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

Remove some English monarches
I think we have every English monarch on here. I think we can get rid of some of them.

Remove
Guy was only king for a month.


 * Support
 * 1) SailorGardevoir (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) per nom.  starship .paint  (RUN) 06:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 3)  pbp  12:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) Iostn (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 5) Seems to have maybe been part of a succession crisis, but it was short-lived. He died before he could do anything. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 6)  Vileplume  🍋‍🟩 ( talk ) 21:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 7) TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove
Was only king for seven months.


 * Support
 * 1) SailorGardevoir (talk) 05:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) This one seems very important. He started a rebellion against his father, ultimately becoming king, and became a major figure in the war against the Vikings. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) per above Makkool (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Remove
Only king for nine months.


 * Support
 * 1) SailorGardevoir (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) I think his involvement in the Battle of Hastings is enough to retain him.  pbp  12:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong oppose He represents the losing side of the and the, his reign marks the end of the Anglo-Saxon era, which is often considered the biggest turning point in English history, in terms of for example, Franco-Norman cultural influence, the rise of feudalism and the fact that line of heriditary succession of the British monarchy today can be traced back directly to the Norman Conquest. Iostn (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Iostn. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) His success over Harald III alone is probably enough to make him vital, not to mention his involvement in Hastings. Idiosincrático (talk) 07:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Remove
Only king for two months.


 * Support
 * 1) SailorGardevoir (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Really it's no months.  Article states, "Elected King of England by the Witan in 1066 but never crowned."  pbp  12:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) You can only do so much in two months.  The  Blue  Rider  Postal horn icon.svg 10:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Not as vital as Harold II, but still important as a figure of English resistance to the . Iostn (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Move to Miscellaneous
Besides only reigning for only two months, he also in the same position as Caesarion and Alexander IV of Macedon, which is "not doing anything beyond being a potential threat (in this case to Richard III) once he's an adult". However, I do think the whole Princes in the Tower mystery is enough to keep him on here. Therefore, I am instead requesting to move him to the Miscellaneous page, preferably under victims (although since we have no idea what actually happened to him, I'm fine putting him under socialites).


 * Move
 * 1) Under victims. SailorGardevoir (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Remove
 * 1) This guy is really only notable for the  mystery along with his brother, but that mystery is very important. Therefore, I propose we swap Edward V with Princes in the Tower. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m fine with a swap. SailorGardevoir (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Support swap. Victims would be a good place for Princes in the Tower as well. Makkool (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Support swap. Interstellarity (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove and
I don't have any problems have kid rulers here, but other than being the heirs of Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great (and therefore potential threats to Augustus and the Diadochi), I'm not sure they even did anything.


 * Support
 * 1) SailorGardevoir (talk) 09:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) per nom.  starship  .paint  (RUN) 13:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) Makkool (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) Interstellarity (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose

FWIW, Caesarion was the successor to Cleopatra in Egypt, not to Julius Caesar in Rome  pbp 16:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Imbalance in martial arts?
There are currently 15 articles on mixed martial arts, a fairly recent phenomenon. By contrast, there's just one practitioner of taekwondo, four of judo and five of karate, even though taekwondo and judo are in the Olympics and MMA is not. Seems off to me  pbp 21:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I think it sort of makes sense. Though more recent, it is now a global cultural phenomenon and MMA celebs have more impact and presence on our society. I don't even follow MMA and I can name at least 5 fighters. Gun to my head, I couldn't name a single judoka for example. By your logic, we should be listing more wrestlers or archers or even pentathletes (all events at the Olympics as well) since these are all ancient sports. But clearly that wouldn't make sense. Aurangzebra (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't exactly watch MMA regularly. I've caught some fight highlights very occasionally. I recognize the names of 12/15 MMA fighters on the list. I recognize the names of 1/4 judokas, 0/5 karate/kickboxing, 0/1 taekwondo, 0/1 aikido, 0/1 muay thai, 0/1 capoeira, 1/5 sumo wrestlers, and 1/9 wrestlers. Even boxing I recognize only 9/43.  starship .paint  (RUN) 07:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Purplebackpack89, You have to keep in mind that a lot of famous martial artistst are listed in other categories (e.g. Chuck Norris, Steven Seagal, Jackie Chan and Jet Li). It is not clear to me that MMA fighters really have more slots than traditional discipline specialists.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They do if you think about the people who are listed for participating in and winning competitions rather than making movies  pbp 14:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Remove Callicrates and Ictinus
I don't like the argument of limiting vital status on an article because we already made another article vital, especially when the other article is a level 4 or higher, but for the architects of the … yeah just having the temple is enough. More importantly their articles are pretty bare, even in different languages.


 * Support
 * 1) SailorGardevoir (talk) 05:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Makkool (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) per nom.  starship  .paint  (RUN) 01:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Callicrates per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Ictinus. The article points to a few other large projects he was involved with, as well as cultural influence in the form of a contemporary play and a later painting. Just because it is a stub does not mean it is not vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Pinging so that you can consider my argument for keeping Ictinus. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * - not convinced. In 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica wrote that we know little about him. In 2024 quite the same, really.  starship .paint  (RUN) 14:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but this project is ostensibly about bringing certain articles to featured status. If there are no signs that an article is ever going to escape stub-status, then there's no reason for it to be here. SailorGardevoir (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Remove Tanburi Büyük Osman Bey
This guy has no article on Turkish Wikipedia. In fact, this guy doesn't have an article on ANY Wikipedia besides ours. Which is a shame, because his article does suggests that he is somewhat vital.


 * Support
 * 1) SailorGardevoir (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Makkool (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) If you think the article suggests that he is vital, then don't vote to remove him. Article quality is not the deciding factor. That said, I do not see a good enough claim to vitality to keep him on the list, and the type of music he makes is not vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) Interstellarity (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Nicholas Miklouho-Maclay
I was surprised to learn that Nicholas Miklouho-Maclay's biography wasn't already included as a vital article. This 19th century Russian-born academic studied many fields and became a name in biological research as early as age 23; however, he later became known more as an explorer and anthropologist. Miklouho-Maclay's exploration and study of the North-Eastern New Guinea Coast (now the "Maclay Coast") was among the first and most famous of the region. The "man from the moon" was among the first Europeans to contact the Papuan people and learn several local languages; he developed trust and became accustomed to unseen rituals and culture. His work created a foundation for contemporary Oceanic anthropology which, on the island of New Guinea, is still not completely researched. His Wikipedia article doesn't quite do justice to his work which expands far beyond the scope of his famous stay in New Guinea; his work is highly regarded in the Australian scholarly community and he has several commemorative shrines across the region. I'd like think this article fits in the miscellaneous sub-page under 'explorers', but I'm open to other suggestions. Idiosincrático (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As nominator. Idiosincrático (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) As an anthropology major I am ashamed I had never heard of him, but he seems very important. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) SailorGardevoir (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) Interstellarity (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Move the following people to socialites
I'm seeing a lot of people who are in the politicians and leaders page who were "merely" the spouses/lovers of actual politicians/leaders. Now, some of them did in fact had political power/clout despite not being in an actual position (Theodora, Jiang Qing, Eleanor Roosevelt, etc.). Others… not so much. Since we have the socialites section in miscellaneous, I think the following figures should be moved there:


 * 1) Agnès Sorel (already moved)
 * 2) Pocahontas
 * 3) Martha Washington
 * 4) Mumtaz Mahal
 * 5) Marie Antoinette
 * 6) Anne Boleyn
 * 7) Catherine of Aragon
 * 8) Sophia of Hanover
 * 9) Dolley Madison
 * 10) Joséphine de Beauharnais
 * 11) Marie Louise, Duchess of Parma
 * 12) Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
 * 13) Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother
 * 14) Alexandra Feodorovna (Alix of Hesse)
 * 15) Menen Asfaw
 * 16) Ruth Williams Khama
 * 17) Michelle Obama
 * 18) Kim Jong-nam
 * 19) Queen Rania of Jordan
 * 20) Asma al-Assad
 * 21) Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh


 * Support
 * 1) SailorGardevoir (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) First ladies of countries and royals should remain in leaders. Makkool (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Makkool.  Mistresses of French monarchs makes sense but First Ladies, consorts and princes less so.  Also not all First Ladies on the VA5 list are slated for move.  Finally, what is the definition of socialite here?  It's being used to apply to people who were alive before the term was commonly used  pbp  05:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. I'm largely basing it off the vibes I get looking at that section, which other than Sid Vicious's girlfriend who I just moved to Other I feel like everyone fits. SailorGardevoir (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm still unclear how you're defining socialites, especially for people from before the Victorian or Edwardian eras when socialite wasn't even a word. I suppose Pocahontas could qualify for getting promenaded around London, but what about her life in Virginia?  pbp  00:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * My definition of socialite is “rich person”. SailorGardevoir (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think there's more going on than just Wealth. There are rich people who are businessmen, leaders, etc.  pbp  12:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@User:Makkool and @User:Purplebackpack89: I think I'm just going to withdraw this. I have actually long since came around to the idea that only the mistresses/favorites should be moved to the socialites section. SailorGardevoir (talk) 05:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Move Françoise d'Aubigné, Marquise de Maintenon and Madame de Pompadour to socialites
Primarily notable for being court mistresses  pbp 13:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  pbp  13:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) I didn't nominate them because I felt like they actually had an influence on their lovers' policies, but since they weren't even queen consorts, sure. SailorGardevoir (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Move George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham to socialites
Related to the above, here's the favorite/possible lover of King James. Again, didn't nominate him on the belief he had political clout, but if we're going to place the favorites/lovers in the socialites section, it should probably include him.


 * Support
 * 1) SailorGardevoir (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Move Grigory Potemkin to socialites
Only nominating him for consistency since he was Catherine's lover. As I mentioned, I only wanted to move the people who I felt were apolitical, which is certainly not the case for this guy.


 * Support


 * Oppose
 * 1) SailorGardevoir (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Move Yang Guifei to leaders
Since there appears to be a consensus that monarch consorts should be listed under leaders, she should probably be move to that page.


 * Support
 * 1) SailorGardevoir (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss