Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 61

< Wikipedia talk:Vital articles | Level/4
Latest comment: 5 years ago by RekishiEJ
Archive 55←Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62Archive 63→Archive 65
No consensus. ―Susmuffin Talk 20:07, 28 January 2019 (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.

Add Maintenance (technical)

Rather basic.

Support
  1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 19:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2018 (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.
WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn. --Thi (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2019 (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.

Add Arvo Pärt

The most performed living composer in the world.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I just don't think Pärt is as important as other composers we have listed. Is he as innovative or influential as Glass, Stockhausen or Cage, to take some other post-WWII composers we have on the list? I think not. Performance numbers are not necessarily a good guide to vitality and may be ephemeral in the case of a contemporary composer. I think we've probably got about enough 20th-century composers to be frank, and if we were to add some Pärt wouldn't be where I'd start when people like Janacek aren't on the list. Neljack (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Snoop Dogg is probably more important than this fellow. ―Susmuffin Talk 08:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

If he died tomorrow what's his vitality then or do we replace him with whoever is the next most performed living composer? (even though in todays musical landscape classical music has lost prominence?). GuzzyG (talk) 11:37, 20 January 2019 (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
Swapped, 6–0. --Rreagan007 (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2019 (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.

Swap: remove Substance abuse, add Substance use disorder

The current ordering of this list doesn't make much sense. This is because substance abuse is a manifestation of addiction (i.e., it should be a subordinate list entry, not a superordinate one). However, swapping those two doesn't work since substance dependence is an entirely distinct disorder from an addiction. Moreover, alcoholism constitutes both an addiction to and dependence upon ethanol. Drug addiction, substance dependence, and alcoholism all constitute general or specific forms of a substance use disorder though, so replacing Substance abuse with Substance use disorder in this list would resolve this relational issue.

Secondly, and most importantly, "substance abuse" isn't a medical term in current use (see Substance abuse#Medical definitions); however, a substance use disorder is an umbrella diagnostic classification for a range of current medical diagnoses in the DSM-5 (e.g., see the quoted portion of this review[1] and/or [1][2]). Consequently, it doesn't seem appropriate for substance abuse to be rated as a level 4 or even a level 5 a vital article; however, I think a level 4 rating for substance use disorder would be apt. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. support per Seppi333--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support per Seppi333's expert opinion, and the terminologies of ICD-10[3] and ICD-11[4] Little pob (talk) 12:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Yes Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support notable points being made. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 01:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 21:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose


Discuss

I must say, what I think you are already partly saying. People can be addicted to things that are not substances, like gambling, videogames, sex, pornography, depending on your definition of substance. So addiction is not only a type of substance abuse (disorder). And also changing the subject, if cigarette and smoking are listed under substance abuse, it suggests we are saying those things are only used by addicts/abusers, compared to beer and wine and other alcoholes are not listed under alcoholism but would be if we followed that logic. But the "normal view may be it is not only alcoholics/addicts/abusers that drink beer and wine. Are we saying that only addicts/abusers are people that smoke cigarettes and other things? I don't have a perfect answer I'm only asking the question about how we order and list the topics, is it OK? It looks like it may need a look? but I'm not completely sure.  Carlwev  14:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

In—dividuals who regularly smoke cigarettes aren't necessarily addicted to smoking tobacco. Tolerance-forming psychoactive drugs tend to induce a state of dependence over relatively short periods of repeated use though. Even so, the occurrence of withdrawal symptoms doesn't entail a substance use disorder unless those symptoms lead to clinically significant functional impairments or distress. This is sort of a moot point though because the article on smoking is about smoking arbitrary drugs, not just tobacco (e.g., crystal meth, crack cocaine, etc.).
In lieu of a more technical explanation of how large doses and/or the use of routes of administration that involve rapid drug absorption lead to pathological patterns of drug use, I'm just going to offer this analogy: smoking tobacco or other nicotine-containing products is to using nicotine replacement therapy as binge drinking/alcohol inhalation is to social drinking. The important distinction here is how an addictive or dependence-forming drug is used, not if it's used. With that in mind, the inclusion of the smoking and cigarette in this list seems reasonable. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Is there really enough distinct subject matter to justify maintaining both articles? Perhaps a merge between Substance abuse and Substance abuse disorder is in order. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@LeadSongDog: There was a discussion a while back about this at Talk:Substance_dependence#Merge discussion. Nothing really came of it. I'm of the opinion that the substance abuse article could just be merged into a more relevant article, but a merge like that would require a RM discussion. For the moment, the issue that needs to be addressed first is correcting the "vital" rating of these two article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Section reflist

References

  1. ^ Volkow ND, Koob GF, McLellan AT (January 2016). "Neurobiologic Advances from the Brain Disease Model of Addiction". N. Engl. J. Med. 374 (4): 363–371. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1511480. PMID 26816013. Addiction: A term used to indicate the most severe, chronic stage of substance-use disorder, in which there is a substantial loss of self-control, as indicated by compulsive drug taking despite the desire to stop taking the drug. In the DSM-5, the term addiction is synonymous with the classification of severe substance-use disorder.
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.
1-8, not added. ―Susmuffin Talk 12:18, 12 February 2019 (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.

Add Kurt Cobain

Kurt Cobain in my opinion is vital at this level. He has more pageviews than most compossers listed here, despite fact that he died 24 years ago. His article [5] on wikiquotes has 25 language versions.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 06:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We only list a few musicians instead of, or in addition to, their bands. Kurt Cobain is clearly not as influential as John Lennon, Jimi Hendrix or Bob Marley. ―Susmuffin Talk 10:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. pbp 16:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose nope. Nowhere near. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose certainly not before the band and nomination makes no sense some of the composers died centuries ago so obviously the person who died 26 years ago has more views. Hardly any of the listed composers are still alive. GuzzyG (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  6. Oppose as per all the strong arguments around me. Cobain cannot become on a par with Lennon, with proposals around Lennon on this list almost becoming perennial. –J947 (c), at 07:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Short-lived and of no major influence. "He was ranked 7th by MTV in the "22 Greatest Voices in Music". In 2006, he was placed 20th by Hit Parader on their list of the "100 Greatest Metal Singers of All Time". " He was outranked as a singer by: 1) Robert Plant, 2) Rob Halford, 3) Steven Tyler, 4) Chris Cornell, 5) Bon Scott, 6) Freddie Mercury, 7) Bruce Dickinson, 8) Ozzy Osbourne, 9) Paul Rodgers, 10) Ronnie James Dio, 11) Axl Rose, 12) Sammy Hagar, 13) Geddy Lee, 14) Geoff Tate, 15) Mick Jagger, 16) Jonathan Davis, 17) Roger Daltrey, 18) Paul Stanley, and 19) David Lee Roth. Dimadick (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  8. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)).
Discuss

We recently removed Nirvana, and I'd prefer adding Nirvana back instead of Kurt Cobain. The only individual musician we include that was part of a band is John Lennon, who is at least one rung higher than everyone else (and the Beatles are included separately). There have been suggestions to add Freddie Mercury too, although again I think Queen is sufficient. Gizza (t)(c) 23:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we need either Nirvana or Cobain. We have plenty of 20th century rockers and rock-derivatives. pbp 16:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Kurt Cobain has 25 language versions on Wikiquotes. Every Rock perssonality on this list (outside John Lennon and Bob Dylan) has much fewer language versions than Kurt Cobain: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] and some of them still live Dawid2009 (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2018 (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.
1-4, not added. ―Susmuffin Talk 12:33, 12 February 2019 (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.

Add Sepp Blatter

Soccer, American football, Baseball and Basketball are four sports where coach/business person is enough popular and focused for inclusion here. Sepp Blatter among eight president of FIFA is the most vital person because of he even has his category: own category. He is the only reasonable choice to include here among soccer bussiness personalities. Alex Ferguson will never be listed at this level because of he even is not the most important Scottish soccer personality (Kenny Daglish is more vital. It is not accident that exist Kenny Dalglish Soccer Manager or Kenny Dalglish Soccer Match but not Ferguson Manager). If we are going to make diversity list in my opinion in my opinion one bussiness personality is better choice than one woman player. Generally Bussiness personalities/coaches always have more wikidata entires than woman soccer players on Wikipedia and often even if they were born in 19th century. Jules Rimet have 53 wikidta entires despite fact he was born in 19th centry, Vittorio Pozzo was born in 19th centoury too and he has 33 etc.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. If we decide we need somebody to represent the business of soccer, this is not the guy. I'm not wholly sold on having a business of soccer but Rimet would be my choice. pbp 16:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jules Rimet would be a better choice. ―Susmuffin Talk 14:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Rimet is better but there's no space for him so i would vote oppose for him too most likely. There's just too many more important historical figures, swap him with Eusebio i'd probably support. GuzzyG (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2019 (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.
1-4, not added. ―Susmuffin Talk 12:33, 12 February 2019 (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.

Add Branch Rickey

Soccer, American football, Baseball and Basketball are four sports where coach/bussiness person is enaugh focussed for inclusion here. In my opinion Branch Rickey deserve to be swapped for one Baseball player. It is the only bussiness personality ratedd as top-importance article by relevant wikiproject. At this level we have poople who have worse importance scale.

Support
  1. Support As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Kenesaw Mountain Landis would be the only vital baseball business person and he isn't vital enough i think. GuzzyG (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose There are more influential baseball businesspeople. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose we do not need to list a baseball business person. ―Susmuffin Talk 23:47, 12 January 2019 (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.
1-4, not removed. ―Susmuffin Talk 12:33, 12 February 2019 (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 Gdańsk

Reasons above. This city is only part of Tricity, Poland and is less vital than some not listd Polish cities: Szczecin, Łódź. In my opinion if we have Chicago at the level 4 we should have not more than 4 Polish cities at the level 4.

Support
  1. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Gdańsk is listed due to its complex, and often controversial, history. ―Susmuffin Talk 02:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 10:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. feminist (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose "Gdańsk" is the new name of Danzig, part of a disputed region between Poland and the Weimar Republic. The dispute was one of the main causes fort World War II. Dimadick (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2019 (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.
No consensus. ―Susmuffin Talk 20:07, 28 January 2019 (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.

Swap Baba Yaga for Bogeyman

Swap in sense: remove Baba Yaga from art and add Bogeyman to philosophy and religion

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition --Thi (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support removal, oppose addition power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
discuss

@ Thi It is the same creature but Bogeyman unquestionably is very more vital, more general concept and more valuable for featured article Dawid2009 (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I meant: "more valuable for featured article" because of If we correct this article, linked articles (mentioned in Bogeyman) will be correct too. And more creatures will be corrected. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2018 (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
5–2, removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2019 (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 Marvel Comics

In the same reasoning as the above swap proposal of DC Comics for AT&T, Marvel Comics is just a subsidiary of Disney, which is already listed. No need to list both at this level.

Support
  1. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support We have no film studios or other more vital entertainment companies, we list no literature publishers which are infinitely more historically important than comic publishers GuzzyG (talk) 08:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support no space for subsidiaries at this level. Gizza (t)(c) 14:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Orser67 (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Marvel Comics are more influencial than Star Wars. Currently we have superheroes at the level 4. Ffcitional characters from Sstar Wars even do not have separate article at German Wikipedia fpor "notability" Dawid2009 (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose 80-year-old company with more staying power and cultural influence than most media companies. Dimadick (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2019 (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
5–0, removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2019 (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 Dalit

We're over quota here. We already include the general article on the Caste system in India, which covers Dalit, so we really don't need to list this separately at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support We are seven articles over the quota in this section. ―Susmuffin Talk 00:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 21:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support per Gizza. J947 (c), at 09:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
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
5–0, added. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2019 (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.

Add Sociality

We're under quota here and this is an important concept in zoology and the social sciences, as human beings are social animals.

Support
  1. As nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support good find Gizza (t)(c) 21:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support, easily top 3000. –J947 (c), at 09:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)).
Oppose
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.
4-4, not removed Gizza (t)(c) 23:33, 14 February 2019 (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 Scaffolding

Less vital than many other items we don't list, such as: escalator, ladder, bulldozer, forklift, etc.

Support
  1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 17:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Not vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support The ladder is a more important subject than scaffolding. Also, we are slightly over the quota in this section. ―Susmuffin Talk 02:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Widely used all over the world for centuries, if not millennia. I was thinking about suggesting ladder also to add. Construction and Architecture are in the vital 100 list, commonly known and used methods/materials should be in the vital 10'000 list.  Carlwev  06:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. I agree with Carlwev. feminist (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Carlwev - I agree ladder is more vital, but feel both should be included. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:00, 6 February 2019 (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
2–5, not added. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2019 (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.

Add Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macau Bridge

Because it is the longest fixed link over water in the world, toppling the Jiaozhou Bay Bridge (which is also located in China), and the completion of it means that PRC now has quite advanced technology (though not as advanced as USA), it is vital at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support It is a major engineering project. Its record makes it vital. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Way too recent a topic, and I say this as a local. feminist (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose We should not have overly recent topics on this list. ―Susmuffin Talk 23:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I agree it's too recent to list here. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose – We can't have every former longest bridge record holder, and if we just had this then recentism comes into play. J947 (c), at 23:22, 30 January 2019 (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
9–0, added. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2019 (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.

Add Satellite navigation

It seems very strange that GPS is listed at level 4 but the broader article on satellite navigation is not. There are other satellite navigation systems besides GPS, such as GLONASS, BDS, and Galileo. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 21:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support as per nom, nothing more to say. J947 (c), at 23:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 19:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support This is a vital part of modern life. ―Susmuffin Talk 19:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support. GPS should probably be removed. wumbolo ^^^ 21:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  7. Support GPS is at the level 3 and has been nominated for removal. This nomination is due to contigent there Dawid2009 (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  8. --RekishiEJ (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  9. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)).
Oppose
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
5–0, removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2019 (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 Stagecoach

Not vital.

Support
  1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 19:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Stagecoaches are less important than pitchforks. ―Susmuffin Talk 15:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support. In 1880 this would be vital to list, in 2019 it is not. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Weak support – I was about to oppose as the olden day equivalent of luxury vehicle but that article doesn't make this level. Anyone want to propose it? J947 (c), at 23:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
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
1-5, not added. ―Susmuffin Talk 19:04, 17 February 2019 (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.

Add John Thomson

Because he was quite instrumental in formulating the foundation of photojournalism, he is no doubt vital at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose There's over 25 more important photographers then him. We have to be strict now. GuzzyG (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose He is far less important than many people who are not vital. Also, we are going to be at the limit for people in a month. ―Susmuffin Talk 20:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).
  5. Before we have a photojournalist we need photojournalism, as Malerisch implied in the previous proposal of this. If anyone wants to take the initiative to start a discussion regarding that, that's fine with me. J947 (c), at 22:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. I had proposed to add it, however later the proposal failed (cf. Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 36#Add_John_Thomson_(photographer)).--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2018 (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
8-1/7-1, swapped. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:29, 17 February 2019 (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.

Swap Harold Pinter for Plautus

He won a Nobel prize but we don't list every Nobel winner and in the grand scheme of literature he is not that influential. We are at the limit of biographies nearly and we are still missing much more influential writers like Plautus who was the earliest Roman playwright whose works have survived in their entirety; we have so much Greek playwrights but hardly any Roman ones. The importance and vitality here are incomparable; especially when you consider the major influence Plautus had on Shakespeare who is obviously supremely vital to English literature of which Pinter is apart.

Support
  1. Support As nom GuzzyG (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Harold Pinter is perhaps the least important listed writer. Meanwhile, Plautus was one of Rome's most influential playwrights. ―Susmuffin Talk 15:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 00:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 11:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support Plautus is credited with adapting New Comedy works from Greek to Latin, adapting some of Menander's characters for an entirely new audience, and contributing to the development of stock characters in comedy. His characters have influenced writers for millennia. For example, the character Il Capitano in Commedia dell'arte is basically Plautus' Miles Gloriosus updated for a new era. Dimadick (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  7. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)).
  8. The addition.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The removal. Although I've only read the lede of the article on Harold Pinter, I clearly know that he is vital due to the fact that he is indeed one of the most influential modern British dramatists. and this is the English Wikipedia, meaning highly influential British figures (worldwide) should not be removed from the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2019 (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.
MIXED
5-2/5-3, Huxley removed. There is no consensus to add Livius Andronicus. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:29, 17 February 2019 (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.

Swap Aldous Huxley for Livius Andronicus

Huxley is a big name; but he's vital for mainly one book of which we list the book itself; just like we don't have JK Rowling or Bram Stoker or Ian Fleming etc we should not have Huxley. Livius 's lede states him to be " to have been the originator of Latin literature. He is the earliest Roman poet whose name is known" which speaks for itself on vitality. GuzzyG (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support As nom GuzzyG (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support removal We don't need Huxley as well as Brave New World; his other works are not that important or well-known. But I'm not convinced that Livius Andronicus is vital just because he's the first known Roman author and on his merits he does not seem a sufficiently major writer. Neljack (talk) 11:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Andronicus was a Greek slave and later freedman in Rome, who is credited for translating Greek epics to Latin, creating the Theatre of ancient Rome as a genre, and becoming the founding father of Latin literature. Not bad for a slave from Taranto/Tarentum. Dimadick (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support removal, oppose addition Aldous Huxley is best known for a single novel. However, Livius Andronicus was not as influential as Ennius. ―Susmuffin Talk 03:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support addition (Ios2019 (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)).
  6. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  7. The addition, since it is he that founded Latin literature.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

How come Margaret Mitchell, Harriet Beecher Stowe and Harper Lee all got removed for their one vital work but Huxley is the exception? Especially because Stowe's book had real life historical consequence? I wonder what all three have in common? GuzzyG (talk) 11:47, 20 January 2019 (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
6-1, swapped. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:29, 17 February 2019 (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.

Swap: add Stéphane Mallarmé, remove L'après-midi d'un faune (poem)

The articles have 59 and 13 language versions. I think that the poet comes first.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support I was thinking of nominating the poem for removal myself, as I compared level 4 poem view statistics once and faune was among the most obscure.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 21:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support The poet is more influential than his poem. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support Mallarmé was a Symbolist poet, and credited as an inspiration for Cubism, Futurism, Dadaism, and Surrealism. He was among the best imitators of Charles Baudelaire, alongside Paul Verlaine and Arthur Rimbaud.Dimadick (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)).
Oppose
  1. Oppose Can't support another western writer whose support votes credit him as a "imitator" of someone else on the list. GuzzyG (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Just because a poem was listed when the list had no control, doesn't mean automatically it's poet must aswell. especially our bias considering recency. Paul Verlaine is better regarded then Mallarme anyway at this style. GuzzyG (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2019 (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
5-0, removed. ―Susmuffin Talk 20:08, 17 February 2019 (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 João Gilberto

He seems be less vital than any other represant of Latin Music from this list (at this level).

Support
  1. Support As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Brazil has too many music representatives. Asian music is the area where we are missing the most in music. Swapping him with Selena is the better option. GuzzyG (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support He is not vital. ―Susmuffin Talk 00:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)).
Oppose
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
6-0, added. ―Susmuffin Talk 20:08, 17 February 2019 (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.

Add Selena

I know she's relatively recent - but her influence to the Latin music market is HUGE; she's credited as bringing it into the mainstream of music. For such a important genre (Latin music) we only have one woman. We even have a standalone article about her influence. Without her the Latin pop market today would not be what it is. Her influence section on her article says more than i ever could. I know they're cult favorites on this list but she's more influential to worldwide music history then Joan Baez, Joni Mitchell, Patsy Cline and Dolly Parton who are listed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Her influence over Latin music is nearly unmatched. ―Susmuffin Talk 13:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)).
  4. Support Dimadick (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
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
1-3, not added. ―Susmuffin Talk 19:30, 17 February 2019 (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.

Add Bhagat Singh

Support
  1. As nom. He was a highly popular Indian nationalist in India, Nehru acknowledged that his popularity was leading to a new national awakening, and at one time his popularity rivaled even Mr. Gandhi's, meaning he is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose too country specific and we do not need anymore Indian independence activists in my opinion. GuzzyG (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose We do not need another Indian independence leader. Also, this section should be re-balanced. ―Susmuffin Talk 16:08, 19 January 2019 (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.


MIXED
5-1, Roger Bannister removed. There is no consensus to remove Hicham El Guerrouj. ―Susmuffin Talk 11:29, 16 February 2019 (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 Roger Bannister and Hicham El Guerrouj

14 athletics it is too many at this level if we cover only athlets from last 100 years. Box has only 3 quota

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Bannister who is very famous for breaking a somewhat arbitrary barrier but whose overall career does not place him in the same class as other runners on the list. Neljack (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support There's too much runners and not enough field athletes. Athletics should be spread out between them. GuzzyG (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support Bannister per Neljack. There are more accomplished runners than Bannister not included. Gizza (t)(c) 00:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. 14 isn't that excessive relative to other sports and these two shouldn't be the first to be removed. pbp 02:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
@Purplebackpack89: So who would be first removed if not them? Dawid2009 (talk) 06:51, 6 November 2018 (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
2-3, not removed. ―Susmuffin Talk 01:48, 20 February 2019 (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 Luciana Aymar

Currently we have two field hockey players at the level 4 and one futsal player at the level 5. It is not proportional because of futsal is more popular sport than field hockey despite fact futsal is not olympic sport. I agree that we do not need any futsal players at this level but I will never agree that number of field hockey players at the LEVEL 4 should be higher than number of futsal players at the LEVEL 5

Support
  1. Support As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We have one man and one woman for hockey. Given that in many places hockey is a more popular sport for women than men, I see no reason why Aymar should be removed. I don't think two athletes is unreasonable given international popularity of hockey, including in large countries such as India and Pakistan. Futsal is a popular sport but it does not get as much attention at the elite level. Neljack (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Neljack. Gizza (t)(c) 00:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose She is considered the best female hockey player of all time. ―Susmuffin Talk 15:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Volleyball generally is more popular team sport than field hockey, popular among women and is not represented at this level. We have two field hockey players at the level 4 and five at the level 5 but only one futsal player at the level 5 and 7 volleyball + beach volleyball players at this level. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2018 (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/WITHDRAWN
pbp 04:34, 16 February 2019 (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 Ole Einar Bjørndalen

Bjorndalen was the most decorated winter sport figure at the time but he represents biathlon, and we do not list some similar sports related with Combined track and field events. We also do not list Magnus Carlsen who is more vital as Norwegian sport personality (and IMO still not enaugh vital at this level yet).

Support
  1. Support As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Mega Oppose most accomplished athlete in a category of sports with internationally recognized competition less notable then a top 10 chess player? No way. Also that's a lie, we do cover multi sports events with Jackie Joyner-Kersee for heptathlon and Jim Thorpe for decathlon. GuzzyG (talk) 08:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose He is the most successful biathlete to ever live. ―Susmuffin Talk 22:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I am not sure if this proposal is still live, but as the person who successfully proposed Bjørndalen's addition to the list I will register my opposition. It is true that Bjørndalen has since been overtaken as the all-time Winter Olympic medal leader by his compatriot Marit Bjørgen (whom we also have on the list), but this does not change the fact that his achievements mark him as one of the greatest Olympians and unquestionably the greatest biathlete of all time. Neljack (talk) 09:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
Magus Carlsen is the strongest chess player of all time (although he is still not enaugh vital at this level because fact that he is the strongest human in history of chess does not mean that he made more constribute to history/society than Fisher or Kasparov and chess does not need be favorised by recentism). When I told that we do not have other similar sports, I clearly have meant that we do not list sport events such like Heptathlon, Pentathlon or modern Pentathlon at the level 4 (in context of sports but not in context of people). Anyway I now also note that Ole Einar Bjørndalenis also still the most decorated male in history of winter olympics (There is more decorated female but there are none more decorated males in history of winter olympics so far). So I withdraw this nomination (I have not put two plus two here). But I still think that we should consider addition of Heptathlon to every day life because of we have one representant of biathlon and we do not have important event. I also would be rather oppose making more diversity list for sport people from niche sports at the level 4 while we have only 2 chess players and only 2-3 moutainners. @Cobblet: is this reasonable to add Carlsen in next few years to this level? I do not think we need Carlsen at the moment (I think 2 chess players without Carlsen is enaugh) but he is much more known worldwide than Bjorndalen (and he has more pagewatchers(47) on NorwegianWiki), despite fact Bjorndalen is recently active in media such like Carlsen is recently active in media as well (see: [13]). BTW, why Judit Polgar get worse importance range (high) by wikiproject than players such like Philidor or Anderssen (top)? Dawid2009 (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Because importance ratings aren't discussed, aren't products of consensus, and are therefore meaningless. Who are you removing if you add Carlsen? I'm not convinced we need three chess players. If we don't, then all you can do is swap Fischer with Carlsen. I personally might support that swap in a few years' time (I'd like at least to see him defend his world title once more), but I also value Fischer's achievements less highly than your average chess connoisseur. Cobblet (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2019 (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
1–3, not added. ―Susmuffin Talk 11:54, 16 February 2019 (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.

add William G. Morgan

In my opinion this one for sure should not be controversial (even for people who would prefer keep 50 sports figures instead 100). William G. Morgan is inventor of Volleyball. He is currently more foccused/notable than all current/active notable volleyball players. He also would be representant of Badminton. Badminton and Volleyball are more popular sports than donen sports with representants at this level.

Support
  1. Support As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We're at the limit nearly and Morgan is not more vital then Plautus or Livius Andronicus who are missing. Volleyball is not super important that it requires a representatives. Lin Dan is the proper badminton representive and considering hes one of Chinas most well known athletes he could make it but again. We're at capacity nearly. GuzzyG (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    [14] [15]. Volleyball has 50 wikidata versions with 20+ pageviews per day while Crickiet has 35 language versions with 20+ pageviews per day. I think we could make space for one Volleyball figure when we need more team sport.
    Cricket is infinitely more prominent then volleyball. This is why you do not base everything on Wikipedia statistics for level 4. I did for level 5 yes, but this list is for extremely INFLUENTIAL people not level 5's more lenient pop culture list. GuzzyG (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Volleyball does not require a representative. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2019 (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
6–0, removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2019 (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 Subantarctic

I see no reason why this region should be listed at Level 4 when its Northern Hemisphere counterpart Subarctic or other climatic regions like Subtropics are not.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support This was probably added when the list was in its infancy. ―Susmuffin Talk 07:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Weak support – It was, Susmuffin, because there's no archive discussion about it. I've personally never heard of the term subarctic, though the only reason probably that I know the term subantarctic is because of the the subantarctic islands in my home country. These kinds of geography are underrepresented though. J947 (c), at 07:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)).
  6. Support more suited to the level-5 list; overlaps with Southern Ocean among other topics on this list. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
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.


NO CONSENSUS
4-4, not added. ―Susmuffin Talk 02:04, 20 February 2019 (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.

Add Austin, Texas

One of the most populous cities in the US and the capital of the second largest US state.

Support
  1. As nom. feminist (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support If Sacramento is important enough to be listed, then so should Austin be. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Texas is now considered "the America of America", thus its capital should be listed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support According to List of United States cities by population, Austin is the 11th most populous city in the United States, with a population of 950,715. It is only surpassed by: 1) New York City, 2) Los Angeles, 3) Chicago, 4) Houston, 5) Phoenix, Arizona, 6) Philadelphia, 7) San Antonio, 8) San Diego, 9) Dallas, 10) San Jose, California. It is currrently more populous than Jacksonville, Florida. Dimadick (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. If you remove a city as hugely influential as Strasbourg, there's no way Austin even comes close to being on this list. But even with Strasbourg being kept on the list, and 29 American cities already on the list, I don't see that Austin belongs there. US cities should probably be reduced to 25 in fact.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
    As developed countries are generally more urbanized, it is natural for them to have more cities listed per capita. As the United States is the largest developed country in the world, it should naturally have a high number of cities listed. feminist (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Not as important as Houston or Dallas, and we have enough cities on the list already. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose – I regret my three-paragraph weak support of Sacramento. (I'll give anyone who's interested the link if they want) I'd say that Sacramento is marginally more important than Austin but neither would deserve VA4. J947 (c), at 03:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Why should we list four Texan cities? ―Susmuffin Talk 16:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    Well we list five Californian cities, just saying. J947 (c), at 07:23, 2 February 2019 (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
1-5/1-5, not swapped/not added. ―Susmuffin Talk 23:46, 17 February 2019 (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.

swap Nantes for Belfast

United Kington is very underrepresented while France is strongly overrepresentedd

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Per Gizza. feminist (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Nantes is more historically important than Belfast. ―Susmuffin Talk 01:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. OpposeNantes has been one of the most important European ports for centuries, while Belfast was insignificant prior to the 19th century. Dimadick (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose – You could make a case for the UK getting one more, but not for Nantes and probably just a straight add looking at the quota. And maybe Belfast isn't the one. J947 (c), at 22:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Both the UK and France have 8 cities each. Not sure about the over and under-representation claim. Gizza (t)(c) 21:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Just realised I proposed to add Nantes (Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_55#Add_Nantes). Checked Belfast as well, been mentioned a few times but no direct proposals. J947 (c), at 01:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

add Hiroshima Nagasaki

Hiroshima deserve for inclusion here due to historical significante ( World War II)

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Low population compared to most cities on this list. If we are to add a city in Japan, my first choice would be Niigata. feminist (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose We already list ten Japanese cities; why should we list more? ―Susmuffin Talk 15:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose – Tiny population compared to other Japanese cities on the list; at third of Hiroshima's population. J947 (c), at 00:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    And more conclusively, the nuclear bombing is covered at this level by Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. J947 (c), at 00:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    It would be odd to have Nagasaki before Miyamoto Musashi. ―Susmuffin Talk 01:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    Any reason to put that comment here? J947 (c), at 01:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose covered Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
@Susmuffin: Thanks for reply. I have confused Hiroshima with Nagasaki. I though about Nagasaki at this nomination. I think we should have both. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:55, 9 January 2019 (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
1-4, not added. ―Susmuffin Talk 23:36, 17 February 2019 (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.

add Tooth fairy

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose We do not list the Easter Bunny. ―Susmuffin Talk 01:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

I intentionally nominated Tooth fairt aheada of Easter Bunny because of we should not list Easter Bunny ahead of Easster egg or foundamental articles such like Fertility rite/Fertlity cult or Ēostre. Tooth fairy is much older than Easater Bunny and has plenty figures/variants in various places in wolrd (for example in Asia). Dawid2009 (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2019 (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
3-2-3/1-1-6, not swapped. ―Susmuffin Talk 17:17, 20 February 2019 (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 X-Men or swap for Joker (character)

Currently wew have a lot of comic superheros. I would prefer see also supervillains on this list.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support removal --Thi (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support removal--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 21:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Neutral on removal, oppose add The Joker is less important than Hikaru Genji. ―Susmuffin Talk 02:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I don't think we're so desperate for quota to remove X-Men, but could be convinced otherwise. I strongly oppose adding Joker (character); even listing Batman isn't certain at this level and there's not room for a rogue's gallery. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Neutral on removal, oppose add per two comments above pbp 23:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose add I'd maybe estimate Zorro being more vital than either Batman or Joker (or even James Bond), being the older and more influential character.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 21:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose An entire team with many popular characters, against a single character? The Joker is older by 23 years of publication history, but he does not have a comparable impact. "The conflict between mutants and normal humans is often compared to real-world conflicts experienced by minority groups in America such as African Americans, Jews, various religious (or "non-religious") groups such as Muslims and atheists, Communists, the LGBT community, the transgender community, etc. ... Also on an individual level, a number of X-Men serve a metaphorical function as their powers illustrate points about the nature of the outsider." Dimadick (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

@Susmuffin: sections with fictional characters should be diversited in a way where: folkloric creatures need be historically important/influjencial and: fictional characters from popular cultujre need by much more global than local folkloric creatures and much more popular if they deserve for inslusion here (we do not list all countries at tjhe level 3 to keep space for other articles so we also should not list all folkloristic creatures at the level 5 to keep space for some other fictional characters). I do know Joker is enaugh vital at this level but it is for sure the most important supervillian. He probably was inspitarion to various other magican villiams characters. Magican often are villiams in arts such like wolf as Big Bad Wolf is villiam character. I could give very detalic example where Felonious Hexx is villiam. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Current standings: Removal: 3–1–2. Addition: 1–4–1. J947 (c), at 20:29, 10 January 2019 (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.
MOVE COMPLETED
The article was moved. ―Susmuffin Talk 23:32, 17 February 2019 (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.

Move proposal at Talk:Diving

A move discussion at Talk:Diving regarding the re-naming or re-purposing of that page may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:30, 8 November 2018 (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
2-6, not added. ―Susmuffin Talk 23:24, 17 February 2019 (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.

Add Hasbro

Hasbro has big influence for a lot of traditional/modern board games, toys and some media franchises.

Support
  1. Support As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support It is the corporate parent of franchises such as "Monopoly, G.I. Joe, Furby, Transformers, Nerf, My Little Pony, Twister and the newly acquired Power Rangers franchise." Dimadick (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Monopoly is on the list and I don't think that Hasbros other brands are vital at this level. Dungeons & Dragons and My Little Pony are possible exceptions, but in general Level 5 is a better place to games, toys and franchises. --Thi (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per above. And I oppose adding D&D or any other RPG because we don't have Role-playing game. If we're going to list some specific media franchises, we should start from the top of the List of highest-grossing media franchises. wumbolo ^^^ 18:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Hasbro is clearly less important than many of their own products. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose borderline even at level 5. feminist (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per above. Not vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per feminist and Susmuffin. Would be in the top 100,000 but not even convinced it is top 50,000 (all of its main games have more name recognition and vitality). Gizza (t)(c) 23:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

@Thi:, @Wumbolo:. Monopoly is mentioned in first paragraph at this article but Hasbro is vital certainly not due to Mobopol, Dungeons & Dragons, My Little Pony. Hasbro is vital due to it has influence for triaditional tabletop games. Yathzee (much more popular than monopoly on playok.com) is patented by hasbro which and this game has been evoluated from acient dice games. Battleship is evoluoated from traditional paper-and-pencil traditional game to board game thank to Hasbro. Categories are evoluoated from traditional paper and pencil game to board game thank to Hasbro. Stratego is modern board game which has been created based on acient game Jungle (board game) thank to Hasbro. Jenga is the most important game of mental and physical skills and is patented by Hasbro. In your opinions we should listed 50 games and toys at the level 5 instead Hasbro? Dawid2009 (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Scrabble this is also prduct of Hasbro and is listed at the level4. This game is more popular on playok.com than Monopoly and even chess!. At the level 5 we have one Scrabble player on list and maybe we will have in future: Scrabble championship. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2018 (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
1-5, not removed. ―Susmuffin Talk 17:41, 20 February 2019 (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 Race (human categorization)

Covered by Biological anthropology

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. This is way too important of a topic not to be listed at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose This concept has had a massive role in human history. ―Susmuffin Talk 16:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose strongly – Recently I decided to go through VA2's archive and I found a discussion about just that, at a level with an 100x higher requirement than this. Basically... nope. J947 (c), at 23:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Strong oppose per above comments. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:58, 13 February 2019 (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
2-5, not added. ―Susmuffin Talk 17:56, 20 February 2019 (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.

add Smile

I think that Smile deserve for inclusion to the level 4 because of we list Emoticon at the level 5 and smile is important thing in context of antrophology or everyday life.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. I don't see how emoticon or frown are relevant here. This seems more important than other facial expressions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Frown is not listed. ―Susmuffin Talk 23:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose there are many, many types of facial expressions, gestures and body movements and none of them stand out from one another. Nonverbal communication was added some time ago but I think we could add body language too. Gizza (t)(c) 00:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Definitely not a level 4 article. Add it to level 5. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Weak oppose, more important than Frown, I'd say, but still not vital enough. J947 (c), at 04:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
Discus

Smile would probably be OK at level 5. There are many facial expressions and gestures. Facial expression would be the parent topic to this, it has crossed my mind before and has a chance at getting in. Body language is a decent suggestion too, they are both somewhat covered by nonverbal communication but I think the overlap here is acceptable, nonverbal communication is very wide.  Carlwev  07:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

We list Marcel Marceau so Facial expression should be added. Body language seems be similar to Nonverbal communication. I also note that we list language at the level 1, communication at the level 2, telecommunication at the level 3; but articles such like sense, cognition, information, information technology all are listed at the level 4. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure if Marceau is vital. ―Susmuffin Talk 17:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Those would be decent proposals. ―Susmuffin Talk 17:20, 2 February 2019 (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.
No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 20:56, 20 February 2019 (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.

Swap Econometrics for Mathematical economics

Broader topic.

Support
  1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 12:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - it is indeed a broader topic given that it also applies to economic theory, but that also makes it less focused. Econometrics is the bread and butter of empirical economics and IMO is as important as, if not more important than, the parent topic in relation to its encyclopedic value. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removal. Gizza (t)(c) 20:56, 20 February 2019 (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
7-0, added. ―Susmuffin Talk 23:58, 17 February 2019 (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.

Add Modern English

We have Middle English and Old English, so why not the period where English truly becomes a global language with the advent of telecommunication. Early Modern English might posit an option as well with Shakespeare and co marking the rise of literature. —J947 (c), at 04:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. J947 (c), at 04:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support. This list is supposed to be tailored to the English Wikipedia, so the article on Modern English is absolutely vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support We have WAY too few languages at this level (representative balance beetween universitetes and languages is ridicouls). Dawid2009 (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support English has become a global language. ―Susmuffin Talk 14:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  7. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
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
0-4, not added. ―Susmuffin Talk 00:04, 18 February 2019 (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.

Add Shoulder and Shoulder girdle

Currently we are under quota at Biology and I think that these two articles could be candidates

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose No more vital than things like knee, ankle, elbow, or hip which aren't listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose These subjects are a bit too specific for this section. ―Susmuffin Talk 14:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose good suggestions for Level 5 though. Gizza (t)(c) 21:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. They don't near the cut. J947 (c), at 09:51, 2 February 2019 (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 and not swapped Gizza (t)(c) 09:49, 20 February 2019 (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.

Swap Javascript for Python (programming language)

Both are interpreted, but Python is more vital and less similar to Java (programming language).

Support
  1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 16:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support removal. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition. I don't think we need another programming language at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Javascript is by far the most important programming language for web development. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 07:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  4. feminist (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose removal, since Javascript is now very frequently used.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Javascript is very important for web development, and, at least in terms of what it is used for, is probably less like Java than Python is. Orser67 (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2019 (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.


2-4, not removed Gizza (t)(c) 20:58, 20 February 2019 (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 Semiconductor

Largely redundant to Semiconductor device.

Support
  1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 16:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support We don't need both at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

#Support --Thi (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose
  1. Strongest possible oppose Absolutely not. Semiconductors are one of the main class of materials, it would make as much sense to remove that as it would to remove metal. However, I agree with Rreagan007 below that this should go into Science somewhere. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I think the significance of semiconductors makes two articles at this level reasonable (there is one at L3). Gizza (t)(c) 00:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose this article is about the material, not its most common usage. feminist (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)).
Discussion
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
7–0, removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2019 (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 Minivan

Not much long-term significance; probably less common these days than a luxury vehicle a much more historically significant and far predating topic not on this list. —J947 (c), at 23:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. J947 (c), at 23:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support We already list Van at this level. No need to list both here. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Honestly, I was surprised to see that here. ―Susmuffin Talk 01:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)).
  7. Support arguably the weakest vehicle-related article on the list right now. Gizza (t)(c) 23:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah I definitely agree with that. J947 (c), at 03:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
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.
PASSED
5–0, removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2019 (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 Pickup truck

Not much vitality in my opinion, though it's hard to judge for me living in the largest pickup truck market in the world. —J947 (c), at 01:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. –J947 (c), at 01:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Again, I was surprised to see this here. ―Susmuffin Talk 01:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)).
Oppose
Discuss

I'm neutral - it seems prominent enough and different from Semi-trailer truck that I'm fine with it here. Probably also OK to put it on level-5 with Concrete mixer and Firetruck. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:57, 6 February 2019 (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
6–1, removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2019 (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 Sport utility vehicle

Less vital than Pickup truck. These less important vehicle sub-classifications are much better at Level 5.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Why did we list these articles? ―Susmuffin Talk 01:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Weak support but maybe add back in a decade if its popularity continues. J947 (c), at 02:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support less necessary than pickup truck. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support I'd say it's just as vital as convertible which is level 5. Gizza (t)(c) 23:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2019 (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
7–0, removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2019 (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 Trolleybus

Another one we can do without at this level. We already list both Bus and Tram (aka Trolley), so we really don't need to list Trolleybus at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support easily –J947 (c), at 02:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support ...Another random vehicle article? ―Susmuffin Talk 02:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support the difference is too small to justify a separate entry here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)).
  7. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 23:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
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
Removed, 7–3. --Rreagan007 (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2019 (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 John Brown (abolitionist)

Support
  1. I am the nominator Dawid2009 (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support this might actually be too country specific, he's only vital for the one raid. We're at the limit and he is not as vital as Plautus or Livius Andronicus who are missing. GuzzyG (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. support too local. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support He was less influential than Judas Maccabeus. Also, this section has too many Americans. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support per GuzzyG, he doesn't in my opinion make the mark. WP:1E can be a guideline of use even here. J947 (c), at 23:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  7. Support GuzzyG, Susmuffin and Dawid have all proposed stronger candidates. Gizza (t)(c) 09:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The fact that he is both memorialized as a heroic martyr and visionary, and vilified as a madman and a terrorist in America means he is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per RekishiEJ. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per RekishiEJ. Dimadick (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

@GuzzyG: What do you think about swap John Brown for Jack the Ripper. John Brown as Abolonist who is considered "American Hero" is fewer vital than criminals who are considered as "America outlaw heros" such like Jesse James, Billy The Kid (see above). It is the same category of personality but Jack the Ripper clearly is more influencial. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

That proposal would probably pass. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:30, 3 February 2019 (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
Added, 5–0. --Rreagan007 (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2019 (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.

Add Aoraki / Mount Cook

A far more important peak than Kosciusko IMO and a deserving representative of New Zealand's numerous mountains, slightly more important than Mount Ruapehu. I feel like proposing a swap with Kosciusko which posits no challenge to mountaineers and isn't a volcano either (and wow, there was a road to a few metres from the summit until recent) and it's only claims to fame are the result of lack of competition (and stupid people who think that Oceania is only Australia). If you complain along the lines of "we've already got 5 Oceanian mountains" keep in mind that two mountains in that category are actually located in Asia and another might be in North America depending on your definition of sea-continental boundaries (wow).

Support
Support as nominator. See below. J947 (c), at 03:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  1. Support Agree that Mount Cook is more vital than Kosciusko, which is not a very big or otherwise significant mountain - it really has nothing except the Australian record to recommend it. Neljack (talk) 03:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Aoraki / Mount Cook is the highest mountain in New Zealand. It is also an important cultural site for the Māori. ―Susmuffin Talk 15:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support both deserve to be on. physical geography is one of the most important things anyway. GuzzyG (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
  1. Neutral (update, leaning oppose) (nom), as per my comments below. J947 (c), at 03:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

I'm surprised this is passing, actually, despite me being nom. On reflection Southern Alps or an article for the North Island volcanic zone might edge out Mount Cook. The southern alps is included at L5, not Mount Cook, and Ruapehu runs roughly equal to it. I've re-marked down as neutral. J947 (c), at 03:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The Southern Alps used to be on the list. It was removed around four and a half years ago (archive). I reluctantly supported it at the time though on reflection think that physical geography as a whole deserve more coverage than what it currently has. Not sure if Aoraki/Mount Cook or the Southern Alps are the better choice. Gizza (t)(c) 21:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The Southern Alps would be the better choice in my opinion, forming the dividing barrier of the South Island politically and, of course, physically, also being a fault line and causing the infamous West Coast rain. Still hard to decide though. J947 (c), at 23:13, 31 January 2019 (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
Swapped, 7–0. --Rreagan007 (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2019 (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.

Swap: remove The Maxims of Ptahhotep, add Ancient Egyptian literature

More general and more important article.

Support
  1. As nom. --Thi (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support good proposal. Gizza (t)(c) 20:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support I am not sure why The Maxims of Ptahhotep was listed to begin with. Meanwhile, ancient Egyptian literature is an important field of study. ―Susmuffin Talk 00:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support Wider topic. Dimadick (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support rather tentatively but IMO [country/era] literature is better than individual works. J947 (c), at 22:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  7. Support GuzzyG (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  1. It's on the list because some scholars regard it as the oldest existing book; the swap is probably better though. GuzzyG (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2019 (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
Not added, 5–3. --Rreagan007 (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2019 (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.

Add Winter sport

Another very important category missing. Linhart (talk) 09:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support Linhart (talk) 09:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 12:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Since winter sports often have their own multi-sport tournaments, such as the Winter Olympic Game (taken from the lede of the article on winter sport), it is no doubt vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC) added a clause 12:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  6. Weak support after a long time of thinking. One of the main goals of this list is for improvement of these articles. This could easily be expanded substantially, and being added to this list could further awareness of this embarrassingly tiny article. In this case IMO the precedent should be overruled. J947 (c), at 23:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. It is currently a List-class article, and we don't include List-class articles at Level 4. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose as it is now This article is a list. ―Susmuffin Talk 19:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per my two comments below. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

I think that it is too general concept. Article about Winter sport (check this article) is pretty such like Water sport - it could be list. All winter sports can be enaugh described is separate own featurerd articles (alpine skiing, snowboarding, ski jumping, etc. I would prefer consider add some organisation related with winter sport to cover something other (if we decide that listing sport organisations is worth at this level). Dawid2009 (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I was about to pass this nomination, but then I noticed that this is currently categorized as a List-class article, and right now we have a convention of not having any List-class articles at Level 4. I think this warrants some further discussion. If this remains List-class, then I don't think it should be listed at level 4. However, if it is converted to a standard article and expanded, then I could see it being a Level 4 article. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Water sport and Winter sport should be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion per WP:Precise. First one is list, second one is the article, both are list-class. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2019 (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
Added, 6–0. --Rreagan007 (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2019 (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.

Add Body language

Been mentioned below under Anthropology, seems a fine suggestion. Definitely more important than Meme. It could also be added under Language or Anthropology, but I decided here was the optimal place, due to Nonverbal communication being here. J947 (c), at 03:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. J947 (c), at 03:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support This is a basic part of any social interaction. ―Susmuffin Talk 03:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  20:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Other/Discuss

Some overlap with nonverbal communication, but I think it's important enough to list both, it's of interest to experts and general readers, and relevant to all people in all cultures to some degree. There are quite a few studies and books about the topic.  Carlwev  20:49, 15 February 2019 (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
Swapped, 5–0. --Rreagan007 (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2019 (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.

add Imagination

Mind is at the level 2, thought is at the level 3, intelligence is at the level 4 so I pretty belive that Imagination is enaugh vital too.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support, Thought can't be more than 10 times more important than this. J947 (c), at 04:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
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
Removed, 6–3. --Rreagan007 (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2019 (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 DC Comics

  1. Support removal of DC Comics, as that is merely a subsidiary of AT&T. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support removal of DC Comics --Thi (talk) 08:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support MArvel is removed, theres no way DC should be on now, no matter the opposesGuzzyG (talk) 08:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support no space for subsidiaries at this level. Gizza (t)(c) 14:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Batman and Superman are more important than the company that created them. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support just because Marvel's been removed. I'd prefer if this is closed as passed and then we can have a discussion about the merits of both. I'm neutral otherwise. J947 (c), at 03:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Reasons below (at Marvel Comics) Dawid2009 (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose 85-year-old company with more staying power and cultural influence than most media companies.Dimadick (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Agreed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

How about removing DC Comics?

I'd support swapping this in for the comic book publishers (the main superheroes are already listed separately too). Gizza (t)(c) 23:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: current standings are 6–3 for the Marvel discussion. J947 (c), at 03:46, 22 February 2019 (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
Not removed, 6–6. --Rreagan007 (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2019 (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 Japanese yen, Pound sterling and Renminbi

Non-vital currencies. I would also nominate Rupee but that one was kept for historical importance reasons.

Support
  1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 12:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Non essential. I would also remove Rupee. T8612 (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Currencies are not that vital in a cultural perspective. Who shed a tear over the French franc or the Italian lira? I would also suggest removing the United States dollar. Dimadick (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 11:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal of Pound sterling. It was the top world currency for several hundred years. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose all 3 removals. Those currencies are the currencies of major countries. The pound sterling is important historically. The Renminbi and the Yen are the currencies of the 2nd and third largest economies, respectively. Any discussion of currencies requires knowing these three. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Rupee is easily the least vital currency listed, though I would not be in favor of its removal. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per PointsofNoReturn. feminist (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  6. Oppose in regards to the long-serving pound sterling, as it has supported a large part of the British Empire and is featured in dozens of thousands of novels etc. I am not so sure with including a lot of currencies though, so I'll say neutral for the other two, and as an extension the rupee too. J947 (c), at 23:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Current standings: Pound sterling: 4–6. Other two: 4–4. J947 (c), at 23:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

This has always bugged me. I would say that the Economy of Japan is more vital than the Japanese Yen. Same with other countries. The entire economy of a nation is more vital than the currency it uses. At the moment we only have three economies but six currencies. Gizza (t)(c) 01:04, 15 February 2019 (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
Removed, 5–2. --Rreagan007 (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2019 (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 Transactinide element

We are currently over quota in this section. This article was added as a swap back when we removed the 13 transactinide elements here. We have since removed a number of other synthetic elements from this level. I really don't think this article is needed, as we also list the article on Synthetic elements which covers all of the transactinide elements.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support The article on transactinide elements is slightly too specific for this level. ―Susmuffin Talk 01:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 11:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Level 4 contains a hundred chemical elements and zero of them are transactinide. All of the transactinide elements are level-5 so Transactinide element covers them properly at this level. Synthetic element is no more vital than Transactinide element. wumbolo ^^^ 11:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose agree with Wumbolo. A big portion of the periodic table won't be covered at all if transactinide element is removed apart from the general periodic table and element articles (which are Level 3 anyway). The formation of new transactinide elements is important as it is predicted that eventually their half-lives will be longer and we will find the island of stability. Gizza (t)(c) 12:29, 21 February 2019 (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
Added, 5–1; Not removed, 2–1 --Rreagan007 (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2019 (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.

Swap: remove dielectric, add ferromagnetism

Both vital concepts to physicists, but the latter is more well-known and is what is responsible for permanent magnets. With only room for one, I'd include the latter. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support addition; I'm neutral on the removal. If we need the quota, I support this as a swap. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support addition. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support addition (Ios2019 (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)).
Oppose
  1. Oppose dielectrics have an insane range of applications. Whatever is important about ferromagnetism is covered by magnets. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:55, 3 July 2018 (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
Swapped, 5–0. --Rreagan007 (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2019 (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.

Add Computer hardware

Importance comparable to Software, and is a broader topic than articles like Motherboard, Central processing unit and Computer keyboard.

Support
  1. As nom. feminist (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Other
  1. Swap with Motherboard. wumbolo ^^^ 16:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Swap with Motherboard, or support addition if swap does not go through. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Swap with Motherboard. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Swap with Motherboard. Gizza (t)(c) 23:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Swap with Motherboard (Ios2019 (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2019 (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
5-1-1, added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2019 (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.

Add Li Shizhen

Instead of another comics writer; here is a physician, in which we lack and whose lede says "He is also considered to be the greatest scientific naturalist of China" and whose work "remains as the premier reference work for herbal medicine". The major figure of Chinese medicine. I'm admittedly not good at writing these kinds of things but i think his article speaks for itself.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support important representative of traditional medicine. Gizza (t)(c) 01:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support He had an important role in the history of medicine. ―Susmuffin Talk 16:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support significant when accounting for WP:BIAS and looking from a historical prospective. feminist (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. Neutral I'm very loathe to give herbalism an enhanced place here, but this is in effect protomodern medicine, rather than alternative woo. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:52, 14 February 2019 (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
1-3, not added. ―Susmuffin Talk 02:23, 25 February 2019 (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.

add Battle of Grunwald

Battle of Grunwald is the biggest knight's battle in histry of world and is probably more vital than every other Polish battles listed at this level. This Battle is influencial for Polish art (for example Bitwa pod Grunwaldem by Jan Matejko, Krzyżacy by Henryk Sienkiewicz).

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We do not list any Polish battles. ―Susmuffin Talk 00:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Battles are a sub event, thus not many are vital for this level. GuzzyG (talk) 11:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

FYI, there are no other Polish battles listed at this level. By my count, there are only four in total. Gizza (t)(c) 00:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Vienna, Polish–Muscovite War (1605–1618). We list two Poles-relatedd wars/battles. Battle of Grunwald is more famous/vital than Polish–Muscovite War and has comparable vitality to Battle of Vienna (Battle of Grunwald has more language versions, the articles get the same number of pagewatchers but Battle of Vienna get more pagewievs in English Wikipedia). Anyway what do you think about removing of Polish–Muscovite War (1605–1618)? Second Northern War and Deluge (history) (as part of Second Northern War) also seems be more vital than Second Northern War and are not listed. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2019 (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
Added 6-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:05, 2 March 2019 (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.

add Sexual revolution

Very high rates by wikiprojects

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Weak support to go in Modern history. Covered a bit by civil rights movements at this level but IMO deserves to be at this level due to it being a much-encompassing article. Women's rights and Feminist movement are among a bunch of other articles that could be added too. J947 (c), at 18:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support. It has had a major impact on society and human evolution. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
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
Added 7-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:05, 2 March 2019 (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.

add Western imperialism in Asia

Support
  1. Per discussions and suggestions at level 3 talk page. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Is there an equivalent article for Africa? I feel that should be covered too. Neljack (talk) 09:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
    We list the Scramble for Africa. ―Susmuffin Talk 14:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support This should have been listed a while ago. ―Susmuffin Talk 14:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 21:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Very much vital, we can't have things like The Great Game without this. J947 (c), at 03:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
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
Added 8-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:05, 2 March 2019 (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.

add History of human sexuality

Human sexuality is on the level 2. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support. Very important historical topic. Human evolution and society are largely based upon sexual practices. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)).
  5. Support, perhaps even an option at Level 3. Not sure though. J947 (c), at 03:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  7. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  8. Support Sexuality has had a massive influence over every society. ―Susmuffin Talk 17:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
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
9-0, added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2019 (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.

Add Uruk

Support
  1. As nom Orser67 (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Uruk had an important role in early urbanisation. ―Susmuffin Talk 14:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support I thought Uruk was already on the list. Gizza (t)(c) 00:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support – More important than many others on the list. J947 (c), at 02:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 12:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)).
  7. Support GuzzyG (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  8. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  9. Support Dimadick (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  1. Uruk was a very important city of ancient Sumer. I believe that it's prominence as an early city and its impact on the development of urbanization and writing makes it a good candidate for Level 4. As the article states: "In addition to being one of the first cities, Uruk was the main force of urbanization and state formation during the Uruk period, or 'Uruk expansion' (4000–3200 BC). This period of 800 years saw a shift from small, agricultural villages to a larger urban center with a full-time bureaucracy, military, and stratified society. Although other settlements coexisted with Uruk, they were generally about 10 hectares while Uruk was significantly larger and more complex. The Uruk period culture exported by Sumerian traders and colonists had an effect on all surrounding peoples, who gradually evolved their own comparable, competing economies and cultures." Orser67 (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2019 (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.
NO CONSENSUS
No votes. --Thi (talk) 12:17, 24 February 2019 (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 Physics (Aristotle)

Three books by Aristotle is enough at this level. --Thi (talk) 08:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. --Thi (talk) 08:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
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
5–0, added. –Rreagan007 (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2019 (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.

Add Armwrestling

Armwrestling is vital as recreation/sport.

Support
  1. Support As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 08:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)).
Oppose
Discuss

Note: If this passes, arm wrestling is the correct name for the article. J947 (c), at 01:36, 2 February 2019 (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
1-4, not added. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2019 (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.

Add Businessperson

A very important occupation, which covers investors, business magnates, entrepreneurs, etc.

Support
  1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 12:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose – Too dictionary-like; this would be impossible to make into a FA. J947 (c), at 01:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose This is not a dictionary. ―Susmuffin Talk 01:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I'm not sure that article can exist as a stand-alone article at all. Certainly not a top-10000 article, probably not even suitable for level-5. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:05, 6 February 2019 (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
6-0, added; 2–1, not removed. --Rreagan007 (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2019 (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.

Swap: remove Bose–Einstein condensate, add degenerate matter

The former is a cool state of matter, but has relatively limited utility due to the extreme conditions required for existence. The latter covers the concept more broadly, while also covering other important topics in the area. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support addition. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support addition power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support addition (Ios2019 (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)).
  5. Support addition --Thi (talk) 07:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support – I really don't see how the Bose–Einstein condensate is vital at this level compared to others on the list. Anyways good add. J947 (c), at 18:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal, though I'd consider a swap for Superfluidity. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:20, 16 July 2018 (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
8-0, swapped. --Rreagan007 (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2019 (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.

Two proposals

The Voyager program is vital as a whole at the level, not just Voyager 1 itself. Mstrojny (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Either Proposal 1: Add Voyager 2

Or Proposal 2: Swap Voyager 1 with Voyager program

Support
  1. Support swap Rreagan007 (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support swap per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 23:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support swap as per nom. I believe that the voyager program is vital here with some article or another, and this should be it. J947 (c), at 03:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support The articles on the probes are a bit too specific for this level. ―Susmuffin Talk 09:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)).
  7. Support GuzzyG (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
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
6-0, added, 5-0, removed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2019 (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.

Swap: add D. H. Lawrence, remove Sons and Lovers

Lawrence was one of the most influential English writers of the 20th century. The Arts section is full and the author is known for several works.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Not sure why we should single out Sons and Lovers rather than Lady Chatterley's Lover (which surely had greatest cultural impact), Women in Love or The Rainbow. Neljack (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Lawrence's depiction of gender roles deviated a lot from the standards of his era, and is still relevant: "Lawrence held seemingly contradictory views on feminism. The evidence of his written works, particularly his earlier novels, indicates a commitment to representing women as strong, independent and complex; he produced major works in which young, self-directing female characters were central. In his youth he supported extending the vote to women, and once wrote, “All women in their natures are like giantesses. They will break through everything and go on with their own lives.” "Dimadick (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support addition (Ios2019 (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)).
  5. Support – My philosophy here is generally band before album/writer before book/etc. And I think we can remove an English writer in another proposal to combat the bias. Honestly though it's an English book removed anyway so I don't see the need. J947 (c), at 05:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Because E. M. Forster considered D. H. Lawrence to be "the greatest imaginative novelist of our generation", Sons and Lovers is only placed ninth on The Modern Library's list of the 100 best novels of the 20th century, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, Catch-22 and Darkness at Noon, which are regarded better by The Modern Library's editors are currently not listed, and WP:VA4 currently exceeds the quota, Lawrence should be added while Sons and Lovers be removed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Maybe with a swap of another english writer. GuzzyG (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2019 (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
6-0, added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2019 (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.

Add Syama Sastri

If we have the other two Trinity of Carnatic music people, why not list the third as well, it helps us with pre modern coverage and to counter the western bias

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. From the lede of the article I know that he is no doubt vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support as per nom; we should list all three. J947 (c), at 05:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 21:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support We already list the other two. ―Susmuffin Talk 00:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
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.
NO CONSENSUS
1-1 after 30 days, no consensus. --Thi (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2019 (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.

Add Andrzej Wajda

One of the most important Eastern European directors after the war, known especially for Ashes and Diamonds (1958). He is often compared to such directors as Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola and Roman Polanski.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose He is less important to Poland than Miyamoto Musashi is to Japan. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

How about instead of another European director, someone like Abbas Kiarostami or Ousmane Sembène instead? This list is almost all white writers, painters, musicians and filmmakers. GuzzyG (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Wajda and Polanski probably are more vital for English Wikipedia than for Polish Wikipedia if we compare them to other Polish. In Polish Wikipedia Wajda had less pageviews after his death than Zbigniew Wodecki after his death (see: [16]) and Zbigniew Wodecki even had not article on English Wikipedia before his death + he is less vital than some other modern Polish compossers. Anyway I am not sure we we need Wajda at this level. In Poland Wajda and Polanski historically are not nearly vital to Matejko or Kochanowski but I also do not think Matejko and Kochanowski are vital at the level 4. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
They would be decent additions. ―Susmuffin Talk 20:05, 11 February 2019 (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
7-0, added; 5-1-1, removed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2019 (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.

Swap Gérard Depardieu for Alain Delon

Delon is the more important modern french film actor of the two, been around longer and has had more influence. Delon is in more wikidata languages too.

Support
  1. Support As nom GuzzyG (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).
  4. Support per nom Gizza (t)(c) 21:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. The addition, since he is known as one of Europe's most prominent actors and screen sex symbols from the 1960s.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support  Carlwev  13:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The removal, since he is one of the most prolific actors in film history (I've just read the lede).--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Other
  1. Weak support addition, neutral on removal – Both seem fairly vital, I'm not experienced in this particular area, but this is the result of my analysis. J947 (c), at 05:22, 2 February 2019 (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 Eusebio, Mia Hamm, Lev Yashin

NO CONSENSUS
No votes in over 2 months and nothing has 2/3 support. pbp 12:30, 19 March 2019 (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.

Currently we have one player from USA woman national team and too many man soccer players from 60's who never won FIFA world cup. England man National soccer team is more vital than USA woman national team [17] and this team has won fifa world cup one time in history and just in 1966. This list has to be important for reeaders for English Wikipedia not for worldwide view. So it is insulting for anyone from United Kingtom when we include Eusebio, Mia Hamm, Lev Yashin above: Bobby Charlton, Bobby More (they won world cup in 1966 with England) and George Best (He played for North Irleand but he has been regarted as the best sport personality of the century by BBC among people such like Mohhamad Ali, etc. and he still has enaugh reputation). If we do not have any hockey goalkeepers at this level I really do not think that we need Lev Yashin here. Mia Hamm often is compared to Aby Wambach and Alex Morgan so she is not very greatest woman of all time. Eusebio at his best peak in my oinion was much better player than Michel Platini or Cristiano Ronaldo at their best peak but I would left Platini ahead Eusebio due to fact that he was long time UEFFA president and I would left Cristiano Ronaldo ahead Eusebio due to fact that he won 2016 UE with Portugal and Eusebio not.

Support
  1. Support As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support removal of Eusebio. GuzzyG (talk) 11:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal of Mia Hamm: We should have at least one and probably 2-3 female soccer players. If we remove Mia Hamm, will we have any women? FWIW, I would be somewhat OK with swapping Hamm for Wambach. pbp 03:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removal of Mia Hamm and Lev Yashin: We clearly have a Hockey goaltender and Soccer's more important anyway. No women and no goalkeepers is unacceptable. The only one we're missing who is important is pitcher Cy Young, he is the ONLY important player missing out of any listed team sport. There should be hardly any more additions to team sports, because the listed ones are at capacity and the unlisted ones like Rugby League, Aussie Rules, Canadian Football, Lacrosse, Softball, Netball, Water Polo, Polo, Handball and Bandy etc are country/locale specific. If we NEED any more additions to team sports it should be Young (swapped for a baseball player listed on here ONLY) or a Water Polo/Team Handball addition because they're Olympic sports and we have so much American sports and hardly ANY Olympic sportspeople. This list is not like the level 5 list and has extremely strict conditions that no statistic can calculate. GuzzyG (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
How is your point? It is insulting when English national team is not represented but we have represented USA woman national team (despite fact we even do not have any business personality) and we have TWO players from that era who never won World Cup. There are two solutions: 1cut more soccer players to say 9 (in that case we will have generally fewer soccer players and it will be not insulting for anyone, we do not need a lot of soccer players if we have 7 rock peersonalities on this list) 2add at least George Best and one sport personality to this level for at least 15 soccer players... Woman soccer tradition exist shorter time than Man soccer tradition, it is littly to early to have 2-3, 1 or 0 is currently reasonable. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
0 would be unreasonable, and consider that, as the list is presently constructed, Hamm not only represents the USA women's team, but all other women's teams in now a 30+ year history. pbp 13:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
60's is the only decade where we have more than one players and we have here 3 players, it is silly when we do not have English player from golden generation. Aanyway addition of English players would be difficult (Although Bobby Charlton has the best reputation in England, Bobby Moore has been regarted as UEFA Jubilee Awards and [BBC sports personality in 1966, George Bst has the best reputation in England but he had short time best peak and he never played on World Cup). I would prefer remove Michel Platini and Eusebio but in that case Sepp Blatter will not be include ahead Michel Patini. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@PBP I have added alternative suggstion below but in that way FIFA Women's World Cup should be added to the level 4. It is no way that we have one woman player before player from Premier League, when Premier League is listed at the level 4. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2018 (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
5-0 added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2019 (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.

Add Miyamoto Musashi

Miyamoto Musashi was an accomplished duelist, writer, philosopher and artist. He fought over 60 duels and was victorious in all of them. In addition to this, he wrote The Book of Five Rings, which is one of the most prominent texts on martial arts. It discusses his viewpoints on combat and philosophy. He also became one of Japan's most prominent artists. Furthermore, Japanese culture is permeated with depictions of Musashi and his legendary exploits.

Support
  1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin Talk 16:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Although i am not sure if sports is the right place. GuzzyG (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
    I put him here because martial arts is in the sports section. ―Susmuffin Talk 16:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
    I had a moment of brain freeze and forgot swordsmanship is a martial art; he fits in sports as does martial arts. GuzzyG (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Would anyone be interested in Swordsmanship? If not here, at level 5 at least. This man was known for his Swordsmanship. We do have duel though I suppose.  Carlwev  17:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Carlwev: Until we add sport figures such like Cynisca or Swordmanship I would suggest add more notable acient non-athlts and dozen articles related with historical recreation, speciffically: Chariot Racing, Nine Men's Morris, Mesoamerican ballgame, Cuju, Jianzi, Sepak takraw, Thai boxing, Mob football Blind man's buff, Capoeira. @DaGizza: What do you think about these choices? I remember you always were supporting additions historical recreation topics. If we add Chariot Racing as first it would be more reasonale to add old sport figures. I think that some of them could be swapped for Bocce, Bowls, Pinball because of these games historically are less vital and can be redudant to bowling and arcade game. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Cynesca is rather obscure. Milo of Croton and Leonidas of Rhodes are the best-known ancient Olympic athletes. ―Susmuffin Talk 07:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you. I just pointed that we also need historical recreational topics when we have comparable sport figures to acient athlets. Cynesca likely is not vital but chariot racing should be ahead of other acient sport figure (even if they are not representant chairot racing) because of we intentionally do not list soccer players or Ali at the level 3 ahead of other sports. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@Carlwev: I would support that proposal. ―Susmuffin Talk 15:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I would put Musashi to the Military leaders and theorists section. He is in the military leaders at level 5. --Thi (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, Musashi would fit in a few different sections. ―Susmuffin Talk 17:30, 22 February 2019 (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.
4-4, not removed Gizza (t)(c) 20:51, 19 March 2019 (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 Martina Navratilova

9 is too many Tennis players considering its history and popularity in comparison to other sports listed here. The men's game is more vital and important then the woman's game but we have 5 women and 4 men.; so i have chosen the less vital women's player taking time frame into consideration. It may seem like a hard choice but it's not when you consider that Tennis has to much, ideally Tennis should have 6 or 5 but i doubt we can get that low with consensus. We really need to include more Olympic sports into this list; it's the most important event; athletes like Lin Dan, Dezső Gyarmati, Jan-Ove Waldner, Greg Louganis, Reiner Klimke, Valentina Vezzali, Dick Fosbury and Ivano Balić should have more importance then another bland Tennis player; in sports history the olympics will always come first before Tennis in any academic history of sport. I know Tennis is in the Olympics but Navratilova never won any gold in the Olympics so it does not count.

Support
  1. Support As nom GuzzyG (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support We list too many tennis players. ―Susmuffin Talk 00:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Strong oppose I find this proposal absolutely baffling - I would regard Navratilova as probably the most vital female tennis player. She is the most successful and consistent women's tennis player of the Open Era, holding the records for most singles and doubles titles and for most Grand Slam titles (man or woman - an incredible 59 titles all up). She faced tougher competition than any of the others, having to compete for years against an all-time great in Chris Evert and then later in her career having Graf and Seles to deal with. Graf never had to compete against an all-time great after Seles's stabbing (without which she surely wouldn't have won as many Grand Slam Titles). Williams has competed in a relatively weak era of women's tennis and has lacked Navratilova's consistency or record outside of Grand Slams. Court won the majority of her Grand Slam titles before the Open Era, when professionals were excluded from competing. She also dominated at the Australian Open because many top players didn't make the long journey there in those days. And of course there was less competition back in Lenglen's day. None of this is to deny that they are all among the greats of the game, but merely to emphasise that Navratilova's record - already remarkable on its face - is astonishing when you consider that she played in possibly the strongest-ever era of women's tennis. She was also important as a pioneering LGBT athlete. I urge reconsideration of this proposal. If a female tennis player is to go, it should be Lenglen, Court or even Graf if it has to be a recent player - not Navratilova, who I would suggest (and I am hardly alone in this) had the greatest career of them all. Neljack (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose as per Neljack. Lenglen seems like the one to go. J947 (c), at 23:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Neljack. Tennis is the most popular women's professional sport in the world. It deserves the five representatives. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Neljack. Dimadick (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2019 (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
8-0, added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2019 (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.

Add Constantinople

Very surprised this is not on the list. As vital as Istanbul, which is Level 3.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. J947 (c), at 03:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Constantinople should have been one of the first things on this list. ―Susmuffin Talk 03:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support I had always thought that it was a redirect to Istanbul. Gizza (t)(c) 12:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. I'm not sure it's Level 3 worthy, but it's definitely worth having at Level 4. feminist (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support Dimadick (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  7. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  8. --RekishiEJ (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Byzantium is another easy option. IMO this section is mightily underrepresented. J947 (c), at 03:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. ―Susmuffin Talk 20:15, 10 March 2019 (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
5-0, added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2019 (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.

Add AT&T

How about now that it has acquired WarnerMedia?

Support
  1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 12:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support A company that developed Unix and the C programming language is no doubt vital at this level, even if they didn't purchase WarnerMedia.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support World's largest telecommunications company, has a subsidary at this level... I could go on. J947 (c), at 10:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support. The largest telecommunications company in the world with significant presence in wireline telephone, broadband (AT&T U-verse), wireless (AT&T Mobility), satellite (DirecTV), television, (HBO, Turner), film (Warner Bros., New Line Cinema, DC Films), and publishing (Time Warner, DC Comics). Not to mention its huge historical significance as the direct successor and namesake of AT&T Corporation. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support I don't really have to explain much, honestly. All of the reasons why I would support this addition are above. InvalidOS (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
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
8-3-1, added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2019 (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.

Add Barcode

It is listed as high-importance article in three Wikiprojects.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support more common than some programming languages, possibly more common than Morse code, braille and maybe even sign language, used widely in several industries especially retail, it's design and the way it works are interesting, and there are several different types too which the article explains.  Carlwev  09:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support, it's on pretty much everything you ever buy. Understanding that it something Level-4 worthy.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support but IMO it's better at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Computing and information technology. It's a representation of data so should be placed under Data storage. feminist (talk) 08:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
    Agree with feminist on this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support and agree with this move.T8612 (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I don't really see why this topic is important enough to be listed at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Less vital than Identifier or Identification (information). Just because it's "common" does not make it vital. wumbolo ^^^ 12:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose disagree with the reasoning more than anything (the notion that more common than e.g. programming languages makes it more vital). Being common is not enough. There are a very few books about barcodes in any library you go. There are very few courses about barcodes. Code or identifier would be better options. Gizza (t)(c) 00:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. 12 participants wow! Anyway I'm struck in a balance of mind right now. J947 (c), at 23:33, 10 January 2019 (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
6-0, added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2019 (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.

Add English grammar

The way I personally interpret "tailored to the English language" to mean tailoring towards the language itself as opposed to people that happen to speak it. In any case, grammar is the most fundamental component of language (Level 3 vital) so English grammar is a suitable addition at this level. Definitely more vital than The Goon Show and Punch (magazine).

Support
  1. Support as nom Gizza (t)(c) 00:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support as per nom. J947 (c), at 04:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support The general article on grammar is at level 3, so this should certainly be listed at Level 4. Rreagan007 (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 11:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Vocabulary and orthography are close but not quite as important as grammar. English vocabulary is a redirect while English orthography could be added too. Vocabulary itself is not even Level 5 yet which should be rectified. Gizza (t)(c) 00:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I have added vocabulary to level 5. Rreagan007 (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2019 (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.
WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn by nominator. I was thinking along the grounds of 'a big cat is' rather than 'the term big cat is'. Our article sides with the second. J947 (c), at 18:51, 9 March 2019 (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.

Add Big cat

Common term and a possible Level 3 candidate.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. J947 (c), at 03:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. This appears to be a slang term for the genus Panthera. If we are going to list a "big cat" article, it should be the article on the genus. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
    Fair enough. I'm not going to fully withdraw yet because I think a discussion here about Panthera is warranted. I'm not quite sure we should include it but I'm leaning towards supporting a proposal for it. Thinking about it, big cat has little encyclopedic material and interest about it, whereas the genus does generate that. Rreagan007, what's your opinion about the possibility of Panthera? J947 (c), at 21:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
    @J947: We currently list all of the individual species of the genus Panthera (lion, tiger, jaguar, and leopard) at this level except for snow leopard. I think it would be better if we add snow leopard at this level, since readers are more likely to be interested in reading about the individual species articles rather than the genus article. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
    Yes I think so too. And looking at the quota, we're slightly below here so I think that's a good add. Plus, we don't really include many species that live in similar climates to the snow leopard. Granted, there's reindeer and red deer but to me it doesn't feel like they're on the same page. J947 (c), at 03:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Unless a slang or unofficial term is by far used by everyone, we could list more, like marine mammal or vulture, non scientific classifications (or Polyphyletic group), but we don't at the moment.  Carlwev  21:18, 3 March 2019 (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
5-0, added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2019 (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.

Add Ramesses III

Ramesses III is widely considered the last important Pharaoh of the New Kingdom of Egypt. He defeated the Sea Peoples, which allowed his country to survive the Late Bronze Age collapse. The first recorded labour strike occurred during his reign. He was assassinated as part of a failed plot to give his son, Pentawer, the throne.

Support
  1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support as per my comment on Shoshenq's nomination. J947 (c), at 18:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
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
5-0, removed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2019 (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 History of Romania

We are well over quota. Before Treaty of Trianon population of Hungary was similar to population of Romania; so I highly doubt Romania deserves for better representation than Hungary. Also fact that Romanian language is younger than Moldavian language can be argument that maybe Romania does not require representation when we are WELL-OVER quota.

Support
  1. Support As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support. As nom says we are well over quota here, and this is certainly the weakest "history of country" article, at least in the Europe section. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  5. feminist (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
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.
No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 11:27, 23 March 2019 (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.

Add hyperglycemia

Support
  1. As nom. It is absurd to include hypertension but not this topic in the list, as in Taiwan people are more likely to die from hyperglycemia than hypertension.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support - as vital for L4. Jusdafax (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. We already include diabetes. I think that's enough. Rreagan007 (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2018 (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.
NO CONSENSUS
2-1, no consensus.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2019 (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 Oil drop experiment, Michelson–Morley experiment and Geiger–Marsden experiment

Looking over the physics section, these articles about experiments don't seem vital enough to me to list at this level. There are more important physics articles that we could list than these. These aren't even the most important physics experiments we could be listing, though honestly I don't think we should be listing any individual experiments at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. All of them are vital in the history of physics (although I perused none of the articles mentioned by the nominator).--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

I could support removal of Millikan (electric charge). Discovery of the electron, stepping stone to understanding the atom. Important to physics and chemistry, furthered understanding of electricity, but didn't change the world all that much (electrons were already long discovered). Michelson−Morley however, that killed aether theory/Galilean relativity and bolstered Einsteinian relativity. That is pretty big. I could see that one go either way. But the Geiger−Marsden experiment? The discovery of the nucleus leading to the first semi-correct view of the atom? The very beginning of all nuclear science, and the very first modern particle collision experiment? That is HUGE. That one needs to stay. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:48, 30 September 2018 (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
5-0, added InvalidOStalk 13:56, 25 March 2019 (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.

Add Ladder

per discussion on Scaffolding, this is seen as vital.

Support
  1. as nom power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Used world wide and in use for at least 10,000 years according to the article. Of interest to construction, architecture, warfare, transport and other areas. We list scaffolding crane and stairs, although ladders are quite simple, stairs are also simple, as are things like doors tables and spears, doesn't make them nonvital.  Carlwev  17:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)).
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support InvalidOStalk 13:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
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.
1-7, not added Gizza (t)(c) 08:21, 26 March 2019 (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.

Add submachine gun

Support
  1. As nom. Since submachine guns, although being replaced by assault rifles to a certain extent nowadays, they were quite frequently used in WWII, and at present military special forces and police SWAT teams still use them for close quarters battle.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I don't think we need to list both machine guns and submachine guns at this level. A submachine gun is essentially a machine gun that fires pistol-caliber rounds rather than rifle-caliber rounds. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Gizza's comment the last time this was proposed. Honestly though, if it's failed twice before with no one other than you supporting, you're gonna have to get a better rationale. J947 (c), at 18:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Submachine guns are not vital. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Rreagan007's comment. InvalidOStalk 14:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  6. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)).
  7. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 08:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. I've proposed to add this twice before, however none of them succeeded (cf. Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 34#Add carbine, submachine gun and sniper rifle and Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 47#Add submachine gun).--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Added a half-width space 12:58, 31 January 2019 (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
9-0, added. InvalidOStalk 13:55, 3 April 2019 (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.

Add Negative number

Negative numbers are widely used in everyday life for many purposes, ranging from measuring temperature to finance. I believe that, with how important negative numbers are, they deserve to be listed here. InvalidOStalk 02:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom ~~ 02:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support. Another discussion at WT:VA#Suggestion to add Negative number and Imaginary number to the list of level 3 vital articles. regarding this. J947 (c), at 03:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
    1. In that discussion, I also proposed adding Imaginary number to L3. And made a poor argument as for why. InvalidOStalk 12:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support This is a basic mathematical concept. ―Susmuffin Talk 03:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support. Numerous reasons to support. wumbolo ^^^ 08:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 09:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  7. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  8. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  9. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)).
Oppose
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 Arms race

FAILED
2–5, failed. J947 (c), at 01:59, 30 March 2019 (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.

In my opinion it is less vital than Space race but more than enaugh vital for 10 000 the most important articles. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose This is a term, not an event. ―Susmuffin Talk 16:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Susmuffin. GuzzyG (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose you must be thinking about nuclear arms race. As stated above, arms race is just a dictionary term. Gizza (t)(c) 12:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)).
Discuss

Not in this category at least, Dawid. Society and social sciences would be a much better option. J947 (c), at 18:41, 15 February 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_61&oldid=952688841"