Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Red categories

Hey team - a fair number of categories for vital articles have not been created and so appear red on Special:WantedCategories. Can someone from this project take on the task of setting them up? Thanks in advance, UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Remove Abu Nuwas

Normally I would suggest swapping him with Rumi, but since we are in the business of getting rid of articles, I thought I would suggest a cold removal. Abu Nuwas nets very few page views on Wikipedia, never surpassing 250 views in a single day. While he is culturally important, I do not think he is even the best representative of Middle Eastern literature. The lack of attention readers give to his article indicates that he is not a key figure for an English-language encyclopedia.

Support

1. Support as nom -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 02:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support. He's not vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
3. I oppose a straight removal but would support a swap with Rumi or Ferdowsi. Having one representative of Middle Eastern literature is more important than listing five writers from the British Isles, particularly when English literature is also listed. Cobblet (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC
4. Support swap with Rumi or Ferdowsi per Cobblet. Aza24 (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support swap with Rumi per Cobblet.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
6. Support swap with Rumi per Cobblet. Interstellarity (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
7. Support swap with Rumi per Cobblet. The removal of Rumi was always a mistake, Persian literature is one of the most important and one we should cover. Abu Nuwas isn't really as comparable in importance and in the lower tier of this list. GuzzyG (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
8. Support swap with Rumi per Cobblet. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
9. Support removal If you want more space for other entries in this section. --Thi (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
10. Be replaced by Rumi, since he is the most popular and best-selling poet in America (from the lede of the article), which surprised me a lot, since usually a person tends to prefer a poet with the same ethnicity to one with another one, and a typical American is a WASP.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC))
11. Support. Not very well known. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
12. Support' swap with Rumi. I tried in the past swap/comprasion of Zorroastrianism with Rumi (what resulted in removal of Rumi and dening him) but this was during time when writers were more overreprsented. Rumi is clearly big omnission for English Wikipedia and Zorroastrianism should be replaced with another article. This is not bad to have Rumi over Persian language if there is consensus he is the most vital writer in Muslim World. I think Ali is much more vital than Rumi but can live with that entry/consensus. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
13. Support swap with Rumi per above. Gizza (talk • voy) 09:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

For anyone curious, I did some research into Abu Nuwas a while back (with the intention of working on his article because he's on this list) and found that he is not even close to the level of any other figures on this list. There are certainly more prominent Arab poets as well. Aza24 (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

If people are insisting on a swap, I would prefer Rumi to Ferdowsi, given the former is vastly more popular with users. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Remove Year

We list two units of time but don't list units of measurement for any other fundamental quantities. I think calendar sufficiently covers the notion of a calendar year that we don't need to separately list it. Nor do we need to cover the various astronomical definitions of a year at this level – they're pretty esoteric.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
2. I'd support removing this and day to free up some space. To the extent they are human constructs they are covered by calendar, and to they extent they relate to astronomical phenomena (axis of rotation, orbit around the Sun) they are certainly Level 4 worthy but not Level 3 worthy; indeed, the latter is already covered by orbit.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per discussion above; too much overlap with calendar, which should cover the various agricultural issues related to year. I will oppose removing day if proposed, as I don't see anything else regarding the difference between night and daytime. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per everyone else. GuzzyG (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose the concept of a year is important, I don't think orbit can replace it. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Dawid2009 (talk)
3. Oppose Calendar and year seems to be a good combination. Calendar talks about systems of organizing days and year as a basic concept is defined in another article. --Thi (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose --Tucvbif (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Day and Year seem different to me than other units of measurement as they are not really constructs like other units of measurement but are based on naturally occurring phenomenon, specifically the rotation of the Earth on its axis and revolution of Earth around the Sun. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

While we are on the topic then how would you feel to maybe swap it with New Year? Dawid2009 (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

That would be an even worse addition, since it's subsidiary to Year and we don't post holidays on here.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

New Year at least would not have overlap with Orbit/Calendar etc. and covers something other else what is not mentioned in Orbit/Calendar about Year. We would bit more cover definition of year also in cultural article, just as we rejected article Rainforest to cover its definition in Amazon Rainforest at this level (see in archives why Amazon rainforest is level 3 despite being subsidiary to rainforest which is level 4 article). This would be the only article on holiday/festival neutral for all nations (though there are also other more important cultural topics which express everyday life so I am not sure New Year would be vital enough at this levek, anyway). Dawid2009 (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Swap: Remove Neutron and Proton, add Carbohydrate and Lipid

If something on nuclear structure absolutely needs to be listed, better to list atomic nucleus than to list both neutron and proton. But I'm not even convinced that's necessary. We already list a lot of topics related to atomic and nuclear physics and their practical applications. Meanwhile for cells, we do not list cell nucleus nor any other organelle, nor cell cycle.

I didn't oppose the addition of hormone since we have nothing on cell signaling or the endocrine system in animals. But carbohydrates and lipids are fundamental building blocks of life – as biomolecules go, these should be a much higher priority. (Protein is listed, while DNA and RNA are listed separately rather than nucleic acid.)

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support additions I was surprised they weren't already on here.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Other articles cover atomic physics reasonably well. --Thi (talk) 11:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Ideally we would have both pairs at this level but we are way overboard currently. Proton and neutron are covered by subatomic particle anyway. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removals Protons and neutrons are the constituent parts of the atomic nucleus and serve as counterparts to the listed electron (I'm aware the latter is more important historically and with electricity, but I digress). I might be convinced with a swap for quarks, but even that's a bit debatable given the niche knowledge of the latter. We have enough space on here that we don't need to remove these.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

   It is far from apparent that we do in fact have space for them. We're at 1003 articles and it appears there is support to add more countries and more people. It is also far from apparent to me why nuclear physics needs to be represented by all of subatomic particle, proton, neutron, and radioactive decay when theory of relativity suffices to cover both special relativity and general relativity, and state of matter suffices to cover all of solid, liquid, gas and plasma (physics). I suggest that hormone was a weaker choice than all of the topics I've just mentioned. If we don't remove proton and neutron, I will propose swapping them for atomic nucleus and removing hormone, unless you have a better suggestion. Cobblet (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

2. Oppose removals per above comment. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose removals I don't see how neutron and proton are covered by subatomic particle any more than how Uranus and Neptune are covered by planet/solar system. Gizza (talk • voy) 06:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

   They aren't; but people seem to like listing astronomical objects. If people also like listing nucleons, I'll respect that consensus. Cobblet (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

4. Oppose. As a non-physics expert, the terms neutron and proton are much better known that the others. Rule of thumb (commonly known=more vital) suggests the current set up is good. Nether of the proposed additions strikes me as being even on the same level as far as public use of the terms.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Proton and Neutron are more basic in a sense. RJFJR (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose --Tucvbif (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

• The Biology section is already the largest section in the sciences. And endocrine system probably would have been a better article to list at this level than hormone. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  These topics, along with protein and hormone, could just as easily go under (bio)chemistry as under molecular biology. And Life is level 1 after all. Cobblet (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap: Remove Bengali language, add Swahili language

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was really surprised not to see Swahili here – a major African language with a long literary heritage, a lingua franca in huge parts of Eastern Africa, and an official language of the AU. Yes, there are more L1 speakers of Bengali, but it’s not only a numbers game. For South Asia we already have Hindustani, which like Swahili is more international. Bengali is more strictly limited to Bangladesh and adjacent areas in India. African culture is not very well represented in the list; adding Swahili would remedy that to some extent. --Telepanda (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.
2. Support. Bengali has a relatively large number of speakers, but it doesn't seem particularly vital to list at this level to me. Portuguese is probably more vital to the English Wikipedia and we recently removed it. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

   We didn't actually remove Portuguese in the end. Cobblet (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

   Aa, I see it survived by one vote. Regardless, I supported its removal and I support this one as well. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

3. Support addition Swahili deserves to be here, we are lacking in African culture and it is practically the lingua franca for a good chunk of the continent. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Swahili is a much more important language in culture and history than Bengali, which is contained and historically isolated. We need more articles pertaining to Africa than what we have now. Hindustani will have to suffice as the representative of the subcontinent. — Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Bengali has a lot of people, but Hindustani has even more.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
6. Support addition Niger–Congo is the largest language family by number of languages, and third largest by number of speakers. It deserves to be represented and Swahili is the obvious choice. Cobblet (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
7. Support addition Per my comment in the archives. Swahili is supercentral language in global language system Dawid2009 (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
8. Support removal, oppose addition. Neiter is really important. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal Bengali handily beats Swahili and Portuguese (another recently suggested removal) in page views. It has more than three times the number of speakers than Swahili and its literary heritage is just as rich as Swahili's. I don't consider Bengal a less significant cultural region than East Africa, and the Bengali diaspora is very much an international one. I'd rather remove Brahmic scripts if push came to shove. Among the alphabets the only one I'd keep is Latin. Cobblet (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal per Cobblet. With approximately 228 million native speakers and another 37 million as second language speakers,Bengali is the fifth most-spoken native language and the seventh most spoken language by total number of speakers in the world.— TheWikiholic (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal' Languages are vital in my book. We can cover the most important langusges if we discuss/mention on that talk around writers like Rumi (repressntative of Persian language which is not on the list), Dante (Italian, not listed), Tagore (Bengali, just nominated) etc.. Languages are more foundsmental than literatures/single writers to human knowlage. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose removal Bengali is a large language, too large to be removed from Level 3. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
5. Support removal, oppose addition. Neiter is really important. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose removal With over 200 million speakers, Bengali is the 4th most most influential Indo-European language. Only the English language, Hindi, and the Spanish language have more speakers. Dimadick (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

1. Did Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus vote twice?

The way they have Bolded their writing, I would guess they wrote it on both sections as are showing they both support removal but oppose addition, as opposed to a simple clean straight support or oppose. Not the way most people do it, but I can see the intention. One should just be mindful when counting up when this is closed as to not count it twice.  Carlwev  23:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Colonialism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Colonialism is the form of imperialism that involves a population transfer from the subjugating power to the territory being subjugated. While it has been used to describe earlier historical events (we cover many pre-modern groups of people who established colonies such as the Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs and Vikings), the term is strongly associated with the Age of Discovery, which is listed along with many of its aspects (European colonization of the Americas, Western imperialism in Asia, Scramble for Africa, Spanish Empire, British Empire). Decolonization is also listed. Given all of our coverage of Western colonialism (note how Britannica does not have an article on colonialism per se), I think keeping just imperialism to cover the slightly broader political concept is sufficient.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Per nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Seems to be covered by other articles on this list. --Thi (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet said everything do not need to add but will say else that IMHO having Magellan and Age of Discovery would be much better to keep room than decolonisation and colonialism. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
5. Support - always felt that colonialism is redundant to imperialism here. More suitable at Level 4. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
6. Support. Too much overlap with other listed articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
7. Support. Too much overlap, per Cobblet. GuzzyG (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
8. Support per above concerns on overlap. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I think colonialism as a separate concept from imperialism is still worthy of being listed at this level. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Colonialism is distinct from imperialism, and it is unfortunately one of the prevailing themes of history that touches all six continents. There is no reason to have as many writers biographies as we do while not having a key concept like imperialism. I will oppose the removal of an article that is not a writers biography on this list — Zelkia1101 (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose - These are two distinct concepts, two distinct articles. Jusdafax (talk) 03:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose I think colonialism has had an overwhelming impact on human history, with most modern countries starting out as colonies. Dimadick (talk) 07:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Dimadick. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose --Tucvbif (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

1. Oppose. I'd rather remove some or all subarticles which are limited practical examples of colonialism (like the ones you mention - European colonization of the Americas, Western imperialism in Asia, Scramble for Africa). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Remove Board game and Card game

These seem to be mostly covered by game in my opinion, I think they could work fine at Level 4. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Support removal of card game, neutral on board game—Card games seem to have little major impact on society and are especially modern. Not sure about board games, which are an older tradition afaik. Aza24 (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 07:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
4. Support removal of card game Card game article is more isolated, not comparable to board game. GuzzyG (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. RJFJR (talk) 03:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Board games and card games are important cultural mainstays that exist across cultures and times. It would be ridiculous to remove them, especially since they represent so many people and cultures, from Ancient Egypt to ourselves. How the hell are either less vital than Franz Kafka or Rumi? — Zelkia1101 (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

#Oppose per Zelkia; further, card games date to at least the renaissance and include such cultural mainstays as Poker and Contract bridge.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC) While I won't support, I'm striking my oppose on the grounds that we are above quota and already have game.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

1. Oppose removing board game From Senet to Snakes and ladders to Chess to Monopoly - board games are a important enough part of human life/activity thoughout multiple cultures and enough time to be listed. GuzzyG (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Zelkia. There are biographies and probably many other articles which should be removed first if space needs to be made. Disagree with removing longstanding, cross-cultural phenomena. Gizza (talk • voy) 03:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose  Carlwev  18:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Per above. Probably there are better topics to cut and otherwise video games also should be called into question. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I'd support this IF we were also removing video game. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap:Remove Sargon of Akkad, Add Akbar

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Note: Akbar has already been added to the list in another nomination.

I think this would be a good swap to promote a more diverse landscape of people. Interstellarity (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Support We already list Hammurabi for ancient Mesopotamia, I'd like a pre-contemporary Indian ruler, especially a Mughal one. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per above. --Thi (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Since the previous proposal to add Akbar is likely to pass, this is essentially a proposal to remove Sargon. Even without listing him, Mesopotamia remains the cradle of civilization with the most coverage on the list. I'd consider it an improvement to replace him with one history article related to sub-Saharan Africa such as the Songhai Empire, for example (not that we actually have room for it at the moment). Cobblet (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
5. Support per above. VIT4 is sufficient. czar 00:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
6. Support Minoo (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Sargon of Akkad is vital and central to encyclopedia as the founder of arguably the first empire and the first organized state. He kicked off the period of prosperity in Mesopotamia that would vault that region into historical prominence for thousands of years. His person is central to the history of the Middle East. Why are we removing him and keeping Kafka or Twain? Is Sargon of Akkad really vital when they are? — Zelkia1101 (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Sargon is the earliest empire-builder known to us, and one of history's most influential rulers. 23:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)

Neutral

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spring Offensive

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia:Vital_articles/List_of_all_articles#S includes Spring Offensive. The article has been moved to German spring offensive. Cewbot has now removed the article from Vital Articles as it is unlisted. I haven't the faintest idea how Vital Articles work. Should the lists be edited and the article re-inserted under its new name? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but I think a bot will do so.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Same thing now with Edward Plunkett, 18th Baron of Dunsany moved to Lord Dunsany. DuncanHill (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• They haven't been re-added. So anyone who wants to de-list a vital article only has to get it moved. DuncanHill (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Saint Lawrence River and Seaway

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Both these articles were moved from Saint to St. The bot is removing the vital article templates and I'm on mobile today. Wondering if someone could fix their entries in the lists? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 13:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Floydian: The bot has fixed these entries. I note Gulf of Saint Lawrence and the associated categories have not yet been renamed. Cobblet (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it was quite a big task with going through the articles to change each instance as well, so I didn't get around to the categories (nor, TBH, do I know how to properly move them). Cheers, Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap: Remove Canal, Add Public transport or Bus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm not sure if the removal was a good pick to remove, but I think the addition is necessary because we don't have anything that covers buses. The only kind of road transport we cover is the car, but since buses are the other major kind of road transport, it is necessary. We do have forms of public transport on the list such as Rail transport, and Aircraft already on the list. I would like to know your thoughts on adding each one, but not both. Interstellarity (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose City suffices at this level. We do not need to separately cover every type of urban infrastructure. How is public transport more vital than something that would be equally if not more relevant to a rural setting like farm, which we've previously rejected? Cobblet (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Car is already included, this is sufficient. We cannot cover every type of vehicle. Minoo (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Not essential at this level. --Thi (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add History of life

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think the article History of life should be a level 3 (or 2) vital article (right now it is a level 4 vital article). ObserveOwl (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. (nom)

Oppose

Discussion

We already have Evolution at Level 2, and Abiogenesis at this level, which I figure already covers this topic, but others might feel different.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Paleontology and History of Earth probably covers this sufficiently for this level. --Thi (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Personally I would replace history of life with paleontogy which is more specific. I do not think History of life is less vital than early human migrations or even human evolution. All these articles are incredibly important to human knowlage and more than enough vital at this level. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Splitting the biographies from the main vital articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I noticed Zelkia1101's vital biographies here which specializes in vital biographies. I think we should split the biographies on their own page called Vital people or Vital biographies. This project could replace Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies. The reason why I think this would be beneficial is that you can't compare a vital biography to a vital article that is not a vital biography. For example, Mark Twain and Jazz are on the same level, and saying which one is vital doesn't make any sense. If this passes, we should start off by putting the current level 3 biographies into a separate level 1 biographies list and setting the quota of 100 or 50, and deciding through discussion which articles to keep and remove to reach that quota. Level 4 biographies would become level 2 biographies with a quota of 500 or 1000 and also deciding through discussion which articles to keep and remove. Level 5 biographies could become level 3 biographies and the same thing would happen to them and have no opinion on what the quota should be. I'm interested in your thoughts on this and if you have suggestions other than mine, please throw them in there. Every suggestion is worth it. Interstellarity (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I can see this happening, but also keeping the status quo of biographies integrated into the main articles.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

These seems like a solid direction to go in, but can we not make this into a "vote" like everything else? I encourage people to try and discuss this thoroughly rather than just a pure vote. Aza24 (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I have taken out the votes and turned it into a discussion. After reading the comments, once we discuss different ideas, then we could put it to a vote. Interstellarity (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems more sound for something like this. Aza24 (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

One of the things I'm concerned about is the possible extreme selectivity, and overall unhelpfulness of a say "Vital biographies 1" level. If we start making a small list which is just "Jesus, Aristotle, Gutenberg etc." I don't see it as actually being helpful to editors. Since we have 127 biographies right now, I wonder if the highest list should start at 150 for a nicer (yet arbitrary) number. That would give us some room to air out many of the closer removals and additions we avoided because of the numerical constraints. Aza24 (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I started a draft here based on JMW's sketch with Zelkia1101's list of 50 important people. I think this is a good start so we can make decisions on how we can improve the list by adding and remove people. Anyone is welcome to contribute to it. I haven't started on the 100 people yet, but I plan on doing that soon. I think if we take out the people from the main articles, we have a lot of room for important articles we can add. Interstellarity (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I started a first draft of level 2 of vital people here. Feel free to make any changes without consulting me first. Interstellarity (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Level 3 is complete. As always, you can make any changes as you feel necessary. Interstellarity (talk) 11:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

John M Wolfson's sketch

Here is my idea of how this would work, based on the fact that the current COREBIO list has 202 entries.

• Level 1: 50
• Level 2: 100
• Level 3: 500 (either this or level 4 would be the highest level for living persons)
• Level 4: 1,000 (either this or level 3 would be the highest level for living persons)
• Level 5: 5,000

(Like the main list, each level also includes entries from higher levels.)

I think level 1 would mainly be split into religious figures, philosophers, scientists, and politicians/leaders. Level 2 could accommodate more categories such as businesspeople and writers, and lower levels perhaps still more. I strongly suggest restricting living persons from the top 2 and maybe 3 levels, as is the current practice at (main) level 3. I think some exclusivity is in order if only because "Level 1" has such a cachet on the main list that would be important here (there is a difference between Jesus/Muhammad tier and Twain/Goethe tier); I think 50 is a good start.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment

I'm surprised people noticed my project so quickly. The current level-2 list contains all 500 articles, and I think it's solid if people wanted to use it as a jumping off point. I discuss my reasoning for choosing the people I did on the talk page, if that's of any interest. If anyone has any suggestions, let me know. Overall, I don't see a reason for a new official list per se, but think it would be nice to revive the core biographies project, since it's already established. Zelkia1101 (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not really sure why we need this. The vital articles lists already include people, and while yes, it's kinda absurd to try to compare the vitalness of Mark Twain and jazz, that could be said for lots of the comparisons we have to make when the compiling the lists; that's just the nature of the endeavor. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  I think that if the people have their own list and we took out all the people, this gives us 127 slots to fill that could be used to add more articles that are not covered at this level. I still think that having a vital people list would be beneficial to the project. Interstellarity (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

1,000 biographies in Level 4 would not be enough. You could include the most common names from cultural history but not so much from global political history, or vice versa. Level 4 Vital biographies should have 5,000 biographies and level five 15,000 bios, if vital people will not be listed anymore in Vital articles. 5,000 might look large number but the list of 2,000 biographies is already quite ambitious listing and not always the easiest to handle or navigate. Many other names are in the same level of notability than those currently listed. --Thi (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Thi: What do you think would be the best structure for this list? Are you fine keeping the quota for the first three levels the same? If not, what could be different about them? Interstellarity (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I think users would find 50, 100 and 500 as logical choices. 50 is quite narrow selection, but it is a starting point. List of 100 can be useful when you can compare it to larger list with 500 entries. 500 biographies would be a successor to original Corebios project. I think 15,000 biographies would be useful in Level 5. If we have a list of 65,000 articles, we really don't need to think about creating Level 6 with 100,000 articles. (I guess most editors would be satisfied with that number, list of 100,000 would need too much work.)

An ideal structure would be:

• Level 1: 100 articles and 50 bios
• Level 2: 1000 articles and 100 bios
• Level 3: 5000 articles and 500 bios
• Level 4: 10,000 articles and 5000 bios
• Level 5: 50,000 articles and 15,000 bios

Currently the list starts with quite trivial list of 10 vital articles and we don't have a list of 5000 vital articles (and don't really need it), but maybe some other language version would find this structre useful. Levels 3–5 would represent the structures of printed encyclopedias. I have for example a single-volume encyclopedia with 15,000 short entries and a multi-volume encyclopedia with 5,000+ long articles. Such encyclopedias as Encyclopedia Americana contain about 50,000 articles and Britannica 100,000 articles. Encyclopedias and biographical dictionaries have often long special articles among shorter articles, for example 100 or 1000 main topics. --Thi (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Thi: I like that list a lot. I have changed the numbers to match that. It sounds like you would be in favor of getting rid of the current level 1 list and I agree with that since it is very hard to pick which 10 articles are most important for Wikipedia. The current level 2 list could be the new level 1 list. The current level 3 list minus the biographies would become the new level 2 list with articles in place of the biographies. The level 4 and 5 lists, like the previous level, minus the biographies, could stay the same with new articles in their place. I think separating the biographies into their own list would be beneficial to Wikipedia since it will be easier to compare importance between articles. You can't compare a biography's importance with a non-biography article. Interstellarity (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Removing the Level 3 biographies

I was wondering if this would be a good time to remove the Level 3 biographies. The new list of vital people covers most of the biographies at this level. What this would do would be to demote all biographies in the vital articles list to level 4 temporarily until a level 4 and 5 list of biographies is made. Once a level 4 vital people is complete, we can demote all level 4 vital article biographies into level 5. Same thing with level 5. Once the level 5 vital people list is complete, we can completely remove the biographies from the level 5 list. It would be a phased approach, first remove level 3 biographies, then level 4, them level 5. I'm hoping this will be a good idea. It might take a little bit of discussion before we can come to a conclusion on what we can do. Interstellarity (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

As nobody has spoken against removing the biographies on level 3, I will go ahead and do that. I will keep the biographies on the lower levels. Any editor is welcome to revert if they have a different opinion on splitting the biographies. Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the biographies. However, there was a discussion (see here) regarding the new list. In that discussion, several users expressed their opinion for the keeping of Michael Jackson in the list. There was discussion, but not consensus. Apart from that, taking into account that the former Level 3 contained 127 biographies and the current Level 2 contains only 100, all those 100 biographies should come from the previous 127. Later, if deemed necessary, we can propose the addition of other new biographies that were not even in the former Level 3 (e.g. Rumi), but I think that a voting with a consensus would be necessary to remove Michael Jackson (or another biography) and thus include a new one. Because otherwise, Jackson would be in current Level 3 along with Elvis Presley. even though months ago we had a voting that resulted in the removal of Elvis Presley from the former Level 3 and the addition of Michael Jackson to that level. Where then does this common consensus that we reached go? As for the rest, I agree with the changes, and in this case the simplest solution is to keep Jackson in Level 2 (just as Louis Armstrong is there) and then later vote on whether to swap him for another biography. Salvabl (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal. As I’m barely active as a Wikipedian, I know my say is probably limited. :) Still, I think the Vital articles page has become boring and dead without people. For me, the biographies made the page come alive. There’s always people behind science, art etc., and listing a few of those people made the page much, much more interesting. I predict the pageview will slowly drop… I don’t see why the 127 biographies couldn’t stay – they are no threat to the ”Vital Biographies” project! Also, with so many active users in past discussions, I find this change very drastic and a bit ”hijackey” or single-handed – are all the active users really on summer holiday? :) At least, they should have some weeks to vote and comment, as is common for ordinary proposals… (BTW I agree with Salvabl that Jackson should probably be level 2 in the bio project.) --Telepanda (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• As someone who uses the VIT lists more than participates in them, I don't see this as being a good move. I think it's fine to maintain a separate list of bios for personal use (or under the Biography WikiProject, similar to what other WikiProjects do), but I'm not seeing the benefit from further dividing the VIT pages. The lists are already difficult to navigate. As a side note, the lists broke the bot, which just removed all VIT3 bio notices from the VIT4+ lists. czar 23:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I see a whole bunch of copy and paste moves being done, copying content that was under Wikipedia:Vital articles/.../People/ to be under Wikipedia:Vital people. This breaks attribution for the moved content. I think it would have been better to do page moves instead. isaacl (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose any split of vital people from vital articles. This seems to have gone ahead rather hastily, with no strong rationale attached to it and at least two opposing voices above. It has also breached attribution rules as well as causing a bot to malfunction. This needs to be reverted back to the prior status quo, with Vital people included within the Vital articles realm, at least until a much more strong consensus and rationale has been established.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - per Interstellarity's comment above, "Any editor is welcome to revert if they have a different opinion on splitting the biographies" and the now three voices opposing the change, I've gone ahead and reverted the splitting off of "Vital people" for levels 3, 4 and 5. I'd suggest deleting the new pages, and if a consensus ever emerges, then doing a simple page move to retain attribution. I definitely oppose, though. People articles are still articles, and should be maintained as part of the same process as vital articles. If Zelkia1101 or anyone else wants to maintain their own lists of bios, that's up to them, but this project handles all the core and vital assessments. CHeers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

  Hi Amakuru,

  I'd like to clarify my reasoning for the changes. Part of the reason why I split off the people is that there are no people listed at Wikipedia:Contents/Overviews. The people are unique among the Wikipedia articles because you can't compare the vitality of a person against a non-person article. I'm sure the same can be said for other articles, but I think the people should have their own place because I think it's easier to compare the vitality of one person to another person. One possibility would be to add some people to the overviews page. I hope this clarifies my reasoning for the vital people page and I hope we can keep the page. Interstellarity (talk) 11:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Interstellarity: thanks for your response, and I can see where you're coming from although regrettably I don't think I agree. I'm not really familiar with Wikipedia:Contents/Overviews, so can't really comment on what's been included there. Perhaps that's similar to the fact that very few people have risen to Level 1 or Level 2 vital status. But on your latter point I think your comment "I'm sure the same can be said for other articles" would sum up my position on the matter. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it comes with the territory that we have numerous different categories of articles, none of which are directly comparable. Which is more important out of Existentialism, New York City and The Beatles? That's not really a question you can directly answer, as they're different types of entity, even though none of them are people. So the same thing applies. But WP:VA has always done a good job of this, by subdividing the complete set of our articles into more comparable categories, and then picking the most important from within those categories, aiming for rough predefined numbers within each. From my point of view, the "people" category should be just another one of those, with its own fixed numbers too. Note that VA is used in numerous different avenues within Wikipedia, for example WP:TCC - when I was selecting an article to work on, I came to VA and perused the lists to see which one would be most fitting. I wouldn't have wanted the biographies to be off on their own somewhere, and then have to remember to look at those separately. Anyway, that's my point of view. I guess if you want to have a set of vital people pages which is separate and additional project to the vital articles, perhaps including lots more entries, I wouldn't particularly oppose keeping them, as long as the people within VA are retained. Czar makes a similar comment above, in that that effort could take place in WP:WPBIO/V. That might work. Anyway, food for thought. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

  Wouldn’t the Beatles be people? Hyperbolick (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for this accident. I re-execute the program and it seems no problem now. The accident is resolved. The links should keep under Wikipedia:Vital articles/* so the bot will not remove {{Vital article}} again. Kanashimi (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support the split, for the record. People are their own thing historically. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Amakuru and support move Wikipedia:Vital people to Interstellarity sandboxes. We can always add as many as we want sandboxes to the template which is already included in Wikipedia:Core topics (Zelkia's lists are already included, if you want you can always also add Interstellarity's, Thi's, GuzzyG's and others' lists) but I do not see why we have to create lists of 50 and 100 biographies in main space (where was at least consensus to split biographies? Had we RFC with +50 votes where are admins?). I do not think efforts to create lists of 50 people in sandbox or 200 people in sandbox would be uttery not useful (based on such collaboration we could later correct bias on metalist, on meta there is so terrible list of 200 biographies and about 50 bolded biographies that should e corrected) but Amakuru gave very strong argument why this list is much more useful if I can see biographies on the page: I came to VA and perused the lists to see which one would be most fitting. I wouldn't have wanted the biographies to be off on their own somewhere, and then have to remember to look at those separately.. Also, to add to this, our project do not have a lot of participants and from my experience I can say that after spliting +15 000 biographies from 45 000 articles on the level 5, we will hve just more "to do work", much required efforts, and bigger mess. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - thanks for the above perspectives. As Dawid2009 says above, and Telepanda too, I think this should be considered a major change to the way VA works, and something which will have impact not just for those who watch this page, but for anyone else who uses vital articles as part of their processes. WP:TCC being one example. As such, this needs to be decided by an easily-visible and well-attended RFC - which could even be held at WP:Village pump/proposals rather than through a count of heads here, for greater visibility. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 06:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
• What does it matter if these sit in project space or an editor's draft? And in project space, there'd surely be prominently links atop pages so nobody need remember they're there. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
• Just wondering: is there any plan to update the pages with copied content so they provide attribution? isaacl (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
• Thanks for stepping in, Amakuru, and just for the record/to put it in bold, I still oppose this. The reply to me above, with the rationale that the split gives us 127 slots to fill, seems to miss the fact that the entire point of VA is to be restrictive. I also think that we have enough trouble maintaining the lists as is, and that expanding the number of VA articles would only make the problem worse. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Double the amount of countries

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Been a while since I posted here, truth is I want to make a new account but that's irrelevant here. Now that all the biographies have been removed we are severely under quota. People were very much in favour of adding more countries in the past and the list currently contains 39, I propose doubling this to 78. I have a list of countries I think should be added but I'd also like to see what other users have to say. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

My [External edit: PaleoMatt's] proposed list:

• Afghanistan
• Angola
• Austria
• Belgium
• Chile
• Czech Republic
• Denmark
• Ecuador
• Finland
• Ghana
• Greece
• Guatemala
• Hungary
• Iraq
• Ireland
• Ivory Coast
• Kazakhstan
• Kuwait
• Madagascar
• Malaysia
• Morocco
• Mozambique
• Nepal
• New Zealand
• Norway
• Peru
• Portugal
• Qatar
• Romania
• Sri Lanka
• Sudan
• Sweden
• Switzerland
• Taiwan
• Uganda
• Ukraine
• Uzbekistan
• Venezuela
• Yemen

• Way too much of a focus on countries with a high GDP per capita: there are plenty of more populous countries I'd take over Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Norway, Kuwait, and Qatar. And frankly I don't think we need this many countries. Adding 10 countries and 30 articles on natural features (Southern Ocean, seas, rivers, lakes, mountains, biomes) would be much more of an improvement IMO. I don't even think the Geography section needs this much of an expansion to begin with. Any discussion on removing biographies to add more articles to other sections of the list should look to improving the list as a whole. What is the better replacement for Einstein, Switzerland or general relativity? Does it make more sense to replace Muhammad with Yemen or with Five Pillars of Islam? Cobblet (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  As a counterpoint to John Wolfson's suggestions, my choices for ten more countries would most likely be Afghanistan, Ghana, Iraq, Malaysia, Peru, Switzerland, Taiwan, Uganda, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. I would not support adding any subnational entities or regions. If the countries I suggested were added, I'd also consider adding Central America and the Caribbean as supranational regions (although adding either or both would make me less likely to support adding the Caribbean Sea), but I would not support adding Scandinavia – even within Europe I consider the Balkans more vital. Cobblet (talk) 04:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• New Zealand is infamous for being forgettable/irrelevant such that it is often left off world maps and referred to as "the planet's bonus track"; as such, and with a population smaller than New York City, I feel that it is inappropriate for this level. I also oppose Iraq and Greece since we already have Mesopotamia and Ancient Greece along with several countries in their area, although they are more justifiable. In addition to Cobblet's suggestions for natural features I think that with this large amount of new space some subnational entities such as California (cultural and technological capital of the world and would be a Top 10 economy were it its own country) and Maharashtra (Bollywood and Indian finance) are better additions to describe the world around us.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • As I think more about this, I could see adding these countries:
    • Afghanistan
    • Angola
    • Austria (or at least something about the Austrian Empire/Austria-Hungary/Habsburg Monarchy/etc.)
    • Chile
    • Ghana (or maybe something about the Ashanti Empire, etc.)
    • Madagascar (genuinely surprised it wasn't already on here)
    • Malaysia (ditto)
    • Portugal (ditto)
    • Sri Lanka
    • Switzerland (notable for its longstanding diplomatic neutrality and internally decentralized nature)
    • Taiwan (I can see re-adding this)
    • Uganda (the most populous country not already on this list, if I'm not mistaken)

  I think these are the main "holes" in our current country list. A few more in addition to these would be fine, but I think these are plenty for now. I would not support adding any of the individual nordic countries, but I would support adding Scandinavia.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Most (if not all) countries are Level 4 VA, what you mean by "inclusion" is elevating from them Level 4 to 3. I don't think this is justified. Aeonx (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some nominations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've noticed the removal of biographies and the creation of the Vital People list. Some proposals:

• History of philosophy
• History of religion
• Idea
• Political philosophy
• Self
• Work (human activity)

Also, Homicide over Suicide. WIKINIGHTS _talk 13:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• History of philosophy is currently a redirect to an article section and thus ineligible. Idea isn't even at Level 5 at the moment but I can maybe see it if we don't already have a similar concept on the list. I think we already have various political concepts on Levels 2 and 3, although a recent general trend is to list the study of things above the things themselves. Self is currently at Level 5. I'm fine with History of religion, Work (human activity), and Homicide being promoted, but Suicide should stay as it is also an important cause of death.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm surprised that we don't have a separate History of philosophy article. History of human thought exists. WIKINIGHTS _talk 03:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

This will be closed with no effect since the nom forgot to add voting sections. I'd support Work and may be Self. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll nominate Work (human activity), Homicide, and History of human thought formally. WIKINIGHTS _talk 06:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Grand Canyon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think that Canyon should be added while Grand Canyon should be removed. Canyon is broader than the specific Grand Canyon. Interstellarity (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per discussions. --Thi (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per all. If this is in the wrong section it's because I'm on mobile and anyone is free to move it accordingly.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per #Add Canyon czar 00:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
5. That make sense, if we have to trade 1:1. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap: Remove Rome, Add Dubai

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This will be controversial for numerous reasons I'm sure but I think this could actually be a reasonable swap. Dubai's insanely rapid growth during the late 21st century into a global economic centre is certainly worthy of being listed here. Dubai is listed as a Alpha+ city by the Globalization and World Cities Research Network which is the same level as already listed cities such as Beijing, Hong Kong, Paris, Singapore, and Tokyo. The city is one of the world's biggest tourism centres and continues to be one of the fastest growing in the world. I don't think I need to explain how Dubai has been seen as a metaphor for 21st century capitalism and such with its giant skyscrapers and artificial islands...

Rome is important, I will not deny this, however I think it is probably the easiest city to cut from the list. Compared to other cities listed it lags behind in modern global importance and large portions of its history are covered in the articles for Ancient Rome, the Renaissance, and Italy itself. It is only ranked as a Beta+ city, the same rank as Cairo. Unlike Cairo however, Rome is not the metropolitan centre of its country despite being the capital (listing capitals does not seem of importance as seen by the failure to add Berlin and the lack of cities such as Ankara, Washington, and Brasilia in favour of their larger counterparts).

I won't be surprised if this fails to pass but I think this is still worth considering. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Object. There may be an argument for adding Dubai, but certainly not for removing Rome. Dubai is becoming important, Rome has been important for millennia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose. For example Overconsumption would be more important concept related to 21st century capitalism. --Thi (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Rome is important, I will not deny this, however I think it is probably the easiest JUST THE HARDEST city to cut. The Rome is one of the oldest cities on the list and gets more pagewatchers than every city except New York City which interchangebly has the same amount of pagewatchers. I would be OK to swap Ancient Rome with Roman Empire for consistency with other topic, to not miss the most important empire in history. I think we have littly too many cieties and geography of Western Europe is overrepresented but guess Rome has about 0% chance to pass and be dropped. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Rome's importance extends far past its ancient days. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose, as per above. ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3 levels vs 5 levels of people

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the vital articles lists, there are only 3 levels with people on it. When I created the vital people list, I wanted to have more levels for people to make it easier to judge the importance of one person to another. It seems like something I worked hard on making is now coming into ruins at this point. I was wondering if it's still a good idea to have at least 5 levels for people rather than 3 regardless of whether the biographies are split or not, although it would make more sense to have the bios split. Is there any way we could have 5 levels of people if the people are not split like a level 3.5 or 4.5? Interstellarity (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap: Add Paleolithic and Neolithic, remove Neolithic Revolution and Early human migrations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've been paying attention to this list more than I used to for WP:TCC, and I've thought for a while that there's a...discrepancy...in which prehistory articles inhabit Vital 3 and which inhabit Vital 4. At Vital 2, we have Prehistory -- all good. At Vital 3 this first subdivides into Stone Age -- reasonable, very popular term. Then that subdivides twice, still at the Vital 3 level, into Neolithic Revolution and Early human migrations...with Paleolithic and Neolithic not popping up until Vital 4. This creates the bizarre situation that a Vital 3 topic is a subtopic of a Vital 4 one, as "Neolithic Revolution" is a subtopic of "Neolithic". "Paleolithic" and "Neolithic" are clearly more fundamental divisions of "Stone Age" at this level; it is impossible to understand the Neolithic Revolution without understanding either of those two, and while humanity's worldwide dispersal is certainly an important topic, if the choice is between the current divisions at Vital 3 and the proposed ones, I think the proposed ones more comfortably fit with the thousand core topics. (Given a bit more breathing room we might be able to accommodate all three of Paleolithic, Neolithic, and Early human migrations at Vital 3, but we don't have that room and IMO the subdivisions take precedence.) Vaticidalprophet 01:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. nom
2. Support removal of Early human migrations I guess some other articles are more interesting for general reader, foer example Paleolithic. I have no strong opinion on how many articles about prehistory are needed at this level. --Thi (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
3. Support removal of Neolithic Revolution and additions. Gizza (talk • voy) 06:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal of Neolithic Revolution The advent of agriculture is the event that separates human history into a before and after, up there with, if not above, the Industrial Revolution and advent of the Information Age. I am neutral to the other proposals.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal of Early human migrations. Knowing about how humans moved out of Africa and settled every continent of the world (barring Antarctica) is arguably more important than periods defined by technology (of which there are already many at this level). Gizza (talk • voy) 06:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal of Early human migrations per daGizza. This makes much sense to know about early human migrations before every other history article, for example either of preColumbian America and Age of Discovery. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose both removals They are far too important to humanity's history to ignore. Dimadick (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose both This change is no improvement. Minoo (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Mollusca and Crustacean

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We could do with listing some more of the larger well known groups of invertebrates and these two seem like the most obvious additions. I also wouldn't be opposed to adding Arachnid or some more specific insect groups. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 02:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 02:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Support at least mollusks, weak support crustacean as we already have arthropod and insect. If crustacean passes we should also consider beetle, spider, and maybe ant.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Large groupings of animals with a high impact on the cuisine of various countries. Dimadick (talk) 06:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Yes. These are large, important groups, and should be on the list. Whycantusernamesbe21 (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Common topics in encyclopedias. But removals are also needed. --Thi (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
6. Support - per above, except the beetle, spider, and ant. Add arachnids - yes, remove a person or remove cat. starship.paint (exalt) 13:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We have no room for these. Cobblet (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Violence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As a more general topic than homicide. This covers topics related to war, crime, and more. WIKINIGHTS _talk 22:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. nom. WIKINIGHTS _talk
2. Makes sense, this is a vital concept. We do have the even more higher level conflict here, however (right?). So there is arguably some redundancy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Typical content for an encyclopedia. Other related concepts are listed such as Genocide. --Thi (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per above. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
5. Support per above as well. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
6. Per all.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
7. Support Per all Dawid2009 (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
8. Support Dimadick (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Canyon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The entry for Grand Canyon looks a bit out of place without Canyon also being included. Also, all of the other specific features have the general feature listed as well. The grand canyon is not the only significant canyon in the world, and should not have higher priority than the main Canyon page. Whycantusernamesbe21 (talk) 06:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

[nom]

1. Support Important geographic feature. Dimadick (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Support - Interstellarity (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'd rather remove Grand Canyon, to be quite honest. Even within the American West it's not as important as the Rockies or even California.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose We definitely do not need to list types of valleys. Erosion should be enough to cover most erosional landforms at this level. Cobblet (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose per all. --Thi (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
4. And move Grand Canyon to VA4. czar 00:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose per above. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

1. I would exclude Grand Canyon. I'd prefer Valley over Canyon. WIKINIGHTS _talk 00:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Mount Everest and Mariana Trench

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Now that we have more space from the biography moves, it has been suggested above to add more natural features for Geography. I think having both the highest and deepest parts of the Earth surface would fit well in that case, although to what extent we should have any individual geographic features can also be debated.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Weak support ME (not MT). Extreme points are not vital but ME is very famous, more so than MT or GC (particularly outside US, most people in the world have heard of ME, much fewer of the two other entities - although I am sure for most Americans, ME and GC are about as famous...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Important geographic articles, with high impact. Dimadick (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Support'·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Mount Everest. Highest point on Earth with immense cultural impact. If we are to include individual features, it makes sense. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
6. Support per nominator Dawid2009 (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per discussion here and on previous occasions. I don't consider the list improved by replacing individual people with geographic features that are only of interest as extreme points. I consider exploration, Nepal, and seabed (or even something like marine life, although that is not on any of the vital article lists) more vital articles, for example. Cobblet (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose I don't see Mount Everest as more vital than Grand Canyon. Ocean current or Ice age would be more useful topics than Mariana Trench. --Thi (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Extreme geographic features are not inherently important. WIKINIGHTS _talk 03:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Mariana Trench. Does not have anywhere near the impact of Everest. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
5. oppose  Carlwev  17:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Everyday life proper

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Add "Everyday life" (currently Level 5) as a general article for the section "Everyday life". WIKINIGHTS _talk 03:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. as nominator. WIKINIGHTS _talk
2. It's a very important topic, which should be moved up in vital ranking as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not every section header needs an article on here.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Insignificant topic. Less vital than its own elements. Dimadick (talk) 05:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Unimportant. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose - not really a major encyclopedic topic.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Homicide

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Homicide naturally follows Death as a cause of death. If we include the less important Suicide, we should also include suicide. WIKINIGHTS _talk 00:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. nominator. WIKINIGHTS _talk
2. Per nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We have no room for this. Cobblet (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per List of causes of death by rate about 1.36% of all deaths worldwide is attributed to suicide and other forms of self-harm. And suicide has been used as a key concept in human culture since at least the days of the Greco-Roman world. Per the same list of causes of death, only 0.70% of worldwide deaths are attributed to "interpersonal violence" (various forms of assault). Homicide has had less of an impact on human culture than suicide, and affects much less people. Dimadick (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Violence would probably offer more general view. Currently there is no room. --Thi (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Violence is better.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Afghanistan, Switzerland, and Taiwan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since the bio split, we've had quite a bit more space. In that light, and per the country discussion above, I think there is some consensus to add these three countries. Apologies if this is a trainwreck, but I think there are some points to be had for all of them:

• Afghanistan is the first country in English alphabetical order often considered a crossroads of the world, and given such a position it has had a colorful history and managed to foil foreign-power intrigue from the United Kingdom, Soviet Union, and United States. Also, if we add it we have an unbroken chain of countries stretching from China to Turkey, perhaps the most historically-important region of the globe in human history.
• Switzerland seems a bit odd on this list, but has famously maintained diplomatic neutrality for centuries (Napoleon excepted) in an otherwise-bloody Europe, even through both World Wars; as such, it houses the International Red Cross and many international institutions in Geneva and Zurich. In addition, its highly decentralized canton structure beats even the United States for federalism, also rather special in a world of unitary countries.
• Taiwan is an important power in East Asia and has been involved with power struggles between China, Japan, and European countries. While I originally supported its removal, upon the addition of the similarly-sized Netherlands and further reflection I think it deserves a spot once again.

 – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Weak support Taiwan due to importance and controversial role in international relations as well as global economy (one of Asia's tiger economies).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Addition of countries would make the list only better. --Thi (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Support adding Taiwan If developed but less populous countries like UAE and the Netherlands are good enough for the list, Taiwan must make the cut as well. Cobblet (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
5. Support adding Afghanistan and Taiwan Afghanistan has been nicknamed as the Graveyard of Empires, and used to be a battleground for the Great Game between the British Empire and the Russian Empire. It has a long and colorful history since the days of the Durrani Empire. Taiwan is a rump state of the Republic of China (1912–1949), and represents the legacy of the Chinese Civil War into the 21st century. Both are vital players in Asian history. Dimadick (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose A and S.Afghanistan has been a passive place where big powers fight but hasn't done anything itself, and has no economic importance. Switzerland has no diplomatic importance except as the neutral meeting ground, so passive here as well, and as for their role in the economy, outside some banking aspects, it's not very important either. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
   • You use economy as a reason to add Taiwan but not Switzerland which has a larger economy? Also disingenuous to say that Switzerland's role as the neutral meeting ground isn't important, hosting offices of the UN, WTO, WHO, ILO, etc is rather important on the global stage. Also not to mention other notable aspects of Switzerland such as the Large Hadron Collider, FIFA headquarters, International Red Cross, Nestle, Rolex, etc. As for Afghanistan, I'm not too keen on the idea of adding countries solely for having large populations (Uganda is a good example of a commonly suggested country that falls under this) but Afghanistan definitely has its history and geography on its side here as a complement to its large population, even if you take out the importance in geopolitics that is the conflict of the last few decades, Afghanistan was a key component of the silk road and has been inhabited by civilisations as early as the Indus Valley. Afghanistan is also rather infamous for its unforgiving geography which has been decisive in determining the history of the region for millennia which has earned it the name of the "crossroads of Asia". -- PaleoMatt (talk) 12:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
   • Afghanistan has been a passive place where big powers fight but hasn't done anything itself So has (to an extent) Poland, which we still list.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Procedural oppose. The removal of biographies has now been reverted, for lack of consensus. Therefore any additions need to replace something, unless editors actively want level 3 to be bigger, in which case that should be agreed.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose adding Afghanistan and Switzerland We have no room for any more countries besides Taiwan. Cobblet (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose adding Switzerland Not a vital European state. Per Switzerland during the World Wars, it has mostly served as a refuge place for exiles from various countries. It has had little impact on European conflicts and alliances. The Culture of Switzerland mostly represents a crossroad for the cultures of France, Germany, and Italy, rather than being influential in its own right. Dimadick (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose Changing from support to oppose since biographies have been reverted meaning we have no space. I would support a swap of Israel for Taiwan however, both countries have similar merits but Taiwan is more populous and has a greater economy. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose The list is full. I especially oppose adsition of Switzerland which is beyond me. This is clear Western Europe has been extremally overrepresented after addition of Netherlands. Remember there are more underreresented regions in Europe and other parts of the World, various countries with greater population. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trimming the biographies – Politicians and leaders

I'm not going to lie, I was somewhat excited when the bios were split for the amount of space it afforded us to focus on other things. Now that that's been undone, however, I still think we should trim them to about 100 or so to get that same effect, if a bit reduced. There have been attempts to make 100-bio lists, such as Thi's list and GuzzyG's list, but neither had formal !votes taken on them. I liked how we trimmed the writers' section fairly well, and would like to do that for every section, starting with politicians and leaders.

This is currently the biggest section, and to be quite frank it probably always will be. I'm going to propose the removals of people who are not on both Thi's or GuzzyG's list, as well as that of Hatshepsut, whose inclusion I'm not particularly convinced on. NOTE TO CLOSER: Just because I am nominating certain removals does not necessarily mean I support them, just that I think they are worthy of discussion. As such, do not consider me to support a nomination unless I explicitly mark a !vote in the "Support" section. Also, in the interests of not flooding this talkpage, please refrain from "bulk-nominating" the other biography sections until this one is complete.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

(Failed) Remove Hatshepsut

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We already have Ramesses II for pharaohs, and Elizabeth I and Catherine the Great for female leaders. If we really needed a female pharaoh we could have Nefertiti or Cleopatra. Although she is on both Thi's and GuzzyG's list, looking at her article I remain unconvinced that she has a legacy of actual deeds that most of the entries on this list, especially Ramesses, don't also have.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Not as necessary as some countries. --Thi (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Support swap with Cleopatra. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Support swap with Cleopatra, the latter is more famous. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
5. Support swap with Cleopatra. Interstellarity (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose I would remove one of Tudor first (for example SWAP Elizabeth I with Queen Victoria). Dawid2009 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose The Pharaohs of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt are better known to the general public than most of the others. Hatshepsut remains one of the better known rulers of the New Kingdom of Egypt. Dimadick (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose, and oppose swap with Cleopatra One woman from antiquity should be listed (we've already removed Sappho), and Cleopatra's significance is already covered by Augustus#War with Antony and Cleopatra. Attaining "unprecedented power for a woman, adopting the full titles and regalia of a pharaoh"[1] is legacy enough. Cobblet (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Strong Oppose Cleopatra overlaps with both Caesar/Augustus already, which is enough. GuzzyG (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

@Dawid2009, Dimadick, Cobblet, and GuzzyG: Would anyone support a swap for Nefertiti instead of Cleopatra? Interstellarity (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Why should we choose a consort instead of a Pharaoh? Nefertiti owes much of her modern fame to the Nefertiti Bust, not to her political activities. Dimadick (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Failed) Remove William the Conqueror

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

He is on neither Thi's or GuzzyG's list, which is likely fitting; we already have Elizabeth I and Henry VII for British leaders; one reason he was added in the first place was that he closed the temporal gap between Charlemagne and Genghis Khan, but as this list becomes more exclusive I don't think such temporal gaps matter as much, especially during the so-called "dark ages". While I don't feel particularly strongly about this, and I originally supported his addition, I think Henry VII and Elizabeth I (and maybe Queen Victoria) are adequate to cover British history.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Elizabeth I is more cental cultural figure. --Thi (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Henry VIII and Elizabeth I played much more central roles in European history. The Norman conquest of England is not even mentioned in Britannica's history of Europe. I don't see anyone complaining that we list Caesar and Augustus rather than Lucius Junius Brutus. The Domesday Book is not that exceptional an achievement: we omit plenty of capable administrators of similar or greater repute in Europe (Constantine the Great, Justinian I, Frederick Barbarossa, Casimir the Great) and beyond. Cobblet (talk) 08:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose What is even sense to remove all political figures from UK for cost two overlaped Tudors, who represent relatively very short time and even were not (quite rightly IMHO) on this list before 2020? Clearly it is bogus to say we need more Elizabeth or Henry when we have already Reformation and two Tudors, but we do not list Norman Conquest of England, nor Normans or even England. It should be unthinkable and considered "overkill" to keep two Tudors on this list. Forget to ever touch William until we will not swap tudor(s) for other political figure or whatever. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose I don't see why he should be removed outright, I would prefer a swap. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Every king of England between the late 11th century and the early 18th century claimed descend from William. His Domesday Book is one of the most valuable sources on English economic history. Dimadick (talk) 09:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Failed) Remove Joan of Arc

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not on GuzzyG's list. I am personally neutral on this; on one hand she ultimately didn't do much, but on the other she led a frenzied crusade and became a folk hero.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support. Tomorrow or in next few days I will put rationale here. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Support If you want to make room for other topics. --Thi (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Support fairly insignificant historical figure - except to French national sentiment.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I don't see why we should remove her outright similar to what I said about William above. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose She was one of the most important figures of the Hundred Years' War, and the Kingdom of France is underrepresented. Dimadick (talk) 09:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Household-levek of fame, or close enough. More famous that a bunch of kings and such that only us history buffs know. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Failed) Remove Henry VIII

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not on GuzzyG's list. Unless we are swapping him with Queen Victoria, I'm afraid I'll have to oppose this despite nominating it. He's one of the most famous/well-known British monarchs, and even outside of his eight wives he was crucial in the development of British constitutional history.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. So strong support One of Two tudor. But honestly I would preferencji SWAP Elizabeth with Queen Victoria. Tomorrow ot in few next days I will keep ratiknale here Dawid2009 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Louis XIV would be better choice since Elizabeth I is already listed. --Thi (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Despite being nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per nom. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Henry was the founder of the English Reformation and his Dissolution of the monasteries largely transformed England and Wales. To quote the main article: "The dissolution of the monasteries in the late 1530s was one of the most revolutionary events in English history. There were nearly 900 religious houses in England, around 260 for monks, 300 for regular canons, 142 nunneries and 183 friaries; some 12,000 people in total, 4,000 monks, 3,000 canons, 3,000 friars and 2,000 nuns." Dimadick (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

In the past some users (at least Aza24 and RReagan007) kept doubts about Elizabeth. By all that mean borg Tudor should Technical have chance/nomination for Remo Val just as Stalin/Lenin Below. If You disagree You can always make nomination with oppose vote as you Didi at Catharine Below. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Failed) Remove Akbar

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not on GuzzyG's list. I'm leaning oppose on this but will refrain from making a !vote for now. He seems crucial in medieval Indian history, and while this isn't the best metric he has more than 125 interwikis, so I think he might be a good counterpart to Ashoka.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Tagore was added. --Thi (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Support. It's west-centric, I know, but... Akbar who? Indian history is sadly not very well known, and that is related to vital concepts. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose As long as we ar not reoving one of two Tudors I oppose'l rrmol of every bio listed underground political figures (except Joan of Arc, and Stalin/Lenin where I am neutral, I will explain Tomorrow or in few next days why) . Dawid2009 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Vital importance to that regions history. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC
3. Oppose Akbar was a successful expansionist, and the Mughal Empire was one of the most extensive empires in Asia. He was also a patron of the arts, and created "a library of over 24,000 volumes". I would put him above most world rulers. Dimadick (talk) 09:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose per all.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose per above. Akbar has the 40th highest number of pageviews out of all articles on this list in the last month. Pretty ignorant to say "not very well known". Gizza (talk • voy) 02:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Failed) Remove Catherine the Great

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not on either list, but I'll still have to oppose this. Unless we are swapping with Peter the Great, I think she represents Tsarist Russia in the era when it went from being European backwater to one of the great powers of the world, stretching from the share of Poland she conquered all the way to the first European colonies in Alaska.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support swap with Peter the Great. This is tough but I think Peter has a longer and more lasting legacy. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Despite being nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose. She is ddfinietly needed. Much more than other Women which ee list. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Typical topic of an encyclopedia, quite reasonable inclusion at this level. --Thi (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Unlike Peter I, Catherine II was a representative of enlightened absolutism. The Russian Enlightenment is largely associated with her political reforms, and manufacturing prospered under her reign. "The upper classes of Russia put more money into manufacturing, which grew during Catherine's reign. The number of enterprises increased from 600 to 700 in 1762 to over 2,000 when her reign ended." Dimadick (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Lenin removed) Remove one of Vladimir Lenin or Joseph Stalin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Thi's list has Stalin while GuzzyG's has Lenin. I have come to agree that having both is redundant, and not in a necessary Caesar/Augustus or Socrates/Plato/Aristotle way. I would personally prefer removing Stalin, as he is covered by Lenin, Hitler, and Mao. That said, Stalin carried out much of the effort in World War II and serves as a foil to Hitler while Lenin was primarily an ideologue, so I won't let the best be the enemy of the good if consensus develops otherwise.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom; prefer removing Stalin but am fine with removing Lenin if that's where consensus lies.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021(UTC)
2. Support removal of Lenin Stalin is the most famous dictator with Hitler and Mao. Lenin is associated with Communism and Soviet Union which are listed. Currently World War II is more popular topic than the First World War. I think Stalin's article should have a little higher priority. --Thi (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Support removal of Lenin. Both are important but there has been a bit of consensus here for a while that one needs to be removed. Lenin brought the revolution but it was Stalin that built Russia into an industrialised nation and won a world war. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Support removal of Lenin Lenin served as head of government of Russia for 7 years (1917-1924). Stalin was the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union for 30 years (1922-1952). Stalin had the lengthier term in power, and probably had more of an impact. As we note in the General Secretary article: "At 30 years 7 months, Stalin was by far the longest-serving General Secretary, serving for almost half of the USSR's entire existence." Dimadick (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
5. Support removal of Lenin In the interests of trimming the biographies, per supporters !votes. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
6. Support removal of Lenin per above. Interstellarity (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
7. Support removal of Lenin with a view of getting down to 100 people articles Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Too important, defining for early communism and so on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Lenin being one of the central figures of 20th century communism and an important symbolic figure within the Soviet Union and Stalin being, well, Stalin, one of the main leaders of the Soviet Union. Roniius^{talk to me} 09:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Both Lenin and Stalin are no doubt vital at this level, since my junior high school world history textbook has both (I'm a Taiwanese!), Maoism is basically the Sinicization of Marxism-Leninism, and Stalin industrialized the USSR substantially (although he did commit atrocities).--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Fela Kuti (when we get under quota)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

JMW suggested this person to add as a non-Western musician. However, because we are over quota, I'm opposed to adding it right now. Once we get a few articles removed, I think this might be a good representative of non-Western music. I think if this passes and we are over quota, we should wait to add it until we are under quota. Interstellarity (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support when we get under quota. Interstellarity (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

#A world musician would be nice, but we are indeed at quota at the moment.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We do not need more musicians than what we have now, and Kuti is not particularly popular on Wikipedia. Again, I sympathize with the desire to include non-Western musicians, but I am opposed to adding articles for purely representative purposes. Zelkia1101 (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose not nearly prominent enough, and I'm not convinced we need any musicians at all on this list. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

Responding to Zelkia's concern, perhaps Bob Marley is a better choice. Cobblet (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a good choice in my opinion. @John M Wolfson and Zelkia1101: I was hoping to get your thoughts on whether this is a better choice than Kuti. Interstellarity (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Bob Marley would certainly be a better choice than Kuti, but I would still have to oppose. My main contention has always been that we do not need more musicians, and that if we were going to do anything to that part of the list, we should be cutting and not adding. I personally suggest we remove Wagner and Armstrong if it came down to it. I'm not really too bugged by their presence, and I think the musicians list is fine as it stands, but I do not think that adding Marley would at all be an improvement to the Level 3 list. Ideally, there should only be five musicians, though seven is certainly acceptable -- and enough. Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm repeating myself, but I agree that it would be better to cut Wagner without adding any replacement. Cobblet (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I could see adding Marley, but I also agree that we don't really need a non-Western musician, and if we must add a biography (also debatable) I'd rather add a post-1950 figure that isn't pop culture (such as music) or politics/leadership (such as Mandela or Mao), as much as those are probably hard to come by. (I could also see another businessman to not make Henry Ford so lonely, but Rockefeller never seems to make the cut for whatever reason.) I don't think we need to cut Wagner at this time (though I wouldn't oppose), but maybe Armstrong is redundant with the Beatles and Michael Jackson.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

How is Armstrong more redundant to the Beatles and Jackson, than Wagner to Mozart and Beethoven? Cobblet (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I originally withdrew this discussion due to the removal of the people from this level, but since the removal of the vital people got reverted, I take back my withdrawal. Interstellarity (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Colorado River

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I noticed that since we've removed the Grand Canyon (which I think was the right thing to do), we don't have anything related to the geography of the Western United States except for the Rocky Mountains. I think the best thing to add to fill this gap would be to add California, but I am aware it is controversial and I don't want to relitigate it at this point. Perhaps a more appealing solution for people would be to add the Colorado River instead.

The Colorado River basin is home to about 40 million people, including the major metropolitan areas of Las Vegas and Phoenix, and it is a key part of why the Western United States has as many people as it does despite its aridity, compared to the ~riverless and sparsely-inhabited Australian Outback. Although it doesn't have any commercial boat traffic unlike the Mississippi River, the river itself is so developed and built upon that it hasn't generally reached the sea since the 1960s, and is the subject of several treaties and compacts between the US, Mexico, and several US/Mexican states. It is the location of natural/engineering features such as the Hoover Dam and Grand Canyon, neither of which are themselves worthy of this list, IMO, but contribute to the River's overall importance.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Not as culturally significant as the Nile, but easily of greater importance than individual U.S. states. Dimadick (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose You've got to be kidding me. Why does the geography of the western United States need more representation beyond the Rockies, when we have pointed out numerous times that there are entire regions of North America which are completely unrepresented, like Central America or the Caribbean? Even within the US I'd consider the Great Plains much more vital; yet that can hardly be considered a high-priority addition in comparison to transnational biomes such as the Eurasian Steppe, or the Sahel and savannas of Africa, or even the taiga. And then there are literally dozens of rivers around the world I'd be listing before the Colorado. I don't understand how anyone could argue with a straight face that the Colorado might be more vital than the Yellow River, Mekong, Indus, Tigris–Euphrates, Danube, Niger, Congo, Paraná, etc. Cobblet (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

   This is an unusually strong oppose. We don't generally list biomes other than basic nonspecific ones such as grassland, so I don't think the comparison is particularly apt. We've shot down Central America and the Caribbean because we shy away from fuzzy transnational groupings whose boundaries can shift. I also doubt that your "dozens of rivers" is "literally", when you strain even with 9; you seem to have forgotten that we already have Mesopotamia on the list.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 11:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

   We already list the Amazon rainforest, the Sahara and the Great Barrier Reef as specific examples of ecoregions (although I'd swap the last of these for Southern Ocean). Central America is a well-defined grouping. Listing the Caribbean Sea is a plausible alternative to listing the Caribbean; in fact, I'd list both the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico before the Colorado. And even though I'd rather list one of the other rivers I first mentioned, I would probably still list the Euphrates in addition to Mesopotamia before listing the Colorado. Other rivers and lakes I'd list before even considering listing the Colorado: Ob, Yenisei, Lena, Amur, Volga, Brahmaputra, Zambezi, Orange, Okavango, Mackenzie, Orinoco, Murray, Lake Baikal, Aral Sea, Lake Tanganyika, Lake Chad. Unlike the ones I first mentioned, I don't think any of these would ever be added (although we used to list Lake Baikal), even if we were to remove all the biographies. I'd probably also consider the Panama and Suez Canals, dozens of countries, and dozens of other geographical features (even Greenland, for example) more vital than the Colorado, even though most of them currently have no realistic chance of being listed. All that is why I so strongly oppose this proposal. Cobblet (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

   I take it you would also list kitchen sink before the Colorado River. My apologies, I didn't realize the Colorado River had murdered your family.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

   In all seriousness, though, Lake Baikal is a plausible addition with enough bio trimming.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

   When I have nothing good to say, I try to say as little as possible. But I always mean what I say. If I could pick any place to live in the US without regard to practicalities, it would likely be somewhere on the Colorado Plateau; but my appreciation for the American Southwest doesn't change my judgment that the region is nowhere close to being in need of representation on this list. Cobblet (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

2. Oppose There is plenty more geographic features more vital than this. I don't see why we need more features from the Western US other than the Rockies. -- Maykii (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Not among the main encyclopedic articles. The importance of rivers is for civilization is exemplified by other articles. --Thi (talk) 09:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose not nearly vital enough. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

• For those wondering why the Western US would need more geography, the Eastern US has three articles on this list (NYC, the Great Lakes, and the Mississippi River) whereas the Western US has only the Rockies. I might close this soon given the unlikelihood that it'll pass, however.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 11:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed insertion of body image disturbance

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The topic of the article is a very current issue, especially due to the pandemic and the lock-down and correlate with the increasing eating disorders in young people. The article was recently rated as GA ~~~~ Srobodao84 (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Srobodao84 You seem to misunderstand what this page is about. This is only for the "Top 1,000" articles that we should have a Featured Article of. This applies whether "during the pandemic" or not, and we actually actively don't want current issues on here, which is why you don't see any living persons on here. Current article quality is also quite irrelevant. As for body image disturbance itself, the article is present in only the English and Italian Wikipedias, isn't even at Level 5 (the top 50,000 articles), and is a subtopic of body dysmorphia that we also don't list at this level. If you feel it is important enough, you can add it to the relevant Level 5 category (generally without discussion needed), and I'll close this discussion. Thank you!  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Richard Wagner

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Three classical composers and three popular musicians is reasonable number at this level.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
2. In the interests of trimming the biographies, sure.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Support It is not fair to list Wagner if we already have for example Opera over Piano and over 50℅ all Musicians are from German-speaking Countries. Removing Wagner is creating list more diverse on small space of 1000 articles. What other solutions for diversity you do suggest? I feel supporters object because of they experienced in project what actually is small space for 1000 articles but opposers started !vote mainyly per Bandwagon effect Dawid2009 (talk)
4. Support Neither Wagner nor any other composer in the history of classical music is on the same level as Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. Ludicrous to pick a fourth Austro-German composer to represent Western classical music when we deem Dostoyevsky redundant to Tolstoy, Lenin redundant to Stalin, Heisenberg redundant to Bohr, etc. Absurd to argue that removing Wagner "leaves a huge hole" when other areas of the arts like folk music, architecture, and film receive far less representation than the Austro-German tradition of classical music; to say nothing of other fields of human endeavour which are completely unrepresented. Duplicitous to argue that a fourth Austro-German composer of classical music is needed to represent movie and TV music while rejecting Lata Mangeshkar because she happens to be alive. We list a maximum of three political leaders from any one country. Only English-language literature gets four writers. We list only three chemists and three biologists. Yet we need four Austro-German composers? Cobblet (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Support per Cobblet. Interstellarity (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
6. Support Per Cobblet, removing Lenin because of Stalin, capping powerful countries to three leaders, not having Ali with Muhammad, capping religious figures to only 1 or 2 per religion, not covering the religious founders timeline with Zoroaster or important figures like Maimonides, cutting Pythagoras, Sophocles and Sappho cause of Greek overlap, scientific timeline with Francis Bacon, important leaders such as Saladin, Pope Urban II, Hernán Cortés whose names will last longer than Der Ring aspart of world defining important historical events or Emperor Meiji, or that a much better coverage of the fields today would be in Florence Nightingale (women in science/nursing), John D. Rockefeller (oil/capitalism) or Yuri Gagarin (space) - if we must do arts/entertainment - a much better well rounded representative would be to cover Marilyn Monroe, Le Corbusier, Muhammad Ali or in things we do cover Andy Warhol, Marcel Duchamp or Matsuo Bashō and Victor Hugo. It just makes no sense. We nearly removed Socrates (and had him off for ages) due to massive overlap covering the three big Greek philosophers, we don't have Raphael, we removed Alfred Hitchcock and Akira Kurosawa because 4 filmmakers was too much overlap, despite film being more prominent last century than classical music and if Wagner gets on for impacting film music than surely filmmakers themselves would be more important. (we have no sole film composers like John Williams on the 2k list either). How on earth was Goethe nearly removed and talks of removing Kafka but Wagner remains? How can it be any debate to remove every German writer but not the over bloated composers? Seems ludicrous to keep someone on the list because films and comic books were based on one of their works. GuzzyG (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
7. Support - Cobblet is convincing. 4 Austro-German composer is overkill on such a small list of biographies. Gizza (talk • voy) 02:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
8. Support Do we really need 4 Central European composers? Wagner is easily the least vital of the 4. -- Maykii (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose no convincing reason given and we already have one less musician than artists and explorers. Wagner effectively covers romantic music, modern classical and to some extent movie, tv and video game music. Since we don't have Verdi, Stravinsky, Debussy, or Schoenberg, so removing Wagner leaves a huge hole. But mainly, I just don't think we need to be removing any musicians right now. Aza24 (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Aza24 – ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Conditional oppose I support removing Wagner and getting to 100 people, but I cannot conscience removing him while the writer's category remains as crowded as it does. Ideally, an effort to remove Wagner will also involve removing Kafka, Milton, Austen, Tagore, etc. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

   I think the writers' category got as small as it ever will during the trim, which was even more ambitious than what eventually got cut.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

   I think now it is time to try cut English literature. Having five English-language writers (Mary W. is technically listed among writers on the level 4) along with English literature is apart like choosing to list either of UK and England, or either of India and Uttar Pradesh for cost (signnificant) country. Why we do not choose England ahead of Algieria or Netherlands based on "this is English Wikipedia"?. I could also be ok with trimming one German writer. Dawid2009 (talk)

   You're welcome to put your money where your mouth is by proposing the removal of Milton. Cobblet (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

   I did, if you'll recall, propose removing Milton, but it did not pass. Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

4. Oppose Wagner has had a large impact on popular culture. I have enjoyed films and comic books based on Der Ring des Nibelungen. Dimadick (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap: remove Lake Victoria, add Uganda

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Uganda is the most populous country in the world not currently listed. World's largest lakes are listed, Victoria is the largest lake in Africa.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Support removal per nom; were it not for space I'd rather have the African Great Lakes.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I don't think we should a country simply because it is the next biggest population wise. Uganda doesn't have much else going for it other than this, we already have a lot of representation from East Africa and Uganda doesn't have anything unique enough going for it to warrant it being included alongside Kenya, Tanzania, and Ethiopia. Lake Victoria is the second largest freshwater lake in the world and is important to a large region also being one of the sources of the Nile. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose addition per PaleoMatt. Raw population is not the biggest factor in country inclusion; I'd rather have Taiwan, Afghanistan, Switzerland, and even California before Uganda.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Strong oppose removal No rationale given for removing the second largest freshwater lake in the world and the world's largest freshwater fishery when freshwater resources are already underrepresented on the list to begin with. We agreed not so long ago that listing Lake Victoria was a better choice than the African Great Lakes. Cobblet (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose removal, neutral on addition Lake Victoria has has more of an impact than most modern African countries. Its fishing industry typically feeds the entire region: "At the peak in the early 1990s, 500,000 tonnes (490,000 long tons; 550,000 short tons) of Nile perch were landed annually in Lake Victoria". Uganda is somewhat famous for Idi Amin's brutal despotism, but I doubt if it stands out as a regional power. Dimadick (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose removal per above. Gizza (talk • voy) 02:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose addition I could do without Lake Victoria, but our country's category is, in my view, bloated as it is, and I do not really see a historical, cultural, ethnic or geographic rationale for Uganda to be on this list.

Discuss

Unlike others, I do consider population to be the biggest factor in country inclusion, but it isn't the only consideration. East Africa is relatively well represented with Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania all listed. West Africa, which has only about 10% less people, is represented only by Nigeria. Therefore I would slightly prefer to list Ghana, the second most populous West African country, before a fourth East African country like Uganda. Cobblet (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

With about 31, 1 million people, Ghana is the 47th most populous country in the world. But it has a much better economy than Uganda. The main article notes that it is the "7th largest producer of gold" worldwide, the "2nd largest producer of cocoa globally", that it exports crude oil and natural gas, and that it is the "9th largest production rate of diamonds in the world." According tp List of countries by GDP (nominal), Ghana ranks 72th in the world, while Uganda ranks 95th in the world. 21:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Assyria or Add Babylonia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't think it makes sense to list Assyria when we don't list Babylonia. I think that Assyria should either be removed or Babylonia should be added so that both articles are on the same level. I would be opposed to the removal and addition at the same time. Interstellarity (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support removal of Assyria as first choice. Interstellarity (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Support removal of Assyria. Ideally I do agree we should have both or neither and the list is 999 right now so it looks like neither wins out. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Support removal Mesopotamia covers for this, methinks.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Support addition of Babylonia or swap with Hammurabi. --Thi (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
5. Support addition.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
6. Support addition Babylonia was long-lasting and had a major impact in the ancient world. 20:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)
7. Support removal I cannot see any good reason to keep Assyria when we are above the article limit, Mesopotamia is already listed, and we don't list things like New Kingdom of Egypt, Roman Empire, Vedic period, Olmecs, or any period of Ancient China. Cobblet (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
8. Support addition, more famous. Ambivalent on removal. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
9. Support removal per consensus. (I changed my vote.) --Thi (talk) 11:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal Assyria was the greatest empire of the first half of the 1st millennium BC, and had a great historical impact. Dimadick (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose addition We have no room. Cobblet (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose addition already covered by Mesopotamia, methinks.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose addition I'm functionally neutral on removing Assyria, but Babylonia is not necessary. Zelkia1101 (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap: remove Shape, add Two-dimensional space

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Top-priority article vs. Low-priority article (in WikiProject Mathematics). Three-dimensional space is already listed at this level.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Support More specific article. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Support removal I think geometry should adequately cover general properties of geometrical objects like size, shape, position/distance, orientation, symmetry, etc. We also list several articles on specific shapes. The article on shape doesn't add very much that isn't already covered by other articles on the list. Cobblet (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support More important Whycantusernamesbe21 (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Per nominator's rationale. Dawid2009 (talk)

Oppose

1. Oppose we already have space at this level, and while shape is more specific, it also has been the subject of deeper inquiry throughout human history.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose addition Unlike for 3D geometry, we already list plenty of topics related to 2D geometry, so a general overview is less necessary. Also, we live in 3D space, not 2D space. Cobblet (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose shape is the important concept; the article should be improved and not removed. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Finding a consensus on 100 articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It seems to me that more and more people on this page are trending towards the feeling that we should cut down our biography section to 100 articles. I have been seeing John posting biography articles for deletion in mass. Most of these are, predictably, failing to pass. I think this is because people have not reached a consensus about what articles should be trimmed, are people are judging each article on the merits of its own case rather than on its relative importance to the other articles on the list. For that reason, I thought it may be a good idea to have a place to formally discuss removals before they are nominated so most of us are at least on the same page come time to actually nominate articles up for removal. In addition, discussing removals beforehand allows us to negotiate certain people on and off the list, with the view of achieving some sort of overlapping consensus. You may wish to create subheaders to organize discussion around individual. Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll go first. These are the removals I would consider making in order to get to 100:

(Politicians - 5) William the Conqueror, Henry VIII, Akbar, Suleiman the Magnificent, Catherine the Great

(Religious figures - 4) Abraham, Moses, Laozi, Adi Shankara

(Explorers - 1) Ferdinand Magellan and/or Roald Amundsen, ideally we would be adding Neil Armstrong

(Philosophers and social scientists - 3) Ibn Khaldun, Mary Wollstonecraft, Max Weber

(Writers - 6) Murasaki Shikibu, John Milton, Jane Austen, Rabindranath Tagore, Franz Kafka, Mark Twain

(Musicians - 1) Richard Wagner

(Inventors and scientists - 4) Shen Kuo, Jabir ibn Hayyan, Benjamin Franklin, Niels Bohr

(Mathematicians - 1) Emmy Noether

These should all reduce down to 100. Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Such type discussion was closed recently few months ago when Aza24 said that we could make moratorium or be more focussed on improving articles. Now it is more "forum about rankings" or try cut biographies "just to cut". Why reduce to less than 115? I agree with JMW comment in Battuta section that for example 120 would be more reasonable compromise (at least for now given how fastly this list is able to change), given how various are opinions/feelings in that projects (note few years ago some users even suggested larger quota larger than 150). I assume now this will go to the same point what recently but will wait again what others think (one thing which strike me at above proposal is cutting William and Henry as I would prefer swap Elizabeth for Queen Victoria and keep Henry, the rest I kept at my !votes). Cheers Dawid2009 (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't think 100 is feasible if people don't agree on the specific removals themselves, and 115-120 is a more realistic target. As such, any bulk action as you are proposing here would result in a clustermuck and a time sink compared to what I'm doing now. As for any more additions, I would oppose Armstrong and Gagarin as they were "men simply doing their jobs" and the Space Race (which we actively removed a couple of months back) didn't lead to permanent human habitation of space; we'll have to, Sagan willing, wait for Elon Musk to do that and become the only living person on the list. I'd only really support Rockefeller and maybe Mansa Musa.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll be completely honest I don't really get why we need to lower the biographies so much other than people are just bored and want to add stuff from other categories. -- Maykii (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

To be frank, an "encyclopedia" with only 100 biographies, would not be worthy of the name. When I was 6-years-old, I used to read a biographical dictionary aimed at child-readers. It had 500 names. Dimadick (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion at WP:VPPR

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please see this discussion at the village pump: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal:_Split_the_biographies_from_the_main_vital_articles. I opened up a discussion there for greater visibility. Interstellarity (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trimming the biographies – Religious figures and explorers

Same thing as with the political figures, but to save time I'm merging the religious figures and explorers section.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

(Failed) Remove Abraham

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not on Thi's list. I'm going to have to oppose this, however, given that he is the defining figure and eponym of the Abrahamic religions, whose adherents are I presume at or about the majority of the world's population. Maybe I can support a swap with Abrahamic religions (which admittedly isn't even at level 4), however.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Mythical figure, less important than the Book of Genesis which contains tall tales about him. Dimadick (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Mythical figures were not included for example in Zelkia1101's list of biographies. --Thi (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support We've previously removed Zoroastrianism and rejected the addition of Greek mythology. Given that, I don't think it's fair to list two figures from Abrahamic mythology when the Bible is already listed, and no mythological figure from any other culture is listed. FWIW, Abraham gets fewer page views than Zoroastrianism or Krishna. Cobblet (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Might be a radical opinion, but i'm not in favour of mythological figures being listed at all (and definitely not next to real people), as there's way too many competing ones across civilizations, (Yellow Emperor or Gilgamesh for example and there's no reason to prioritise here). Moses, Homer, Jabir ibn Hayyan and Laozi fit this description, but i'm more lax with the latter three. GuzzyG (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Support despite his importance to the Abrahamic religion. We should also be removing Laozi Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
6. Support swap with Abrahamic religion per nom. Interstellarity (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
7. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Despite being nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Literally namesake of three of the biggest religions, way too important. -- Maykii (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Strong oppose Although there is scholarship casting doubt on his historicity and his story contains legendary elements, this is the founding figure of Judaism and the faiths that followed: Christianity and Islam. He is to The Jewish tradition what Jesus is to Christians or Muhammad to Islam. Page views are irrelevant. This is a significant religious figure to multiple religions. I’m surprised this is even being raised as a theoretical exercise. Montanabw^(talk) 06:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Strongest of the possible opposes Per above. According to most sources Abraham is central almost to about 60% population of the world. Propositum who is qualiffied professional historian were claiming on meta that Luther is that important only to about 0.9% population of the world. Imagine how embarassing and absurd would be ever taking in consideration removal of Abraham but ever include two Tudors. FWIW Quoranic Abraham is about 50% more often searched term than than Quranic Moses [2]/[3]. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose Major figure in three world religions. pbp 03:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

• I'm open to this proposal as a swap (with Abrahamic religion, perhaps). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• @Cobblet: But as User:Montanabw pointed, pageviews are irrelevant for the most archetypal obvious stuf. Apple does not WP:primary redirect to Apple Inc. per WP:Pageview but Apple remain primary article clearly per WP:Commonsense. You can even discover that Venus gets less pageviews than Zorroastrianism by the same manner but does not matter at all. You must admit 99% of people who know what is Venus are not going to Wikipedia, especially are not going to Wikipedia by checking in google „What is Venus?” but you cerstainly can not say the same about Zorroastrianism, Shikism, Anglicanism and other niche stuffs (On meta someone compared Henry VIII to Guru Nanak so I am talking about it). Two Tudors which we list have better pageviews on Wikipedi than Abraham, St. Paul and St. Mary but if you are goint to relevant Google Trends St. Paul gets interchangebly the same what Henry/Elizabeth, Abraham is slightly ahead of, menwhile Mary overwhelmingly is ahead of all of them in almost any and every possible country, not mention to fact Elizabeth sound to have "search for obscure" like „Who is Elizabeth?” „Elizabeth Wikipedia”, certainly not „Why Elizabeth is important?” etc.. Google Trends is far more measurable for checking how topic is promient because of analyse of these google trends is connected wikidata, this also focuss whole spectrum of „Abraham” and „Category:Abraham”, so "Abraham in Islam in google trends etc., Google knows how people do use Internet, this is more proper measure; FWIW see also other proper examples: [4],[5],[6], [7] and [8] (similar situation with Hindu Deities, I assume).

Frankly, it is not accident Abraham and other Religious figurę shadowed Aristotle in NgramViewer, it is not accident John Paul shadowed Mary Curie at Polska Times (ranking most influential/important Poles of all time). I will note that the same user with Iranian IP supported removal of Ibn Khadul but they wanted to add Mary to this level (our current list with no women at section "religious figures" does suggest that religion is purely man activity). Pay Cobblet attention that it is not accident Mother Theresa shadowed inThe Greatest Indian the musician Lata Mangeshkar whose you so like that wanted swap with Wagner. I agree with Montanabw that Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha are the most vital religious figures on the list, especially due to fact that after removing them we would have no single religious figure central in all Abrahamic religions (Jesus is not central in Judaism just as he is in Christianity and in Islam FWIW and the rest clearly is less universal/relevant)... I am on the point that religion should constain more than 7% so can not support any entire in that section for removal for now; there are many worse biographies to cut, (I do think we could swap tudor(s) or Saint Joan of Arc with other biographies, say Florence Nightingale or Wu Zeiten). Dawid2009 (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

"The distinctive features of Israelite religion appear with Moses." Moses is just as central a figure to Abrahamic religions but is a better parallel to Jesus and Muhammad than Abraham. Is Ngrams able to tell apart mentions of the biblical Abraham from Abraham Lincoln? Note the disclaimer in the Polish article you're citing: "Układaliśmy tę subiektywną - co podkreślamy - listę nie bez sporów, momentami gorących". You also conveniently neglect to mention that Copernicus came out ahead of John Paul II in this self-admitted subjective ranking, which rather undermines your point regarding the importance of religious figures even in a strongly Roman Catholic country like Poland. I agree Abraham is not the least vital of the biographies on the list. But the suggestion that we ignore page views only for figures historically revered in Western tradition (why is Abraham "archetypal obvious stuff" but not Krishna or Rama? or Kafka, for that matter?) is the kind of argument that would be understandable a century ago, but does not make sense for an encyclopedia that is edited and read by people from all over the world. Cobblet (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Failed) Remove Moses

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Also not on Thi's list. Likewise I'll have to oppose because I feel we need one Jewish figure, and any specific historical rabbis are far too niche/"irrelevant" for this list.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Mythical figure, less important than the Book of Exodus which covers fairy tales about him. Dimadick (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per above. GuzzyG (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support since Jewish tradition is present at this level via Talmud. --Thi (talk) 09:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support despite his importance to the Abrahamic religion. We should also be removing Laozi Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Despite being nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Moses is the central figure of Judaism and is also rather important in Christianity. Maykii (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Strongest of the possible opposes Indeed, Waste of health and time to bothering about it. IMHO entitres where nominator technically oppose own proposal should be closed as WP:Snow because of what is sense to open disussion where nominator technically is even not neutral by!voting?...What is purpose of such discussion then? Every central figure is just as important, he is central for his religion(s) just as Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha etc. See also Ngram Viewer 14:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

   To answer your question, I'm proposing these discussions because I think they're at least worthy of discussion in the interest of "bulk-reducing" the biographies, even though I myself disagree with it. Saying that such is not neutral is like saying nominating something you support is not neutral.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

4. Oppose if someone suggests a swap for Ten Commandments ... I would still oppose that, but less strongly. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Failed) Remove Paul the Apostle

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not on either list, and the only removal from the religious figures section in GuzzyG's list. I'm neutral on this; on one hand he's arguably redundant to Jesus (a Level 2 biography if there ever was one), but on the other he created Christianity as we know it, firmly separating it from its origins as a Jewish sect and putting it on a centuries-long path to becoming the world's greatest religion.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Weak support If some religious figure has to go, of those being proposed on this page, this one could. He is important, but if we have to trim, he’s less significant than Abraham or Moses—or Jesus or Muhammad. That said, My only real argument here is his relative rank. Montanabw^(talk) 07:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per above. Three figures for one Christianity (when we don't even have two for Islam) is too much and there's much closer overlap between Paul and Jesus than Martin Luther. GuzzyG (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Three other Christian figures including Thomas Aquinas remain. --Thi (talk) 09:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support I am symphatetic with every religion but to be fair probably one religious figure should go (we reduced already every Section in bios and wikiproject:religion Gets more non-biographic articles than wikipro jest:politcs or wikproject:literature). Frankly Paul on the whole is not much more than Historical Jesus which even never should be compared to Cultural Jesus Christ in light "priority for FA", on cultural perspective he is by faaar weakest and on historical probably vital just as Constantine Great who legalised Christianity in Roman Empire and introduced Sunday as day free from job. He is pure Christianity figure with lack influence on other religions (eg Islam) and relatively low ranking as Montanabw pointed above, so is weakest. Aquinas at least is the only Medieval philosopher on the list. Reformation is studied in political science. Dawid2009 (talk) 04:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I can see why people think he might be redundant but he is such a central figure to the formation of Christianity that I think he is worthy of staying here. Maykii (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Much of the New Testament consists of the Pauline epistles, and he has had more of a historical impact than Jesus. Dimadick (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose certainly more important than Aquinas. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Incredibly important figure in the history of religion. He's on my Top 50 list. The New Testament, which he wrote the greatest portion of, is one of the most important texts in the world. Christianity is what it is today because of Paul. How is he less important than Goethe or Twain or Austen or Kafka? Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose, this absolutely insane. Paul is perhaps more important the Jesus in actually helping the spread and dissemination of Christianity. Aza24 (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Swapped with Mansa Musa) Remove Ibn Battuta

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not on either list. His article's opening sentence is essentially a "brag" about his long journeys and how they were longer than those of Marco Polo or Zheng He. Such numbers are indeed impressive, but it kind of shows that he's not as historically significant as those two, both of whom are on both lists. There doesn't appear to be any historical significance beyond "his was the longest journeys before the modern era", and if we're not adding Mount Everest because we don't accept being merely the biggest/oldest/superlative in one category, I don't think we should have Battuta on here either. We already have Jabir ibn Hayyan, Avicenna, and Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi to represent the Islamic Golden Age, so we also aren't losing diversity by chucking Battuta.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
2. per nom. Maykii (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Yeah. Not top tier historically. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per above. --Thi (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Support swap with Mansa Musa. Interstellarity (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
6. Support; neutral on a swap with Mansa Musa. We shouldn't have Marco Polo, and shouldn't have Battuta either. All that is known about Ibn Battuta's life comes from the autobiographical information included in the account of his travels should be more than enough to remove a 14th century figure. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
7. Support swap with Mansa Musa. Per others users who support that swap. Along with me perhaps there are four users who are ok with that. :1Me 2Cobblet 3JMW 4Iterstellarity and at least Power does not oppose that. Musa is certaintly by far better biography which somehow represent West Africa than Fela Kuti who is suggested in discussion above. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
8. Support a niche figure. Mansa Musa is not necessary. Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
9. Support swap with Mansa Musa per discussion. Gizza (talk • voy) 12:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
10. Support swap Per Cobblet and everyone else. We need a African leader that's pre modern and not from Ancient Egypt more than another land explorer and Mansa is one of the most important people missing. GuzzyG (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Significant explorer. Dimadick (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
   # Oppose He should be swapped with other biography which somehow represents Islam World or remain on the list. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose I could only support a swap with Mansa Musa, who is better known and left a more significant legacy. In terms of page views, Mansa Musa is ahead of Ibn Battuta and even Magellan nowadays. Cobblet (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

   I could support a swap with Musa, but as said earlier Battuta just doesn't make the cut IMO.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose swap

Discuss

# Oppose I'm in favour of a cut down to 100, but not if figures like Ibn Battuta, Zheng He, Shen Kuo and Emmy Noether are the first cut, in which i fear they will be. I'd put Battuta over Wagner, Disney, Gödel, Bohr, Magellan, Milton, Amundsen, Weber, Henry VIII and Franklin, who are the real weak links of overlap/more niche figures that we list. GuzzyG (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

1. Noether should be cut, IMO; she's by far the most obscure westerner on the list, and a general view I have on biographies is that if they're not widely known by the end of secondary school in "any culture" (western, etc.) then they don't belong on here. In fairness, though, she's a better placement than Ludwig Wittgenstein, whose work is even more theoretical, niche, and irrelevant to everyday life, would be. That said, at the rate this is going I highly doubt we'll ever reach 100 biographies; 120 is an acceptable compromise, IMO.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 11:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

   We recently just removed Lenin who had so significant impact for example on Chinese politics... Perhaps Shen Kuo is not biography which we should cut first but I would not hestitate to reduce his priority on the level 4 (if we are in business removing important bios). He has less pageviews than "that niche project or some user pages" and we rejected earlier Cai Lun. I have generally similar definition of vitalness what earlier User:Zelkia1101 said. I also belive English-language writers are weakest bios on the list. We have five English-language writers on the list (if we count Mary W.), after remove any sea explorer we would have the same number of sea explorers what English-language wrtiters... Dawid2009 (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

   I will strongly oppose the removal of any of the ten listed women. When we suggest that Wikipedia make it a priority to have 100+ featured biographies, and we understand that Wikipedia's problem of systemic bias is well documented, how can it not be a priority to have 10 featured biographies of women? How can the "mother of modern algebra" and "the most creative abstract algebraist of modern times", whose eponymous theorem is "a standard workhorse in theoretical physics" and gets compared to the Pythagorean theorem in terms of fundamental significance, not be exactly the kind of person we need a high-quality biography of, particularly when women in STEM are a particularly notorious blind spot in Wikipedia's coverage? There may be other female scientists like Rosalind Franklin or Ada Lovelace who are more frequently introduced to younger students because their contributions are more easily explained; but their fame points to widespread interest in women in STEM as a whole, and apart from possibly Curie, no woman in the history of science or mathematics has produced a more significant body of work than Noether. Cobblet (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

   I could support a swap of Noether with Ada Lovelace, but most people don't know about modern algebra so being the "mother" of it probably isn't enough for this list, IMO.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

   I disagree, but Lovelace isn't a option imo; too much overlap kinda with Turing. It'd have to be Rosalind Franklin. Women in STEM is a important thing to cover and if we have one obscure person to the public, it's not that bad, especially in this case. Let's be honest too, most everyday people on the street absolutely would not recognise Gauss, Euler and definitely not Gödel/al-Khwarizmi, we're severely overestimating public interest in high level mathematics. GuzzyG (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

   To be fair, al-Khwarizmi isn't western so I exclude him from the "secondary school standard" (he's presumably known to secondary school graduates in MENA), but fair enough on the rest (although people should know Euler).  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cobblet and John M Wolfson: What is current couting/score of that nomination and how we can reach to any consensus? Should we now ping all users who putted !Vote earlier and explain what discussion is about now? Dawid2009 (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Hyperbolick, Dimadick, and GuzzyG: Would any of you care to comment on the proposed swap for Mansa Musa? Cobblet (talk) 23:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why we would replace an explorer with a monarch. Dimadick (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Because they're both well-known figures from Islamic North/West Africa who are best known for their trips abroad, and they both exemplify the relative peace and prosperity that persisted until the end of the Islamic Golden Age. Cobblet (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Failed) Remove Ferdinand Magellan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not on either list. Even though this was shot down rather recently, I'm moving from opposing this to being neutral. Although he was the one who first circumnavigated the globe, that isn't as impressive as it initially seems because the West has known that the earth is round since antiquity so Magellan's voyage didn't really "prove" anything, and Magellan himself didn't even survive the whole voyage, dying in the Philippines. If we don't include persons simply for doing something the longest or the most, as I advocate for with Battuta, then perhaps we shouldn't include Magellan solely for circumnavigating the globe, although granted at least it's more readily definable than Battuta's dubious "longest pre-modern voyage", so I remain neutral.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Initially I opposed this but to be honest, I feel like we don't need as many explorers on the list as we currently have. Magellan didn't even survive his main voyage and we already knew the Earth was round. -- Maykii (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support His achievement of a "circumnavigation" (which of course he did not actually complete) boils down to his discovery of the Strait of Magellan. That's significant, but not enough to put him ahead of Vasco Núñez de Balboa (first European to find the Pacific from the New World) or Andrés de Urdaneta (who actually made trans-Pacific commerce possible). I consider their legacies redundant to Columbus's in the same way the legacies of Bartolomeu Dias and Afonso de Albuquerque are redundant to da Gama's. In the context of Spanish imperialism I'd consider both Hernán Cortés and Bartolomé de las Casas to be far more significant figures; I reserve an adjective like "towering" only for people like the latter. In my view, the fact that Magellan is only mentioned in the context of Oceanian exploration in human history (alongside Abel Tasman and James Cook) weakens his case rather than strengthens it. Do Jadwiga of Poland and Władysław II Jagiełło also have to be included on this list because they appear in that article? Cobblet (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Figures like Hernán Cortés are more important as explorers, more locked into history as a representative of Spanish imperialism and Magellan didn't actually complete his most important achievement. We list Turing, not Charles Babbage. GuzzyG (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support His name is famous, but the actual achievements can be told in the article Age of Discovery. --Thi (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Support It's not our job to post obscure geniuses on here (see my comments on Noether in the Battuta section), but nor should we put people who are known for a simple superlative that has no further significance (also see Battuta); we don't have Gagarin or Armstrong on here (rightfully so, IMO), so we shouldn't have Magellan.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
6. Support per JMW. Interstellarity (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
7. Support a famous name, but we have too many explorers, and he didn't even complete the circumnavigation. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
8. Support per Thi czar 22:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
9. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per my comments now in the Archives. He is relevant to the most core articles on Wikipedia like Human history or Pacific Ocean. Magellan and Columbus are the most highly ranked explorers in plenty independet reliable sources: [9],[10]. I also agree with Zelkia's comment below. This is not accident Magellan is so highly rated in many independet sources, he shadowed Elcano, despite fact actually Elcaano was Spanidar and Magellan was Portuguese. During Age of Discovery Magellan had extremally high reputation due to his orientation/knowlage/skills/experience, Columbus when reached to America called Indigeous people "Indians" because of he though he is in India. Next circumnavigation of Earth was done about 70 years later and Magellan's was milestone in Age of Discovery. I agree with Montanabw he is maybe slightly overrated but in the end he is still enough important to be listed a this level as typical topic in primary school. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose One of the towering figures in human history. Dimadick (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose though an unpleasant individual, the circumnavigation that has his name was a significant milestone. Certainly no educated person still believed the world was flat, but the significant thing is that it was accomplished, even if others may have more sophisticated impacts. Montanabw^(talk) 07:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Montanabw. Jusdafax (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose That he didn't finish his circumnavigation himself is a mere technicality that does not diminish his cross-cultural importance or his place as a preeminent explorer in the history books. Far more important to human history than Kafka, Austen or Milton. Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Failed) Remove Vasco da Gama

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On Thi's list but not on GuzzyG's list. He's the "Columbus of the East", perhaps, but we already have Columbus. This is a far more preferable removal to Roald Amundsen, who I'll propose and oppose below, although one can argue that we should have at least one of da Gama and Magellan.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

#As nom; I would rather keep Magellan, minding my comments on him above.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

1. I honestly don't think we need Magellan or da Gama, both of their discoveries are not as important as others on the list. -- Maykii (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose He opened India to European trade and colonization. Dimadick (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose I'd say he is the second most important explorer after Columbus on the list. Remove Cook and Amundsen first. Gizza (talk • voy) 05:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose I share DaGizza's view. --Thi (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose per DaGizza and my comments in the previous discussion. Cobblet (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Alright, you've convinced me.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose I made a mistake when i took him off, he is important enough. GuzzyG (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
7. Oppose Incredibly important figure in world history. He's on my Top 50 list. Much more important than Kafka or Milton. Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

1. I support the removal in principle, and made this exact proposal a few months ago (which was rejected). I am procedurally neutral at this time. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Failed) Remove Roald Amundsen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On GuzzyG's list but not on Thi's list. I'm going to have to strongly oppose this, however; we need an explorer of the polar regions, the last frontier of mankind excluding space (and maybe oceans), and Amundsen fits the bill more than anyone else.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support just not as influential as more vital explorers. Gizza (talk • voy) 05:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support He is not culturally influential just as other nominated explorers. He is not typical topic in early primary school. Hopefully opposers and those who rank him among 100 the most vital people will realise that it is less worthy to list Amundsen and Age of Discovery than Space Race and NASA. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Many other related to history or polar regions are equally vital. --Thi (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Another controversial take and i support a cut down to 100, but polar exploration is on the same level as space (Gagarin or Armstrong), aviators (Lindbergh,Earhart or the Wright Bros) and the ocean (Jacques Cousteau), Amundsen doesn't have the same cultural profile as a Marco Polo or Columbus to significantly elevating him into the top 100 people of all time. Not when we're missing Emperor Meiji or Saladin founders of important countries today or important historical dynasties. To cut Lenin but keep Amundsen is odd. GuzzyG (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Support to make the cut to 100. Interstellarity (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

   Weak Support only support if there is consensus that the target is 100 names at this level. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

6. Support Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
7. Support While I'm sympathetic to the inclusion of a modern explorer, how is Amundsen's legacy more vital than Ibn Battuta's Rihla? Cobblet (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
8. Support per Guzzy czar 22:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
9. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Despite being nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Agreed with nom that we need a polar explorer on the list and there is no better pick than Amundsen for that. -- Maykii (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Yes, agreed as well. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Led the first expedition to make a complete passage of the Northwest Passage, led the first expedition to reach the South Pole, led the first verified trip of any kind to reach the North Pole, and his disappearance made headlines. Probably the most important explorer of the 20th century. Dimadick (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose mostly per Dimidick, but also of note that we have few modern day Scandinavian explorers and in his time not being an Englishman was held against him to some extent, one reason he doesn’t have the publicity that other, less accomplished arctic explorers got…Montanabw^(talk) 07:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose he would not make my list of 100 bios, but does at 120. We don't use History of exploration or its sub-articles at this level, there are just biographies to tell the history. There's space for one article on "polar exploration" if we have both Magellan and de Gama, and this article is the one to use. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Nursing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per previous discussions. Very important topic associated with Medicine and coverage of Women's history. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:49 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Nom
2. Either this or Florence Nightingale sounds good.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Certainly as important as Dentistry. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per previous discussions and above Zelkia1101 (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Either Nursing or Health care are important enough at this level. --Thi (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Support per everyone else, important field. GuzzyG (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
7. Support Absolutely vital to modern healthcare. Dimadick (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I don't think this should come before health care which is a more important article. -- Maykii (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap: Remove contemporary philosophy, add modern philosophy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Outside of Sartre and Camus, philosophy has been relegated to being a niche and academic affair since the early 20th century, the period covered by contemporary philosophy. Modern philosophy, which spanned roughly from Kant to Nietzsche or Russell, contained far more influential and impactful ideas within philosophy and the outside world.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. At the very least I support the removal; I'm sure we can find a philosophy topic more deserving of inclusion than philosophy's nadir in importance.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Academic philosophy has had very little influence on modern life. Political philosophy from the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and the Victorian period has influenced most of mainstream political movements. Dimadick (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support removal Subtopic of Western philosophy is not much needed, unless it is a swap with several philosophers. --Thi (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support removal, oppose addition. Level 4 is sufficient. czar
5. Support addition per nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Support removal only, inasmuch as "contemporary philosophy" appears to be subsumed under "modern philosophy", which may be adequately addressed at Level 4. Nihil novi (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• I'll ping User:Nihil novi who is interested in philosophy, maybe they'll find this entire page amusing enough to stick around :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trimming the biographies – Philosophers and musicians

You know the drill by now; for reference, here's Thi's list and GuzzyG's list. I was originally going to wait until each section was closed to do the next section, but that would make the whole process take months. Note that I am skipping writers for now due to the fact that we already did a similar process for writers several months ago, which was the inspiration for all this. If there's overwhelming consensus to do writers yet again, which I don't feel that we particularly need, I can do that at the end. I am aware of Zelkia's discussion above and have already expressed my skepticism there; while I was originally doing these trimmings with ~100 bios in mind, I now see no particular magic in an "even 100", and while I do think some trimming is in order forcing the list down to 100 is too awkward and procrustean compared to a 115-120 list; as such, please don't support a removal solely to get down to a certain number like 100 or even 110, and instead judge a nom by its own merits.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

(Failed) Remove Socrates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not on either list. I'm sorry, but I am uncomfortable with having Plato and Aristotle and not having Socrates; the three form a distinct and well-known grouping and direct descent (Socrates led directly to Plato who in turn led directly to Aristotle), and it just seems wrong to leave him out. I could maybe, possibly, support a swap with a pre-Socratic philosopher like Thales or (a reintroduction of) Pythagoras, but even then probably not.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Lenin can be said to form distinct and well-known groupings with Marx and with Stalin; that didn't stop us from removing him. Few have complained that we don't list all three members of the First Viennese School, while the presence of Tolstoy on the list was given as a reason to remove Dostoyevsky. We also don't list Du Fu next to Li Bai, Leibniz next to Newton, or Diego Rivera next to Frida Kahlo. We only list two of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (OK, bad joke). Socrates is mentioned by name over 100 times in the article on Plato; by comparison, Aristotle is only mentioned 31 times, so the redundancy of Socrates to Plato pointed by the nominator in the previous discussion is quite real. Plus Ancient Greek philosophy is already listed, where there is more coverage of Socrates.
   I've previously opposed adding Greek mythology, but is Greek philosophy is so much more important that we need the overview article plus three biographies to represent it, while Greek mythology is represented only by Homer? And while it isn't the worst example of over-coverage of a specific topic in terms of biographies (sorry to bring up the English writers again, but Milton really ought to be removed first), the intellectual achievements of Athens during the Age of Pericles are already represented by Herodotus, Plato, Aristotle, and Hippocrates. Even without Socrates, this moment in history already occupies an extremely privileged position on our list. Cobblet (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support I don't really see much reason that we need all 3 of the Greek philosophers on here. In all honesty, I would be fine with having just Aristotle. We already have enough representation of this era of philosophy. -- Maykii (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Ancient Greek philosophy is listed. --Thi (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per Cobblet's thorough breakdown. GuzzyG (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Plato is Socrates as far the vital level 3 list is concerned. Aza24 (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
6. Support - covered by Plato. Interstellarity (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
7. Support per above. It's nice to have complete sets but we just don't have the space at this level anymore. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
8. Support We have surviving texts from Plato and Aristotle, which have influenced everything from literary criticism and science to theosophy and adventure fiction. Socrates left no surviving writings. What we have about him are second-hand accounts from Plato, Xenophon, Aristophanes, and a hand full of other writers. I don't consider his impact as equivalent to the other two. Dimadick (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
9. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
10. Support Anyone researching philosophy will eventually run into Socrates through his indirect influence, but there are so many other thinkers whose direct influence outmatch his.PaulRyanIsWatchingYou (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose despite being nom. I'm quite reluctant to even nominate this given that it might actually succeed, tbh.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose I understand people who say that Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are an overlap, but Socrates is a seminal figure in Western history and philosophy. There is no comparing him with Lenin. Whether its his status as a gadfly or the Socratic method, Socrates's influence is without much compare in the West. How can people possibly justify removing him and keeping Kafka or Austen, both figures who are exponentially less influential than Socrates. No self respecting list would not have Socrates but would have Murasaki Shikibu. Socrates is sometimes considered the founder of Western philosophy! Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose, just feels very very wrong. Bill & Ted's and all. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose I had to wonder about it more after reading reasoning for his removal and analysing which two out of these three articles would cover the most non-overlaped susbtational context, but in the end I still belive inclusion/room for the only biography which is described in Ancient History Encyclopedia as "father of western philosophy" is worth at this level, especially as long as we have plenty other quite not vital biographies (including overlaped ones, like two Tudors etc.). He is credited as founder because of he is one of the most exemplary personalities in all of history [11], and FWIW all three Greek Philosophers are towering and outstanding in human history. All three Greek Philosophers were for example on list of Czar's and Sleetimetraveller's, for 50 the most significant biographies on the English Wikipedia. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Wikipedia talk:Vital people/Level/1#Add back Socrates and Freud. Socrates is far better known than Plato. Despite the latter being the one who wrote it down, there are based on the former. As a figure general readers would expect to find in an encyclopedia, Socrates (or what we know of Socrates) is far more pertinent than the biography of Plato. czar 05:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose though I would support removal if there were consensus for quota 100. Not as vital as Plato or Aristotle, but vital enough. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

@Czar: There's no evidence that Socrates is better known and in all areas that is not true. Google trends (Plato wins nearly worldwide in every country and check the differences; most of the times it's not close) [12]); Plato wins in NGrams [13] (book mentions).

Plato has 48,837,327 pageviews [14] Socrates has 45,966,897 pageviews [15]

Plato has 19,900,000 results in google books [16] Socrates has 8,280,000 results in google books [17]

Plato has 1,870,000 results in google scholar [18] Socrates has 766,000 results in google scholar [19]

Plato has 42,616 results in WorldCat [20] Socrates has 13,818 results in WorldCat [21]

Plato has 8,433 results in a JSTOR search [22] Socrates has 1,804 results in a JSTOR search [23]

The Plato navbox is just as big; plus there's Platonism and Neoplatonism. All evidence points to Socrates being far lesser in all areas of interest than Socrates. As a encyclopedia do we go against demonstrable results and into pure speculation? "As a figure general readers would expect to find in an encyclopedia, Socrates (or what we know of Socrates) is far more pertinent than the biography of Plato" That's funny; maybe Plato gets more views then because they can learn about Socrates bio through Plato and get a two for one? GuzzyG (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

"two for one"—honestly, maybe, or that there's more reasons to google Plato, but we're not basing VA on hits, right, apart from magnitude? (It is astonishing that they are so close on international WP page views, though.) On methodology: Google hits aren't a reliable/comparable measure. For the academic sources, Socrates, famously, didn't document his thought, so every invocation of Socrates in sources is done by citing Plato, hence the reams of academic literature titled as discussing Platonic writings but, in its substance/thought, discussing the figure known as Socrates (the Socratic problem). I.e., it's "Plato's Republic" but it's functionally attributed to a figure named Socrates. For a general audience, our audience, Socrates the gadfly, the one associated with the Socratic method/questioning and the unexamined life, are far more pertinent concepts for encyclopedic completeness than the academic discussion around Plato, Platonism, or other items in his navbox. For that matter, I'd even recommend dropping Ancient Greek philosophy down to Level 4 if the concern is that there is overlap at this level. czar 22:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended content

Only a terrible encyclopedia would miss Murasaki Shikibu (regarded as writer of one of the first major novels and a founder of the novel, arguably Japanese literature's biggest figure); no "self respecting" encyclopedia can miss that. Average Joe in America or Europe may not know her, but encyclopedias are supposed to be better than that and this list in particular representative of human acitivity. Without Plato, there's no Socrates on this level, that synergy is enough to make him not necessary to cover, because to cover him is to cover Plato's writings twice. This line; in Socratic problem "It is widely understood that in later dialogues Plato used the character Socrates to give voice to views that were his own"; is a killer. This is the predominant example of overlap and there's no reason why we should have overlap in this case, but not others. Lenin is in a similar example (founder of something, actual namesake of the thought/ideology behind it) yet removed for Stalin, who spread it more, (like Plato). There might be a kneejerk reaction due to the longevity of the names, but it's still pretty much the same thing. Either way, i'm sure people wouldn't consider a full set of Eastern philosophers like Mencius or Zhu Xi (despite covering more people today and through history), to outright dismiss their contributions is not the right way either (or Sun Tzu popular in pop culture in the west). Under consideration, a true self respecting encyclopedia would understand it's limitations for such a list, not cover someone completely covered in someone elses work who is listed already and cover the person of a important tradition itself (founder of a novel) moreso. GuzzyG (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC) The object of our work here is to list the most influential and important people in human history respective to our readership base. Our job is not, nor has it ever been, to uplift obscure talent or to allocate space for the sake of representation. Murasaki Shikibu is a non-entity on English-language Wikipedia, which is what this list serves. Her fame comes from one work which, unlike Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy very few people actually study in the West. If this were the Japanese version of Wikipedia it would make total sense to include Lady Murasaki, but this is the English version. Between Socrates and Murasaki there is no comparison. And the fact that much of what we know about Socrates comes from Plato does not diminish the importance of Socrates one bit. It's such a silly argument to make. Socrates remains and will remain a preeminent philosopher regardless of how knowledge of him is transmitted. That Plato reinforced Socrates in his own Platonic philosophy only serves to underscore Socrates's importance. Nobody in their right mind would argue that Murasaki Shikibu is more vital than the founder of western philosophy. Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC) Obviously the novel is important, but Murasaki Shikibu does not get to be on this list because she may have written the first novel. Cervantes isn't on this list just because he wrote the first Western novel, but because that novel of his, Don Quixote, is arguably the most famous prose work to have ever been written and because the themes, motifs and intrigue he put into that novel permeate almost every genre of modern-day literature. This is objectively not so with Murasaki. Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC) "founder of western philosophy" seems awfully weird considering Pre-Socratic philosophy exists (or Thales of Miletus or Pythagoras, who we removed); now you'll cite "pre-socratic" in the name as a reason of his dominance, but i don't see what gave Johann Augustus Eberhard ultimate authority to decide importance (and he's not on any lists). Seems awfully odd to cover a biography twice (through Plato's works, on such a small list...). But i'm sure you'd argue Johannes Gutenberg had more influence than Cai Lun too; with no bit of thought behind maybe as to why.... I hope to see you vote for Foucault on this list aswell; considering he beats Socrates in NGrams [24]; (as do many other social scientists, cause they're favoured in a NGrams way, especially up against artists; especially foreign language ones; since you've shown dislike of Chomsky; here's Chomsky overriding Cervantes by margins [25]; surely not proof of anything...). Even if this is a English encyclopedia, a weak encyclopedia wouldn't cover anything outside of it or mean we should only cover western things. There's 9 Greeks and on a 100 list that's too much. (should ideally be 6). Plato, Aristotle, Archimedes, Euclid, Alexander the Great, Herodotus and Homer are enough. That's still 7. I'd say the same about Americans, Benjamin Franklin and Walt Disney should go. We have to be proportionate about covering eras properly. Greece is not that far above Rome and Constantine the Great is better to cover than more Greeks. Ancient Egypt lasted millenniums and we only have two representatives. It's overkill. This list, as far as i am aware was never meant to be strictly based on power/influence, but to cover that across fields. Zoroaster had more power than Chaplin or Ford but both personify film and business, two fundamental aspects of society today, meanwhile religion covers other figures better now. So we cover the latter, not the former. This choice is made easier with Socrates, cause any fundamental coverage of Plato would include all we know of Socrates in of itself, hence he's not as important to list. Influence is all a matter of time anyway, most fundamental people will last centuries. In 2,419 years people like Descartes and Marx will still be around (and become just as historically worthy as Socrates, as this is his distance to today). If you're super strict; any BC person would win on long term "influence" and people like Augustine of Hippo would dominate this list, but we pick from different centuries for a reason as we pick by field. People like Chaplin ARE long term influence in their field, pretty much the earliest you can get in film. So it's pointless to bring them up in comparison to BC philosophers. Either way we have to be careful of patches of history in which we cover really well, yet neglect in other area - like with year 300 to 1200, which will get worse with William the Conquerers removal; there's no reason these 900 years should have bare coverage while we cover Greece so well. GuzzyG (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC) Socrates is called the founder of Western Philosophy in the first sentence of the first paragraph of his article's lede. Again, I don't see why you think that the fact that a great majority of Socrates's work is contained in Plato is somehow a diminishing point against Socrates. That Plato took so much time to expounding on Socrates's life and opinions should speak to his importance in and of itself. I'm sorry, but I just hate this stupid idea that every person has to represent something or some aspect of something in the most specific sense and that we have to have quotas based on sex or nationality or religion or time period. Socrates is more vital than Murasaki Shikibu because he is far more well-known, far more studied, and far more recognizable to our audience, and that should be reason enough for keeping him. For some reason there's this silly school of thought that biographies are intrinsically tied to the non-biographical subject-matter that the person dealt with in life. This is the school of thought I once foolishly held to when I proposed that Florence Nightingale or Coco Chanel be added to this list, solely for "representing" nursing and fashion. Biographies are ranked based on the importance of that individual person's accomplishments or achievements, not by what they "cover." Roman Empire is supposed to cover Ancient Rome, we don't need Constantine the Great for that. If we cared about nursing and fashion that much, we should have added the nursing and fashion articles. The reason Socrates is on this list but Constantine isn't is because Socrates is much more important to our audience and that's that. A person's importance should have to speak for itself, and I'm not saying that Murasaki Shikibu is not an important figure in the history of literature. I am just saying that, relative to her, Socrates is much more important, and it would be foolish to remove him and yet still have her. Zelkia1101 (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC) So you clearly see philosophers that predate Socrates; yet he is supposed to be the founder? Makes no sense. The problem is that you see most biographies relating to women or non-white people as fitting into a diversity thing, when you just don't think past a clearly massive western perception, like Neil Armstrong in your top 50, yet decrying every non-white figure or woman (on this list, yet alone 50) for no long term influence. Over time; i would 100% guarantee that Mencius is "is far more well-known (over time to more people), far more studied (over time by more people)" than someone like John Locke (and def more important to the philosophical foundation of a much, much bigger societies philosophy); the only difference is you pick and choose the audience based on this being a "English" encyclopedia and then cite everything else as a "diversity" thing, despite the fact that Europe has a small population compared to Asia, yet it's picking and choosing what people matter. Cai Lun is a diversity add and Johannes Gutenberg isn't with no critical belief on why over time Euro historians may have outright ignored Cai Lun; and counting that against him for being left out. It's a very easy way out and yes; covering 10 people in one place and than 10 for pretty much the entire next millennium is overwhelmingly "foolish". If being known to more people was completely made of merit people like Hatshepsut, Akhenaten, Khufu and Narmer would be on the fame level of Tutankhamun and Cleopatra (two of the weakest pharaohs, but known more); is it that hard to understand how fame can be misplaced and influence should go beyond fame (and be important by itself)? Believe me, the world is vast and many more people are supremely famous to more people based on total people than many on this list, outside of a western perspective; it's not diversity - it's being accurate. Zhu Xi was taught for 600 years to hundreds of millions and yet you would call him a diversity pick and no influence and choose Neil Armstrong over him, whos been dead for 9 years (and why no Gagarin, he'd be like Socrates, right "first/founder"...). That would be a prototypical example of a poor encyclopedia to me, in which would see the world only through one lens. GuzzyG (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC) Founder does not mean "first" in any sense. Shakespeare is sometimes referred to as the father or founder of Elizabethan theatre, though he was preceded by Marlowe. Obviously there are men like Thales et al., but these men's philosophy is no longer extant in today's world, whereas Socrates's ideas form the bedrock of his predecessor's beliefs and inform much of how we think of philosophy and rhetoric today. That is why he is sometimes called the "father of Western philosophy". As for diversity, I have made it rather clear that this is an English-language encyclopedia, and therefore this list should serve the needs and interests of those who are wont to use the English-language version of Wikipedia. The majority of our userbase is from the West, particularly the United States and the Commonwealth, which means that the historical figures on this list are going to be Westerners. If this were the Japanese- or Swahili-language version of the site, it would obviously be different. The reason we list Johannes Gutenberg and not Cai Lun is because Gutenberg is far more relevant to our userbase than Cai Lun, because our users are far more likely to have encountered Gutenberg in their history books than Cai Lun, and the data bears that up. Hell, Gutenberg is more popular than Cai Lun even in China! The reason we list John Locke and not Mencius is because Mencius, his work, and Confucianism more broadly are not very relevant enough to our audience, whereas John Locke is the father of Liberalism, an ideology which is supremely relevant to our readers, and because John Locke is a seminal figure in our chronology of philosophers. I put Armstrong on my top 50 list not because I wanted a "representative" of space travel, but because Armstrong's actions in themselves represent a supreme human achievement, and because he is the most well-known space traveler to our audience. Zhu Xi, by contrast, is rather unknown to our readers, and there is no indications that he will become so. To round off my point, there is obviously a lot of ambiguity in deciding what makes someone vital or not vital enough, but our job is not to uplift unrecognized genius or to provide space for the sake of representation. Vitality is not "merit." I personally think that Norman Borlaug deserves to be as well-known, as appreciated, and as relevant as Sigmund Freud, but I would be a fool to suggest that they are of equal relevance, because the data just would not bear me up on that point. The page views, the ngrams and the statistics have to give us some inclination of vitality. A person's relevance to our readership, their vitality in other words, has to speak for itself. Zelkia1101 (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC) I think it says it all that you linked the "past 90 days" version of google trends; knowing full well that the complete version, shows Cai Lun ahead [26]; (it goes without saying these comparisons alone are dishonest; because both google and wikipedia are banned in mainland China; so you're holding people to standards they can't even compete in...). If you truly believe Chinese people care more about a historical figure that is the definition of a diversity pick for Europeans (Gutenberg); over the only known inventor of one of their Four Great Inventions; even without manipulating data to suit the point; i don't know what to say - you support "founders" of things that already have figures; yet not the inventor and instead the Euro populariser. But hey; since i do stats for every single figure listed on any wiki lists (and more); but take in account differences; if you're interested in understanding another culture for once; here's Cai Lun vs diversity pick on a actual Chinese website [27] and [28]; now i had to show a translated version; so it's poor but it speaks for itself. A encyclopedia that uses manipulated data from it's pre-selected favourable audience to support a diversity pick (western populariser), is what would make one encyclopedia not be "self respecting" and would seem to be what you're against and yet... GuzzyG (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC) The version you linked showed them tied, so I don't know how this supports your point. Yeah Google is banned in Mainland China, but so is Wikipedia, as you point out, so I don't know why we ought to be factoring them into our analysis either if they don't even have access to the site in the first place. Gutenberg isn't a diversity pick for anybody. Nobody on this list should be a diversity pick for anything. That's the whole point. People are on this list because they are relevant to our readership, which, I previously pointed out, is predominantly from the West, and therefore will concern itself mostly with Western people. For one, Gutenberg is not the "popularizer" of paper. He's the inventor of the printing press, a different invention. And that doesn't really matter. Gutenberg doesn't get to be on this list just because he invented the printing press, nor does Cai Lun get to be on this list just because he invented paper. Gutenberg is on this list and Cai Lun isn't because Gutenberg is a relevant figure to our readership, a figure whom people regularly read about, inquire about and look up, whereas Cai Lun is incredibly obscure. Now, if this were the Chinese version of Wikipedia it may make perfect sense to have Cai Lun in place of Gutenberg, because Cai Lun is more relevant in that cultural context. The point you are failing to grasp is that it is impossible to objectively assess vitality in a vacuum. What makes a person vital is intricately tied to the social or cultural context of the beholders, in this case the readership. Of course technical achievement matters, but it is not our job to recognize obscure, unrecognized genius. Technical achievement does not indicate vitality, relevance does. Put another way, Gutenberg is on this list because Gutenberg the person is relevant to readers. Obviously paper is very relevant to readers, but Cai Lun the person is not. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC) His lede openly says "While not the first to use movable type in the world,[a] in 1439 Gutenberg was the first European to do so"; he's clearly not anywhere near being sole responsible for it; just a Euro face for anothers invention. You consistently shift the barriers; in all the oppose votes you mention "influence" (and inventing paper is the strongest influence for someone in printing and thus any Gutenberg influence is built of Cai Lun); but now you've changed it to readership; so i assume i can count on your for support in listing Pablo Escobar [29]; who is highly "influential" to our readers (to the tune of 153 million spread across many languages on diff continents - say 10 mil in French), from that dastardly non-Euro continent. He's much more "influential" than that much more obscure genius John Locke (with 23 mil views [30], across barely any languages, not even over a mil in German or French, that European importance!). Or does technical importance and merit only now come into play? Even in google search, nearly complete worldwide dominance [31]; ironically though China is the one massive country on Locke's side, the one country you've just said doesn't count because they're banned (and four others you'd surely dismiss too.., how's that Euro heritage and thus interest for Locke???). What about the "readership" now, do they matter or not?. It's not pick and choose, either it counts or does not - viewership demands Escobar a place on this list - technical achievement and merit keeps him off (and the founder of the novel on and in what should for Cai Lun). If readership's interest in Escobar is not worth a result based on merit, then it doesn't count in your argument; cause inventing paper subsumes the printing press (which is your whole thing for Socrates too right, being the founder?) (except for paper or the novel lol). It's hard to keep up, it keeps changing. GuzzyG (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC) Gutenberg is quite openly acknowledged to be the inventor of the printing press. Although other prototypes existed before his, he is responsible for popularizing it, and it is his name that bears the credit for him. If you search "inventor of the printing press" on Google, you will almost exclusively get content on Gutenberg. What you don't seem to get is that vitality is not just a marker of influence or of readership. It is both. A person has to have both significant achievement and reasonable relevance to readers in order to merit a place on this list, in my view. Pageview counts do not count for everything; they are just one of many metrics that helps me decide whether I believe an article is vital enough for inclusion on this list. Just because you have a myopic way of determining vitality does not mean that everyone else shares it. Obviously Pablo Escobar has greater pageview counts than John Locke, but that's only because Pablo Escobar is a contemporary, recognizable figure in popular culture whose influence is no where near John Locke's. Pablo Escobar should not be on this list because he is not responsible for any supreme human achievement, as is the case for the father of liberalism. It is highly unlikely that Escobar's name will survive and be as important four hundred years following his death, as is the case with Locke. Likewise, while Cai Lun is responsible for inventing paper, a supreme human achievement, but he is pitifully unknown to readers, and his name gets far less mention in textbooks than Gutenberg, or Locke for that matter. As I said, paper is an extremely relevant topic to our readers, but Cai Lun does not get to be on this list because he invented it, because Cai Lun the man is not relevant to readers. You seem to not actually pay attention to what I am writing, because if you did you would realize that I have said over and over again that a person's achievements alone do not mark their vitality. Cai Lun has little relevance to our readers other than as trivia for the man who invented paper. I can only say it so many ways, but his ivention is what is relevant, not him, and there isn't anything more to it. Likewise, for Murasaki, the novel is relevant as a literary form, but Murasaki herself is relevant to our readers, evidenced by the abysmally low attention she receives. Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Except in his own lede.., (moveable type isn't a printing press, and the article admits he wasnt the first; - for someone who cares about founders; you seem to give credit to latecomers very often). Bi Sheng exists too. If Bi Sheng and Gutenberg were given equal fame (and that day will come); then who would be chosen, the inventor or the diversity pick? (who would never support a "introduced it to asia" figure). You'll reply "Gutenberg built on his one more/did more with it" forgetting you are arguing this on a Socrates nom, where in Socrates was built upon by Plato..... wonder what the difference is. Gutenberg the most influential inventor, when his invention utilises another invention (paper)? Makes no sense. By your own paper vs Lun example, than all we should list is Printing (or Printing press), as that article would cover everything and not just focus on one of the many who worked on it. (Why we don't cover the Wright brothers). Most inventors are treated like this; Alexander Graham Bell is not listed too for this reason (listing the invention over the thing). I'd put James Watt over Gutenberg. (yes, he improved upon a invention too). Thomas Edison is the one example of multiple important inventions, so he is listed. (and over time, as bitter historians of the Tesla/Edison dispute fade, Edison will go down as last millenniums most important inventor and since you like statistics without any acknowledgement of biases within them, then America's soft power influence and mega fame will propel it's own top inventor further into the history books then a 15th century German). You just don't use arguments consistently, now it's BOTH readership (only "cough", Europeans and Americans) and influence; but it makes for one inconsistent list; like why was Michael Jackson our unanimous pop culture fame representative when he only gets 124 mil views [32]; surely if Escobars views were because of recency, he wouldnt outdo mega famous celebs who are on here for their fame. (since you like data; musicians gets more pageviews than any type of artist/celeb; Ariana Grande is the highest currently active musician in pageviews (at 107 mil) [33], the two highest in google trends; Justin Bieber only gets 85 mil [34] and BTS; which has 56 million [35]; (the only musician higher than MJ is Freddie Mercury at 177 mil [36]) So no, even at the peak of celebrity, even to the people we list on here for being big celebrities; Escobar outperforms. The next highest criminal is Ted Bundy at 87 mil [37] or Charles Manson at 85 mil [38]. Isn't it funny how our readers have crime figures up with the biggest celebrities and that reader interest is in most cases different to importance, and a professional, "self respecting" encyclopedia should understand that and not have it be the end all be all of analysis (low pageviews don't take away someones "supreme human achievement". Folklore doesn't go away either, you probs may not acknowledge LatAm readers; but their Robin Hood won't just disappear, criminals from Dick Turpin and Rob Roy MacGregor survive or even Guy Fawkes is right at John Lockes views at 21mil. When you use stats as data, you have to understand biases within them (like athletes being high because people check for weekly updates); criminals have a shocking effect, which drives readers interest (and in a level 5 way, is importance for that level); on this level - merit trumps all; if Mainland China had full access to wikipedia and google; his stats would reflect that; but since all of the west has them available, Gutenberg would win; but it's a dishonest test from the start and any "professional, self respecting" encyclopedia would be able to discern that and consider it into it's analysis and include it. My view of vitality is anything but myopic and short sighted and i think most people would agree here on that. I would actually say your view of vitality is shortsighted or at the very least inconsistent. You consistently use weak figures against strong ones to booster your arguments or manipulate the data by showing it when it favours you; or you saying that you supported Coco Chanel for this list (with 124 people) for diversity (you also forgot we DO list fashion); yet she's not in your 500 either (showing you never really cared for her to be added, cause if you consider her for a 124 list than a 500 one is a certainty). Pablo Escobar isn't representative of "supreme human achievement" - yet Al Capone is on your 500 (with only 44 mil views [39]); for a stats guy i wonder what the difference is. (ignoring Capone only had control of one city for 7 years and died in disgrace, not as powerful as Lucky Luciano in his own time..., meanwhile Escobar had a multi decade long run, was the most powerful of his kind, completely controlled the cocaine trade and is the wealthiest criminal in history, who died on top - there's one difference though). So less views/less merit...and yet still Escobar wasn't on your 500. Far, from being myopic - that's my whole point; we should carefully scrutinise everyone on this list and not have kneejerk reactions to the removals of recognisable names and be aware of a wider world (an English encyclopedia still covers the world!). We have four millenniums of important names; just including the 1st millennium BC and latter half 2nd millennium is more of a weakness aswell and yes, careful consideration should go into this. If that's myopic, i'll own it. GuzzyG (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC) You don't get it. While there is debate as to who invented it first, popular consensus pegs Gutenberg as the inventor of the printing press. The popular consensus ought to be considered the correct consensus, as least where we are concerned. If you look on Google for "inventor of the printing press", you will almost entirely find content on Gutenberg and not Bi Sheng, and for a good reason: Gutenberg's printing press is the model that is actually used throughout much of the world. It has nothing to do with who the inventor or the popularizer is. Furthermore, it isn't our job to recognize the "real" inventor vs. the guy who may have copied him (there is no evidence that Gutenberg relied on Bi Sheng's schematics. Furthermore, I do not care about "founders", I care about importance to readers. Socrates is the founder of Western philosophy, which makes him important to our readers. Cai Lun is the founder of paper, but Cai Lun the person is not important to readers, so he is left out. If you actually compare Bi Sheng and Gutenberg it becomes laughably obvious. You seem to not understand that when I bring up pageviews I do not mean nor have I ever meant that pageviews are everything, or that we should base our list off pageviews. That's ridiculous, and you are wittingly making a strawman of my argument. My whole point is that, in order for a person to be vital, there must be significant audience engagement with that person on Wikipedia, in popular culture, etc. Reach is only one factor I analyze, along with technical achievement, salience to history, exposure in academia, spread of work, fame among laymen, and so forth. Al Capone is a popular contemporary figure. Although he has more pageviews than a Descartes or a Dante, you will note that both Descartes and Dante far exceed him in all the other categories I mentioned. I will reiterate my believe that it is impossible to judge vitality divorced from the cultural, social or linguistic context. You just can't create a vital articles list that will appease every culture or vantage point in the world. If this were the Mandarin-language version of Wikipedia, it may make perfect sense to list Bi Sheng or Cai Lun over Gutenberg. Why? Because both of those figures have greater relevance to Mandarin-speaking and -reading audiences. However, this is decidedly not the Mandarin-language version of Wikipedia. It is the English-language one, and we have to decide which articles are actually relevant to our readers. Zelkia1101 (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC) As for Escobar vs. Capone, the reason I would choose Capone over Escobar is that Escobar is only contemporarily famous as a drug lord, mostly due to TV programing about him. Al Capone, possibly due to having lived earlier in history than Escobar, is much more popular in depictions in media or film, is much more popular in print, and is much more likely to survive in history. So this is a case where the "less popular" Wikipedia page beat out the more popular one. But it's not as if Al Capone is an unknown figure who gets no more than 300 or 100 pageviews a day, as is the case with Cai Lun or Bi Sheng. Zelkia1101 (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC) There's no debate; it's simple if you can read. If some European person left out Cai Lun in 19th century textbooks and not credit others; one can take a guess why; the fact you conveniently skirt around that issue;in every example i've gave; makes me think you are ignoring the obvious and it's a pathetic encyclopedia who goes around with fake popular myths. The funny thing; if you continuously mention readers and books and lists missing out Cai Lun; but the original ranking influence book (in 1978); the one who started this list thing in a proper setting; The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History; lists Cai Lun in the top 10 (shown from the 1992 edition on wiki); above Gutenberg; a white supremacist made this book (again; in the 70s); so what's your excuse in leaving him off? Even more hilarious; this book is so big in multiple languages; it gets 10 mil views [40] (and thats without popular languages like French); almost as much as Gutenberg himself (14 mil) [41]; so our "readers" are reading a article on a book (and imagine how many who've read it who don't bother to look it up on wiki); that places Cai Lun above Gutenberg almost as much as readers who look up Gutenberg. So; if anything; readers who stumble upon this list are likely interested in this thing and wonder what the difference is. Ofcourse you'll say it's only the professional opinion and yours is better etc; but it makes one wonder, what makes you the arbiter and different from people who are published and why should we differ from established sources in this area, if you're so keen on who's written about? Why was your first thought that these lists don't include Cai Lun? You really think a folk hero of a whole continent; compared to one American city is NOT "much more likely to survive in history"; again, seems like a proper reach, other than a pattern of continuous dismissal of certain people. One begs to wonder then what do you consider Al Capones "supreme human achievement" of being? Remember, it takes 44 million people alot less longer to forget than it does 153 million people. (and most of the poor in LatAm don't exactly browse wiki either - this is Escobar's base who see him as a folk hero Robin Hood, this does not affect Capone's audience who in which no one sees as a Robin Hood folk hero). GuzzyG (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are saying in the first three sentences of your screed, so I am going to ignore it. If you would like to put your thoughts in coherent English, I might actually be able to respond to them. I am not suggesting that Cai Lun is not an important person, but rather that, for our readers, Gutenberg is far more important, which is why he is on this list and Cai isn't. I will say that Influence does not at all equal vitality. The book you mentioned lists William T.G. Morton, the inventor of anesthesia, as more influential than Adolf Hitler, but would you honestly suggest that Morton's biography is more vital than Hitler's? That's obviously silly. Mitochondrial Eve is probably the most influential person to have ever lived, because without her none of us would be living, but do you see a case for including her? The likelihood that readers will "stumble" on Cai Lun is much, much smaller than that they will "stumble" upon Gutenberg. As for Al Capone, he does not qualify for "supreme human achievement", because if he did then I would nominate him for this list, or I would put him on my Top 50 list. Supreme human achievement only applies to the top tier. But anyway, I put Al Capone ahead of Escobar because the data suggests to me that Capone is diffuse in popular culture and therefore more likely to survive in history than Escobar, at least for the majority of our readers. In many ways this is a subjective assessment, but it isn't really relevant to our subject-matter. Zelkia1101 (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Comment: Gentle reminder for everyone to keep WP:Civility in mind. INDT (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Failed) Remove Cicero

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not on either list. I'm neutral on this; he was a hero of mine during high school ("secondary school", for non-Americans), and I was aware of his significance during it, but I was also a star Latin student and my experience may not be typical. I've said with regards to Emmy Noether that in order to be on this list someone should be widely known by the secondary-school graduate population of at least one culture; Levels 1 and 2 are (generally) for primary school stuff, and Levels 4 and 5 are (generally) for college/uni and grad-school level stuff. I don't know whether Cicero passes this test.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose I feel like having a Roman who wasn't a leader of the state at this level makes sense and Cicero is easily the most famous. Rome was a massively influential civilisation and I definitely think it deserves having a philosopher on here. -- Maykii (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose A Roman intellectual is warranted on a list like this. GuzzyG (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Cicero is nothing like Emmy Noether. The latter is obscure to pretty much anyone outside of the field of mathematics. Cicero, by contrast, is known across the humanities, and though he is no Socrates or Aristotle, he has his name is far more diffuse in popular culture than Noether.
4. Oppose Key figure in thwarting the Second Catilinarian conspiracy. He summary executed Catiline's conspirators without a trial. That makes Cicero an influential figure in the Roman civil wars. Dimadick (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Failed) Remove Niccolò Machiavelli

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not on either list. Again, I'll personally have to say no to this given the wide renown of the word "Machiavellian", itself but a superficial scratch on Machiavelli's impact on political science. I will, however, support the removal of Max Weber below.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support We have enough early modern philosophers, we can afford to cut one. -- Maykii (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per above. --Thi (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Fields like linguistics are more important than political science and have no representation here. I'd put archaeology over political science too. Similar to culture like Sun Tzu, which would be a much better pick if we needed something in that area. GuzzyG (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Per Above. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Support. The Prince at Level 4 is sufficient for covering Machivellian thought. Off-topic, but I think the assertion that linguistics is more important than political science is highly controversial. More lives have been affected by the implications of Machivelli's thought than by the academic study of language. czar 22:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
7. Support less vital than Sun Tzu. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Despite being nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
2. The father of political science is more important than Rumi or Austen or Milton or Kafka. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose not sure if I agree with linguistics being more important than political science. They are both important and it's hard to compare the two fields. Not that we will likely find the space but I could see the early pioneers in political science across 3 different civilisations (Machiavelli, Sun Tzu and Chanakya) fitting in here. Gizza (talk • voy) 10:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose The Prince has had more of an impact to political history than any single politician: "Machiavelli's ideas on how to accrue honour and power as a leader had a profound impact on political leaders throughout the modern west, helped by the new technology of the printing press. Pole reported that it was spoken of highly by his enemy Thomas Cromwell in England, and had influenced Henry VIII in his turn towards Protestantism, and in his tactics, for example during the Pilgrimage of Grace. A copy was also possessed by the Catholic king and emperor Charles V. In France, after an initially mixed reaction, Machiavelli came to be associated with Catherine de Medici and the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre. As Bireley reports, in the 16th century, Catholic writers "associated Machiavelli with the Protestants, whereas Protestant authors saw him as Italian and Catholic". In fact, he was apparently influencing both Catholic and Protestant kings." 14:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)
5. Oppose Like Dimadick said, the influence of Machiavelli on both medieval and modern political thought can not be understated. I understand there are fields not yet included in the list but political field affects far more. PaulRyanIsWatchingYou (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you mean "cannot be overstated". --Trovatore (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Failed) Remove Friedrich Nietzsche

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not on Thi's list. I will also have to oppose this, but can maybe be convinced otherwise; he's one of the chronologically last philosophers I would consider for this list (behind only Russell, Sartre, and Camus), and is well-known in pop culture. Whatever doesn't kill his placement on the list makes it stronger.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support This will be controversial but do we really need multiple 19th century German philosophers? And out of Nietzsche and Marx it is obvious who is more vital. -- Maykii (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Richard Wagner was removed. Famous figures articles must be maintained carefully in an encylopedia but I am not wholly convinced that this level is necessary for Nietzsche. His writings were often vague and possibly overrated as classics of literature. [42] --Thi (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Is he much more important than Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel or Jean-Jacques Rousseau? or much more worthy to list than both of these? I don't think Nietzsche is on the level of a Plato/Confucius or Descartes either, which is who else he is listed against. GuzzyG (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support You must admit we still have too many Germans on this list Dawid2009 (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Support WP:TOOSOON. He claimed to prove that God is dead. Time will tell if he was correct. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

   Also, this is an English language list; I would consider Bertrand Russell approximately as vital. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Despite being nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Much more of an influential figure than Rumi, Austen, Milton, Twain or Kafka, or Chaplin and Emmy Noether for that matter. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Nomination is a tightrope stretched across a chasm. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose His concept of the Übermensch ("the combination of ruthless warrior pride and artistic brilliance") had a large impact on both Nazism and Anarchism. Dimadick (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Passed) Remove Max Weber

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not on GuzzyG's list. I learned of Weber and his seminal role in establishing sociology during my first year of college/uni. The problem is that I had absolutely no idea who Weber was before then and that my introduction was in college/uni and not high school/secondary school as I've discussed earlier. The "three founding fathers of sociology" are, to my recollection, Marx, Weber, and Durkheim. We already list Marx but don't list Durkheim, compromising that as a possible "natural group" like Socrates-Plato-Aristotle. Furthermore, we already have Freud, and while Weber might technically have had more of an impact Freud is far better known and established the more "innovative" psychology compared to Weber's sociology being more political science-y. All things considered, while I originally supported his addition a couple of months ago I support his removal now.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. -- Maykii (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Weber's views has stood the test of time better than Freud's who represents different paradigm than modern cognitive psychology, but he is not as well known outside the academic world. --Thi (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support I think he's a bit too similar to Marx for the kind of strictness we should have with overlap and in a name recognition in mass culture way out of place with Freud/Marx. GuzzyG (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Support - His views overlap with Marx. I think there is a stronger case for keeping Marx than keep Weber. Interstellarity (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
6. Support per all the above and comments around me. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
7. Support don't think we need two sociologists at this level. FWIW, we have only one true economist in Adam Smith (Marx touched on economics but was foremost a political scientist, philosopher and sociologist). Somebody like John Maynard Keynes brings more to the list than Weber, not that I suggest adding him when the biography section is in a state of flux. Gizza (talk • voy) 08:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Much more of an influential figure than Rumi, Austen, Milton, Twain or Kafka, or Chaplin and Emmy Noether for that matter. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose As the criticism in his article points out, his version of Anti-Catholicism and popularization of historical misconceptions concerning the supposed superiority of Protestantism have had an impact on academic thought. He was also a main influence on the Frankfurt School, and its critical theory. Dimadick (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Failed) Remove Michael Jackson

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not on either list. That said, I'll still have to oppose this as he represents modern, post-1980 pop culture; as "pop", he's a counterpoint to the "rock" of the Beatles. FWIW, he also has far more interwikis than either The Beatles or Elvis Presley, whom he replaced.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Despite being nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Just as vital as the Beatles in my opinion. -- Maykii (talk) 00:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Someone representing pop culture celebrity is needed, especially as the 21st century is defined by it, who better than the biggest of that kind of figure? Bigger internationally more than the Beatles and definitely Elvis. GuzzyG (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose - He is a key figure in the rise of current pop music. Interstellarity (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose Apart from being the most important icon of modern music, no one has influenced other artists of many different musical genres and styles as much. If we have to select an individual artist who represents modern music, he is undoubtedly Michael Jackson. Apart from that, considering his musical career as a child we can see that he is also a link between the popular music of the 20th century and the 21st century. Salvabl (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose, the subject basically defined the genre both in sound and appearance for a generation, and is still widely referenced by modern artists (e.g. Bruno Mars, The Weeknd). BD2412 T 18:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap: Remove William the Conqueror, Add Emperor Meiji

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We list three English monarchs, one should go and I'm nominating William as I feel like he is the weakest. I'm proposing a swap for Meiji as we do not have any leader of Japan and he is by far the most important. His reign saw Japan go from a collection of basically feudal states to becoming an empire on par with the western powers, leading to Japan becoming an industrial power and one of the most powerful nations in the world with a legacy that continues today. -- Maykii (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Suppport as nom. -- Maykii (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Per nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Henri VIII is the weakest, especially with overlap and the fact we don't cover much early first millennium figures, but i realise Tudor history has alot of TV pop culture backing, so i will support William going as a concession. Either way, the Meiji Restoration is fundamentally more important to Japanese history than WWII. Hirohito may be more famous in the west; but Hideki Tojo was just as involved and that counts against him. (also we removed Churchill for having overlap with Hitler/Stalin and we don't list FDR, there's just too many things that count against Hirohito). GuzzyG (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support while I agree with Guzzy and think that Henry VIII is weaker than William the Conqueror, as a swap this is a massive improvement. Emperor Meiji is the person most responsible for turning Japan into an industrial superpower, and making Japan the first non-Western, non-white developed/first world country. Don't think we need another WWII axis power leader. Hitler is sufficient. Gizza (talk • voy) 11:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Support removal William the Conqueror is a rather marginal historical figure who, while important, is not important enough for this level. Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
6. Support removal per Zelkia1101. --Thi (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
7. Support removal per previous comments. To only cast doubt Meiji's role in achievements under his reign (which, to be fair, is a subject of controversy among historians, although I'm not qualified to comment on how neutral that article is), while unquestioningly reciting William's achievements as if they are solely attributable to him (e.g., conveniently forgetting that even the success of the Norman Conquest owes much to the timing of the Battle of Stamford Bridge), does not make any sense. Cobblet (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
8. Support removal per Zelkia, oppose addition per Zelkia. czar 22:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
9. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong, strong oppose No single rationale given for removal/swap. Especially when we are in business removing biographies and we have reformation over everything related with Normans/England, we even do not list the latte-rurkowcy to. Willism's Impact is very Long. For me Elizabeth I is weakest British politican leader because of this is difficult to argue Elizabeth can be more vital than Henry but too comfortable to argue that Henry is more vital. I can not see sense for that swap especially after removal of Lenin... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawid2009 (talk • contribs)

   Irrespective of everything else; even on a list of 100; do you really think the single most figure of the industrialisation and rise of Japan and the resultant rise of Japan as one of the most important countries on the world stage is not important to cover? Hokusai and Murasaki Shikibu are important cultural reps (and Japan has one of the biggest cultures in the world and is sufficiently represented here); but surely the leader who is most responsible for the rise of the country is just as important to list? From a world sense, three Japanese figures on a list of even 100 is proportionate. Every other country listed in the Great power article has a political leader on this list. (Rome for Italy, although cutting one of the emperors for Giuseppe Garibaldi would be ok on a 100 list aswell); would you really say that in the case of one single person responsible for a country becoming a great power is not enough for this list; why would Japan be the only sole super power we don't cover? Especially considering it's extreme cultural presence today? It would make no sense. We list Milton and Disney but not someone responsible for a great power? GuzzyG (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

   @Maykii and GuzzyG: Actually I could support addition of Emperor Meji purely for diversity reasons (We recently added Mansa Musa for the diversity) but certainly not this version of swap. I could deal to change my !vote from "Oppose per se" to "Support addition" only if someone make counternomination to remove tudor(s), for example swap Elizabeth with Queen Victoria and tenativelly/rmporary cancel removal of William. My (quite) strong contident is that one of the Tudors should go before William. We at this level do not have Constantine the Great who legalised Christianity in Roman Empire so why on the earth we need two political leaders connected to English Reformation? I could be wrong but what I can see Elizabeth is not even mentioned in canonical events according to english-heritage.org. However, in recent discussion User:Aza24 said honestly I'm not really sure how a comparison can even be made., is not that 200% true? Jstor/Ngrams/WorldCat/GoogleScholar/Google Trends etc. all agree with their statement: [43],[44],[45]. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

2. Oppose addition While William the Conqueror is a marginal figure, Meiji is even more so. A better choice would be Hirohito, though not even he is good enough for the list. Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose addition "Emperor Meiji's role in the Restoration, as well as the amount of personal authority and influence he wielded during his reign, remains debatable." History of Japan is more important topic. --Thi (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose it's impossible to imagine a history of England without William the Conqueror, and it's impossible to imagine an English encyclopedia without a history of England. Also opposed to the addition; we need fewer political bios, not more. I would certainly prefer to use the quota to remove History of East Asia and add History of China and History of Japan. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose removal, neutral on addition William has had a large impact due to the successful Norman Conquest, development of an entirely new elite under his rule, his redistribution of land, his Domesday Book being the most comprehensive survey available to historians and economists, and the "formal elimination of slavery" which coincided with his reign. I doubt that Meiji himself can be credited for the innovations of his reign. The Meiji (era) was vital to history. But its driving force was a new oligarchy which was determined to advance huge reforms, and (in the process) eliminated traditional class distinctions. Dimadick (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose No Emperor of Japan is of vital interest to an English-language encyclopedia, especially not over the Norman duke responsible for the creation of England as a polity. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I think we should also consider Hirohito. I think between Meiji and Hirohito, I can't really decide who is more vital between the two. Interstellarity (talk) 23:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

We removed Churchill due to overlap with Hitler and Stalin and this is also the reason we have never added FDR. Too many WWII leaders. The Meiji Restoration is more fundamental to modern Japan than WWII. -- Maykii (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trimming the biographies – STEM

This will be the penultimate section of trimming unless we want to redo writers. Oddly enough, neither list proposes any changes to the mathematicians section, but I have my own proposal.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

(Passed) Remove Jabir ibn Hayyan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not on Thi's list. I'm neutral on this; on one hand he's not even definitely historical (though technically neither is Jesus) and much of his work included non-scientific musings, he is representative of the Islamic Golden Age and all it gave us.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support not vital enough for this list Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support There is genuinely not much on this guy and his article talks about alchemy and magic... I've wanted him removed for a while. -- Maykii (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Islamic Golden Age is included and Ibn al-Haytham would be better choice than Jabir ibn Hayyan. --Thi (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per Maykii and Thi czar 22:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose "Most contemporary scholars... agree that the Iliad and the Odyssey were not produced by the same author"; yet that doesn't stop us from listing Homer. Being the "father of Arabic chemistry" is enough reason to be included in a list of 100 vital bios, and the fact that the Jabirian corpus also includes topics outside alchemy/chemistry only makes the case for including him stronger. We don't disqualify Newton either even though he "was not the first of the age of reason, he was the last of the magicians." Cobblet (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Johannes Gutenberg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not on either list. I'll have to oppose this; even if he didn't technically "invent" the printing press, he brought it to widespread adoption throughout Europe with movable type, which kicked off a revolution in its intellectual culture and changed Western history forever; per Stigler's Law, that's what ultimately matters.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support I would rather list the printing press itself. -- Maykii (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support The printing press is more vital. --Thi (talk) 07:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support. Agreed per Thi that the Printing press is the more vital concept, covered in Level 4. czar 22:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support What Stigler's law actually implies is that a person with only a single invention to their name is not all that vital, and that printing press should clearly be listed instead. Cobblet (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Support Per my comments elsewhere and above. GuzzyG (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Despite being nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose - I think out of all the people nominated in this section, this one is least likely to go since he played a pivotal role in getting information to the commoner. Interstellarity (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Strong oppose second only to Newton as the most influential person of the 2nd millennium. World's most influential inventor. Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Per Interstellarity: he played a pivotal role in getting information to the commoner in the West. Maybe I could eventually very weakly support swap Shen Kuo for Cai Lun but let keep Gutenberg on this level, he is far too influntial. I can not see why we need either of printing press and printing, and the latter seems much better option. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose The printing press allowed dissemination of ideas at a much faster pace, helped in modernizing Europe and its colonies, and was likely an underlying cause in both the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. 15:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)
6. Oppose User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
7. Oppose pbp 02:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
8. Oppose The fact that he didn't first invent the movable type printing-press is extremely telling in itself. That is, when he did, its influence was monumental, but his invention specifically was the catalyst. Aza24 (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Passed) Remove Benjamin Franklin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not on either list. This is a somewhat reluctant support for me given Franklin's varied life and achievements, but he's more famous/notable for being "the first American" than he is as an actual inventor, and we already have American Revolution and George Washington at this level.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support We don't list stronger figures like Louis XIV so i don't see how he represents enough to make this list; you can't claim polymath status if there's stronger inventors out there (like James Watt) and stronger political leaders out there. Washington is enough for this era. GuzzyG (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Weak support Franklin's a wonder, but he's not supremely vital or influential either as an inventor or as a politician. There are much weaker people on this list that need to be cut (our bloated writers' list), but Franklin can go too.
4. Support per above. -- Maykii (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Louis XIV would be better choice. --Thi (talk) 07:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
6. Support. Level 4 is sufficient, if the concern is Founding Father representation. czar 22:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
7. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose He advanced studies on electricity, created a functioning lightning rod in 1752, and corrected some early misconceptions on the actual properties of the Leyden jar. These alone would make him an influential figure in science. Dimadick (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose You cannot call Wikipedia a serious encyclopedia for the common reader if you remove a Founding Father who is taught to so many in primary school. We ought to avoid preferring obscure but important topics over the middle-of-the-road characters part and parcel of basic education. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Removal passed, addition failed) Swap: Remove Niels Bohr, add Max Planck

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is proposed by GuzzyG's list, whereas Thi's list has a straight removal. I'm neutral on this; on one hand, Planck actually invented (well, discovered) quantum mechanics, but on the other, as I've said with Gutenberg and Tesla, that invention/discovery is secondary in importance to actually "doing something" about the invention/discovery, and it could certainly be argued the Bohr's work brought Planck's discovery to fruition/maturity with his model of the atom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Support removal of Bohr

1. Support removal No need for him when there's Einstein. He's just fluff. Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Removal per above. -- Maykii (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support removal - I think one 20th century physicist (Einstein) is enough for this level. Interstellarity (talk) 10:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support removal Einstein is needed and I would support the addition of History of physics. --Thi (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Support removal Bohr is not Einstein level and it seems to be consensus to only list one 20th century physicist and obviously that is Albert Einstein. GuzzyG (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
6. per above; we can make due with Einstein alone at this level. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
7. Support removal per above, oppose addition per below. Level 4 is sufficient. czar 22:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
8. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose removal of Bohr

1. Strong Oppose both the removal and the swap. We certainly should have both Bohr and Einstein at this level. Bohr has very high google Trends. He is usually !voted in extremally wide Internet Pools among physicians as Fourth to Maxwell, Einstein and Newton ahead of others. I think he has stronger totop of representative field in natural sciences/Physics than Nietze in philosophy/social sciences who is not going to be removed because of Nietze usually is! voted by specialists about in top 10. We currently are not going to remove Nietze with Score 4-2. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose both the removal and the swap. Bohr's atomic model marks the real beginning of QM as the fundamental explanation for everything that happens at the atomic and subatomic level. Both Planck and Einstein rejected the Copenhagen interpretation developed by Bohr (and his assistant Heisenberg), which the overwhelming majority of physicists today accept, in no small part due to the outcome of the Bohr–Einstein debates. Bohr and Einstein are fully equal in stature as physicists and to suggest one is redundant with the other makes about as much sense as saying Stalin is redundant to Hitler. The rejection of determinism in physics and the rejection of Hilbert's program, both of which forced us to acknowledge the limitations of scientific inquiry, are revolutionary advances in human thought as important as any historical event in the 20th century. To remove Gödel and call Bohr redundant while keeping Amundsen, Socrates, and St. Paul demonstrates an embarrassing lack of and disdain for basic scientific literacy. Cobblet (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
3. oppose removal Bohr is credited as one of the founders of the CERN. Dimadick (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose removal per above. Gizza (talk • voy) 09:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Support addition of Planck

Oppose addition of Planck

1. Oppose addition Planck is very underappreciated, of course, but not vital or seminal enough for the list. Covered by other articles. Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Addittion per above. -- Maykii (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose addition per above. Interstellarity (talk) 10:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose addition Good idea, but probably not really necessary. --Thi (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose addition per my comment above. GuzzyG (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
6. per above; we can make due with Einstein alone at this level. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
7. Dawid2009 (per above User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC))
8. Cobblet (per above User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC))

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap: Remove Emmy Noether or Kurt Gödel, add Georg Cantor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As I've said above, Noether is the most obscure westerner on the list (uniquely, I didn't know who she was before I found this list), and Gödel is second, being known to the general public mainly for "proving math impossible to complete". I'm willing to relax the "secondary school standard" for mathematics (but not science), and all three of Noether, Gödel, and Cantor are rather grad-school in level. That said, I do think that set theory, Cantor's line of work, is the basis of modern mathematics and his work on real numbers arguably separates math into a "before" and "after", and is more fundamental to overall mathematics than the works of both Noether and Gödel. I fully understand if others disagree, however.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom; I would prefer removing Noether, but if female representation in STEM is that important on the list we could axe Gödel instead.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support removing both Both are obscure, relatively unknown past their fields, and have little relevance to our readership base. I think Noether is a little less relevant than Godel, but they are both not vital enough for this list. Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Removal of both per Zelkia. -- Maykii (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose per previous comments by Blueclaw and Abstractillusions here and my comments [[46]] and in the discussion re Ibn Battuta above. Cantor's contributions to set theory could maybe be argued to be slightly more fundamental to pure mathematics than Noether's contributions to abstract algebra; but Noether also made a fundamental contribution to modern-day theoretical physics in the form of Noether's theorems. The depth of her contributions to both pure and applied math puts her ahead of Cantor IMO. I'd consider Noether more vital than at least half of the ten women on the list. Meanwhile, as others have noted, Gödel's incompleteness theorems are possibly the single most profound contribution to math in the 20th century; I'd also put him ahead of Cantor. I consider both Gödel and Noether easy choices to remain on a list of 100 biographies. Cobblet (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose per Cobblet. GuzzyG (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose addition Cantor is not nearly vital enough for this tier. Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Addition per above. -- Maykii (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Cobblet. Also anecdotally, before encountering this list I was more familiar with Noether than many of the other Western biographies and I'm not a math major, so that argument doesn't resonate with me. Gizza (talk • voy) 08:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose addition History of mathematics is listed and no more mathematicians are needed. --Thi (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
7. Oppose No reasonsble rationale given for the removals Dawid2009 (talk) 08:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
8. Oppose removals Noether has had a large impact on theoretical physics. Gödel was a philosopher in the field of religion, and tried to prove the existence of God through pure logic. They had an impact outside mathematics, something which I am not certain is also true for Cantor. Dimadick (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

If Noether's theorem is so important, we should be listing it and not Noether. The point of an article being vital is that the person himself or herself is vital. Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

As already explained, her legacy is twofold: her eponymous theorem is part and parcel of modern theoretical physics, but separate from that, she was also responsible for systematizing abstract algebra as a major discipline within modern mathematics. Listing her theorem does not capture her vitality any better than listing a painting by Rembrandt or a work by Nietzsche captures theirs. And my previous comments are directed specifically to why we need her biography on the list. Cobblet (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I’m afraid neither of the two achievements you mentioned actually make Noether the person vital. It’s the same deal with Godel. His Incompleteness theorem is a central axiom of mathematical logic, but Gödel the individual is obscure and unknown outside of mathematics departments. Contrast Noether or Gödel with Einstein or Turing and it becomes obvious. Not to belabor the same points, but Noether is not like Neitzche or Rembrandt in that the latter two and their works are not obscure to most of our readers. Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I very strongly doubt the average reader would be able to say anything intelligent concerning Nietzsche or Rembrandt (and even you can't spell the first name). Their names are more famous than Noether's, but I strongly disagree that bare name recognition should count more towards vitality than concrete achievements. I also note that I am not supporting the removal of either Nietzsche or Rembrandt. Cobblet (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

It has little to do with whether the average layman could say “something intelligent” about any of these people and much more to do with whether each individual captures the audience’s interest. Rembrandt and Nietzsche are both far more popular with our users than Noether. And I never, ever said or suggested that name recognition trumps technical achievement, or is more important. Rather that inclusion on this list requires a holistic review that takes into account technical achievement, salience to history, and popular saturation. Someone with exceptional technical achievements who is unknown to readers is not vital, just as an incredibly popular figure whose technical achievements are minimal also is not vital. Both components are necessary. Notice I compared Noether to Einstein and Turing, both of whom, we can easily see, exceed Noether where technical achievement is concerned. I wish people like Noether or Borlaug could be more recognized, but the truth is they aren’t, and it isn’t right to make space for them on the basis of technical achievements alone. Zelkia1101 (talk) 01:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

A truly holistic review must take into account how fewer than 10% of biographies deemed vital are about women, an imbalance more extreme than even the gender gap in the English Wikipedia's editorship, let alone the proportion of women among Wikipedia's readership. I only point out the magnitude of Noether's technical achievements to dispel any notion of tokenism. On achievements alone I already consider her a better choice for the list than Cantor. Cobblet (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trimming the biographies – Artists

This is the last section I'm planning to do. Sorry to do this so soon after the previous section, but this is short enough that I think it's fine.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Remove Walt Disney

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not on either list. I'm conflicted on this; on one hand he is the preeminent figure of animation and created such icons as Mickey Mouse, thereby being foundational to corporate pop culture, but on the other hand we already list both the Beatles and Michael Jackson for post-1950 pop culture. If we do remove him we need to merge Charlie Chaplin into the Artists section since "filmmaker" is too specific a category to have its own section with only one person, unlike "businesspeople".  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support the Walt Disney Company is supremely important, and if we had a list of corporations it ought to feature, but Walt himself is not particularly important as a filmmaker or cultural icon. Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support too much overlap with all of Film, History of Film, Animation and Comics listed. Irrespective of the company, the man's biography is not vital enough for this level. Even in business, businesspeople like John D. Rockefeller and J. P. Morgan affected capital at their peak and we don't list them. Nor Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. Ub Iwerks shares alot of co-credit for Disneys stuff too. Alfred Hitchcock and Akira Kurosawa were removed and they have infinitely more influence on actual filmmaking... He's not the second filmmaker you'd choose, or the second businessperson; combining them doesn't make him better; we list Michael Jackson for modern day pop culture. As John mentioned elswhere; there's Winsor McCay and if animation was treated as a serious art and it's influences given proper attention and focus; (and thus McCay was as famous); he'd come out on top too. Someone's importance shouldn't rely on the other figure being not as known. On such a top list; Disney is just not as unanimous and clear a figure as a artist should be like Beethoven or Picasso. His name is spread apart of his business and highly recognisable; but so is Coco Chanel and that never helped her and again - so is J. P. Morgan and ignoring pop culture; any academic study of business would focus more on the namesake of the United States biggest bank than it's biggest company in pop culture presence. (even if you think that's unfortunate). He's no Ford and personally in a biographic sense no Chaplin. Definitely on a 150/200 list, but not on a smaller one. Too much against him. GuzzyG (talk) 02:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Michael Jackson was voted for representative of American popular culture. --Thi (talk) 08:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support. Would support a swap for the company, if speaking to his media property's influence, but that has far less to do with the biography of the man. czar 22:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The Walt Disney Company (under its earlier corporate titles) was indistinguishable in the public's mind from Walt Disney during his life, and its creative process was so tightly centred on Walt that it struggled after his death. The studio was highly innovative in animation, and remains iconic: to this day a certain set of characteristics come to mind when someone says "Disney film" (which resulted in the company creating other studio brands for other types of films that it produced). I can think of other filmmakers who could be considered to be vital to the history of filmmaking, but I can't imagine a history omitting the role of Walt Disney. isaacl (talk) 01:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Disney is the only animator on the list and he is by far the most influential. -- Maykii (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose I would argue that Walt has had a far more global influence than J. P. Morgan or Rockefeller. Disney comics are being published and produced across Europe, in Brazil, and in Egypt. Disney films and characters were cited as influences by Osamu Tezuka and Albert Uderzo. Disney's storyboard technique is still standard in the film industry. What cultural impact can a mere banker have? (I would place Morgan as less vital than the likes of Max Fleischer, Walter Lantz, or William Hanna). 17:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)
4. Conditional oppose As long as we are not removing at least one viual artist I am opposing to remove any filmmaker. I do not see how Disney is more redundant to animation (article listed on Wikipedia:Contents/Overviews than Monet is to Impressionism (article not lited on Wikipedia:Contents/Overviews), and I especially do not see how Monet is more vital to English Wikipedia. Both are milesones in their fields but Disney is more famous in English speaking World. I will change my !vote from "oppose" to "support" IF we are able to reach consus for swap Monet with Impressionism. I do not have now any comment about other filmmakers (Lumierre Brothers, Chaplin, Hitchook, Kurosawa etc.) but just will note Disney is the only filmmaker which have French counterpart. If we would decide remove Disney then I think we should have one filmaker section, do not split it with visual artists. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose see below pbp 03:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

On what planet would the creator of Woody Woodpecker be more important than one of the main driving forces behind American Gilded Age capitalism and whose company (his namesake) has descended into JPMorgan Chase; the largest bank in the US. Which has more global power today, the United States biggest bank or Woody Woodpecker? I'm not gonna even get into the Rockefeller Foundation's impact (hint Norman Borlaug or hard accomplishments like Central Philippine University). I'd like to think funding top international universities has the same cultural impact as some comics published by his company. I see no reason why animators deserve a figure here; sports has more hard impact on culture (football/soccer) and is not covered, i know Wikipedia demographics lean more comics but comics are still a relatively niche thing compared to literature/music/film. It's a massive reach to cite Disney's companies comics for his own importance. By this type of reach you could argue for Ric Flair being listed because he headlined a event of 355k people in North Korea once (Collision in Korea) among many other international things. Why do we need so many 20th century American culture figures, did Disney really have more of a global impact than Franklin D. Roosevelt? It makes no sense to list him when so many other people of his era did more than make comics and especially when in his own time we don't list the leader of the winning side of that centuries (and the US) biggest war. GuzzyG (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, Mickey Mouse is far more iconic than what most other countries create, but I get your point that Rockefeller would be better than Disney.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The logic you are employing disadvantages almost all artists and creatives, since their influence tends to be far less pronounced than that of industrialists, scientists, politicians, etc. JP Morgan is definitely more influential than Disney in the absolute sense, but he is also more influential than Chaplin or Twain, and yet they are on this list and he isn't. Of course, both Disney and Chaplin are much more well-known to popular audiences, and their work, and thus their influence, is much more accessible to a layman, which is why they are both on this list. I'm saying this not to defend Walt per se but to underscore the impracticality of judging vitality on the basis of "influence" alone. Zelkia1101 (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Mickey Mouse is a co-creation with Ub Iwerks (so shared importance for that) and even Mickey Mouse can't compete in global influence as JPMorgan Chase or the oil industry. The biggest bank is more of a globally powerful influence than cartoons and comics. Woody Woodpecker is another thing. If it was a businessperson in Australia i'd agree; but these are figures that signify the rise of the biggest economy today and that has to be more "vital" than a cultural example of that growth. It's all moot anyway; because Franklin D. Roosevelt is infinitely more bigger as a global policy maker in Disneys exact time period and we don't list him so publishing comics is inherently of weaker global influence, so there's no real need for Disney (and there's no argument for a sports figure being listed, despite a bigger international and historic presence for sport than animation, most cultures have a sport like game, not the case for animation, dance arguably is more spread amongst cultures historically too and yet isnt covered). We list 12 artists who have lived in the 20th century (17 every other category combined in the 20th century); it's way too much on a short list and Disney is the weakest. (we already list animation AND comics, that's enough). GuzzyG (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Also if we ignore the main participants in American capitalism's growth (Rockefeller and Morgan) and go for global cultural symbols of American capitalism instead; Mickey Mouse would be up there with McDonald's and Coca-Cola and yet Ray Kroc or Asa Griggs Candler/John Stith Pemberton are not on the 2000 list; we've chosen to list the things over them; so i see no case why even Mickey would result in Disney being on this list. With historical perception in a couple of decades i'd even put Microsoft and Apple Inc. as bigger global changemakers than Disney too and we list neither founders. If he stays; move him to business; because it's not his filmmaking that qualifies him but his business work. (and no film scholar would list Disney second in filmmaking). (also filmmakers should remain a separate category, even with Chaplin). GuzzyG (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Walt Disney is very heavily conflated with his business; it's valid to compare him with business people. (his main artistic work is a co-creation, Snow White is a adaption and many others worked on it). Steve Jobs funding of Pixar, helping it survive is another more important business person involved with changing animation (from traditional animation to computer generated/John Lasseter is not on the level 4 list). Disney is mainly a film producer; as such he is a business man through and through; hence i compare him with business people. Flowers and Trees was the first animated cartoon to win the oscar and Disney was not the animator, just the producer. No; Shakespeare level artists in their own art forms are generally permanent in history; film is inarguably one of the most dominant art forms of the 20th century and Chaplin is it's leading symbol (and he's held this all throughout films prominence). As long as film lasts; he will - that does hold more longevity than being one of the most prominent figures in the rise of American capitalism; because Henry Ford symbolises business better and film will probably hold it's importance for a couple centuries and Chaplin is inextricably linked to it. Disney is stuck; Hayao Miyazaki is more critically well regarded (and in his own article; cited by Glen Keane as a huge influence on the studio since The Rescuers Down Under; the second film into Disneys Disney Renaissance which gave rise to their most important period) and John Lasseter is just as much a game changer (to computer animation). I would personally think that film as a art will last longer than the American economy; so his influence will outlast most American business people. Twain is only number one in American literature and that's clearly more important than any Animator. Animations importance is defined by the fact we only cover 3 on the 2k list (McCay, Miyazaki and Disney). We cover 88 entertainers (and 59 actors), 21 architects and 97 athletes, all major fields, spread globally more than animation with more of a historical base and yet we cover none on this list. It's disproportionate. We cover Animation (over Science fiction) and Comics on this list and that's enough coverage for this art form. If animation is so important to deserve a figure here; than why do we not add more to the level 4 list? We can't correlate Disney with the company; if anything of Disney must be listed it would be the company; but Standard Oil and Microsoft would outrank it; so again - why would the founders of those not be more important? I've never suggested to add Morgan because he is outdone by Rockefeller and there's overlap to the point you'd probably need both (or Carnegie); but Disney shouldn't squeeze in anyway. Chaplin and Twain are more important than Morgan (and Disney); because film and American literature in a normal trajectory should outlast even a American state; which Morgans importance is forever tied to. Disney may define animation and theme parks but they're not on the film/literature level in anything. Superman is just as much a global symbol like Mickey Mouse and yet we cover none of it here. There's nothing in which Walt or something he is involved in does not clash with something else. GuzzyG (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I mean, to be clear, I support removing Walt Disney, and I'm largely in agreement with your argument. My sticking point is that, at least in this case, we shouldn't compare two folks across fields, because the influence of a banker does not look the same as the influence of an animator/director etc. Rockefeller is arguably more influential than Disney, of course, but Disney's products are much more recognizable to an everyday audience. Standard Oil is an artifact of history. The Walt Disney Company is by far the most well-recognized producer of popular entertainment in the 20th century. As for Chaplin, I'm not sure I agree with your characterization that he best represents film as a whole. Chaplin is mainly associated with a period of comic silent films. He typically ranks high in importance, but he usually isn't a top of all time. Figures like Audrey Hepburn or Humphrey Bogart are more typically associated with the pinnacle of cinema than Chaplin, who is more comparable in influence to Harry Houdini. In terms of plaudits, Disney has received the most Academy Awards of all time. What I mean by all of this is that, while I don't think Disney is sufficient for this list, I don't think Chaplin is very sufficient either. Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the arguments being made about the relative importance of other persons. I disagree with minimizing Disney's contributions by saying he just produced the studio's works, though. He was the creative force that shaped and approved everything the company did. (The company didn't require scripts to greenlight animation projects back then; it only worked because Walt would act out the entire storyboard to sell it.) Mickey persisted in popularity long after Iwerks left as the character's whole personality (and originally his voice) was from Walt. (I'm not clear on why you keep mentioning Woody Woodpecker, which isn't a Disney character.) isaacl (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

(Note about Woody Woodpecker reference: This discussion started as a comment to Dimadick's vote and it was moved to this section.) --Thi (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that clarifies matters. isaacl (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

"one of the main driving forces behind American Gilded Age" A short-lived historical era in a single country. Like most of the robber barons of the era, I have never seen any history book even mentioning him. I have seen and read biographies of Walt Disney, watched documentaries on Walt's life and influence, and have seen works about his impact on American cultural imperialism, such as How to Read Donald Duck. How many biographies of Morgan have been published outside the United States? Dimadick (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Mickey Mouse post-50s pop culture? Mickey Mouse debuted in 1927 and Walt only lived a few years beyond the 1950s. Walt is on here for a lot of reasons other than just Mickey Mouse, such as Disneyland and Snow White. I'm late to the Michael Jackson discussion, but I'd have removed MJ before Disney. pbp 03:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Claude Monet

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not on GuzzyG's list. I don't know enough about art to have an opinion on this.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support We already have four modern artists, we do not need that many. If I had to keep one it would be Picasso, the rest are expendable. -- Maykii (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support removal or eventually swap with Impressionism which is wieder topic (Impressionism for example mentions Debussy, article on Monet does not). Per above, having four modern artist for such small list which is focussed on whole human history which cover thousands years is rather short-sighted and eurocentric. I support trimming biographies to 115 quota because of I belive that articles related with art movements (impressionism, surrealism etc.) and other art stuff like textile art, rythm, piano (FWIW Monet gets worse Google Trends in France than Chopin: [47], even though Chopin is Pole lited currently at the level 4, Monet is French listed at the level 3) harmony etc. are more needed than whole biography about Monet. Removal of Monet would not be out of place, especially swap with Impressionism which mention Monet 34 times would not be out of place; Impressionism never was listed at Wikipedia:Contents/Overviews and Monet never was on meta list of 1000 articles which constain 200 biographies because of he is not so famous; he is influential but so are Wagner, Monteverdi, Lumierre Brothers, Sophocles (all level 4) and plenty others. Level 4 should sufficient, not 3 where we already have history of painting. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Breakdown of our 8 artists leans 3 old masters, 4 modern ones and one Asian artist. Considering most importance in painting leads older; i see no reason why we should serve modern arts more. (would be like having 4 pop musicians over 3 classical musicians, we cover 3 of each in music fine). Monet is the weakest of the modern 3. Impressionism is the better fit as any encyclopedia would list the movement over Monet first. I don't see how Monet is any more vital than Salvador Dalí, Peter Paul Rubens, Albrecht Dürer or Diego Velázquez. Monet is more on the level of those four and if we had to cover a modern French artist instead of a painter i'd prefer Auguste Rodin or again, even Le Corbusier or Marcel Duchamp, those three would cover more ground. Can Monet be said to be a stronger 19th century arts figure than Wagner (who was removed) or 20th century figure than Lenin (also removed). Van Gogh, Picasso and Frida. (and Leo/Michelangelo) are the big five in worldwide fame/recognition. They're the essential five , Monet could easily be cut. GuzzyG (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support swap with Impressionism. Monet is easily covered there. Interstellarity (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support swap with impressionism; other artistic movements are also listed.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Support with or without swap, per Dawid czar 05:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
7. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
8. Support formerly oppose from me on account of our bloated writers list. I still think Austen and Twain should go before we remove Monet, but I'm satisfied enough with the removal of Kafka and Milton to give Monet up. Zelkia1101 (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Few can lay claim to spearheading an entire art movement that would develop and be reacted against for decades to come. Monet can. DMT Biscuit (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Impressionism and Monet are also popular with the general public. --Thi (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose The de facto founder of Impressionism, and counted as an ideological ancestor to Modernism. Primarily, because he challenged conventional notions about art and its purpose. Dimadick (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose The list should contain a representative of French art and aesthetics, particularly when we also list two Dutch artists, two Italians, and a Spaniard. We removed Wagner because we also list Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven; comparing the removal of Monet with the removal of Wagner would make more sense if we listed Ingres, Delacroix and Manet in addition to Monet, which we don't. Having said all that, I would support a swap of Monet for Coco Chanel. Cobblet (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I have opened proposal to swap Monet with Impressionism because of some users earlier pointed that one of these two articles is warrented to cover history of art at this level. Personally I think Impressionism is better article in light of "trimming number of biographies". If we decide to add Impresionism to this list then that would be the starter. I would like to hear what others think about that idea. Perhaps we could have more room for all important art movements if we would say... Replace some animals with pet and livestock? What do you think? Dawid2009 (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Czar: It is quite confusing way to! Vote. I Understand you much prefer straight removal but would be also ok to swap with Impressionism if there is nno other strong consensus, based on fact you belive artists are generalny overrepresented? Dawid2009 (talk) 05:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Dawid2009, I think a swap with Modern art would be fine but otherwise I don't see the harm in removing Monet with no replacement. I don't think Impressionism is a Level 3 concept fwiw. czar 06:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap with Impressionism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Support swap

1. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support A art history encyclopedia would prioritise this movement over the artist. GuzzyG (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per vote above. Interstellarity (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support swap with impressionism; other artistic movements are also listed.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support --Thi (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Support as second best choice if Monet is removed. Modern art probably overlaps too much with Modernism. --Thi (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose swap

1. Oppose. Modern art would be the more appropriate stand-in at this level, and even still, level four is sufficient, given its peer topics. czar 05:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Impressionism in an art context usually only refers to a specific Paris-based group of painters in the 1870s and the 1880s. It's far more niche than the other art movements we list. It does not even include slightly later figures like Cézanne and Van Gogh who are usually described as post-Impressionists. I agree with Czar that modern art would be a more appropriate choice for this list, even if there is overlap with modernism. I'd suggest that even contemporary art is a more reasonable choice for this list than impressionism. Or, if one wished to swap Monet for a topic more related to his legacy, a genre like landscape painting could be considered, although that should probably be counterbalanced with a different and equally important genre such as portraiture. Even these may be too niche for level 3, but I do think they're better choices than listing impressionism. Cobblet (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose but support a swap with modern art per above. Gizza (talk • voy) 03:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose A single art movement is not vital enough, nor do I think Impressionism is the most vital movement. Zelkia1101 (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I do not see how modern art would be better than say surealism and impressionism. One potentional Issue which I see with counterproposal to swap with modern art is fact that it is debatable to swap Monet for Modern art but not Van Gogh too for that matter. On the other hand I quite can see how Van Gogh would be better pick over postimpressionism than Monet over impressionism. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@GuzzyG, Interstellarity, John M Wolfson, and Thi: Are you four Ok to swap Monet with modern art per Czar, daGizza and maybe Cobblet? What do you think to Open New proposaland later ping more users? Or we are able to deal it in similar way what we did at swap Ibn Battuta for Mansa Musa? Dawid2009 (talk) 06:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Vincent van Gogh

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not on either list. I don't know enough about art to have an opinion on this.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support per what I said about Monet. -- Maykii (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support. Agreed with Maykii that Picasso is the only modern artist realistically needed at this level. Level four would be sufficient. Not in the same plane of influence comparable to the other biographies at this level. czar 05:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support We already have another Dutch painter in Rembrandt, and other examples of tortured artists in Beethoven and Kahlo. We list Hokusai, a major influence on van Gogh, while Monet, another major influence on van Gogh, apparently isn't good enough for the list; and listing three modern painters while not listing any modern physicist other than Einstein is insane. Cobblet (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Per Cobblet and the fact that having more modern painters than we have modern musicians, filmmakers or writers is out of step with the cultural landscape. Musicians and filmmakers dominated the landscape of culture for the full 20th century; i'd list a actor like Marilyn Monroe (who fits the tragic celeb artist role just as much) or a athlete over a 4th painter. He may be a big name; but we've removed Elvis, Jane Austen, Hitchcock etc. I don't see why Marilyn Monroe, Cleopatra and Ada Lovelace get seen as only famous because of the way they died but Van Gogh doesn't. In painting; listing newer masters more than old masters also does not make sense. There's just too much wrong here and Picasso/Frida are just way more important; so Van Gogh has to go. James Dean and Diana, Princess of Wales are not on the 2000 list, despite similar circumstances. GuzzyG (talk) 07:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Support van Gogh can go, in the spirit of trimming down the list of biographies, and now that we have a more workable number of fiction authors. He's obviously important, but he doesn't really add anything to this list as it stands. He doesn't particularly represent a noteworthy time period or a unique locale, like Frida Kahlo.
7. Per all; Picasso already covers this, methinks. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Van Gogh is probably the most well known modern artist with Picasso. Ideally both Monet and Van Gogh should remain, I think Rembrandt is weaker because two other old masters are listed. --Thi (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose I am somewhat reluctant about this, as he accomplished very little before dying at the age of 37. Posthumously, he was a key influence on Fauvism and Expressionism. Like him, they embraced a "subjective perspective" of reality and rejected the conventions of Realism. Dimadick (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Strong oppose while I can see how for some he can be redundand on representative grounds, then I think he has far too household level of International fame so importance, he would be the only biography with +200 language versions removed, and I can not see how we could remove any biography with +200 before reaching 50 quota. I must strongly disagree with "we have more worcable number of fiction Authors". You must admit no self respecting Encyclopedia would list Shibiku ahead of either of Monet and Van Gogh, and Certain Movements. He gets more than 50% more Japanese google trends than Shibikunsonfor whom he is less caracale than Shibiku? I could reconsider that drop if we would move Mary W. to Writers and swap Shibiku with Wu Zenitem who is quite probably wealthiest person in human history. Bohr always can be easy swapped with Galileo who is mainly known for writing Copernicus down, some constributions to Scientific method and less constributions to physic or math than modern scientists. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

   Corbin Bleu and Ronald Reagan have over 200 and are not listed. That's ignoring that this metric is unreliable and can be gamed. (Van Gogh is not more important than Michelangelo). It's ridiculous frankly to cite "household fame" when people like Churchill and Elvis and Chopin and many, many others have been removed who are just as (if not more) famous and then people like Cleopatra and Marilyn Monroe come into the equation too. The real question should be why is Dutch art more important than French art by listing more people, why is Dutch art on the level of Italian, why do we have more modern painters than modern musicians or 20th century painters more than filmmakers or writers, despite the vast difference in influence of painting compared to other arts in the 20th century on the public. It makes no sense to list van Gogh and all you have to counter that is "household" fame, despite the fact we've removed many, many household fame people. There's no justification for so much overlap on such a small list. Why do we list so many Dutch painters on a English list when we just cut down every English language writer to 1? It doesn't make sense and "fame" alone should not cut it. Is van Gogh on the level of importance in 19th century art for an English encyclopedia than Charles Dickens or Mark Twain? We just cut them. You supported Dickens in particular, so what is your justification for cutting him but not van Gogh despite his household name status? van Gogh is also undergoing a current media push with his interactive experiences traveling the world as a tourist attraction; so his search results are ofcourse going to be currently higher than more dormant artists, this does not affect influence or vitality; it's just a media push. (unless you think van Gogh is more important to England than Dickens because of the higher search results) GuzzyG (talk) 05:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

   I just double checked and van Gogh is at 199 wikidata languages, so not 200 plus...... If we're gonna reach to 200 and round up; then we removed Vladimir Lenin; who is at 195 with a similar level of international recognition... i don't think this is a very reliable metric. GuzzyG (talk) 06:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

   He soon will have +200 Language versions as the only biography who died in 19th century (among nominated for removal or not listed), not during Wikipedia peirod few days ago. None of these changes at all. Fairly All these dozen names you menton above gets worse trends than Van Gogh. According to trends Van Gogh is Searched in encyclopedias, meanwhile Dickens is also promient thank to Christmas pop Culture trash Films (for all google trends there are 36 vs 5 gapand in Encyclopedia trends gaps are 76 vs 14), and I had to support him because of I higher value Religious figures who have millenia importance and have influence on conscuence, sin, breathingly everyday praying etc. than someone who you can read one day per year. I also do not think English literature is overrepresented, we list the same number articles for English literaturę what for Classical Music from germanophone (3) and one more article for English literature than Dutch art and Italian art (we do not list Italian art or Dutch art for this level because of it is not necrssary, if you want you can make nomination to removed English literature too). Thanks for sharing your opinion but please do not make next wall of comment on ne if we Reacher to point that we both have opinion and we both dis agree on analysing representative grounds on the list. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

   "soon" is a prediction (and changing the goal posts). Your own google trends link shows Marilyn tied overall with van Gogh; with Marilyn getting more total landmass (van Gogh only getting Europe and a bit of South America) and van Gogh only goes up recently because of.... exactly what i said; his recent "Immersive Experience" as a tourist attraction; which is not a show of historical vitality at all. These stats can be cherry picked, by this measure Dickens completely beats van Gogh [48]; but it's pointless and you are cherry picking them. (I mentioned Elvis before any other artist and you didnt include him in those stats because he beat van Gogh). Dickens has nothing to do with religion and it's dishonest to say so; (and van Gogh has nothing to figures who last a millenium either, so what does this have to do with everything?). We list two articles from English literature now (not three); just Shakespeare and English literature; so yes, right now it is equal with Dutch art; which is out of place. When you use stats and misrepresent them and don't account for any reason why the results are like they are; it's not a opinion - it's data misused. It misses the point anyway; which is what is van Gogh's influence on art that requires his placement on this list, why do visual artists have the most modern figures out of any arts etc. These votes based on google stats are useless; they do not track vitality. Fame is not an aspect for this list. By your very own standards van Gogh gets more searchs than Abraham Lincoln, Charles Darwin, Karl Marx and Louis Pasteur [49] (because of cause a modern artist with a big tourist exhibit is going to be searched more than dormant figures). It's ludicrous to say they're less notable based on some google search; so the same applies here. Please; when you use these google results but think about reasons why they are; they are not at all representative of who is important (they're not a opinion either). GuzzyG (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

   I did not choosed Elvis because of I choosed Monroe instead as example of person who died recepty to Five entires limit on google trends and I automatically assumed Monroe will have better trends as she has better wikipedia's own Statistics than Elvis, what misleaded me (Musicians always have overrepresented trends in comprasion to say Language versionsbecause of one person can hear the same song on YT Countless times). Either way that does not much at all too. Google trends was not my the only point in my !Vote. Thi believe it is better to have Monet and Van Gogh than Rembrandt, I disagree but I believe it is good to choose just one representation for Impressionism/Post Impressionism/Van Gogh/Monet among so many articles. We list three articles on English literature along with Mary. W. Also you should not be the only person who comment my! Vote per WP:bludgeon. Now when you wrote too much of wall comments you should wait for others. But this is de facto Horse death anyway because of we are removing Either of Monet and Van Gogh with 8-4 and 6-3. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trimming the biographies – Writers

I wasn't originally going to do Writers since we had a similar discussion to this several months ago, but might as well to complete the biographies. After this is all done I'll have a section on possible additions.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@力 and Splitzky: In the past you two were saying that it is unnecesary to list so many writers if level 4 exist for less prenient and more detailed stuff. Do you still believe so? Which number for Blbiographies (perhaps beetwen 100 and 130) would be the most prefelable according to you two? Dawid2009 (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

It was @Splitzky:, 力, and I who advocated for removing so many authors and moving the less vital to level 4. I've taken the liberty to pin (him/her?) on their talk page so they can have a look at these removals, so they may be able to answer your question. I would personally like to see 100 biographies on this level, of which no more than ten are authors of fiction. Hopefully we can at least remove abominable inclusions to this list like Kafka without having to reach 100. Zelkia1101 (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

(Passed) Remove John Milton

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not on either list. I'm fairly neutral/conflicted on this and shall refrain from voting for now.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support Painful for me since this guy is a personal hero and his inclusion on this list is because of me. Milton is probably the second most well regarded English language writer, at least in academia. Paradise Lost is a seminal work of English literature. Areopagitica is one of the most important documents in the history of liberalism. But I’m afraid Milton himself just isn’t that diffuse or vital to be on this list. Unfortunately being the second best English-language author just is not enough. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Might be more important critically; but i'll say that both Geoffrey Chaucer and Lord Byron are just as important to English literature; Paradise Lost might be a canon work; but Chaucer is more important chronologically (and The Canterbury Tales arguably just as important); while Milton is covered by Shakespeare and Lord Byron was one of the defining figures of Romanticism and affected culture so much he became his own archtype Byronic hero; Milton's biography has never achieved that. (as shown by Paradise Lost receiving more pageviews at 10,982,339 views [50] compared to Miltons bare 6,157,244 views [51]. Since we can't list all three English language poets, (and Walt Whitman and Edgar Allan Poe just as noteworthy in the US), i can't see listing Milton on a list so small (and western culture figures/artists should atleast have more than 10 mil views imo; say Tagore gets seen as unimportant but he has 22 mil views total [52], with nearly 10 mil more than Milton in English). GuzzyG (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Chaucer, Defoe, Swift or Dickens are equally well known literary figures. --Thi (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support per above. -- Maykii (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Support per comments above and in previous discussions. Cobblet (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
7. Support per above. Gizza (talk • voy) 09:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
8. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Large impact on literature. "The Victorian age witnessed a continuation of Milton's influence, George Eliot and Thomas Hardy being particularly inspired by Milton's poetry and biography. Hostile 20th-century criticism by T. S. Eliot and Ezra Pound did not reduce Milton's stature." Dimadick (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
2. John Milton's literary works are so vital that prior to 2011 every majors in the English department of UCLA must take a course of him, according to Heather Mac Donald's The Diversity Delusion.--RekishiEJ (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Passed) Remove Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not on Thi's list, and I agree with this removal. I know Goethe's a hero in Germany, but for the wider world I struggle to find a reason to really care about him (or even differentiate him from other ~contemporaneous Germans like Schopenhauer or Hegel) compared to the much more distinctive Kafka (who I'll get to later).  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Not so widely read outside German-speaking countries. Cicero represents humanism. --Thi (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support If we don't have room for any modernist writers, we can afford to lose a German intellectual. There are plenty left on the list besides Goethe. Cobblet (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support We overcompensate for Germans in intellectuals and music; we can cut Goethe. GuzzyG (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I think a German writer is warranted for the list, Goethe is more vital than Kafka. -- Maykii (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Goethe's Faust has received numerous adaptations and derivative works, his poem The Sorcerer's Apprentice has a similarly large number of derivative works, and his The Sorrows of Young Werther inspired many copycat suicides. Dimadick (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

# Oppose To remove Goethe for Kafka is like removing Shakespeare for Dickens. It's better we lean towards older figures than newer ones in artists anyway. Goethe has lasted nearly 200 years as his countries most dominant writer; we don't know yet if Kafka will outdo that. (or outlast Goethe in general). Until this happens; we must pick Goethe. (and German writers should not be represented twice over Russian or French either, so one has to go). GuzzyG (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC) 

I am not necessarily opposed to removing Goethe per se, but I won't vote on his removal until I know Kafka is getting the boot as well, since it makes no sense to me that Kafka should remain over the undisputed master of German literature. Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• I am vocally neutral on this one. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Passed) Remove Jane Austen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not on either list. I agree with this removal; for female writers we already have Murasaki and for Englishwomen of the late 18th/early 19th century (and also, arguably, writers) we have Wollstonecraft. We also don't list the Brontë family at this level.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Strong support Austen is great fun but Shakespeare is sufficient for English-language literature. I’m afraid there isn’t anything that distinguishes her from the Dickens or Orwell tier or pushes her up to the Shakespeare tier. Austen is obviously very important as a writer but 16 authors of fiction is too much and Austen is not cross-linguistically diffuse enough to be included. If Dickens was removed, so too should Austen. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support We don't need multiple English writers, Shakespeare is enough. -- Maykii (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support A separate list of 500 biographies could contain all the major writers. --Thi (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support swap with Florence Nightingale. Interstellarity (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
7. Support we have Bill Shakespeare and English literature, that is enough. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
8. Support Fully committed to the idea of one writer per language in the writers section now; which is the best way to cover literature on a list as as small as this. (and we also list Wollstonecraft anyway). Nightingale can be proposed (and is much needed to balance science with social science/writers). GuzzyG (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I am not a fan of her work. But her works have remained popular for about two centuries, and have been receiving academic attention since 1883. Dimadick (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose reducing the number of women biographies on the list to fewer than ten, but considering that another English writer (Mary Wollstonecraft) is listed, I'd support a swap for a woman in a different and unrepresented field, such as Florence Nightingale. Cobblet (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Weak oppose Austen Remains as my Choice for the only woman writer on the list. I would Rather swap Shibiku for Wu Zeniten. I also belive one day this will happen. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Oppose' There should be two writers who represent English on a English encyclopedia and Shakespeare and Austen are good contrasts. (and there's no Janeite equivalent for Mark Twain). GuzzyG (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear what makes Austen a good companion to Shakespeare, or why Shakespeare even needs a companion in the first place. Why not Dickens? His work is much more diffuse and cross-linguistically significant. Why not Agatha Christie, who is the second most best-selling author of all time, after Shakespeare? Hell, to bring up an old example, why not J. R. R. Tolkien, whose work singlehandedly popularized and redefined fantasy literature as we know it? My point is that there is nothing that really distinguishes Austen other than she has a term named after her. If we were going to add a second English-language author, I think Twain would make the most sense, since at least Twain could represent American literature and Shakespeare Commonwealth literature. But I don't think that's good either. By adding an English-language companion to Shakespeare we are insinuating that the author's influence on English literature is comparable to Shakespeare's, and I don't think that's true of anyone. Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The centuries long dominance of pop culture puts her above Christie and Tolkien; Dickens may be as known; but it's obvious that Austen holds up too and we should cover a woman. Austen is on the current Bank of England £10 note; which makes her extremely present in modern day British culture; Dickens is not on currency; which shows who in Britain is seen as more of a better representative. They're close; but Austen edges him. GuzzyG (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Funnily enough, Charles Dickens was on the same tenner note that Austen now occupies. Have a look. I don't know why inclusion on currency is a metric, but that's that. Austen and Dickens are both roughly equal in terms of pageviews, Google trends and Austen only barely edges Dickens out in terms of ngrams. But again, I struggle to see what Austen has that puts her up with Shakespeare? If it's that she's a woman, why does Murasaki not cover that? At least Murasaki represents a different language and a different region of the globe. Austen doesn't particularly cover anything necessary. The novel's supreme representative is Cervantes. Perhaps she represents satire? But then again why not have Swift? Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I will not !vote in that section because of I do not think it is neccesary to remove women from this list without swap even for cost "reducing overrepresentation" but just will note that "apperance on money for short time, for few years" should not be considered as "argument for cultural significance". Atlanic Ocean is named after Greek Mythology subject for centuries but Greek Mythology was denied (instead adding greek mythology, regular candidates are subtopics of Apollo program even though this one does not have WP:primary topic for Apollo, or prove disambiguation against it), Marusaki Shibiku apperaed on Japanese money but this does not seems be very significant. What I can see in Japanese "Google trends for searching encyclopedias and dictionuares", topics related with Greek Mythology are more popular overhemingly than Marusaki Shibiku [53], [54]. However I would not support removal of Marusaki Shibiku either. While I can see how for some strange can be having Shikibu ahead of Twain then I feel we should have at least one yellow woman on this list and Shibiku is one of the best picks for that, perhaps I could support removal of Shibiku if we would have Wu Zeiten on this list who was one of the richest people in history and the only woman emperor in China. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

"the author's influence on English literature is comparable to Shakespeare's, and I don't think that's true of anyone." I find the overestimation of Shakespeare rather annoying. I have enjoyed Macbeth, King Lear, and Richard III (play), but I do not see anything particularly groundbreaking in most of the man's works. I see Bardolatry as quite absurd. He is not as witty as Molière's satires, as inventive as Aristophanes, or as influential as Plautus. And I would consider Pierre Beaumarchais' politically subversive depiction of the aristocracy to have had more of an impact than Shakespeare's tragedies. As for the writers Zelkia1101 mentioned, I would happily place both Christie and Tolkien above Shakespeare in their impact on the reading public. Dimadick (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with whether you like Shakespeare or not. I prefer Milton to Shakespeare. That doesn't really matter though. We are talking about influence, and there quite simply does not exist any writer of literature who has exerted the same magnitude of influence over the English language as Shakespeare. There's a reason bardolatry is a thing, whether you like it or not. Obviously Jane Austen was an incredibly witty, incisive author, but she just is not equal to Shakespeare or Dante or Homer in the realm of influence over literature, and we already have enough novelists in Cervantes, Voltaire, and Tolstoy. Zelkia1101 (talk) 01:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Passed) Remove Franz Kafka

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not on GuzzyG's list. I'll have to oppose this, and I'll have to strongly oppose having Goethe but not Kafka. I'm aware that Goethe is probably the "more objectively famous" German writer, but there's really not much to differentiate him from being just "some German dude" like Hegel or Schopenhauer. Kafka, on the other hand, defined an entire genre of works with his surrealism that gives us the word kafkaesque, and therefore seems to have a much broader global appeal and "wins" by marginal considerations.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support Kafka isn’t even clearly the most important writer of the 20th century, and he is by no means Shakespeare or Goethe level. Having Kafka as one of the top 10 writers just makes so sense, and kicking Goethe out makes much, much less sense. Goethe is the Shakespeare of German literature, as recognized by Germans themselves. Goethe is far, far more important. Kafkaesque is a term but so is Orwellian, and Orwell is a much more well known 20th century author, and yet he isn’t on this list. Kafka adds nothing to this list quite frankly. Modern literature is represented with Tolstoy and Kafka wouldn’t even be my third choice for 20th century author. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Per my Twain vote; one writer for each language except English with two is a good idea. I agree with Zelkia; Goethe is the most dominant in his country (it'd be like removing Shakespeare for Dickens); 20th century literature has not settled on a clear defining figure yet; let's let it settle and see who survives; there's way too many potential writers still. I'd prefer Surrealism; Kafka isn't more important to that movement than Salvador Dalí (who's been removed). There's no way to fit him in. GuzzyG (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Redundant to modernism. Recent discussion about Goethe convinced me that he should be the only German writer on this list. This is of course far better to have two dramatists (Goethe and Shakespeare) than countless number of Englishlanguage writers. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per above. -- Maykii (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Impressionism, expressionism and surrealism should have their own articles at this level, but this is the way you want. --Thi (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
7. Support too recent, and as noted we probably don't have room for both Goethe and Kafka. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Despite being nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Large impact on other writers, particularly dystopian fiction. "Shimon Sandbank, a professor, literary critic, and writer, identifies Kafka as having influenced Jorge Luis Borges, Albert Camus, Eugène Ionesco, J. M. Coetzee and Jean-Paul Sartre. Kafka had a strong influence on Gabriel García Márquez and the novel The Palace of Dreams by Ismail Kadare." ... " Much of the post-Kafka fiction, especially science fiction, follow the themes and precepts of Kafka's universe. This can be seen in the works of authors such as George Orwell and Ray Bradbury." Dimadick (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose His literary vision is utterly unlike that of any other writer on the list, and an understanding of that vision is just as relevant to readers today as reading about Socrates or Abraham, particularly when we already list other Greek philosophers and biblical figures, but list no other literary modernists apart from Kafka. Cobblet (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I don't see why an author having a "large impact" on other writers qualifies them to be on the level 3 list. There are so many authors that have had a "large impact" on others that we simply cannot accommodate. Writers with "large impacts" are supposed to belong on the level 4 list. Obviously authors like Kafka, Twain and Austen are important, but they are not on the same level as Homer or Shakespeare relative to cultural, linguistic or historical importance. You could easily swap Kafka here with Orwell or Hemingway and make the same statements about them. It's a weak defense to say that the criterion for inclusion is that they influenced people when this list is supposed to be the most vital of the most vital. Zelkia1101 (talk) 01:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

"His literary vision is utterly unlike that of any other writer on the list" could be said of so many writers, and yet we don't feel the need to include them on this list. Two German authors is already too much, and Goethe is the supreme representative of German literature. There's no more need for a modern author when we already have Tolstoy. Zelkia1101 (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider Tolstoy a modern writer at all. There is far more overlap between Socrates and Plato than between Tolstoy and Kafka or between Goethe and Kafka. Cobblet (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Why not? Tolstoy is objectively classed with the modern school. He died in the early 20th century. His great works were compiled in the late 19th century. That's modern. Socrates, furthermore, is the founder of Western philosophy, and has broader cultural, social, and academic recognition than Kafka, who fundamentally adds nothing to this list, and whose name could easily be swapped out for any other 20th century authors who are just as famous as he. Furthermore, it is ridiculous to have two German-language authors when we only have one French author and one Russian author, when French and Russian literature are more read by English-language audience. Hell, it's possible after this that there may only be one English author left, so it's ridiculous to me to potentially have two German-language authors and one English-language author on English wikipedia's top authors list. Goethe is the supreme German man of letters, as acknowledged by the Germans themselves, so Kafka is redundant. Zelkia1101 (talk) 11:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

In that case, you're welcome to rewrite the article on literary modernism to include Tolstoy. It's not exactly surprising, and rather irrelevant, that the Germans do not recognize "a specifically Jewish writer" and, per Harold Bloom, "the only modern rival of Sigmund Freud as a dark guide to the spiritual future of any secular Jewish culture", as the supreme German man of letters. What the Germans do recognize is that even though Goethe and Schiller are also obligatory reading in their country, the "one undisputed favourite both on the curricula and among German teachers", according to the Goethe-Institut(!), is Kafka. Even if Austen and Twain are removed, we still have Shakespeare and Wollstonecraft and English literature. This is not and has never been a list of "top authors": this is a list of priorities for Wikipedia editors. We should prioritize working on both articles related to the canon of modern literature (W. H. Auden: "Had one to name the artist who comes nearest to bearing the same kind of relation to our age that Dante, Shakespeare and Goethe bore to theirs, Kafka is the first one would think of") and on articles related to the classical Greco-Roman canon. We should not be excluding one for the other. Cobblet (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The article on literary modernism only mentions Kafka once, in a list among many other authors who are equal to him in stature, so I don't know what you're getting at. Tolstoy represents modern literature. I mean, nobody was suggesting that Kafka is unimportant, rather that he simply does not fit in a list of the top 10 or so most important authors of all time. That Kafka is a Jewish writer is obviously important, but why do we have him when, even as you point out, Bloom describes him as being second to Freud, who is more important, and actually represents something new. Furthermore, it's ridiculous to suggest that Wollstonecraft in any sense represents English literature. It would be like saying that Søren Kierkegaard represents Danish literature. They aren't primarily known as authors of fiction. Kafka is an important writer, but there are other writers of his stature in the 20th century alone, and he has not yet done anything to put himself at the top unfortunately. Zelkia1101 (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately for me, I've only just noticed your comment in a previous discussion referring to the inclusion of Kafka as "abominable." Abominable: "worthy of or causing disgust or hatred." Given that is how you describe your point of view, it was a mistake for me to attempt to engage in a rational discussion in the first place. Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

You may wish to actually read what I had written, because I called Kafka's presence on this list abominable, not Kafka himself. Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure, that's what Cobblet said: your comment in a previous discussion referring to the inclusion of Kakfa isaacl (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Well yes, that's the point. It has nothing to do with Kafka's position as an author and everything to do with the fact that he, Twain, and Austen don't fit on this list. Perhaps abominable was too strong a word, but it wasn't a value judgment on Kafka as a writer Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Mark Twain

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not on GuzzyG's list. I'm going to have to oppose this, if somewhat weakly. Twain is the only American writer on the list, and, while this isn't the best (or, really, a valid) argument, I do personally enjoy his works. While people do (sometimes rightfully) complain of Americentrism on the list, the United States is the largest country in the world where the majority population speaks and writes in English natively, and the writers list is disproportionately European, not American. So this is one of the few times where I argue for an American to be on the list for representation purposes.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support Twain does not really distinguish himself from other canonical American authors like Hemingway or Poe. I understand why people want a rep for American literature but Twain just is not Shakespeare level and is not historically or aesthetically significant enough. Shakespeare is enough for English-language literature and our writers’ category is too bloated. If this were a top 200 list Twain may have a place, but alas we need to be sensible and not have this many authors of fiction when other fields are neglected. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support I can dig a one of each language approach. (except Austen because she represents women and we can't go below 10 total, no way. All languages with one, but English with two would fit the English language encyclopedia focus i guess too). But it's clear that Twain is the dominant American writer, that's not in doubt. [55]. I just think our coverage of Jazz (Armstrong); American pop music (Michael Jackson); Hollywood (Charlie Chaplin) and Rock and Roll (The Beatles) cover American contributions to art and art forms sufficiently. Americans are not as big in Literature and visual arts or classical music so it's fair not to list them here. We don't list Andy Warhol for visual arts. GuzzyG (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support I do not think we have room for single US writer. This country is sufficiently represented by pop culture figures and has shorter history than United Kington. This is almost preposterous we have six articles related with English literature but four (soon maybe 3) related with Greek Philosophy, three related with Hinduism and three related with Second World War. Mark Twain is mentioned in article English Literatue and for ballance I support adding many American Writers to the level 4 which is more toward recentism and is not focussed on things with civilsational impact etc. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per above. -- Maykii (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Kafka would be better example of short story writer. Twain is most famous for his novel Huckleberry Finn and there are many other novels with similar status. Sophocles was removed, although Oedipus the King is called by some as the greatest play ever written. --Thi (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
7. Support we have Bill Shakespeare and English literature, that is enough. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
8. Support Covered by English literature. Cobblet (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Despite being nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Twain wrote A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, one of the most influential works of time travel in fiction. Dimadick (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose I particularly take issue with the comment "we have Bill Shakespeare and English literature, that is enough." pbp 03:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Famous enough to be very vital, IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Biographies – Additions and moratorium

Since we've been removing a few biographies, I think we should add a few to compensate for the losses. I also think we should have a moratorium on discussing the relevant biographies for the next six months, as I propose below. Since the trimming is still ongoing, I think it might be appropriate for !voters to cast !votes conditional on how many/what biographies are trimmed.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

(Failed) Add Thales of Miletus or Pythagoras iff Socrates is removed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This entire nomination is conditional on Socrates's being removed, and will automatically fail if he is retained. I think if we are going to remove him we should have a pre-Socratic philosopher to compensate. Thales is the "canonical" first Greek philosopher, but Pythagoras was formerly on this list and had more mathematical impact.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom; I'd rather have Pythagoras but Thales is fine as well.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Dawid2009 (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Not top priorities at this level. --Thi (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Strong oppose I oppose listing a third Ancient Greek philosopher after Plato and Aristotle, but if one has to be listed it should be Socrates. Listing Ancient Greek philosophy suffices to cover the rest. Cobblet (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Socrates would be third but we should only have two. (We should have no threes except for the classical music three). (Thales doesnt get the credit like Socrates or have the cultural status of him to be on here... id say yes if he was just as known; to cover the earliest example). GuzzyG (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
5. czar 01:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose if Socrates if removed, we will end up with Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Euclid, Archimedes, Hippocrates, Herodotus and Alexander the Great from Ancient Greece. 8 out of about 120 seems proportionate to their contribution to human civilisation overall. For comparison there are 5 Romans (Caesar, Augustus, Cicero, Virgil and Paul the Apostle). Gizza (talk • voy) 04:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Failed) Add John D. Rockefeller or Andrew Carnegie

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is a perennial proposal but I still feel that it should be discussed; I do hate seeing Henry Ford all alone in businesspeople, and Guzzy did keep bringing Rockefeller et al. up; indeed, if I were the "king" of the list, I would add Rockefeller, Taiwan, and California. Rockefeller and Carnegie are some of the richest men in history and defined American capitalism; more importantly, unlike Mansa Musa or Crassus, they were able to accrue their wealth without being political leaders. One could argue that Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk has rendered their legacies obsolete, but not only are they too recent, but their philanthropic activities are also yet unclear; Carnegie had his Carnegie libraries, and Rockefeller not only started a political dynasty but created what he considered to be his greatest achievement, my alma mater the University of Chicago.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom; as in earlier discussions, I'd rather have Rockefeller but won't let the best be the enemy of the good.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose country specific. Not any more vital than misssed father of industrial Revolution (James Watt). Dawid2009 (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose Entirely unnecessary given the consensus that we should be aiming to reduce the number of biographies. We list Edison as an inventor but he could just as easily have been listed as a businessperson alongside Ford. How does it make sense that Lenin can be deemed redundant to other people on the list, but not Rockefeller or Carnegie? Cobblet (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose There is no need to overemphasize the American businessmen. --Thi (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose I'd support Rockefeller on a 150 list (and this one if i was king too because i think business had just as much impact last century as film and should be covered as much; although that's likely a waiting game for Bill Gates or Steve Jobs to be seen as historical figures). But as of now? We've agreed to cut down; so he does not fit. I was just using him as a example against Disney; cause Disney is on here for his business and he does not compare to Rockefeller; but arguably none should be listed as of now. I agree with Cobblet; Edison/Ford/Rockefeller is too much overlap if we cut Lenin for overlap. GuzzyG (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Per above czar 01:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Failed) Add Neil Armstrong or Yuri Gagarin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This has been discussed before, but I still feel that I should oppose it even though I work in the space industry. I nevertheless think it should be brought to a vote.

I oppose this addition for these reasons:

• Armstrong and Gagarin were simply "men doing their jobs"; they were hired/recruited for the position and had little to any creative control over their respective missions. For Armstrong specifically, it was JFK who decided to go to the Moon and NASA in charge of the Apollo and preceding Gemini missions; we don't list either JFK or NASA, but I might support adding NASA. In general, astronauts and cosmonauts are akin to military servicemembers, whom we don't list – indeed, we don't even list Eisenhower for World War II, much less Audie Murphy. This relationship is also a large part of why we don't list sports figures such as Babe Ruth or Don Bradman, and I'd rather add those. While the explorers of the Discovery Age did usually serve monarchs, they did so in a relationship more akin to a contractor rather than an employee, and retained most if not all creative control and impetus for their exploration.
• Even ignoring this, the Space Race itself ended up having no further significance that other parts of the Cold War didn't have, and we actively removed it a while back. After Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins, people did go back to the Moon for a couple of years, but human lunar adventures didn't survive the Nixon years. We just went back to Earth, had the Space Shuttle and space stations (cool in their own right, but nowhere near level 3), and are just now, after 50 years, starting to ramp up super-orbital space exploration again. While I have full confidence that there will be people who spend the entirety of their lives never having visited Earth by the end of the century, it won't have been the Space Race that did that, but rather Musk, Bezos, or some other figure that is currently or will soon be active; maybe one of them will be the only living person on this list, but who knows.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Despite being nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Strong oppose per comments in previous discussions. Cobblet (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Space race is more important. First Moon landing was a special event in human history. --Thi (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose Not after the cuts we've had; although i do think as a symbol of human accomplishment these two will continue to last more. The "employee" thing be damned; (Although with astronauts it's understandable; but athletes or actors less so). GuzzyG (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
6. czar 01:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moratorium: No more discussion of the relevant biographies, or bulk removing biographies, for the next six months

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think it's clear at this point that we're not getting to 100 biographies, and this exercise, while stimulating, has been a timesink for the project. Therefore, I proposed that any biographical article that has been discussed between the beginning of September and now (including the ones in this section, Thales through Gagarin), not be discussed again through the end of April, 2022. Nor shall any talk of "bulk nominations", whether removals or additions, be had in that time. Other biographical articles, whether currently on this list or as a proposed addition, are exempt from this.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Though would like reconsinsider Addiction of more Women on pair with wikiproject Women in red Dawid2009 (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

   In fairness, adding more people (except for these ones) would be exempt from the moratorium.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

3. Support We've talked a lot about bios this year. Time to talk about something else. Cobblet (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Biographies on this page are worn out largely. GuzzyG (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support there isn't consensus to cut to 100 biographies, and there wouldn't be consensus on how to do it even if there was. I haven't checked, but most (if not all) the borderline cases have a recent discussion. Strong support for a six-month moratorium on bulk nominations. Very weak support for "recently discussed"; if people like that idea we should make it a permanent rule and compile a page that links "most recent discussion(s)" for articles. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Support though I think proposed swaps where the removal on its own was discussed and the addition is new should be allowed, because the proposal as a whole is different. Gizza (talk • voy) 03:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
7. Support.... please..... Aza24 (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
8. Support per above. -- Maykii (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I think moratoria like these are arbitrary and undemocratic. If someone proposes to remove a biography article, you can just ignore them, but there is no point, in my eyes, to stifling discussion on what is obviously a hotbed area of contention. Zelkia1101 (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I also was wondering does it would be worhible to make Rule that the same person can not make more than 10 nominations per week or 30 per month. List should be diverse product of consensus. Addition of Taiwan also now seems be more WP:forum and Horse death if was recently failed due to small population. Dawid2009 (talk)

The proposal to add Taiwan stood at 5–3; we've previously left open 5–3 discussions for as long as 365 days before closing them. Closing the discussion was not against the rules we've established, and I understand the need to close proposals more quickly when the talk page gets long. But it still isn't our standard practice to close any discussion that has a realistic chance of passing at the first possible opportunity. So I don't have a problem with that particular proposal being reopened.

I agree with you that it's not very fair for John to expect the rest of the community to discuss a massive number of proposals of his choosing all at the same time. But he's not the first person to do that here, he contributes in good faith to the discussions he starts, and I think dialogue is a better way to deal with procedural issues than making more rules. I interpret this proposal as John's promise not to bring up the same biography removals again for six months. Cobblet (talk) 04:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

In fairness, with the biographies I was simply generalizing a process that had been started by others (with the Writers), and while I did exercise some editorial discretion (Hatshepsut and Noether/Godel) I was mainly relying on Thi's and GuzzyG's list and didn't even support many of the removals. I do agree to drop my part of the stick assuming others involved with this biography hubbub do the same; I'm personally sick of bios at this point myself.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 11:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, no problem, I admit/agree 👍(I could support daGizza proposal to swaps be allowed but only in the case if woman is at entry. For example I can not see why proposal to swap Joanna of Arc with Coco Channel would have to be not allowed. After Six months I would be ok to New bulk of removals at all. It is good time to mostly take breath from biographies) Dawid2009 (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I've been off VA for a bit: could somebody remind me again why the obsession with 100 biographies? Maybe point me to the discussion where it was agreed on? pbp 04:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The point is that a reduction to 100 biographies was discussed and found to not have consensus. Several editors (myself included) have commented that 100 is a nice round number, and it would be nice to have more quota for other types of articles. Other editors think that approximately all the 120 biographies we have are vital. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Molière

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, I expected to find Molière in the list of core biographies, as one of the greatest writers in the French language and world literature. French is often referred as "the language of Molière". Regards, Yann (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose We already list Voltaire, and Shakespeare is far more influential in drama.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose abovesaid. --Thi (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose too many writers! Perhaps could reconsider swap with Tagore if there was consensus to move Voltaire to philosophers. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose per above. -- Maykii (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose Nuch lesss famous than most vital folks. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose The only way this would work is moving Voltaire to the social scientists section and adding Moliere. But the list is already disproportionate as is, we don't need anymore writers or intellectuals. (social scientists being listed more than scientists + Voltaire hidden in writers, despite covering close to 100 more scientists on the level 4 list...). . GuzzyG (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

   I think it's because whereas science has quite a few "good" (level-4) contributors it has a relative paucity of truly "great" (level-3) contributors, being that everyone's on each other's shoulders, etc., compared to the more individualistic advancements of writers and philosophers. It might also be that "modern" science dates only to the past half-millennium whereas writing dates all the way to the Fertile Crescent and philosophy to Greece.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Isn't there a language bias here? In the French speaking word, Molière is much more influential that Shakespeare in drama. Voltaire is known for his contributions to philosophy, not to language. And again, in French speaking areas, Molière and Voltaire are equality famous. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Molière might well be so known inside France, but is virtually unknown outside of it unlike Voltaire; Shakespeare is renowned both in and out of the Anglosphere, and is thus more global. This isn't even getting into the Anglocentric bias that is to be somewhat expected on the English Wikipedia.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I can't support a cold addition. A swap with Voltaire may be justifiable, but not likely to garner my support. Molière enjoys greater fame as a wordsmith and literary figure in the Francophonie than does Voltaire. The French often call their language la langue de Molière, or "the language of Molière," so Molière certainly isn't a lightweight. But I'm just afraid that John has a point; Voltaire has far greater international appeal, cultural salience, and historical importance than does Molière, though Molière may be the superior man of letters. That having been said, I want to make it clear that I view Molière as a respectable contender for this list, and I think he'd be a much better addition than Austen, Twain, or Kafka. Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Chess

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since we're trimming the biographies, I think we should add some non-biographical articles to compensate. Although we already list board game, chess is unique among board games in its ubiquity, having such variant forms as suicide chess, correspondence chess, and in the depth of mathematical and computational study that has been undertaken on it; there are plenty of chess engines, but not so many (significant) checkers engines, poker engines, bridge engines, or backgammon engines. Elo ratings, now ubiquitous in sports statistics, originated as a way to compare chess players. It is also international and long in its history, dating from medieval India via Persia to eventually become a truly global game, and by far the most vital indoor game (some, though not yours truly, might even call it a "sport").  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)\
2. Weak support I am a little conflicted about this one, but I've decided to voice my, admittedly halfhearted, support. Chess (and its derivates) is an incredibly old game whose salience to the lives of everyday people spans over a millenium of human history. It's far older than association football, for instance, to say little of the historical importance of chess's predecessors, namely Shatranj. Chess is also incredibly diffuse as a human endeavor, right on the level of football I think, though football obviously captures far more attention. Overall, chess would be a nifty addition to this list. I am, however, concerned about overlap with board game. I realize that we are over quota as it stands, and people do not seem to want to commit to slashing the biographies to a more workable number, so I am wary of cold additions. Zelkia1101 (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Weak support Frankly, I find it to be more amusing than any ball game. And it has had a large influence on popular culture. See Category:Films about chess. Less vital, however than most art forms. Dimadick (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support. A major type of sport, for the brains not brawns. At least one example is needed here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support due to unquestionably greater cultural representation than any other Western board game. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

   @Hyperbolick But is it Western? :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

   How is it not? Hyperbolick (talk) 06:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per previous discussion when this was nominated for removal. Recently we were discusing removal of board game and few mentioned that it has overlap with game. Even though Chess and Go maybe are games with greatest tradition, I do not think this is on the same level what other Sports/Recreations we list (for example football, swimming etc.) which are popular among men and women. I call it sport but I do not think it is important enough for this level. (BTW Carlsen, player with highest Elo is not listed on the level 4 yet, I think we could already discuss to add him or swap with Fisher) Dawid2009 (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Perhaps if this were a Russian-language project. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose I recommended removing this a long time ago. I have done as much as anyone on Wikipedia to document the worldwide popularity of the game, but I would still consider it overly niche for this level. There are several sports with a broader following, and there must be many other things people do for enjoyment (pet is the first thing I thought of) that are a lot more essential to understanding the human condition. I would also consider it infinitely more important for people to know something about a person like Emmy Noether than to know something about chess. Cobblet (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose unless it is a swap with Board game. --Thi (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose per above. -- Maykii (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I agree there's a case to be made for swapping Fischer for Carlsen on level 4 nowadays. Cobblet (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cobblet: Except Carlsen... I had recently also on my mind to add AlphaZero to the level 5, IMHO far more important than Deep Blue which I added few years ago (very innovative, invented in specific way, as this AI does not analyse humans constributions to the game through history).. Despite recentism I would also probably add Alpha Go to the level 4 ahead of Computer Chess or Computer Go, because of some book sources compared "Alpha Go vs Lee Sedol" to effect of sputnik... USSR sputnik was inspiration/motivation for United States to constribute more to space technologies, meanwhile Alpha GO was inspiration/motivation for Sinosphere to constriubte more to AI technology in last few year. Alpha Go was achivement for Western company (Google). This is mentioned at the first pages of the AI Superpowers (according to Kai-Fu Lee sputnik 1 is milestone for space race beetwen USA and USSR, meanwhile Alpha Go is kind of milestone for Artificial intelligence arms race, beetwen China and USA). What do you think? Dawid2009 (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

AlphaGo/AlphaZero are very reasonable additions to level 5 but probably not level 4. IMO, they're not that much more vital than something like Pluribus (poker bot), and maybe no more of a milestone in AI than the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, or the assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh and the events at Natanz over the last two years. On that note, even cyberattack/cyberwarfare is still not listed on level 4 – Stuxnet was over ten years ago now. Cobblet (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cobblet: I noted you years ago were playing, correspondence chess with others on Wikipedia, let start again :P Dawid2009 (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure! We can start a new game on that page if you want – hopefully VM won't mind. Cobblet (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Dawid2009/chess Dawid2009 (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC) Everyone is welcome to add this page to watchlist, or play in my team. @Volunteer Marek: you started this trend years ago, you can play on my sandbox too if you want too. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: Good luck! It's your move... Cobblet (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Taiwan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Our country list already has 81% of the world's population, and I would assume a roughly similar if not greater proportion of its GDP, so I am highly wary of adding any more countries (especially solely on a population basis) and think that any deficiencies in human geography are best served by adding cities rather than countries; that said, I do think removing Taiwan was a mistake when we list the similarly small-but-developed Netherlands and the similarly-small-but-geopolitically signficant Israel, and my previous proposal to re-add it failed by one oppose !vote that was procedural and unrelated to Taiwan itself.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Not only the Netherlands and Israel but also the United Arab Emirates is another economically advanced country that is listed and has a significantly smaller population than Taiwan. Taiwan's economy is nearly twice as large as Israel's or the UAE's in nominal-GDP terms and is also nearly 40% larger than the Netherlands' in PPP-adjusted terms. If we are keeping all three of the other countries, it makes no sense not to list Taiwan. It is no exaggeration to say the world depends on Taiwan for semiconductors; Taiwan counts Ang Lee, Teresa Teng, and the National Palace Museum (the most significant museum collection in the Sinosphere) among its cultural capital; and Taiwan is the most acute geopolitical flashpoint in Chinese–US relations. China's campaign against recognition of Taiwan has even affected Wikimedia's participation in UN agencies. Cobblet (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Per Cobblet. Taiwan is a fundamental part of today's landscape and not even the smallest encyclopedia would miss it today. GuzzyG (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support addition of Taiwan, Iraq and Ukraine. --Thi (talk) 08:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support addition of Taiwan based on GDP, importance to the semiconductor industry (and subsequently numerous other industries, see 2020–2021 global chip shortage and [56]), and geopolitical significance. INDT (talk) 08:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Support Removing this was a mistake I will admit. -- Maykii (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
7. Weak support. Important in geopolitics, but to some degree I think this is a temporary 'vitality'. If China would be united again it would soon lose its importance, and historical one is quite 'recentist'. In a 1000 years it will likely be forgotten just as some older Chinese splinter entities. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
8. Weak support Important for contemporaneous geopolitical developments, and a economic powerhouse, but I'm not quite sure it's on the same level as the United Kingdom, France, or Japan as the top whatever most important states. Zelkia1101 (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
9. Support per the nom's comparison with Netherlands and Israel (and UAE). It is an interesting question whether this article would be listed if the KMT acceded to PRC government in 1954, but I am not going to use my crystal ball for that. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

   I doubt it, since Taiwan would be a part of China if I'm not mistaken whereas they are currently de facto two different countries. We don't list California (although we should, IMO, but that's another discussion) since it's a part of the United States, so I don't think we would list a less-important-for-English-speakers subnational entity either.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

10. Support Far more vital than most states in Asia. Dimadick (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose per previous discussion. Netherlands should be removed or swaped Ages ago for Ukraina or other country which is at underrepresented region; and UE swapped for Iraq. It is gratutitous to list so man countries with small population if we rejected Uganda, Ukraine Morocco etc. List would be more objective if we include countries with big population. For example in Europe there is big gap beetwen 9-th country (38 mln) and 10th (19 mln), so I have no clue idea why we list 12-th NEtherlands no mention to fact is shadwed by other countries by western Europe. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

   As I've said/implied, I take rather little stock in raw population when adding any more countries; we already have 81% of the world's population even without Taiwan, and all of the truly big 100 million+ countries, leaving only several "middling" countries with fewer than 50 million people (Uganda, the biggest, has 42 million, not significantly larger than Canada). As such, unless we plan to list every single country, any new country would have to be significant to the wider world, either historically (Greece and Iraq, perhaps, but we already respectively list Ancient Greece and Mesopotamia/Sumer and have shot down Greece for that reason), culturally (I actually can't think of too many not on the list, though we do list Portuguese language without listing Portugal; this is why I'm not kidding when I say I'd rather add California than the vast majority of remaining countries), economically (like such countries we list as the UAE or Netherlands, and Taiwan), geopolitically (like Taiwan or the listed Israel), or in representing an underrepresented region of the world (Ghana for Western Africa, perhaps); all this is why I think any additions to human geography (which, as Cobblet mentioned, is already inclusive as is) are better served with cities rather than countries. I actually do agree about the UAE, not because of its population but rather because it's still "the new kid on the block" in relevance and might not have staying power in that regard, which is why I would strongly oppose adding Dubai.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

   leaving only several "middling" countries with fewer than 50 million people (Uganda, the biggest, has 42 million, not significantly larger than Canada). I do not care what population has Canada, this is irrelevant (North America deserve representation in "human geography" if we list so plenty object related with physical geography for that region). I care about fact that Netherlands has 17 mln population, meanwhile Uganda 42 mln. This is very relevent not due to fat that Uganda has almost triple more population and far more promient growth of population but this is relevant just due to fact that Netherlands already represent overrepresented region and is shadowed by other western countries there! (FAQ says about diversity, and Netherlands is more comparable to Belgium which is lsited on the level 4 than to Italy/Spain, this addition was opening pandorra box, do we will add Belgium next and Portugal next? yet over Ukraine?). We should firstly add at least Ukraine before start discuss to add whatever from Western Europe. Israel and Saudi Arabia are the only two exception where I am able completly ignore popiulation factor regardless do we want more countries or bit less. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Nikola Tesla

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Cue the angry Redditors, but not on either list. He did wondrous work with electromagnetism and telecommunications, but he is redundant in that respect to Faraday and Maxwell. He also didn't do much to bring his inventions to mass market like Edison or even Westinghouse did; as said earlier with Gutenberg and Stigler's Law, that's what's ultimately just as (if not more) important for this list than actual invention, which is why we list Walt Disney (at least for now) instead of Winsor McCay and Henry Ford instead of Karl Benz or Ransom E. Olds (yes, neither of those are in the STEM sections, but the same principle applies).  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom, although I could be convinced that he serves as a "foil" to Edison like Stalin serves as a "foil" to Hitler (not that any of those two pairs have anything else in common).  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support although Tesla complements Edison's article. --Thi (talk) 07:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support switching my vote since we now have a good enough number of writers removed, and in the spirit of (hopefully eventually) pairing down the list to 100. Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Very influential in the field of Physics, well known too. -- Maykii (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Incompetent as a businessman, but a key figure in making the alternating current a viable method of distributing electricity to consumers. He was also a pioneer in the development of wireless power transfer. Dimadick (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Tesla's work is more related to Edison's than to Faraday's and Maxwell's, who were scientists rather than engineers. Tesla's contributions are far more relevant to modern society (Western or not) than those of, say, Abraham or Socrates; and he gets roughly as many page views than Abraham, Socrates, and St. Paul combined. If Abraham needs to be listed next to Moses, Socrates needs to be listed next to Plato and Aristotle, and St. Paul needs to be listed next to Jesus, redundancy between Tesla and Edison is not a reasonable ground for removal. Cobblet (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose - A towering figure worthy of listing at this level. Jusdafax (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Perhaps we should canvass the Redditors? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

We already have, it would seem. Cobblet (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The following thread started as a response to my !vote. Cobblet (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Abraham and Moses will never be removed from this list. Paul certainly will be but earlier we will probably remove both Tudors or one of them. Dawid2009 (talk)

I'm not sure any of these figures, including Paul, will ever be removed. It would be interesting to see now how many people still feel strongly about reducing the number of biographies beyond what we have now. Cobblet (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm in full favour still of getting to 100; in full favour of doing heavy cuts to entertainers, athletes, writers and other artists on the 2,000 list and turning that one more history based and TNT'ing lvl 5 and making it 10k with more basis in history; but still covering more popular contemporary articles like Jeff Bezos or Justin Bieber; which would make it easier to remove articles like Tom Hanks from the 2000 list and wouldn't put him on a basis with Zac Efron, who shouldnt be listed anywhere. Either way; all levels i'm in favour of a little restructuring and level 5 is embarrassing, i pretty much am much more strict now and believe these lists should be more stricter. GuzzyG (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand you feel that way about this list. (I have no opinion about the lists I don't look at anymore.) But do you really think it's worth going through the kind of acrimony this page has seen this year for the sake of a few more cuts? Have you noticed how some participants are turned off by it? Cobblet (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I was just replying to your wondering about if anyone wanted cuts; not so that i want more discussion towards it - as clearly it won't do any good, but no clearly it's not worth contention; which is why i supported the moratorium and haven't nominated anything on here in forever; only participating because these lists go hand in hand with my own stuff and i have to pay attention to cuts or additions. (and i've been asked to create my own lists like Zelkias as a direct comparison, which i will do) But i also think that if debate leads to contention - like it has here; it'll probably happen outside of biographies too and that in a way it's unfortunately inevitable nature of this system, where votes are what matters - not argument and the votes are very limited so people feel the need to change votes as one can tank a whole nomination. I don't see a way to improve this other than bringing more eyes here but the contention would probably scare whoever away. I don't know a fix. GuzzyG (talk) 05:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Rabindranath Tagore

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not on Thi's list. I don't know enough about Tagore and his placement in Indian culture, and whether he passes the "global secondary school standard", so I'll refrain from voting for now.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support Tagore is important for the Indian subcontinent but not sufficiently influential for our encyclopaedia. As a poet he is studied far less than Milton or Byron. Important as a historical figure but not supremely influential as a writer, and certainly not Shakespeare or Dante. Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Strong support Per Zelkia. I do not think Tagore should represent history of literature in South Asia at this level. Bengali and Hindi language in modern world are not translated as often as European languages so have weaker monopol. We recently removed Akira Kurosawa who surpassed Tagore in Asian of the Century at category arts/culture/literature. Perhaps swapping Bhagavad Gita for Mahabharata and add something like Trimurti would be better to cover Indian culture by diverse way, however I am not convinced Tagore is neccesary, we represent pop culture at this level and soon we are going to remove more important biographies like Niels Bohr... Dawid2009 (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per above. --Thi (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support we have Bill Shakespeare and English literature, that is enough. Also far, far, far less well-known than Jane Austen or Mark Twain in the contemporary United States. Also TOOSOON, it's hard to determine the long term impact of a writer in the first 100 years after their death. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The Indian subcontinent is a major region for literature and it has a very long history. (goes back to Kalidasa; also another candidate for this list). India has alot of English speakers too; which makes it even more important to list a representative of on the English encyclopedia. (as shown by Tagore getting nearly 10 mil more pageviews in English than John Milton) There's no reason to cut here; if Tagore goes than Satyajit Ray must come on; Indian culture is essential for a English encyclopedia to cover. (Long history of British Raj/lots of English speakers). I would cut Rumi before Tagore. (but wouldnt cut either). GuzzyG (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose An Indian writer is definitely essential for this list. -- Maykii (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose First non Western Nobel Prize in literature. Definitely a leading figure in Indian culture. Yann (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Non-Western literature deserves a basic level of representation. Cobblet (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose per above. I would consider a swap with Kalidasa but not an outright removal. Gizza (talk • voy) 00:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Zelkia1101: I would have voted to remove this entry, per the support !votes above. Not sure if that makes the difference to tip the balance in the discussion, but I do think he should be removed. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Hey there! It would not have made a difference. Since all nominations require a 2/3ds vote to pass we would need five additional votes in favor of removing Tagore in order for it to pass. That's highly unlikely to materialize. The rules dictate that a nomination fails after thirty days if it has "a) earned at least 3 opposes, and b) failed to earn two-thirds support." That's the case here. Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah OK thanks. Never mind then! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)