Wikipedia talk:Vital people/Level/1

Introduction
The purpose of this discussion page is to select 50 biographies for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles. All Wikipedia editors are welcome to participate. Individual topics are proposed for addition or removal, followed by discussion and !voting. Since the list is currently full, it is recommended that a nomination of a new topic be accompanied by a proposal to remove a lower-priority topic already on the list.

All discussions will remain open for a minimum of 7 days.
 * 1) After 15 days any proposal may be closed as PASSED if a) at least five !votes have been cast in support, and b) at least two-thirds of the total !votes support the proposal.
 * 2) After 30 days any proposal may be closed as FAILED if it has a) earned at least 3 opposes, and b) failed to earn two-thirds support.
 * 3) After 30 days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal hasn't received any !votes for 30 or more days regardless of the !vote tally.
 * 4) After 60 days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if it has a) failed to earn at least 5 support !votes, and b) earned less than two-thirds support.

Nominations should generally be left open beyond the above-listed minimums if they have a reasonable chance of passing. Please be patient with our process. We believe that an informed discussion with more editors is likely to produce an improved and more stable final list. When proposing to add or remove a particular topic from the vital people list, we strongly recommend that you review and compare the other topics in the same category in order to get a better sense of what is considered vital in that area.


 * 15 days ago:, (UTC)
 * 30 days ago:, (UTC)
 * 60 days ago:, (UTC)

Leonardo
, given Leonardo's naturally "limited" impact (on painting and drawing almost exclusively) perhaps Michelangelo (impacted painting, sculpture, architecture and drawing) would be a better choice. Aza24 (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would switch out John Locke for Kant as well—Kant is by far the most impactful Western philosopher after Aristotle and Plato Aza24 (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to do any swap right now. You are welcome to boldly make any changes to this list since it is relatively new. I think since this new list is established, then I think entries should be added by community consensus. Interstellarity (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * OK—I've gone ahead and done so, since I think the switches are rather uncontroversial. Aza24 (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I started on level 2. If you want to work on that, you are free to. Interstellarity (talk) 11:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

3 under quota
Can you add 3 more people to this list since we are under quota? Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I think Bach, Mozart and Tolstoy are essential in Arts section. Leonardo da Vinci is missing, but Michelangelo is from the same era. --Thi (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Add back Socrates and Freud
I'd revert this. Socrates is far more influential a figure within philosophy than Plato, who is mainly known for writing Socrates down. Freud was also an excellent pick for an unrepresented domain. Not sure where Gauss was discussed but I don't think we need Gauss and Euler at this level. The sciences are overrepresented. czar 01:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Dawid2009 wished inclusion of Copernicus and Gauss. I think that the quotas should be raised to 75, 150 and 750. These quotas would probably include all the most often discussed people. --Thi (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

50 or 75 people?
It seems that it would be too difficult for editors to decice 50 most relevant people topics. Quota of 75 people would probably be more useful. Many participants of Vital articles projects have wished to have a list of 125–150 people and those who famour more minimalistic approach could use the list of 75. Here is a draft version of what it would look like. --Thi (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC) Link updated. --Thi (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 75 - 100 - 500 does not make sense to me. In fact 50 - 100 - 500 does not either. There is just too small a leap from the top 75 to the top 100. It would be much better if we did something like 50 - 200 - 500 - 2000 - 5000, or just 50 - 500 - 5000. 75 is just an ugly number. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, does nobody else think it's a little ugly that 3/4ths of the level 2 list is bolded? We might as well not have a level 2 list. It's just Level 1 + some hangers on. I chose 50 -- 500 -- 5000 for my list because it's easy increments of 10. That means that only 1/10th of the names on my list are bolded at any time. Even the way it used to be, the 100 people list had half its people bolded. It just doesn't make sense. Honestly, I would propose something like 50 -- 200 -- 1000 -- 5000. That way it's much easier on the eyes. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have created a page in your userspace here with your proposed changes and I have reverted your changes. Please don't change the quota without discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I meant 75 - 150 - 750 - 5000 - 15,000. My original suggestion to Interstellarity was 50 - 100 - 500 - 5000 - 15,000, which seems most logical option. Level 1 has been a little disappointment so far, addition of Tolstoy got negative feedback elsewhere, I thought that one prose writer would be among top 25 entries. Those users who didn't want quota of 100 people in Vital articles would probably continue to be not satisfied with these lists. I presume that 200 would be better option for those users.
 * Quota of 1000 has potential to include all relevant people topics. (I said in previous discussion that 1000 would be too small quota, but I then I had in my mind Level 4 quota of 2000 people, which covers especially historical leaders very extensively.) It has been said sometimes that Vital articles project serves two purposes: to list the most important topics of human knowledge and to counter systematic bias in Wikipedia. That's why I think that 500 is too small number in global encyclopedia. For smaller wikis list of 500 (or 50) could work well. It is quite difficult to include both the most well known historical persons in different fields and some diversity as well. In my opinion the most important people topics in encyclopedia can be covered maybe with 600 or 700 names. A project like this would need more slots to include those topics which some individual user like me haven't thought. --Thi (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Why Leo Tolstoy, Johann Sebastian Bach, and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
I don't understand why we need three classical and baroque German-speaking composers are needed on the list of top 50 people when Beethoven, the most important musician of history, will suffice just as well. Furthermore, why is Tolstoy on this list of all people? I know Thi said that it was about "representing" a prose writer, but I am honestly tired of people that think we should award placements on this list on the base of "representation." I don't think Tolstoy stands on the same level as Shakespeare or Homer, who are the only two authors that merit representation on a top 50 list. Anyway, Tolstoy does not really make sense. There are other prose writers, notably Miguel de Cervantes and Voltaire, that would come before him.

I would remove these three and add back Plato, Neil Armstrong, and Sigmund Freud. Zelkia1101 (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Consensus based discussion
Please note that I have changed this level into a consensus-based discussion since there has been a little bit of contention about how should be added and removed. I'm keeping the other levels the same so you can still boldly add and remove people from other levels. If anyone wants to add or remove someone, they need to get a consensus first. Interstellarity (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Socrates, Add Plato
Both Socrates and Plato were influential philosophers, but I think Plato outranks Socrates when it comes to importance. Interstellarity (talk) 11:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Interstellarity (talk) 11:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Support removal if you want a swap. I am Neutral with Plato. --Thi (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, Plato is far more influential. Aza24 (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Neutral

Swap: Remove Johann Sebastian Bach, Add Leonardo da Vinci
I think having two composers is enough for this level. Leonardo has conceptualized things that didn't exist in his time that exist now. Interstellarity (talk) 11:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Interstellarity (talk) 11:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Support addition. The list has the most well known sculptor, but not Leonardo who is probably the most famous painter. --Thi (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support removal – Mozart and Beethoven's influence was far more significant than Bach's—for most of history, Bach was hardly known other than his keyboard works and cantatas. Aza24 (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose removal. Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are three most important classical composers.  --Thi (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Neutral

Swap: Remove Augustus, Add Julius Caesar
While it's undeniable that both Caesar and Augustus are important, I think Caesar outshines him when it comes to importance especially for his role in creating the Roman Empire. Interstellarity (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Interstellarity (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Caesar is is better known to audience so I think he is better option. Augustus is in Level 2 anyway. --Thi (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Neutral

Swap: Remove Leo Tolstoy, Add Dante Alighieri
I think Alighieri is a better choice when it comes to writers since Tolstoy was a widely contested addition. Interstellarity (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Interstellarity (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose The list would contain poets but not prose writer and modern author. Thus Cervantes would be better option than Dante. --Thi (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Neutral