it than to say 'he held this position for x years and had next to zero impact on anything we can identify', yeah, I'd rather add someone like Bates, because they had more impact, as in, for example, 'received international media coverage'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There are bigger countries with no representatives at the moment. We should focus on adding people from those countries than the smallest. If we're at 2290 articles (with a quota of 2300) and we can't find anyone else, we could re-add a leader from Tuvalu. A few months ago, there were more Oceanian modern political leaders than African and almost as many as South America. It's not as lopsided now as it was but even if the remaining quota goes to non-Oceania, it will be still feel a touch imbalanced, considering the number of countries, area, population, recorded history, etc. in each region of the world. Gizza  (t)(c) 07:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Paddy Roy Bates is listed in Misc under micronations and the two we list is enough; obviously porn and voice acting has had a larger impact than micronations and it is a case by case; section by section basis. Africa and South America are low unlike Asia because i haven't done them yet, it takes time. Obviously i believe every country should be listed, i just started with the easiest first (Oceania); this is the problems with these removals, i have a mapped out plan and people start nitpicking "why list Oceania when we dont have Africa etc" i cant operate when my quotas are being changed out from under me and made uneven. It messes up my mapped out process. GuzzyG (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd like to echo what DaGizza said. There are countries in Africa, as well as places like San Marino and Andorra, that have no representatives.  I'd also point out that many of these teeny-tiny nations lack some of the things that you associate with a country.  For example, many of the tiny Oceanian states are dependent on Australia, New Zealand or the United States for military defense.  Also, if we are at or near quota, I'd urge everyone to consider the removals I proposed above.  p  b  p  15:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We're 213 away from quota, so i don't see why we have to mass remove people, where are these 213 going to come from? Before a removal happens we should atleast know what for. 213 spaces and we can't cover a Tuvalu, Niue or Cook Islands person? GuzzyG (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am totally fine with adding more now. Later when we have the limit reached and we want to add more we can chat about replacing. That may be easier. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Post-1815 slant of Lv 5 politicians list?
The now-stable level 4 list contains 509 politicians of which 320 (62.9%) are from before 1815 and 189 (37.1%) are from after 1815. By contrast, the level 5 list contains 2192 politicians, of which 934 (42.6%) are from before 1815 and 1258 (57.4%) are from after 1815. Or, to put it another way, post-1815 politicians have increased 6.66-fold between Lvs 4 and 5, while pre-1815 politicians have only increased 2.92-fold. Are we too post-1815-heavy? p b  p  17:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure. Consider the fact that post-1815 human population is much bigger, which means more people (and topics in general) are notable. But most of them are on average less notable than old luminaries (and concepts). So it makes sense, in fact, that as progress to less and less vital lists, the proportion of post-1815 topics would increase. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There are two factors. As Piotrus says, one is that the human population of the world is higher post-1815 than pre-1815 and the other is that many parts of the world were not part of recorded history in ancient times. Having said that, while I agree that as the level goes higher, there will be more "recentism" in the list, the extent of the slant at the moment is still a little too high in my opinion. History is expected to be a well covered field in an encyclopedia. A ruler of an empire containing 5 million people a thousand years ago would have been much more influential than a president or prime minister of a country containing 30 million today. If you compare this list with a Britannica or another encyclopedia containing a similar number of biographies, my guess is that they would have more historical figures than us.
 * At the moment (and this is only one of many examples), we only have two Hittites, an important ancient civilisation. On the other hand, until recently we had three Palauans and even now we have two (one in political and one in revolutionaries). Comparing the two, the Hittites were around for much longer, had a larger population, and left a stronger legacy in terms of architecture, technology, art and literature. So yes, we have much more work to do with ancient historical figures. Gizza  (t)(c) 21:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's collaborate on identifying at least three more Hittites to add to the list. And we should probably also have more Carthaginians, more Roman Republic, and more Ancient Greece.  p  b  p  21:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Right now as an approximation, ancient leaders have expanded by 2.99x, post-classical (medieval) by 2.55, early modern by 3.11, and modern by 6.67. Within post-classical, Asia and Africa have both only roughly doubled even though Level 5 overall represents a fivefold increase, the biographies target has multiplied by 7.5 and target for political leaders by 4.52. Ancient leaders need expansion too but the areas I mentioned have the biggest need to grow (and to be frank, even the Level 4 political leader and bio list is too recentist for my liking but it gets exacerbated here). To take another example, we consider the civilization of Elam to be vital at Level 4 and its main city of Susa as a vital archeological site at Level 4, but before today there were no Elamite leaders. I get it that it's easier to find modern leaders and expecting a 7.5, 5.0 or 4.52 increase for older periods to keep it in line with L4 is asking too much for the reasons discussed above but it should be much more than it is now. Especially when many ancient kingdoms, empires and civilisations currently have a zero-fold increase. Gizza  (t)(c) 03:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I'd be satisfied if we could have a 3.5-fold increase. And we should probably change some of those zero-fold increases (0 to 0) to infinite-fold increase (0 to any positive number).  p  b  p  04:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Add Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq
Is there some sort of quota on how many politicians Pakistan can have? Because I find it really odd that both Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq are not on this list considering how important these guys are (the former leading the country following its disastrous defeat in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971/Bangladesh Liberation War; the latter whose almost decade rule funded the mujahideen in Afghanistan and made political Islam a major force in today's politics). Saturdayopen (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) As nom. Saturdayopen (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Add Ferhat Abbas and Ahmed Ben Bella
Unless there can only be two post-independent Algerian leaders, there is no justification for the omission of Abbas (who served as the political leader for the FLN during the Algerian War) and Ben Bella (who was the first full-fledged president of the country). Saturdayopen (talk) 05:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) As nom. Saturdayopen (talk) 05:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

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

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


 * Support
 * 1) Nominator. OnAcademyStreet (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) --ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) -- 05:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Marshall Field, add Tadashi Yanai
Yanai is the richest person in Japan and a pioneer in fast fashion, basically a modern-day Amancio Ortega. Since we are already over quota in this section, someone needs to be removed. We have multiple founders of department stores, and Marshall Field's namesake chain has been defunct since 2006. I am open to other suggestions for removals. feminist (talk) &#124; free Hong Kong 06:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As nominator. feminist (talk) &#124; free Hong Kong 06:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose

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

American slant of jurists list
Over half of the jurists on this list are American, and the list includes rather obscure Supreme Court justices and a lot of celebrity lawyers. If we decide to cut the size of bios, that would mean cutting ~20 jurists, and I think all 20 of the ones we cut should be American. p b  p  14:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's what i would've done if misc was cut by a couple 100 so we could add 100 to a much needed science and politics and religion expansion, but since every section can be cut 500 with the proposed cut to the size of bios, i agree with this, at that point the whole of misc can be cut down by a significant margin (i'd propose down to 500-600). Infact before the proposed cuts happen; i hope there's a discussion into what the sub quotas will be for each section, because ones like military & activists, religion, science and social science can't be cut by 500, which means bigger cuts will have to happen to sports, artists & musicians, writers & journalists, entertainers and maybe politicians. My 2cents would be not touching the science/religion quotas, because they're significantly under quota as is. I still think law figures should be under social science, for what it's worth too. GuzzyG (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Add David Chalmers
Made numerous influential contributions in philosophy of mind (see Hard problem of consciousness, Extended mind thesis). Alduin2000 (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As nom Alduin2000 (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Ernest Sosa
Influential epistemologist who introduced virtue epistemology to contemporary philosophy. Alduin2000 (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As nom Alduin2000 (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Linda Zagzebski
Influential epistemologist, especially for her work in virtue epistemology (Virtue responsibilism, The value problem) and the analysis of knowledge (Gettier cases). Alduin2000 (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As nom Alduin2000 (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Miranda Fricker
Made influential contributions to Feminist epistemology (see Epistemic injustice). Alduin2000 (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As nom Alduin2000 (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Paul Benacerraf
Made numerous influential contributions to philosophy of mathematics (see Benacerraf's identification problem, Benacerraf's epistemological problem). Alduin2000 (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As nom Alduin2000 (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Hartry Field
Influential in multiple fields in philosophy, especially philosophy of language and philosophy of mathematics (see Science Without Numbers, Mathematical fictionalism). Alduin2000 (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As nom Alduin2000 (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Penelope Maddy
Made numerous influential contributions to philosophy of mathematics (see Set-theoretic realism, mathematical naturalism, arguments against the Quine-Putnam indispensability argument). Alduin2000 (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As nom Alduin2000 (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

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


 * Support
 * 1) As nom   // Timothy ::  talk  18:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) --Makkool (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

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


 * Support
 * 1) As nom <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;">  // Timothy ::  talk  19:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Should be moved to political activists, instead of removing out-right. --Makkool (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) He is vital for "His scholarly work on the Constitution has been cited in two U.S. Supreme Court decisions and many decisions of the lower courts", and he is a professional historian who teachers Western civilization and American history, thus he should be kept in the historian subpage..--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Add Anne Applebaum
An influential historian of Soviet history, Stalinism and genocide. She has won numerous awards and honors and written several influential works, (Gulag: A History, Iron Curtain, Red Famine). Her works are notable for casting a light on Stalinist genocide and oppression and refuting Stalinist nostalgia and apologists. <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;"> // Timothy ::  talk  19:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As nom <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;">  // Timothy ::  talk  19:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) --Thi (talk) 09:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) --Makkool (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove James Bryce, 1st Viscount Bryce
Not notable as a historian, especially when compared to others on this list. Notable as a jurist, politician, aristocrat.


 * Support
 * 1) per nom. <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;">  // Timothy ::  talk  20:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Should be moved to jurists, instead of removing out-right. --Makkool (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

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


 * Support
 * 1) per nom. <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;">  // Timothy ::  talk  21:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Should be moved to art historians and critics, instead of removing out-right. --Makkool (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

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


 * Support
 * 1) per nom. <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;">  // Timothy ::  talk  21:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) --Makkool (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

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


 * Support
 * 1) per nom. <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;">  // Timothy ::  talk  21:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) --Makkool (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

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


 * Support
 * 1) per nom. <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;">  // Timothy ::  talk  22:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) --Makkool (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Yeah, Việt Nam sử lược has no influence at all. There's historians outside the west too, you know. GuzzyG (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Discuss

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


 * Support
 * 1) per nom. <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;">  // Timothy ::  talk  22:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Should be moved to religious people, instead of removing out-right. --Makkool (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

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


 * Support
 * 1) per nom. <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;">  // Timothy ::  talk  22:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Should be moved to art historians and critics, instead of removing out-right. --Makkool (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Move to art historians instead. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove Frank Popper
Better fit in Art historians, musicologists and critics section


 * Support
 * 1) per nom. <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;">  // Timothy ::  talk  22:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Should be moved to art historians and critics, instead of removing out-right. --Makkool (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove Arlene Raven
Better fit in Art historians, musicologists and critics section


 * Support
 * 1) per nom. <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;">  // Timothy ::  talk  22:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Should be moved to art historians and critics, instead of removing out-right. --Makkool (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove Bernard Smith (art historian)
Better fit in Art historians, musicologists and critics section


 * Support
 * 1) per nom. <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;">  // Timothy ::  talk  22:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Should be moved to art historians and critics, instead of removing out-right. --Makkool (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Hyperbolick (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Thoughts on Protestantism, Mormonism and "Other Christians"
p b  p  00:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) When looking at the 50 Protestant articles, 27 (54%) are American (which includes some people active in both the US and Canada), 9 (18%) are British, 6 (12%) are German, 5 (10%) come from elsewhere in Europe, and 3 (6%) come from elsewhere (one African and two Australians)
 * 2) 36% of the Protestant articles deal with people active in the 20th or 21st centuries, 20% from the 19th centuries, 14% from the 18th, 8% from the 17th, and 22% from before that
 * 3) When also including Mormons and "Other Christians", there are 64 articles, of which 38 (59.4%) are American, 9 (14.1%) are British, 6 (9.4%) are German, 6 (9.4%) are from elsewhere in Europe, 0 are Latin American, 1 (1.6%) is African, 2 (3.1%) are Asian and 2 (3.1%) are Australian
 * 4) 21 of the 64 articles are about people from the 20th or 21st centuries, 20 from the 19th, 8 from the 18th, 4 from the 17th and 11 from before that
 * 5) In general, I think it's too heavily weighted toward those of the Pentecostal and Evangelical persuasion.  My count gives us 15 from that persuasion, All but Brian Houston are American, all were active in the 20th or 21st centuries and five of them are still living.
 * 6) Of the Pentecostal/Evangelicals, I think the easiest cuts are Jim Bakker and Franklin Graham.  Jim Bakker has only four interwiki links; and his ex-wife is also on the list.  Franklin Graham's father is on the list.  I would also rate Paula White, John G. Lake and Brian Houston as not safely on this list.  None of those three has double-digit interwiki links; White and Houston also smack of recentism.
 * 7) I think it would be good idea to add back Alexander Campbell and John Dowie.  Both make appearances in the 1911 Britannica.  We don't have any representation of the Restoration Movement ("Stone-Campbell Movement") that spawned the Disciples of Christ and other Christian churches around the world.  Also, it seems strange to have John Lake (who was influenced by Dowie) but not Dowie himself.  Dawid mentioned William Wadé Harris above; that would be a solid option for a second African Protestant (or third if we keep Lake and consider his influence in Africa).
 * 8) On Mormonism, I think it's too heavily toward the early stuff, and should include at least one 20th or 21st century person to represent the faith's astronomical growth during that period.  Gordon Hinckley would be my suggestion, swapped out for either Hyrum Smith or Sidney Rigdon.
 * 9) In general, the list could do with less recentism and more internationalism

--Spaced about (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) I support removing Bakker, and oppose removing Graham because he is connected to Trump, he called him his minister. That makes him permanently vital, he might be mentioned in history books someday. Paula White is also tied to Trump: she was the first woman to read the invocation at his inauguration.
 * 2) I don't think we need anybody from the restoration movement, so I oppose Campbell and Dowie.
 * 3) Instead, I suggest adding Katharina von Bora, Luther's wife, petty German nobility, and ex Catholic nun. She influnced Protestant family life and was the first Christian woman to marry a Christian clergyman. Another option for addition is Dirk Willems, Dutch Anabaptist. Both 16th century.
 * 4) Mormonism already has too many representatives (in proportion to its membership), I wouldn't add anybody and remove both Hyrum Smith and Sidney Rigdon.
 * 5) Also, I see no reason to keep William M. Branham on the list as he doesn't clearly represent protestantism.
 * 6) An adequate section covering the charismatic movement is needed and many on the list are part of it, esp. the newer megachurch televangelists: Joel Osteen, Paula White, Brian Houston, Tammy Faye Messner. These are very influential because unlike in previous centuries they reach people directly worldwide via satellite and the internet and for the purposes of this list, their biographies can't easily be replaced by an invention or work of art or TV program. The rising Charismatic movement might explain why we have so many Pentecoastal Evangelicals on the list, because Charismatics are often classified as such or come from this background. We list about 100 videogames, so it would be justified to have room for them on the list. The charismatic movement is viewed as inter-denominational or non-denominational.
 * 7) In terms of international diversity we have German Bonhoeffer, Swiss Barth, Canadian Lake, Australian Flynn, British John Stott, and Australian Brian Houston. Possible additions I found are: Martyn Lloyd-Jones, a Brit, and Chris Oyakhilome, Nigerian televangelism phenomenon.
 * 8) For denominational diversity, maybe Robert Schuller has a case: Reformed, went to a Calvinist college, American, drive-in megachurch, pioneering televangelist (Hour of power).
 * I think there's a case for keeping either Franklin Graham OR Paula White, but I don't think we need both. If I may ask, why no to the Restoration movement?  Should I make the charismatic section a section separate from Protestantism?  If I do, should I retitle the residue "mainline" protestantism? I could get behind adding Bora and Willems if we find the room.  p  b  p  20:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Concerning room: William M. Branham is a controversial figure. I would take him off the list. The article, even though featured (recently), is misleading. He doesn't represent any denomination or movement within the Protestant church. We have no data on how large his followership still is, the article says (in the lead) they send out 2 million copies of material - that doesn't mean a thing. I have only limited trust in the rest of the article. He is widely considered a cult leader, portrayed as a prophet by his followers. Not a dangerous cult perhaps, but a cult, and that makes him not a good choice for a representative list of Protestant personalities. Sources that say he's a cult leader seem to have been ignored, maybe accidentally: Gomes, Alan W., Unmasking the Cults, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1995, page 26, confirms this view and is used in the lead in the corresponding German Wikipedia artcle, but not in the English article. The author, Alan Gomes, is affiliated with Biola University, so that's a reliable source. The English featured article names a piece by an author affiliated with Mercer University, also a reliable source, in the second sentence, to create the impression that there is a linear evolution from Branham to the charismatic movement, whose protagonists are not usually perceived as prophets. There are sources for that but I don't think that's the majority. This should be better reflected in the lead of the article. So, regardless of what our featured article says, I think Branham has no place on the list. --Spaced about (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I happen to live only a few miles from BIOLA, and while it is a university, it's one with a clear bent, and that bent is in favor of charismatic and fundamential Christianity (BIOLA is actually an acronym for "Bible Institute of Los Angeles", all students who attend are required to major or minor in Bible, and all teachers pledge to certain moral restrictions). If a BIOLA article is what's propping up his claim to influence, I'd agree that he can go.  p  b  p  18:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Abraham and Old Testament
Noting that "Abraham and other Old Testament figures are listed under Mythology and legend." under Judaism seems neither correct nor sensitive. Old Testament is a Christian term.--Jetam2 (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I changed it to: "Abraham and other figures from Judeo-Christian scripture are listed on the philosophy and religion subpage." Other options include "Tanakh" or "Hebrew bible". --10:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC) --Spaced about (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Would like to add another vote (or 10,000) for the truth of the Bible. Ham, Shem, and Japheth were as real as me and you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.109.83 (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that we are fictional characters? Nobody in the Book of Genesis ever existed, it is pure fiction. 07:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)

Remove Flag of Algeria
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Support The flag is just barely notable in its own right, let alone being vital. C933103 (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of Democratic Republic of the Congo
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Support The flag is just barely notable in its own right, let alone being vital. C933103 (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of Egypt
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Support The flag is just barely notable in its own right, let alone being vital. C933103 (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of Ethiopia
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Support The flag is just barely notable in its own right, let alone being vital. C933103 (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of Kenya
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Support The flag is just barely notable in its own right, let alone being vital. C933103 (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

RemoveFlag of Nigeria
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Support The flag is just barely notable in its own right, let alone being vital. C933103 (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of South Africa
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of Tanzania
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Support The flag is just barely notable in its own right, let alone being vital. C933103 (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of Bangladesh
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Support The flag is just barely notable in its own right, let alone being vital. C933103 (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of India
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of Indonesia
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Support The flag is just barely notable in its own right, let alone being vital. C933103 (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of Iran
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of Israel
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of Japan
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of Malaysia
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Support The flag is just barely notable in its own right, let alone being vital. C933103 (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of Myanmar
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Support The flag is just barely notable in its own right, let alone being vital. C933103 (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of Pakistan
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Support The flag is just barely notable in its own right, let alone being vital. C933103 (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of Philippines
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Support The flag is just barely notable in its own right, let alone being vital. C933103 (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of Saudi Arabia
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of South Korea
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of Taiwan
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of Thailand
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Support The flag is just barely notable in its own right, let alone being vital. C933103 (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of United Arab Emirates
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Support The flag is just barely notable in its own right, let alone being vital. C933103 (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of Vietnam
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Support The flag is just barely notable in its own right, especially with its design element being similar to many other communist flags, let alone being vital. C933103 (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of Russia
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Support The flag is a common tricolor flag with limited vitalness. C933103 (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of Turkey
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Support The flag is just standard star and crescent. C933103 (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of France
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of Germany
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of Italy
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Support The flag is a common tricolor flag with limited vitalness. C933103 (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of Netherlands
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Support The flag is a common tricolor flag with limited vitalness. C933103 (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of Poland
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Support The flag is a common bicolor flag with limited vitalness. C933103 (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of Spain
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of Ukraine
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Support The flag is a common bicolor flag with limited vitalness. C933103 (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of Canada
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of Mexico
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of United States
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of Australia
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Support The flag is a common Union Jack based flag design. C933103 (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of Argentina
Dawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Remove Flag of Brazil
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

RemoveFlag of Colombia
OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Support The flag is a common bicolor flag with limited vitalness. C933103 (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discuss

A bunch of basic science terms
I think we should add the following to Vital 5 (if not higher), but I am unsure what sections would be best, some kind of general section for sciences? (I will note that IMHO equivalent terms like Axiom, Paradigm, Hypothesis, Theory, Deductive reasoning are a V4 article in Philosophy; Experiment and Observation are V4 in Physics, Conjecture is V4 in Math, Academic journal is V4 in Society, Belief is V3 in Philosophy, Scientific method is V3 at Science). In V5 from the concepts I was reviewing I just found Academic publishing (V5 in Society). Some of what I propose below could go to Philosophy, but probably not all of it.The following are IMHO relevant concepts that should be V5. Some of those might warrant a discussion at V4 level.
 * Academic conference
 * Categorization
 * Discipline (academia)
 * Evidence
 * Falsifiability (Verification for science redirects there)
 * Generalization
 * Human subject research
 * Methodology
 * Operationalization
 * Peer review
 * Phenomenon
 * Prediction
 * Qualitative research
 * Quantitative research
 * Reproducibility
 * Research question
 * Scientific community
 * Survey (research)
 * Taxonomy (general)
 * Variable and attribute (research)

Separately, I will also list the concept of Clinical trial, as rather important, through not to all branches of science. That one can probably be added to medicine or health section or such. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I support adding these. Maybe the best place is Science - Basics? --Makkool (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would add most of them to science - basic (but not all). IMO all should be tenatively listed elsewhere when we are under quota, Scientific community surely is more vital than plenty listed bios on the level 5 and article like Peer review for nodoubtly deserve nomination to the level 4. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support the addition of all but some might be better put under specific subtopic? C933103 (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Star Trek
Add Star Trek. Not sure where to add as franchise as a whole is more significant than the work in any specific media. Show creator Gene Roddenberry is in under TV people, but media has far surpassed his involvement (compare, both George Lucas and Star Wars--specifically the franchise--included). Hyperbolick (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd support a swap of Star Trek the franchise for the fictional characters listed. BTW, fictional characters needs clean up: I tried to clean it up, but some of my proposals were archived.  p  b  p  22:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hadn't realized there were characters. Agree with that swap. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What is this discussion about? The article "Star Trek" is already listed in fact it's actually listed at level 4 under TV shows....The article is about the franchise in general, but it is listed under TV shows presumably because it was that first, and it is that most people associate it with being. If a general encyclopedia were to cover the topic, I think the general article about Star Trek would be the one it would list, and it would be the one most people would search for. I believe it would be silly to swap it for another, just so we can pigeon hole in comfortably in our existing lists in this case of other TV shows. Other franchises are listed at other places within level 4, for example Star Wars in movies is about the franchise not the first movie, and Pokemon is listed in videogames, is about the franchise as a whole not one specific game, I agree these articles are the ones we should list. On a side note, I personally think the articles on Star Trek: The Original Series and Star Trek: The Next Generation would be better than the listed Captain Kirk and Spock at level 5. <b style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl</b><b style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev </b> 18:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Much more than TV shows, though. Thirteen feature films, video games, comics. Franchise as a whole is significant apart from TV. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I kind of agree with you. I have not been following the level five list as much as the others. At least at level 4 there is no "franchise" section at present, TV shows would be the best place, although technically wrong, same as best place for Star Wars is movies but again technically wrong also. We could discus having a "franchise" or cross media work or another name section, for things like Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Pokemon, Mario, James Bond and others. Perhaps near fictional characters. Characters are based on a single character but are still kind of franchises, like Superman, Batman, Tarzan, Harry Potter, James Bond etc, where as Star Trek Star Wars Pokemon are not about single fictional people. In short, we could discus having a "franchise" section to include articles I mentioned and more. <b style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl</b><b style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev </b> 19:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC) Seems nothing but support. What now? Hyperbolick (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Definitely support that. Reasonable strictures. Potter/Bond center on characters. Star Trek/Wars/Pokemon branched far beyond initial characters. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I support adding Star Trek, major franchise. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I definitely support adding a franchise category, perhaps even at level 4. Off the top of my head, Star Wars, Star Trek, the Avengers, X-Men, Fast and Furious, Transformers, and the Harry Potter universe are all most important as franchises rather than as one specific tv show, movie, or character. Orser67 (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Unidentified flying object under "Film, television, animation, comics, and video game"?
Seems inapt. UFOs may be much represented in fiction, but the term comes from real life. Sociological, maybe. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Add Dungeons & Dragons
The cultural impact of this game is extremely significant and it should be at Vital 5, if not higher. Not sure which section of Vital articles/Level/5/Arts would be appropriate. Thoughts? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree entirely. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is listed in Everyday section among games (Level 4 include Mahjong and some games which earlier were removed from level 3 just as chess). BTW this section need to reworking (compare quotas for video games in life and quotas for tradition in society, Is Video Game Culture really mire vital than Reformation day, Easter monday or whatecer from non-western traditions Why we limit traditions two times more rogoristic?). IMO we have too many all games but on the other hand way too many films on the level 4. Film jump not-proportionally in comprasion to games from level 5 to the level 4. A lot of articles related to video games are also listed in technology but I am surprised why AI player is missed. I am also not sure missing Super Mario Land is good idea (while rated mid-importance by wikiproject, it was one of few games which have ever been ob the top.). '''In general I think it is not right if video games gets 185 quota meanwhile culture et 105 (Is really Video game culture more vital than Name day?) Dawid2009 (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur it should be the other way around.--<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

remove Randall Munroe and xkcd
IMO both are less vital than many articles which we removed recently in arts by WP:Bold. Xkcd is famous in many laguages but is younger than Penny Arcade and not more influential than Hetalia: Axis Powers or Pepe the frog. Probably Webcomic and Internet meme are anough to cover such articles among 50 000 core topics.
 * Support
 * 1) As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Munroe should be kept; webcomics are one of the most important forms of comics, one rep should be kept. I'm still going through artists and this section will be fixed. Stay with me. GuzzyG (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I support removal of Munroe but I'd rather keep xkcd or remove Pepe the Frog. This is purely subjective, but I have heard of Penny Arcade, Hetalia and xkcd but of the two other topics. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * Same. I support removing Munroe, but I'd keep xkcd, because it's an example of a webcomic with a wide readership. --Makkool (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts?-- Laukku  TheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Interesting idea. We would still have to have a single section for every single entry which is inefficient for this level at this stage. Individual letters, for example, were added to the language sections, A to Z. Then, obviously someone was trying to give it global scope and added the first five letters of the Hebrew alphabet and then just stopped. All of these, English and Hebrew, should be removed without much discussion at this point. Maybe with a general discussion about bulk removal. Another aspect is that we can make room for some sections that are over quota by reducing the biography quota which is currently 30%. --Spaced about (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * It sounds like a smart way to manage this. If you decide to use this voting method, I have listed my suggestions for what articles to keep and remove in the previous thread. --Makkool (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * One potential problem is that there'd turn out to be no clear cutoff point (e.g. the cutoff P for video games is 40% and there are ten games with that P, but only some of those fit within the quota) - in that case we could wait for more votes, temporarily err on the side of inclusion, or even do a separate voting round for the ambiguous entries. In any case, the situation should already be much better than what we began with, and then we can proceed with the familiar one-at-a-time voting method to fine-tune the list. Also, I think entries on other levels should be exempt from this process (Tetris stays no matter what) and be separately discussed on the appropriate level.-- Laukku  TheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

"Complete"
If a section is 98-99% complete, shouldn't we tag it as "complete" and mandate any other additions to be discussed? p b  p  19:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, since it is still not 100% complete.--RekishiEJ (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If there's only a few empty slots in a section, shouldn't we discuss those additions rather than BOLD additions? p  b  p  18:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, we shouldn't, since the list still isn't full (e.g. the religious figures subpage - the page that still lacks some vital such people).--RekishiEJ (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't say tag everything as complete, I said tag SECTIONS. Also, we seem to be disagreeing with complete: does it mean FULL or does it mean STABLE?  p  b  p  22:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If a section is complete then it is no doubt FULL.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Currently the paragraph at the top of wp:VA5 says 'Additions AND removals to sections that are complete or nearly complete should be discussed. Sections that are at 98% or more of their capacity have been tagged as "complete" below.' We may need to discuss rewording that paragraph if we are to say only those that have reached the quota are complete.--Cincotta1 (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Change to wording at WP:VA5
I re-worded a paragraph to reflect the reality that we have several completed sections where additions and removals should be discussed. p b  p  22:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Everybody OK with this change? p b  p  22:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Additions AND removals Sometimes there are situations when addition of obvious vital thing to the VA is less worth discussion (for example Triangle inequality to mathematics when we are under quota would not be worth discussion) than something what was already earlier nominated by !voting (For example you earlier made nomination of Streetballer despite fact that nomination was ealier already technically passed). Maybe we should not be so strict. I think that in complete section additions are much more worth discussion and process than the removals when we are at the lmit. We should courage readers to reading talk page but we should not mislead community that whatever is complete got better consensus and should be more seriously/strict treated (which why I changed word "done" for "complete?"). The only problem with removals can be "massive cuts" but removing five not vital articles from complete section is less problematic than addition of 70 new topics to section where we are even highly under quota without discussion. Dawid2009 (talk) 08:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should start individual proposals in stages, starting from the top. And also, I was thinking we should start the discussion after a moratorium. This would enable users to make some last changes that they have had in the back of their minds but never got around to make, in an uncomplicated way. It would also enable users to review and research proposals in a more organized way. So, more precisely, this would mean discussing
 * writers and journalists starting March 1, 2020
 * artists and musicians starting April 1, 2020
 * and so on.
 * --Spaced about (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of final total and subquotas outside people section

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


 * moving the current people section to a level 6 with 100,000 and reducing it to about half for level 5.
 * moving current people section to the core biographies list as a level 2 there, and reducing it to half its size here.
 * Thoughts? --22:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)--Spaced about (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

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


 * I was under the impression that the total was always 50,000. I think that was set before the size of the sections was set; I believe it was set in the initial discussion to create Lv 5.  I don't have much of a problem with people being a greater percentage of Lv 5 than of Lv 4.  There are some topics that just can't have a fivefold buildout from Lv 4 to Lv 5.  For example, we have every country at Lv 4...how do you build that out to Lv 5?  p  b  p  16:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe the discussion where the people quotas were set is on L4.There was no talk about other quotas. Just that it remains to be seen how large the total will be. No matter how it was back then, we are now facing the fait accompli of a disproportionately large people section for 50,000 articles.
 * I'm not saying that simply multiplying the quota is the solution. Some sections might need more, some less. The social scienes section to me is the most obvious needing more. The effect of this deficit can be felt on the top level 1 where people feel we need more coverage of social sciences.
 * The other thing is the health section. More and more people look for medical information on the internet, and the articles get a surprising amount of page views: random example: Norovirus 120,000 in the last 30 days, Hantavirus 20,000. Both are not listed on any level. I think we are underestimating the need and the potential of a larger health section. --Spaced about (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would not support a reduced quota for people in total, biographies are one of a encyclopedias most visited pages, what i will and want to support is a 100 person cut in entertainers, musicians, writers, sports and misc to add 100 to politicians and 250 to science and 150 religion. We don't have enough to list every Nobel winner and religion is severely underrepresented. I had the wrong idea for these lists originally and now it's way over bloated, i believe in a expanded strict level 4 model for this list. The writers section is a complete mess filled with niche sci fi writers and the entertainers/musicians section is way too focused on current pop culture. I'm not set on the quotas still, rock and hip-hop and pop need a cut for more composers and classical instrumentalists and non English music. In Entertainers, comedy, dance and TV could be cut by 100 each to add to directors. I really messed this list up and take full responsibility. I want to completely reorganise the sports section eventually too. I've just had writers block about this list, daunted by the writers page. I don't think we should set up votes for the writers page, there's so much fluff alot of it could be cut instantly. The musicians and artists section could start votes though - it's iron steamed and i've cleaned up alot of the mess i had caused before, the other sections are not as clean. GuzzyG (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. But the hip hop section in musicians is still too large and we would be starting discussion of musicians with 100 over quota, if I understand you correctly. Would it be possible to reduce the revolutionaries section by 100 instead? It has a quota of 1000 and we currently have about 900.--Spaced about (talk) 11:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * 100 writers from the quota and adding it to science
 * 100 entertainers and adding it to science
 * having a quota of 100 for TV people, Dance and Comedy (because they only have small amounts on the 2k list) and increasing actors/actresses/directors to 500 each emphasizing more of a non US film slant :making the quotas between areas of actors/actresses completely equal in all the sub quotas (like equal amount of stage, american, asian, european etc)
 * cutting 100 from the revolutionaries/activists section to add to science
 * cutting 100 of the musicians/artists quota to add too religion
 * cutting 100 from the musicians quota to add 100 to the artists section
 * cutting 100 athletes to add to politicians to focus on more old politicians
 * reorganizing the sports page completely including a section titled "olympic sports"
 * cutting 100 of the misc section to add to religion


 * also in the arts section, 50 individual visual art works should be cut to add 50 films, an article on a film is more important today than a article on a painting/sculpture, which is why we list more films on the level 4 list. i think 200 films is way too low and 250 would be more perfect.

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


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

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

Now to clarify my actual additions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Affirmation of VA5 at 50,000
When founded, the plan was for VA5 to be at 50,000 articles. Everybody still on board with this? p b  p  21:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  21:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) I am; it's already hard to handle at the moment with this few editors.  J  947 &thinsp;(c) , at  02:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) I support 50k. The only other logical progression from 10,000 is 25,000 or 50,000, 25k is too small, 75k while doable is too daunting, would mean more less vital topics added and would be pointless and there's no reason to skip 50k. 30k or 40k are too arbitrary and 20k too small. 30k or 40k are probably too small if we're covering things like every single flag and every single coat of arms too. GuzzyG (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) 50k still feels right to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes, I don't see a compelling case to drop it to 30k or increase it to 75k. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 02:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose because cutting the people section by 50% will be difficult, and I'm not sure if we need level 6. --Spaced about (talk) 08:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Conventional encyclopedias had about 250,000 articles. It has been done before. I would also like 's opinion on this, he also mentioned the problem of the final total. What is your opinion on the currently bloated people section, Dawid2009? Should we cover social sciences and other sections in equal depth as the biography section or largely ignore them like we currently do? --Spaced about (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * That 250,000 number seems high for print encyclopedias.  Per Size comparisons, the 50,000 list would have slightly more entries than a print Britannica or Americana, and three times as many entries as a World Book. p  b  p  23:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The only number I could find was for Brockhaus Enzyklopädie, and it was about 250,000 in the German article - the English article says 300,000. The number in the table you're linking to might not be reliable because it's from the last print edition 2013. The print editions were downsized considerably in the last few editions due to the changing market. Judging by the page number, 36,000 pages, for the 32 volume Britannica 2010 it might have had even more articles than German Brockhaus which had 24,000 pages. Smaller editions for Brockhaus were always also available, starting with only 2 volumes, the last one they tried to sell was 5 or 6 volumes, I believe.--Spaced about (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am oppose estabilishing people section at 20% at all (3-5) levels, no matter we choose 50 000 or something other what you propose here because of in the archives people reached to the consensus that 200 people on the level 3 is way too big (see this comments by Cobblet and Thi on L3 :, months or years ago). While we have on the level 5 quota of "50 000 all articles instead "100 000"; I tend to agree that 25%-30% (about 12k-15k) maybe is better than 30% (15k). I could support that J947's idea but for now, when we are under quota in most non-biography sections we should get much more patient approach. While J's proposal does not compatibile with your completly, quite honestly I consider J947's suggestion as kind of compromise because earleir GuzzyG even suggested quota of 20 000 people and if anythink we should get pattient approch (firstly change in selection of people, later addition non-bios etc, later back to not cut people to 10 000 big time or increase VA 5 big time to "100 000" just to have the same percentage what on the level 4). Discussing about people is not ignore other sections because of quite honestly most sections has been added by WP:bold (and it was plan during starting VA 5). Among biography section just" Politician and leaders" has "more numerous" consensus than section about arts and section about games.


 * If you want increase quota for society section I would suggest you (but it is just my humble opinion, we are quite under quota in all sections): 1Decrease life section (which one seems be really littly pointless) by say -150 links (I say about "life" section, not sport and games, where we maybe could swap video games for "foo in country" or sport clubs. Sportspeople should be swapped with other biographies, not with society at least as long as we are under limit in non-bios FWIHW) 2 Move national flags and national coat of arms to history section (where we have handful of duplicates) to keep more space in society section (From history section, personally I would also remove articles like History of Wyoming or swap with stuffs like Category:History of the United States topical overviews to keep more space there) 3 wait when other sections will be nearer limit (For now, I belive that maybe technology section is littly to big but it is just idle guessing). After reading this discussion and comments here I am not sure which area in society section is maybe the most underrepreented but I think that opinion of Piotrus (who is profesional sociologist and started discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology two months ago) would be much better than me. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Affirmation of VA5 people section at 20%
A simple ratio of 20% (like on VA4) is best. Nobody has made any discussion contribution that indicates that the people section needs more or how we could justify the gross negligence of the other areas like social sciences. On the contrary, in the past few months we had to delete people that barely pass notability standards. --Spaced about (talk) 08:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support --Spaced about (talk) 08:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - (although I'd compromise at 25%) The people list is out of hand, and it will be fixed with a sledgehammer, not a scalpel. Spacepine (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Support a reduction to 25%. Possible further once the list at this level is much closer to 50,000. It is true as the list grows, so does the relative proportion of biographies. But 30% is a huge jump. Glancing through the sub-lists, I tend to see far more glaring omissions of non-biographies than biographies throughout Level 5. For comparison, the Britannica Micropedia (consisting of 65,000 articles) has 17% biographies. We don't have to blindly copy them but it tells you that there is a lot, lot more to the sum of all knowledge than biographies. Even non-biography sections are filled up by easy topics instead of topics which require expertise or at least just some sort of understanding of the area. Basic business and economic concepts are missing while there's a huge number of companies, some of questionable vitality at this level. And it's similar with universities vs academic learning/teaching concepts, art theory vs art works, video games vs organic chemistry concepts, etc. The entire list is affected (some but not all Level 4 subpages are close to the right balance between technical and non-technical while every subpage here is off). Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 09:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Support if people want to take a sledgehammer to a list that's had thousands of hours of research into sculpting it, because they have a problem with shit like supercentenarians, sex workers, reality stars, criminals, porn stars, esports, video game designers and every other section that's gonna be obviously cut, than i can support it. If Ice V is more important for our readers, i can support it. if something as basic as Reality television can't even make the lvl 4 list, most likely because of the disdain for it, than it's not surprising to understand why these drastic cuts are made. I actually want to see how 5k cuts would work. I can support a cut so we can cover the "breadth of human knowledge", which is why the biography section has every field, i just didnt get the memo that things that have societal disdain dont fit into "human knowledge". GuzzyG (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Guzzy, I'm confused by your vote. Your phraseology suggests that you'd prefer that there not be cuts. Although, to be fair, I myself contemplated an "aw, to hell with it" change of vote within the past 48 hours.   p  b  p  15:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not in favour because it'll cause a mess and alot more "well why list this person, this other one is of equal merit" votes will come up. But i just give up, just give them the sledgehammer, there's certain things people think are fluff but are hiding behind the term "fluff" in general, just let them sledgehammer biographies and give them the cut so they can add fluff like Ice V, they'll see what a mess it'll be and how inactive this project will be. they just don't think big picture, every person is listed for a reason behind what they do is bad; Ned Kelly seems like a irrelevant local thug to anyone not familiar with Aus history, ignoring he's Aus's most written about person; he's also subject of the first full length feature film; The Story of the Kelly Gang; something unknown without specialized knowledge. Same as Ivan Milat a local tabloid insignificant killer, yet Wolf Creek (film), is one of the most impactful modern films in Aus cinema history; but you wouldnt know that without specialized knowledge of Aus cinema; now i understand Aus is a small country in world history; but there's actual history between alot of these adds people call fluff and it's just tiring to see people dance around their dislike of it, so i'll just give them the cuts and let them sledgehammer it. Let's see what the alternate is, and if Ice V can ever move beyond a stub; since it's more important than DiCaprio. I've put alot of time into specialized knowledge of various fields and that was always my reasoning for additions, i'd like to see how this would look like via someone just doing what they want; maybe that will be a improvement, let's see. I just didn't know when i had 100 leftover quota in misc that adding a couple quotas to "fun" subjects that are popular online in a "did you know" sense would cause so much shit, i thought it'd be good to have a featured article on names people commonly search because they see them in trivia online everywhere, didn't know this list was such a serious thing that it needed academic esque strictness too it.lol.  I feel like alot of editors have a personal moral sense of "this person shouldnt be given such a honour" which is not how i'd go about things. Just like professional wrestlers have so many, but they're far and large the most edited biographies on this site; which would mean we should have them featured. There's so much more reasoning that's possible, but i don't wanna type a post, noone will read anyway. Sometimes you just gotta laugh that these biographies have to go for us to cover "the wide breath of human knowledge" but that caused so much trouble as my reasoning for including most fields in biographies. GuzzyG (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just gotta note; i find it strange the rush to rid this level of tabloid fluff biographies but Richard Wagner, Claude Monet, and Charles Dickens are all on the level 3 list over important figures like James Watt, Francis Bacon, and William the Conqueror and nobody wants to change that or people like Ang Lee, Judi Dench, Jean Giraud, Aubrey Beardsley, Alec Guinness, Doris Day, Isabelle Adjani, Ed Sullivan, Sam Cooke, Joni Mitchell, and Wim Wenders and many, many others are on the level 4 list when we're 10 over quota and missing many scientists, politicians and religious figures of equal stature. Maybe the organic chemistry section on level 4 needs a bump? Why is there a big rush for level 5 but nowhere else? That's my question. GuzzyG (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, my issue is not with subjects people perceive as "fluff". My issue is that this list implicitly takes the Great man theory of history, and uses people to represent ideas. I have no significant problem with the weighting of the different people categories. I have a problem that there's 15k of them. --Spacepine (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * 1) Support Yes, the current 30% is too much for the list of 50000. 20% is better.C933103 (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)</li>


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose People is 0% of VA1 and VA2. It's 13% of VA3 and 20% of VA4.  People grows relative to other sections.   There are subsections of VA where if you kept the ratio, you'd have to have greater than 100% of the articles on the project in that topic.  p  b  p  14:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We perfectly understand what the problem is and that was well summarized. You would be supposed to give a rationale for causing such a problem in a serious !vote. Why the exclusion of real encyclopedic topics? (You can't seriously believe that 14 social science disciplines can be covered in 4000 articles.) I fully understand the commercial interest of an overly large biography section. But it is not supposed to be like that. --Spaced about (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per PBP, just to clarigy, there IS useless fluff on this list, but cutting the quota down isn't the solution, it's cutting down the misc/writers/musicians/entertainers/sports/activists quotas down by a 100 or two and re attributing it to science, religion and politicians, areas where we are significantly under, we can't add every Nobel winner currently, cutting it down further won't help, as the person who added most of this list, especially the "fluff" i know exactly where i miscalculated stuff. It's the misc/activist/sports/entertainers/writers/musicians section. GuzzyG (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is not in the people section, it's in the other sections, most notably social sciences. I think this answer clearly shows that there is more going on than just ignorance. And this person here even has a declared COI. I listened to hours of abuse by this person and explained where the problem is. After all the discussion, you would find some trace of catching on to the problem if the person would seriously be !voting and not just serving some other interest. He is not even trying to hide that he is promoting something else. --Spaced about (talk) 08:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe it should be 10% at VA3, 15% at VA4, and 20% at VA5. C933103 (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Remove some useless fluff and put in more important people, maybe downsize a bit to 13/14K (I originally proposed 12K) but I'm not a fan of that big a cut.  J  947 &thinsp;(c) , at  04:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In !voting, you should give a rationale that clearly responds to the problem. So, tell us, why exactly do you not want a social sciences section? We are not talking about a small psychology section, for example, we are talking about having none at all. Abolishing it completely for this level. Wikipedia on level 5 seriously thinks that psychology is a list of emotions, and a very long and tedious list. The rest in this subsection is just the skeleton from level 4. And here you see people fully aware of this and trying hard to make it impossible to remedy that situation. Other areas on social sciences tab, similar thing. What is so terrible about not making the social sciences section a total joke? It has it's merits in being funny. Education is a long list of universities. Journalism: 350 soap operas. No way to remedy the problem. They are going to be telling you that they will be putting up 350 soap operas individually to decide if they want to delete them. Deleting an individual entry on this list will typically take months. I think the soap opera case clearly shows there is a commercial interest explainging the weird behavior and it fits with promoting biographies. --Spaced about (talk) 08:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe there should be more topics in social sciences, but not at the cost of 5,000 people.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at  19:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose 12,500 is reasonable quota. --Thi (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. The current quota seems appropriate to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose the current quota for people is fine, but the sledgehammer may still be needed. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 04:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Let me guess, by "serious" social sciences you mean linguistics/adding more languages? GuzzyG (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Can you imagine that a social scientist actually deals with real stuff during his PhD studies? Maybe you really can't. The question you are asking here shows just how far you are from being able to provide a decent judgment on what would constitute adequate content for an encyclopedia. If the fact that courses of study actually exist in these 14 disciplines doesn't open your eyes I'll not be able to educate you here. One more try: Why don't we cut the history section to 250? That should clarify everything. --Spaced about (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, i can't ever imagine being a social scientist or being involved with history. I'm asking because there's one other confrontational editor, whos very similar to you, that complains about social science too. Comparing history where we list every world event to other social sciences is pointless. Listing 3000 articles of psychology, sociology, education, economics and linguistics etc each is pointless technical fluff. We list separate sections for the two most important, history and philosophy. But hey if television is art, and i do believe fictional shows should be under art, than just think of it as we're covering art history, you know a branch of history. GuzzyG (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So, you understand that people have continuously stated the obvious, the coverage is biased. And you understood the comparison with history. At this point you should be giving me a rationale for not covering these 14 disciplines. Your rationale is: it's pointless. Um, what's the point you are missing? Why do random (or seemingly random?) disciplines get coverage and have a point and others don't? You seem to understanding that you are creating a biased list, which is certainly against policy, but you're still doing it without giving a reason? --Spaced about (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "two" people, who are VERY alike, (you and Dawid) have said that the social science section is under represented. You have provided no rationale on what "14" social sciences deserve 1000s of representation each, please say exactly what 14 so we can consider. Do you really think we should have 1000 psychology or economics articles? You've provided nothing. For someone who wants Judi Dench on the level 4 list, i find this highly odd and VERY weird. GuzzyG (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Read the talk page of level 1. The lacking social science aspect is visible and discussed there, too. Several people are discussing adding society, culture or anything they can think of as an adequate social science article at that level. So it's not just two people. And in a discussion like the one here, I know for a fact that 99% of people wouldn't engage, and would just leave, also due to the circumstances of this project: it's complicated to navigate between so many pages, subpages, talkpages, and so on. You might be living in a bubble and no one can tell you. I'm giving you the numbers in 4 subdivisions, the subpage should be divided into four pages. The numbers in brackets are the rounded current quotas or article counts: 1800 to 2000 would be adequate for each subpage. --Spaced about (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Law (600), Business and Economics (600): should be 1800- 2000
 * Politics (200), Social issues, Organizations (250), War and Military (200): should be about 1500
 * Ethnology and Anthropology (150), Sociology (50), Psychology (250), Society (200), Culture (100), Education (300): should be 1800-2000
 * Communication (50), Languages and Linguistics (600), Journalism and Mass Media (850): should be 1800- 2000
 * Arguments for the level 1 list does not apply here. I wouldn't think this project is so hard to navigate when in your very first edit you added a complicated template to a article and than instantly joined in on the discussions here. Seems like if brand new editors can do it, experienced ones can navigate it too. What type of articles are missing to you, what would fit the proposed quota? If you mean articles like every flag and every coat of arms, than no i would no support it. GuzzyG (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The outline-articles are probably the closest approximation of what I think is missing, f.i. Outline of business management, Outline of economics. The lists, like universities, organizations, flags, and such, take up large amounts of quota and are probably quite complete, because a lot of people are adding articles to them. But what I'm trying to get at is that those listings are not the most important articles in an encyclopedia. The meat is in theoretical academic articles on scientific results (from natural and social sciences) written in a way everybody can understand. For sections other than social sciences, even if I have been lurking before, I can't produce such detailed numbers yet. But the situation must be about the same there. --Spaced about (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC) Here we have your grand rationale: Business is arcana. Law is arcana. Economics is arcana. That is kind of what I was guessing the secret thing you call "rationale" was going to be. Arcana. Of course. (The world turns around these "arcana". Good information on those topics is hard to get as opposed to the fervently defended soaps. Policy asks you guys to include it.) You are obviously just making fun of people who don't accomodate your interests. Adding 400 soap operas to cover social sciences in 4000 articles and then locking the page the next day in unison speaks for itself. And the worst is how it's done: through shouting, abuse, misrepresentation, a lot of distraction, outright lying, accusing the victim of ones own actions, "the victim brought it all about". The works. And it works. Most women run much earlier than I do. Oh, and don't forget to complain time and again that there are no editors on this page. Oops, how did that happen. I have no idea what interests this group is pursuing but pbp joining the bullying indicates what I have suspected before: they are working as a group, a promotional nest. Wasn't even necessary. One abuser would have been enough. I'm sure GuzzyG gets that job done every time. I'm out of here.--Spaced about (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * : I don't appreciate that you're shouting down everybody who disagrees with you.  While it's clear I often disagree with Guzzy, I think the shots you took at him were gratuitous and mean-spirited.  And the people who disagree with you have rationales, they're just not rationales that you agree with.  And remember that your ask by this proposal is a very big one: you're proposing one-tenth of the entire quota for this list be reassigned.  If you want the social sciences section expanded, you should propose that either instead of or in addition to slicing the biographies section.  And if the proposal is to expand to a number greater than 5,000, I will probably oppose it.  And I'm not buying your argument that there's "no psychology section at all".  I also worry that the expansion you envision would lead to listing arcana that would be meaningless to those who don't have advanced degrees in the social sciences.   Finally, your comment "For sections other than social sciences...the situation must be about the same there", that's just guesswork. p  b  p  23:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I need to clarify what I mean by arcana. What I mean is that by the time you get to the 800th or 900th-most-important topic in business, law or economics, you've reached arcana.  Are there many important topics in those three fields?  Sure, just not 800-900 of them.
 * I would like you to continue to participate in the project, but I don't like how you've berated me, Guzzy and others. p  b  p  23:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * has a point, and their frustration is understandable. This curation is dominated by a very small number of people, who feel ownership/custodianship over it, and get defensive when challenged. It's a momentous task to create a balanced list. Personally, I'm sure there are many important subjects I understand very little about, and some inconsequential ones I'm overeducated educated in. However, I do not know what I do not know, and the only way to find out is to listen!
 * I think the best way forward is to be bold in reallocating quotas, and allow editors with different views the authority to make changes., what do Wikiprojects say on quotas/inclusions? --Spacepine (talk) 06:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We've asked them and they rarely give clear answers. And the re-allocation that was proposed is just too large to be done boldly; it was proposed to reallocate TEN PERCENT of the ENTIRE LIST.  It seems reasonable to not want such a drastic change, and unreasonable to complain when such a drastic change isn't enacted.  Also, above, when you said "the people list is out of hand", are there particular sections you believe to be particularly out of hand?  p  b  p  14:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Resonable/Unresonable or not, you hounded them off they have now left the encyclopedia.
 * I suspect "people" is too long in all categories, but my area of knowledge is Astronauts, Scientists and Revolutionaries. The VA5 seems to implicity subscribe to the Great man theory of history, where incuding a range of people is more important than the actions or even concepts surrounding them. For example:
 * we have about 30 astroanuts, and couple of level 3/4 articles on space exploration, but none on the ISS, Apollo 11, Apollo 8, Mercury, Gemini, Soyuz, JAXA, Private Space Companies, The Voyager probes, Mars rovers etc... These programs are far more important in describing the world than the individual people.
 * In the revolutionaries category there were lots of LGBTQI activists and no Stonewall riots. A barely notable individual PUA, but no Red Pill movement.
 * Scientists/Engineers/Inventors doesn't have that problem, but it's still too long, putting undue weight on people rather than concepts.
 * In general, I think the people section has got out of hand because it's an easy category to add to. If I want to add another sports person, it's obvious where they go, but if I want to add Murujuga, a peninsula containing the world largest collection of petroglyphs it's not clear where to put it. In the (tiny) ancient art section? In geography? I went to bed before figuring it out. Let's make it equally hard to add another bloody soccer player by cutting the people section and enforcing some quotas. --Spacepine (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not hound them off the encyclopedia. If anyone was hounding, it was Spaced About.  Look above, where they reply to EVERY SINGLE person who opposed a proposal.   p  b  p  23:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies, please consider my you plural and general. --Spacepine (talk) 02:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * looking at your usepage, you have a significant interest in biographies. I suspect that has influenced your weighting of their importance to human knowledge as the person who added most of this list. What do you think, and what do you see as a solution?
 * do you resist the idea of such a dramatic change because you think it's detrimental to the encyclopedia, or because you've invested so much time into the current state of the list without much help? Why do you think a list containing 30% biographies best spans the breadth of human knowledge given the ratio is much lower in the level 1/2/3/4 VAs, in Brittania Micropedia, and editors have flagged other important subjects as underrepresented? ? --Spacepine (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * FTR I think there should be a huge reduction in people, but it should be represented across levels.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at  02:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no solution in my opinion, it's going to be a mess either way. A big reduction in biographies is going to make this list regress to a more western based art/music/entertainers, a more US and Europe based political leaders, we're going to have to try and decide what nobel winners are more important than each other in scientists rather than list them all, in sports the American team sports will win out more than the olympic sports and a wide variety of other issues that will just make this list more US based, there's no clear difference in the worth between someone who would make a 10k bios list and a 15k list one, the 5k bonus that was added has only allowed this list to become more diverse. I've said many times i support changing around the quotas though, and i agree with cutting the artists/musicians/entertainers/writer biographies to add more to Art, every major art/film/literature/music genre should be added over individual writers/musicians/artists/filmmakers/actors etc. We have over 800 actors but only 300 articles for film itself. People are just always going to nitpick the things they personally consider fluff on a list like this, like comparing the video games section, which has 212 articles to chemistry which has a quota of 1,200 - on a pop culture encyclopedia, which is what the point of Wikipedia is, i don't see why the biggest entertainment industry having 212 featured articles would not benefit the average Wikipedia visitor more than the 1201 chemistry article being feature would. chemists wouldn't even use Wiki anyway. Improving the article on Ferricyanide won't improve this site for the average readers, it'll only marginally improve the sites reputation to a niche audience who won't even use the site and are always going to be against it's existence. I'll support a 5k biographies cut though and see how messy and western and bad it gets if art can get 1k of the quota to add more basic art concepts and genres. GuzzyG (talk) 03:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just actually checked the chemistry section and if we're choosing articles like Ice V over biographies like Leonardo DiCaprio or video games like Super Mario Bros. as a improvement, i'm not so sure of that, britannica only has the latter two, more generalized niche in-house stuff may make us look more smart, but it doesn't help our average reader at all. That's my take. GuzzyG (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Guzzy, I agree, changing the quotas is the best way of getting some control over this.
 * I think if this was about the average reader we'd start improving the top 5000 most read articles and be done with it. My interpretation was that this is supposed to sum up  human knowledge/experience. so fuck it, I'd support Ice V over Leo.
 * I agree that many people at this level are basically equally notable. I do not care whether one Nobel winner is chosen over another. I do care that we've implied that 30% of human knowledge is in biographies. I'm happy to blaze through, cut 5k biographies, and let people nitpick over the rubble. I'm not American, so my bias won't be there. --Spacepine (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You not caring about which Nobel winner is concerning when we have to get it right, do you know every field and genre listed to do cuts? The difference between Régine Crespin and Christa Ludwig or Andrea del Verrocchio and Bertel Thorvaldsen? Or are you going by personal opinion? Because these people were not chosen by anyones personal opinion, a system was in place. Leo being described in a way where he'll be cut is weird because that type of figure is what this list was meant to cover since it's a important bio to have featured but wouldn't fit on a lvl 4 list. i strongly disagree with cutting by name recognition/personal opinion as that's the worst way possible to judge vitality. GuzzyG (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, tone over the internet is difficult. Leo was the example you gave, so Leo was the example I used to emphasise that:
 * I really support cutting this people list.
 * I support cutting a US figure, and see no reason why cuts need to create a western bias.
 * Realistically, the way I can assist is to cut areas that I have some knowledge of: Science, Revolutionaries and Astronauts. --Spacepine (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd really rather you didn't "blaze through". With 3 for and 3 against, there's not really a consensus to do that (though my gut tells me you may soon gain the consensus you want).  And again, we ARE talking about a sizeable chunk of the entire list.  Perhaps a better way to approach this would be to make mock-ups (in userspace) of sections of the people list at various sizes.  I'd help you with this if asked.  p  b  p  14:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, happy to work on the sections I have knowledge about. --Spacepine (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And whatchya know...since I posted, it's now 2-4. Looks like I'm going to lose this one.  But I'm NOT going to exit the project in a huff.  p  b  p  15:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Dude... lay off Spaced about. No matter what your personal feelings towards them, it's a net negative to the encyclopedia that they have left, as you acknowledged. As an outside observer/potential contributor, this sort of exchange would put me off wikipedia. As she mentions in her last post - it does put a lot of women off. --Spacepine (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Spaced about's activity period always coincided with Dawids inactivity; consistently followed me around to places i edited like, shared the same kind of articles interest with dawid, used his exact argument logic/phases, would only pop in to vote when dawid was under attack like in and first edits were adding a pageviews template (something no new editor would do) and edit this page. They had good spelling though, so it wasn't Dawid, but evidence does go into that spaced about was very connected to him, probably the biggest evidence is that dawid is the only person to stay arguing with me, while everyone else ignores me lol, spaed about stayed too. not surprised the acc was started soon before dawid posted to pbp's talkpage about his issues, with me. since i perceived spaced about as a way to vote stuff in dawids favour; and i made them leave; i'll leave wiki and this project. since i'm such a bad harasser lmao (that they followed me to articles). so yeah, i'll quit, have your sledgehammer; because i wouldn't wanna edit a list where someone legitimately believes Judi Dench and Wim Wenders are level 4, implied i was a idiot (attitude like dawid) for using the list that the film project uses for their core list  as a source, anyway. if it's wrong for that person to leave and i'm responsible, i'll leave and have fun with your pseudo anti-great man theory, there's still gonna be 10k "great" people on the list. Funny you mention women and stuff, because in all my edits women were included everywhere (even in baseball) and whole non western arts/music sections were built, i'd never intentionally chase off women as editors considering from the start i've included them in articles etc and would add more. that angle is weak.  GuzzyG (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually i find it hilarious because most of the hate agaisnt this list is directed towards the sex workers, porn stars, reality stars and articles like Jeanne Calment, you know - women who get attacked most in society. Just to note. GuzzyG (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually i'll be serious once, i have used the 15k people quota to add more women and non western people, because there's space and western people are covered to an extant that people won't compare notable western men to the non-western people and women, without the safety net of that, they're most likely going to be compared and non western people/women removed. Most of my arguments with people here are relating to women and non-western people, case in point we don't cover every island country in oceania in politicians because everyone decided they were not notable, which is a shame. This cut that you want, will only cause more of a imbalance in the long run. the "great men" theory is rubbish in reality, women and non-western people just didn't get credit/attention, women were at the forefront of most things, from Kassia (composing) to Jennifer Ringley (internet culture) - they're just not given credit, the world is centered by American interests anyway and it's just a shame this list is heading in that direction. but i am genuinely curious on the cuts. good luck, i'll give you custodianship of the list. GuzzyG (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Woah, lots of points there I'll try to address them all:
 * If you think Spaced about is a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet do something about it.
 * We agreed earlier that the difference in notability between 10k and 15k is negligable. I see no reason why non-western people and women will be removed without the 15k safety net.
 * I am not accusing you of being anti-woman. The great man theory of history is an old concept, I interpret and use it to mean great person. I appreciate your selection of people. We disagree on the total number.
 * I suggested a 5k reduction in biographies to create a more balanced list. I volunteered to do the cuts because I follow through (per WP:SODOIT).
 * Beyond that I will not take custodianship --Spacepine (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * In answer to your question, I think it's a little bit of both. I also believe that, in certain non-biographical areas, a 5-fold build-out is impossible.  We can't have 5 times the countries at Lv 5 because every single country is Lv 4 vital.  p  b  p  05:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I acknowledge that a 5-fold build out is impossible, but I think the principle of it provides structure, and exceptions prove the importance of setting smart quotas. I'm happy to blaze through and make the proposed people cut, if that helps and fill in some of the technical topics I mentioned earlier. --Spacepine (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE: I'm lucky enough to have a job that's busier due to coronavirus. I won't be doing these cuts anytime soon, barring a moment of extreme procrastination. Wishing everyone well. --Spacepine (talk) 11:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Stay safe and healthy! p  b  p  22:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks - you too -- Spacepine (talk) 09:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In the past I did not belive you Spaced about can be suspected account but now I have another look on this stuff after year. Their first edit~with template on talk page, edits on other wikimediaprojects (finding operator of Cewbot on ZHwiki), many technical edits in main space (reverts of vandalism etc.), technical edits on VA (correcting errors of bot etc.) would suggests that they were not new user. In the past I was convinced this is mere new user who never earlier edited on Wikipedia, but now frankly I would not be surprised if that was someone's sock. Frankly for me that could be even sockmaster who simply used VA to excercise "drama creations" (VA is envivorment where there are no active admins, people often argue and spend long time together but topics are not somehow controversial/seriouss etc. like articles in main space FWIW) On the other hand that could be simply someone who used VA to making fun, perhaps someone who had some active participants on the watchlist. However, this account de facto did drama creation because of we still can not reach to any consensus beetwen 10 000, 12500 or 15 000 quota for bioggraphies. after almost two years Will we reach to any consensus in the future? Personally I sggest quota 12 500 but I am not sure how many users would agree with that. When nomination include only 10 000 or 15 000(current quuota) for !bvote then I think we should refactor that in similar way what Power did at level 3 wth Bohr. Thi opposed reducing quota but choosing number 12 500 would suggest that they support reducing proportionally biographies at all. Thi!voted in another section despite fact more agree with daGizza and Spacepine than with other users. what quotafor biographies you would support? What do you three users think about Spaced about account (sock or not?) and how we should continue this discussion?  As for total number of articles I suggest collapse discussion where is suggestion for 100 000 because of that is nonsense.

As for quotas for biographies I sggest to refactor sections but also to not rush up with reaching consensus, firstly I would like to end other discussions (video games, some opened nominations etc.) where we still are ex equo on 1 50 000 articles and 2 35 000 articles without bios. I also belive talk page is far too long, I have hard time to write here anything due to speed of Internet etc. From time to time I can comment process but will have far less time then two three eyears ago etc, now paricularly I am not VA participant except some looks on level 3 from time to time. Thoughts? Dawid2009 (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * First up; your ping didn't work for me and i rarely check this levels talk page as it is way too large; so the ping thing is probs why nobody has replied. I am in full support of a 10k biography quota on this list. 15k is way too ambitious (and would just turn into pointless things like list every nobel winner etc). 10k is enough to where people like John Forbes Nash Jr. and Britney Spears who are very famous; but no set historical influence yet can be listed; without some of the lesser names. The ultimate goal would be to have this at 10k; so to be exclusive while still covering big names - and turning the level 4 list into a more historical based one. (say Tom Hanks fits more with Tom Cruise here than with Marlon Brando). 15k is way too much. I am a big contributer to it; but honestly it should probably TNT'ed and redone. That extra 15k leads to irrelavant people historically like Fay Bainter being listed just because they won a award and having enough space to list minor names from every field. A jump from 2000 to 10000 is better; 12,500 is odd and 15000 is too much. Imagine cutting off 5000 of the current names from this list; all the fluff - wouldn't that be a much better list??? We're still under quota in some cases; so imagine the fluff that will also be on it. I just don't see anything working but a 10, 000 list. If we agree on a 10k list; i will happily cut out most of the junk im responsible for myself. My whole philosophy about these lists has changed; i was thinking more based on the future than historically; but that's a bad way of looking at things. GuzzyG (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)