Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 68

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

→

Archive 75

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 Camille Claudel

The most influential female sculptor; we need more women artists.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Philburmc (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Support --Spaced about (talk) 12:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Underrated artist. Dimadick (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support was overshadowed by Rodin for a long time but her influence and legacy is beginning to be recognised. Gizza (talk • voy) 06:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Auguste Rodin represents her era. Barbara Hepworth is similar to Henry Moore. Perhaps Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun has best chance. --Thi (talk) 11:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose She might be "the most influential female sculptor", but frankly this isn't saying a lot. Because of her unfortunate life, her career finished early, and her style went out of favour. She is very much a rediscovery of recent decades. Johnbod (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Neither famous nor notable enough to merit inclusion --Zelkia1101 (talk) 04:34, 20 April 2021‎ (UTC)

Discuss

She gets four times more page views than Auguste Rodin. --Spaced about (talk) 12:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

No she doesn't - he gets over twice as many as her! Johnbod (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Zelkia1101:, i mean that would be right if i nominated Elizabeth Zimmermann for knitting, but not Claudel. Let's bring out the stats. (the best thing we have to assume fame).

Every sculpter we list.

1. Michelangelo - 36,065,016 million pageviews - [1], 248,000 google book mentions [2]
2. Auguste Rodin - 6,742,641 million pageviews - [3], 209,000 google book mentions [4]
3. Donatello - 6,440,736 million pageviews - [5], 130,000 google book mentions [6]
4. Gian Lorenzo Bernini - 6,012,658 million pageviews - [7], 66,300 google book mentions [8]
5. Camille Claudel - 4,113,590 million pageviews [9], 50,900 google book mentions [10]
6. Joseph Beuys - 3,479,738 million pageviews [11], 175,000 google book mentions [12]
7. Alberto Giacometti 3,434,945 million pageviews [13], 111,000 google book mentions, [14]
8. Phidias - 2,529,963 million pageviews [15], 143,000 google book mentions [16]
9. Constantin Brâncuși - 2,374,671 million pageviews [17], 53,000 google book mentions, [18]
10. Henry Moore - 1,902,088 million pageviews [19], 145,000 google book mentions [20]

Now that the research is here, see how she fits into them and does not stand out? Her standing is equal among these lot. How is she not as famous yet has more views than most of the other sculptors we list. She is influential, but that's harder to show. But it's completely laughable to dismiss her fame when it's more than many other sculptors here and seems like more brought up out of thin air.

Funnily, google trends [21] has her beating alot of the other sculptors in the US, France, Germany and Japan, four major countries lol. If she's not famous enough for this list, many of the other sculptors have to go.

Once again, "i don't know her" is not always accurate and the results speak for themselves. I would like you to go in on what "notable" is and why Claudel doesnt make it but these other sculptors do, because it's hard to understand otherwise. GuzzyG (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I know and have known who Camille Claudel is. I did not say that she was not influential or notable. I said she was not influential and notable enough. She is neither (1) extremely famous or notable for her work like Rodin or Donatello and (2) never particularly unique, innovative or influential in creating her art form, like Moore or Beuys. She is a diminutive to Rodin in nearly all aspects, and his biography covers her achievements well enough. What we need more on this list is social scientists, particularly economists like Henry George or Alfred Marshall, not another derivative sculptor. Adding her is silly. It would be the same energy as adding Frida Kahlo to level 3, when I don't think anybody could tell me with a straight face that Kahlo is as vital or significant as Raphael, whom we don't list. --Zelkia1101 (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2021‎ (UTC)

@Zelkia1101: I don't want to break your heart but Frida Kahlo is listed on the level 3 list. So yes, same energy, that's the point. :) GuzzyG (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: I know Kahlo is a level-3 article. I was merely lamenting the fact that adding Claudel to level 4 is similar to adding Kahlo to level 3. Both decisions were (in Kahlo's case) or would be (in Claudel's) taken solely for representation purposes rather than in recognition of their legacy or influence. Claudel fails in that we already have enough people to cover her. Kahlo's presence is especially egregious in that she masks the absence of more notable artists like Raphael or Caravaggio --Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2021‎ (UTC)

Here's a tip, public interest and prominence in culture mean more to me than anything. Claudel is one of the most prominent (and i backed that up but you skipped over the sculpters like Brancusi lol). It's the same with types like you, Claudel is redundant to Rodin, Barbara Hepworth is redundant to Henry Moore, Edmonia Lewis is just a diversity pick etc. It's no point. Notice it's never Raphael is redundant to da Vinci, Michelangelo and Rembrandt. Here's something that will make you mad, here's a quick set up of 10ish notable painters. [22]. See that column next to the nationality? That's pageviews in all languages, Kahlo comes second to Da Vinci. The public find her more interesting than ANY OTHER PAINTER. (da Vinci gets alot of science boost). She completely beats Raphael. [23] in google interest. Since the whole point of this exercise is to improve articles, yes the most visited one is important. That's life. The most important woman beats the third best men of a group. They're not always "redundant", any "diversity" pick is better than the same old. GuzzyG (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: This is a list of the most vital articles on Wikipedia, not the articles whose subjects are the most famous. I believe you yourself pointed this out some time ago to me when I suggested preserving Churchill for his cultural significance. Kahlo may be more widely looked up, but it is an irrefutable fact that Raphael or Caravaggio has had a much more profound impact on world art. Caravaggio, for instance, popularized Chiaroscuro and Tenebrism, and he is known as the preeminent baroque painter. Raphael had nearly peerless influence on iconic and religious art. Both of these artists are all over art, and have been so for centuries. Kahlo's influence is much more localized to her small genre, which is rather new. Raphael and Caravaggio represent supreme human achievement in the arts both in terms of memory and influence. Kahlo has no such distinction. She is merely a pop culture icon. While she and her work are important, it is a tragedy that she is included while Caravaggio and Raphael are not --Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2021‎ (UTC)

"supreme human", that's a zinger right there. Not most famous, extreme fame combined with being influential to half of the population (women) as a representative icon, which means more than any localized more niche importance to the field like founding a genre... it goes over borders like a art genre. but that's probably not a supreme human achievement to you right.. I'm just dying laughing at you calling other people redundant while arguing for the third and fourth best to be added, how don't you not see the flaw in all of this? Even moreso in painting, when van Gogh is exactly the same kind of pop icon, yet no issues there i suppose. I just wanted to show you stats, but i know more your reasoning now. All good, have a good day/night. :) GuzzyG (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

We are not in the business of curating "representative icons". This is a list for vital and essential people. Your comparison of Kahlo to van Gogh is entirely false. Van Gogh is a pop icon, but he is also the premier modern artist. His technique, style and contributions have been vastly more influential than Kahlo's. Kahlo has not had nearly the same influence on the visual arts as van Gogh. To compare the two is absolutely silly, and to suggest that Caravaggio and Raphael are second and third bests is ironic as you refuse to acknowledge that Kahlo has had middling influence in her profession when compared to them. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2021‎ (UTC)

I put the influence Kahlo has on women when they see/feel themselves in Kahlo and her involvement in upper echelon arts and believe it's possible for themselves over any influence someone like Rembrandt (and Raphael) have with the premier artists today like Damien Hirst or Banksy, i can see the madonna in the balloon girl, can you?. I know this is probably hard for you to get, but it means more than a simple achievement in popularizing a genre. (I hope you would give Tupac Shakur level 3 credit for popularizing and influencing hip-hop). Artemisia Gentileschi and Clara Schumann got added here to you know.... that's the normal standard. GuzzyG (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Add Harold Bloom

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.

---

Harold Bloom was a preeminent figure in the field of literary criticism during his time. His work's legacy is the advancement of the Western Canon, a collection of novels and works that survive to this day in part due to Bloom's influence. Contemporary critics also regarded Bloom as one of the world's preeminent scholars of Shakespeare and Western literature in general. We don't have a stand-alone literary critic as a Level 4 article, and I think Bloom would be an excellent ambassador for the field. --Zelkia1101 (talk) 04:28, 28 February 2021‎ (UTC)

Support

1. Support [as nom] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelkia1101 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
2. Support An important figure of the 20th century, and a noted reactionary. Per the main article on him: "For many years, Bloom's writings have drawn polarized responses, even among established literary scholars. Bloom was called "probably the most celebrated literary critic in the United States" and "America's best-known man of letters". A New York Times article in 1994 said that many younger critics understand Bloom as an "outdated oddity," whereas a 1998 New York Times article called him "one of the most gifted of contemporary critics."" ... "In the early 21st century, Bloom often found himself at the center of literary controversy after criticizing popular writers such as Adrienne Rich, Maya Angelou, and David Foster Wallace. In the pages of The Paris Review, he criticized the populist-leaning poetry slam, saying: "It is the death of art." When Doris Lessing was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, he bemoaned the "pure political correctness" of the award to an author of "fourth-rate science fiction," although he conceded his appreciation of Lessing's earlier work." Dimadick (talk) 05:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Support -- a first-rate exemplar of the field. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Bloom was great advocate of classic literature as writer and public figure, but not central philosopher in aesthetics and literature. I think that influential art historians such as Giorgio Vasari, Johann Joachim Winckelmann and Jacob Burckhardt are more vital at this level. --Thi (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Giorgio Vasari should come first for art critics. GuzzyG (talk) 07:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Thi and GuzzyG—other critics have more definitive lasting permanence czar 20:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The only issue is that it's not convincing he's more vital than Roland Barthes, Northrop Frye or William Hazlitt and i'm definitely not convinced a literary critic is automatically more vital than arts one like John Ruskin or even Giorgio Vasari; push comes to shove and i have to pick one - it'd be Vasari. GuzzyG (talk) 05:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Add Giorgio Vasari

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.

---

Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects is one of the most important books of art history, pretty much considered the founding of it (and thus in the long term probably responsible for seeing artists as historical figures worthy of analysis and thus responsible for artists being celebs in the long term). Highly influential responsible for art history/criticism today. HIs work is labeled the "the first important book on art history" and "some of the Italian Renaissance's most influential writing on art". A bolder claim might be that he had a impact on Italian art being seen as highly as it is over many other countries. Either way, if Bloom is to be added then someone earlier should be too. We are lacking in intellectuals from this area compared to many 20th century entertainers and athletes and we are 14 under quota at the moment.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 07:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support. Transformative of art history. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Basic entry in any encyclopedia. Either Vasari or Lives of the Artists should be added. --Thi (talk) 08:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Dimadick (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2021 (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.

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 Al-Mustansir Billah for Abdallah al-Mahdi Billah

Mustansir's reign was an important period, but as a person and ruler he was not, as he was weak and a puppet of military strongmen. His vizier Badr al-Jamali was arguably much more important than him, as he saved the Fatimid Caliphate from collapse and established the model of government followed during the final century of the Fatimid Caliphate's existence. I propose therefore swapping with Abdallah al-Mahdi Billah, who was a truly pivotal figure himself: the final leader of the secret Isma'ili network, the cause of the Qarmatian schism, the first Fatimid caliph who presided over the crucial first decades of the Fatimid state, and one of the Isma'ili imams (with the sceptics arguing that he was also the real founder of Isma'ilism as a major Islamic sect, since his actual connection to the earlier imams is questionable to say the least).

Support

1. Support as nom. Constantine ✍ 13:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Support removal per nom. --Thi (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
4. Support removal - Interstellarity (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. Gizza (talk • voy) 08:10, 27 March 2021 (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.

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 D. S. Senanayake

The single driving force behind a independent Sri Lanka. He's considered their "Father of the Nation"; this area is underrepresentated on our list.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
4. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2021 (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.

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 Mindon Min

We have so many Burmese politicians, (over 5), of a country of around 50 mil but only one modern Thailand figure for example - a country of around 70 mil. He has no discernible influence. GuzzyG (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
4. Support - Interstellarity (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. No doubt vital at this level, since during his reign he endeavoured to modernize Burma, and he was one of the most revered Burmese kings.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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 Maghreb

A region of North Africa. Of comparable importance to Caucasus, Hejaz, or Moldavia in my view.

Support

1. as nom User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support. Dimadick (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. We already list North Africa and I think there's too much overlap here. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Rreagan007. --Thi (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose for those reasons above. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Swap: Remove Kaaba, Add Masjid al-Haram

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

---

I think the mosque is generally more important than the structure inside the mosque. Interstellarity (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose Kaaba is the holiest site in Islam. It is more well-known name outside the Islamic world. --Thi (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Because Kaaba is the qibla for Muslims around the world when performing salah, it is absolutely vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

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.

Add Two Treatises of Government and An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

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.

---

Pretty self-explanatory. The former is considered the preeminent text on democratic theory, and it profoundly influenced the American revolutionaries. The latter was one of the founding texts of the empiricist movement as well as one of the most well-known works of the Enlightenment. Locke is also one of the few level-3 writers or thinkers whose works do not appear on this list.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose at least without a swap. John Locke is well known in American academy for his contributions to US constitution but he is maybe not as central internationally. The number of non-fiction works at this level is perhaps too high, the section was created when there was no Level 5. --Thi (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Remove The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care, Add Ninety-Five Theses

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

---

I hope I don't need to explain why the Theses's absence from this list is an egregious mistake, given that they set off the Reformation. The Theses are much more important than The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care, which has always been an odd inclusion to this list.

Support

1. Support as nom Zelkia1101 (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
2. Per nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
3. Support -- yes. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
4. Support --Tucvbif (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
5. The addition, since plenty of world history textbooks mention it.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
6. Support removal as in my previous proposal. --Thi (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The removal, since the book has been influencing a lot of American (maybe plus non-American) parents a lot by influencing their parenting.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC) altered a preposition 06:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose addition Historical detail while many general concepts are missing. --Thi (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Oppose the removal of under covered non-fiction/science works in comparison to lesser fiction/other art works; a; Benjamin Spock was removed from the 2k list as a result of this book being listed and we're already under coverage of people involved in medicine and believe it or not midwifery is a massive (and important) thing. If anything, The Canon of Medicine should be the swap, but a science work should be swapped with a science work when we cover so little. GuzzyG (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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 Symphony No. 8 (Mahler), add Symphony No. 2 (Mahler)

Honestly, I was surprised to see Mahler's 8th on here. While it is notable for having a 1000 people, it is not by any means considered Mahler's greatest work, his 2nd symphony is (and an argument could be made for his 9th). If you look up online each of the symphonies, his 2nd has 1 million more results and appears on many lists of "greatest symphonies." Simply put, Mahler is most critically acclaimed for his 2nd and 9th symphonies, but his 2nd is better known, played more often and more representative of him as a composer. (Since, unlike the 9th, it has voices – Mahler is well known for his vocal writing and integration of it into his symphonies)

Support

1. Support as nom - Aza24 (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
2. Support removal Not in the same level than Beethovens's ninth etc. --Thi (talk) 08:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
4. Support The article for the 2nd also has the most pageviews out of Mahler's symphonies.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 20:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
5. Support removal. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
6. Support removal - Interstellarity (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
7. Support as per Aza24. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:19, 31 May 2021 (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.

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 La mer (Debussy)

Trying to get some unimportant articles removed because we are way over 10,000. Interstellarity (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support [nom]
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Support removing at this level. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per above. Gizza (talk • voy) 08:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2021 (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.

Remove Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe

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

---

I don't think that this painting is necessary at this level. Many other paintings of similar importance can be found from Level 5.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
2. Support - Interstellarity (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Support, not so important a piece. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per nom Gizza (talk • voy) 23:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
5. Support czar 22:58, 1 August 2021 (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.

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 Witchcraft

We still need to cut a few more from this section, and this article seems redundant to Magic (supernatural) so we don't really need it at this level, especially since we also list Wicca.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Support, weakly. don’t need both Witchcraft and Wicca, not sure which is actually best to have. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Witches are common theme in art and popular culture and part of history. Witch hunts and Salem withch trials are part of popular Western history. Witchcraft is deeply rooted in many African countries. Not all anthropologists call African witchcraft with a name associated with European practices, but Christian beliefs have also affected traditional African beliefs about witches. [24] "'There is little doubt that in every inhabited continent of the world, the majority of recorded human societies have believed in, and feared, an ability by some individuals to cause misfortune and injury to others by non-physical and uncanny (magical) means,' writes the historian Ronald Hutton, who has studied attitudes toward witches in more than 300 communities, in places such as sub-Saharan Africa and Greenland. The belief in witchcraft is so widespread and so enduring that one historian speculates it's innate to being human." [25] Article about Wicca is useful in English Wikipedia. Wicca is the largest neopagan religious movement in United states. Not all Wiccas call themselves witches and all witches are not Wiccas. Many neopagans perform ritual magic, but modern witchcraft has drawn more women than men. The concepts of magic and witchcraft complement each other. Witchcraft is more general term as Wicca, and it is preferable for example in list of 5000 articles. --Thi (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Witchcraft is a topic of global significance. Dimadick (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
3. Witchcraft has been frequently used in texts, e.g. Harry Potter.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Remove Astrological sign

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

---

This article doesn't seem as important as something like Astrology. Interstellarity (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Interstellarity (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Covered by Astrology. --Thi (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support. Astrology is enough at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Weak support, just to move this along. Sufficient coverage (astrology) at VIT4 such that VIT5 is sufficient for the signs. czar 22:58, 1 August 2021 (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.

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 Pong, add Video game industry

Pong as milestone is less vital than History of video games same. However Video Games have way too short history to we need article like History of video games. Video game industry is article which we need in Every Day Life section and could be replaced with Pong. Personally would keep pong on the same level what Magnavox Odyssey.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal per my previous nom. --Thi (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
4. Weak support per my comments in the above nomination. J947 ^(c), at 23:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
5. Support both now, having revisited the issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
6. Support removal. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
7. Support removal removing Pong has come up enough that I've re-considered my previous support for it. It's purely of historic importance, and is better suited for the level-5 list. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition the video game industry is less vital than at least 10-20 other industries not listed here. Health care, hospitality, petroleum, fashion, film, music, food, etc. all should be in first. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Although I've only read the lead of pong, I clearly know that it's vital at this level, since it was the first commercially successful video game, and video game is included in WP:VA. And video game industry no doubt should not be added since the list is full, and there are some articles that are no doubt more vital than video game industry but not listed (e.g. food industry, music industry and floppy disk).--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC) altered a bit 16:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose addition per above. --Thi (talk) 10:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose, Pong is vital as a simple retro game. I'd prefer Entertainment industry over this specifi industry article.--Spaced about (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
5. Oppose Pong is vital, the other article isn't. (yet, give the industry time to settle in historically.). GuzzyG (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose addition the vital topic at this level is video games or possibly the history of video games, not the video game industry. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Pong has been proposed for removal twice, here and here. J947 ^(c), at 23:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I have given some thought to industry articles. I think we would benefit from discussion as to what industry articles to include in addition to their parent article. For example Music industry is only level 5, Film industry appears to not be listed in the project. Construction industry, tourism industry Transport industry and entertainment industry do not even exist as articles they are redirects. There must be many similar examples I'm not thinking of or mentioning as well. Aviation industry does not exist. Why video game industry before music or film industry? where is it appropriate to have industry article in addition to parent article? a lot of duplication could arise.... Going off topic, but similar issue was in my head as to when to include a people in addition to a country/region, and if to include specific mining article in addition to a resource, eg coal mining in addition to coal and mining.  Carlwev  15:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I support addition of vgi, but I am ambivalent on removal of pong. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:28, 10 December 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.

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 Pinball, add Pub

Pinball is covered by Arcade Game. Some games which we list in everyday life are historically popular ALSO thank to pubs.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Support--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Support removal. --Thi (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Support Pubs are old and popular thing. Oppose addition Bar is listed. --Thi (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Sorry, I think pinball is rather famous as a game type, together with arcade game. It is a bit redundant perhaps given ag is already here, but I'd rather remove something else. As for adding pub, I am ok with it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
3. We already have Bar, arcade games are an important part of video game history. Would not be opposed to swapping pub with bar though.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose addition. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Note: We already list Bar at this level, which has some overlap. - Sdkb (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Pub was proposed for removal twice, here and here. J947 ^(c), at 23:11, 17 August 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.

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 Yoga as exercise

Practised by tens of millions of people worldwide, and commonly known simply as "Yoga", it's a major form of exercise. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
2. Support - a popular physical activity all around the world. More well known than Basque pelota. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Since we already have Yoga and the exercise article is already level 5.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 06:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose, would easily add Pilates or Calisthenics before a second aspecy of Yoga. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

• Do we not already have the Yoga article here?  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's listed under the Religion section. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah I see thanks.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 06:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Add Tencent

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.

---

For residents in the Mainland China (probably in Greater China as well) this company is as vital as Alibaba, which is currently listed. Besides, it is the world's largest gaming company, one of the world's most valuable technology conglomerates, one of the world's largest social media companies, and one of the world's largest venture capital firms and investment corporations (taken from the lede).

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Both Tencent and Alibaba have about the same market value and cultural impact, so it doesn't make sense to list one but not the other. - Sdkb (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Not vital for the English Wikipedia at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Probably not vital for the English Wikipedia at this level. --Thi (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose. For what the above comparison's worth, Alibaba is way bigger than Tencent with a larger cultural impact. Level 5 is sufficient here. czar 22:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Other

1. Neutral; not much influence asserted in the article; I feel historical significance is needed for a company to be listed at VA4. Would just stand out among the companies listed, but it would be tough to not have this and have Alibaba Group. J947 ^(c), at 22:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Add Production (economics)

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

---

I believe that this is a huge omission and production actually belongs on a much higher level. It is what we do every day, a large part of the day. We work to produce something: a merchandise, a text, a service. We are in the process of producing something this very moment. Mankind has been engaged in production since its inception. Production is the kind of ubiquitous phenomenon that we are looking for for this list. Wether it be housework or crafts production, volunteer work or in an employment contract for subsistence - it's all production. Of interest also in politics. Lots of science available. --Spaced about (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Spaced about (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
2. Support per nom; very good find. Best to have the whole article title on the section header for clarity. J947 ^(c), at 22:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
3. Support Basic concept. It is in my printed encyclopedia. --Thi (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. We already list Productivity, which is how efficiently production occurs. I don't think we need to list both at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Rreagan007 and we're over quota. Gizza (talk • voy) 23:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
3. Oppose as redundant per Rreagan007. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Add library classification

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

---

Support

1. As nom. Since library is listed at level 3, it is natural to include it here, as the lv5 list contains some specific library classifications.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Librarians are diligent everywhere and classification systems will be used in all possible futures. --Thi (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
3. Support per above. --Spaced about (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Information science or Library science would be much better choices. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose in eye-to-eye agreement with Rreagan007. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Reagan007. Gizza (talk • voy) 05:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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 Rolling Stone

We have way too many articles at this level. We should try to remove less important articles to make room for more important articles. Interstellarity (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Interstellarity (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Not as influential as it was in 1970s. Only some magazines are needed at this level. --Thi (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Support-- Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
4. Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support not vital. Gizza (talk • voy) 08:20, 14 June 2021 (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.

Remove Reader's Digest

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

---

We have way too many articles at this level. We should try to remove less important articles to make room for more important articles. Interstellarity (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Interstellarity (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Support In my opinion it was good magazine until the 1990s when it lost its focus. --Thi (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support czar 22:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Although I'm not sure whether it is still the most widely read magazine on earth, it should still be kept due to its extremely high popularity.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

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.

Remove Television in the United States

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

---

We have way too many articles at this level. We should try to remove less important articles to make room for more important articles. Interstellarity (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Interstellarity (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Support the consensus. --Thi (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Reality television and other articles have been added. --Thi (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
4. Support. I believe this was swapped in to replace some American shows but looking back the article doesn't seem vital at this level. Much of it discusses the uptake of televisions and then cable TV, etc. by American people. Wasn't a suitable replacement. Genres or something else would have been better choices to replace the removed shows. Gizza (talk • voy) 07:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
5. Support czar 22:58, 1 August 2021 (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.

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 Astronomical object, add Gravitational acceleration

Astronomical object is just list. Gravitational acccleration is vital topic.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Support addition per nom. --Spaced about (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
3. Support addition per nom. --Thi (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
5. The addition.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal it's vital to know what floats around in space. --Spaced about (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal - It's an interesting if too-short article with a list attached. Needs work, but even so the overall topic is vital. Jusdafax (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Should I remove Astronomical object per WP:Bold as we do not list any list in that project? Dawid2009 (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Now I noted that while the article looks totlally like list, it is not list but article rated as article-class, not list class. Earlier I nominated it to level 3 and Cobblet suggested that can be not needed on the level 4 (here is excatly this discussion) Dawid2009 (talk) 17:36, 8 December 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.

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 Flood control in the Netherlands

We have way too many articles at this level. We should try to remove less important articles to make room for more important articles. Interstellarity (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Nom. Interstellarity (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Support while important for the people living in the Netherlands, this is not level-4 material in my opinion, especially since we leave out a good bit as is -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Support. Not vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - the Zuiderzee Works and Delta Works are vital land reclamation engineering works, both of which are covered in this article. More vital than the Burj Khalifa for example. See the archive for further discussion. Gizza (talk • voy) 08:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Delta and Zuiderzee Works were chosen for the list of Seven Wonders of the Modern World. IJsselmeer is currently not listed at this level. --Thi (talk) 09:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose for the same reasons as those above. Historic engineering achievements. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Dimadick (talk) 11:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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 Amateur radio

We have way too many articles at this level. We should try to remove less important articles to make room for more important articles. Interstellarity (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Nom. Interstellarity (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I think this is too important of a means of communication to not be included at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Dimadick (talk) 11:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

References

Cargo and Freight transport

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.

---

Even though the vote totals support it, I'm not sure how many of us want to see both of these listed, rather than just one or the other. Should we have a discussion about which, if either, to remove? Sdkb (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that would be good. J947 ^(c), at 05:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Feminist, DaGizza, Dimadick, Presidentman, Carlwev, Ios2019, RekishiEJ, Rreagan007, Fritzmann2002, and PointsofNoReturn: Dawid2009 (talk) 05:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I support both. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Both. feminist (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Presidentman and Feminist: In a FA state, what differences would you imagine there would be between the two? Since cargo is by definition freight being transported, it seems it'd be difficult to discuss it separately from freight transport. Sdkb (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd say Freight transport would be the process of transporting the goods, while Cargo would be the goods that are being transported. It can make sense to merge the two articles into one that broadly covers the topic, in which case we can of course only keep the surviving article. But until that occurs, the two articles can coexist. feminist (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I definitely don't think we need both. I would like to see Cargo removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

For reference, the view stats for the two seem to be pretty much on par. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Remove Boris Godunov

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

---

I can't see any actual influence here, seems like the typical fluff average major country leader - his influence is certainly not enough to be on a top 2000 list. Having a play/opera named after you isn't enough if we don't list Richard II of England, Henry IV of England, Henry VI of England and especially Richard III of England - all of whom are subject to much more important plays. Here's some other leaders of monarchies, probably more influential than Boris; Herod the Great, Songtsen Gampo, Leonidas I, Kʼinich Janaabʼ Pakal, Charles VIII of France, Louis XII of France, Louis XIII of France, James II of England, Michael the Brave, Ibrahim Pasha of Egypt, John VI of Portugal, Wilhelmina of the Netherlands, George I of Greece, George VI, Möngke Khan, Baldwin I of Jerusalem Emperor Taizu of Jin, Emperor Xuanzong of Tang, Emperor Yang of Sui, Zhu Wen, Šuppiluliuma I, Tomyris, An Dương Vương, Himiko, Burebista, Sonni Ali, Iltutmish, David IV of Georgia, Queen Seondeok of Silla, Sang Nila Utama, Tribhuwana Wijayatunggadewi, Jayavarman II, Shashanka, Murad I, Harald Hardrada, Coloman, King of Hungary, Lapu-Lapu, Setthathirath, Ali Mughayat Syah and Taksin. I have two rules now; important is not vital and if you can compare the person with many others than they're not vital enough - people on this list should be incomparable with more than 10-20 other people in the same field. They're not vital otherwise

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
3. Support He's not Gud-enuv for this list. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
4. Support - Interstellarity (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support per nom czar 22:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I can found him from several biographical dictionaries, unlike some other names from Eastern European history which are listed here. He was effective ruler. Colonization of Siberia begun. The establishment of serfdom had a profound effect on Russian society. --Thi (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose I agree with Thi that Boris more often appears in written sources than other Eastern European figures. Dimadick (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Add Marcus Garvey

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.

---

Because in Jamaica Garvey is widely considered a national hero, and his ideas caused a considerable influence on such movements as Rastafari, the Nation of Islam, and the Black Power Movement, he was no doubt vital at this level.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
2. Per nom, surprised he wasn't already on here.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
3. Support The eponymous founder of Garveyism. and an influential figure for black nationalism, Pan-Africanism, the Back-to-Africa movement, and black separatism. Dimadick (talk) 11:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
4. czar 07:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 05:21, 18 August 2021 (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.

Remove Cornwall

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.

---

Cornwall is quite small and has a pretty low population. Politically, it hasn't been too important to English or British politics. Removing it would also make geography in line with the target number.

Support

1. (nom)
2. Support since we already have Wales.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
4. Support -- if the people are important at this level add the people. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
5. Support per above czar 22:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Because the current G7 summit was host in Cornwall, and it has a distinctive culture, it is no doubt vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Cornwall is small, but it is the homeland of an ethnic minority (Cornish people). It has its own Celtic language (Cornish language), and its own nationalist movement (Cornish nationalism). I view it as quite significant to British history. Dimadick (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Swap: Remove Nashville, Tennessee, add Memphis, Tennessee

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.

---

Nashville is bigger (in the colloquial sense of "more populous", not with area) and the state capital, but I think Memphis is more culturally significant with the Sun Studio that gave us Elvis Presley and Beale Street. It is also slightly more geographically diverse as it is the biggest (again in that colloquial sense) city right on the Mississippi River and was bigger (ditto) than Nashville until the 2010s. The two Tennessee towns are a close call, and I understand if consensus is against this, but I wanted to explicitly propose just in case.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
2. Support addition --Thi (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose just because Nashville is synonymous with Operyland. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Nashville is relatively insignificant to American history. But it is significant to the music industry, as the de facto capital for the country music industry, and home to the Contemporary Christian music industry. Dimadick (talk) 10:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose swap Nashville has the greater cultural impact of the two, per above, but U.S. is already overrepresented in Level 4 so I'd even support Nashville's removal. czar 22:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Add Sholay

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.

---

So i understand we list The Apu Trilogy, but that's more of a artfilm, Sholay represents more of a mainstream side of the Indian film industry and is the quintessential example of mainstream Indian film and had major impact on the output of the industry, with this film inspiring more action based movies just like it. Mughal-e-Azam, Mother India, Awaara and Pyaasa are other contenders,

Here's what's written in it's legacy section

"Sholay has received many "Best Film" honours. It was declared the "Film of the Millennium" by BBC India in 1999.[14] It topped the British Film Institute's "Top 10 Indian Films" of all time poll of 2002,[118] and was voted the greatest Indian movie in a Sky Digital poll of one million British Indians in 2004.[119] It was also included in Time Magazine's "Best of Bollywood" list in 2010,[120] and in CNN-IBN's list of the "100 greatest Indian films of all time" in 2013.[121]

Sholay inspired many films and pastiches, and spawned a genre of films, the "Curry Western",[122] which is a play on the term Spaghetti Western. A more accurate label for the genre is the Dacoit Western, due to its roots in earlier Indian dacoit films such as Mother India (1957) and Gunga Jumna (1961).[16] It was also an early and most definitive masala film,[123][124] and a trend-setter for "multi-star" films.[125] The film was a watershed for Bollywood's scriptwriters, who were not paid well before Sholay; after the film's success, its writing duo Salim-Javed became stars in their own right and script writing became a more respected profession.[48] The BBC has described Sholay as the "Star Wars of Bollywood", comparing its impact on Bollywood to the impact that Star Wars (1977) later had on Hollywood, while comparing Gabbar Singh to Darth Vader.[126] "

and

"holay has been labelled by Chopra as the gold standard in Indian cinema, and a reference point for audiences and trade analysts. Over the years, the film has reached a mythic stature in popular culture,[111] and has been called the greatest Hindi film of all time.[148] It belongs to only a small collection of films, including Kismet (1943), Mother India (1957), Mughal-e-Azam (1960) and Hum Aapke Hain Koun..! (1994), which are repeatedly watched throughout India, and are viewed as definitive Hindi films with cultural significance.[149] The lasting effect of Sholay on Indian cinema was summarised by Anupama Chopra, when in 2004 she called it "no longer just a film, [but] an event".[150] In the 2000 book Sholay: The Making of a Classic, the noted director Shekhar Kapur stated "there has never been a more defining film on the Indian screen. Indian film history can be divided into Sholay BC and Sholay AD"

I think Indian cinema has been around for long enough and certainly big enough to have two representatives when we currently list 7 European films just in drama alone (and three musicals) and this would be the first to list.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
3. Support one archetype film from the world's biggest film industry is reasonable. The Apu Trilogy isn't technically Bollywood as per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
4. Support Betty Logan (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose It is (1) not important to an English-language encyclopedia and (2) does not appear to have had much of an influence outside of the country it was produced in --Zelkia1101 (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Accolades incomparable with peers at this tier. Level 5 is sufficient. czar 22:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

@Zelkia1101:, you know India is the second highest in English speakers right? [26], how is covering the biggest, most revolutionary film in the biggest industry non vital for any proper film encyclopedia to cover? I know you speak about your own experience in the US, but going by this list, the other western we cover Stagecoach (1939 film) in google trends [27] Stagecoach gets beat by the majority of the world in people's interest (and funnily enough EVEN in the US!!). Now how exactly do you measure influence? The vast majority of the world appears to have interest in this film to me! Why should we cover Stage Coach then? US bias? Why should we favour one of the two countries with over 100 million English speakers but not the other? Did Mirror (1975 film) have much public recognition in the US, or? GuzzyG (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Parapsychology, Add Satanism

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.

---

Trying to get some unimportant articles removed because we are way over 10,000. Interstellarity (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. [nom]
2. Support addition. I'm surprised Satanism isn't already listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Satanism has been quite influential in arts and popular culture. --Thi (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
4. Support addition as per those above. Ambivalent about removing parapsychology, though. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support addition, to move this along. Consider the removal separately, if at all. czar 23:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The removal.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Add Esports

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.

---

"By the late 2010s, it was estimated that the total audience of esports would grow to 454 million viewers, with revenue increasing to over US$1 billion.", probably the fastest growing sport worldwide, certainly of the 21st century, the 2018 League of Legends World Championship final was watched by 99.6 million people worldwide. Esports is also now a medal event at the 2022 Asian Games. It's alot more worldwide than semi niche sports like Bodybuilding and Muay Thai. I think we should list all major 21st century fields. This is also a parent topic article and one alot more important with more impact than Extreme sport, which we list. Also ESPN even includes a dedicated section for it on their site [28]

Support

1. Support As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
4. Support per nom.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Video game industry and Pong are both not at VIT4 but this would be? VIT5 is sufficient for Esports. czar 23:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Article Video game mentions it briefly as one aspect of video game industry. Perhaps Streaming media should be at this level. --Thi (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Even if these sports already were on Asian Games years ago then it still would be not sufficient to be considered important at this level, and I am not sure inclusion on World olympics would be sufficient. How this can be Compared with Muay Thai which is one of the oldest sports of all time, National in coupleCountries and already part of UNESCO? As for streaming media which This currently suggests Above, I am still not sure too. Quite big recentism. I would keep this in Society Section at the level 5 where we list thing with currently short/Generation ale Impact like MTV ot Netflix. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Add Music industry

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.

---

Another intresing article about industry. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Nom.
2. Major industries should be covered at VI4. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
3. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
4. Support - Article needs improvement but subject is vital. Jusdafax (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Vital to both culture and economy. Dimadick (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Not convinced that all major industries should sit at VIT4. Level 5 is sufficient. czar 22:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Add Foxconn

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.

---

Even though it doesn't have widespread name recognition in the U.S., it's a larger company than most of the companies currently at level 4. From its article intro: "it is the world's largest contract electronics manufacturer and the fourth-largest information technology company by revenue. ... one of the largest employers worldwide. ... Foxconn factories manufactured an estimated 40% of all consumer electronics sold worldwide."

Support

1. Support as nom. - Sdkb (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 05:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Per above. Biggest in industry should be enough. Viztor (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

   Support Foxconn is a massive semiconductor and has a large effect on the US economy, and other companies as well. Bob Roberts 01:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC) This user has been indefinitely blocked. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

4. Support. Largest in a major industry; outsized impact on global supply chain. czar 22:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose; not much influence is asserted in the article, not a lot of coverage of that at all; I feel historical significance is needed for a company to be listed at VA4, which this is lacking in. Would just stand out among the companies listed. J947 ^(c), at 22:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Not vital for the English Wikipedia at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

There is currently 116 Top-importance company articles. Foxconn is one of those, but I am not sure if it stands out. --Thi (talk) 20:10, 22 May 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.

Swap: Remove American bullfrog, Add Bald eagle

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

---

We currently only list Eagle and Golden eagle at this level. The bald eagle is a national symbol of the U.S. and is very recognized as a species across English-speaking North American. I think it is definitely a vital article for the English Wikipedia at this level. In contrast, we currently list the general article on frogs, along with 3 families of frogs (Hylidae, Leptodactylidae, and True frog) and 1 quasi-family (Toad). The American bullfrog is the only individual species of frog that we list, and I really don't see what's so special about this individual species that warrants listing at this level above all the other species of frogs.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Support addition per above. Gizza (talk • voy) 07:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal American bullfrog is notable for its human use and as significant invasive species. --Thi (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal per Thi. Gizza (talk • voy) 07:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal The bullfrog is an ever-expanding invasive species with a wide impact.
   • "The bullfrog is native to eastern North America. Its natural range extends from the Atlantic Coast, north to Newfoundland, to as far west as Oklahoma and Kansas. It is not found on offshore islands near Cape Cod and is largely absent from Florida, Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Minnesota. It has been introduced into Nantucket island, Arizona, Utah, other parts of Colorado and Nebraska, Nevada, California, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii. In these states, it is considered to be an invasive species and concern exists that it may outcompete native species of amphibians and upset the ecological balance. It is very common on the West Coast, especially in California, where it is believed to pose a threat to the California red-legged frog, and is considered to be a factor in the decline of that vulnerable species. "
   • "Other countries and regions into which the bullfrog has been introduced include the western provinces of Canada, Mexico, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France. It is also found in Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Venezuela, Colombia, China, South Korea and Japan. The reasons for introducing the bullfrog to these countries have included their intentional release, either to provide a source of food or as biological control agents, the escape of frogs from breeding establishments, and the escape or release of frogs kept as pets. Conservationists are concerned the bullfrog is relatively immune to the fungal infection chytridiomycosis and as it invades new territories, it may assist the spread of this lethal disease to more susceptible native species of frog." Dimadick (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose swap. U.S.-centric per prior bald eagle nom, which was sufficient rationale for me that neither belong at this level. czar 22:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Previous bald eagle nomination here. --Thi (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

References

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 First-order logic

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.

---

First-order logic or predicate logic is extension to propositional logic. It is top-importance article in philosophy and mathematics and also important to computer science.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
2. Support, if you've ever used quantifiers, then seen what people used to go through with syllogisms, you get it. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

   I'll be honest, I don't get it. But I'm not a mathematician. I was very close to closing this nom since it had been so long without any activity, but your vote has saved it. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

   I did see nobody had voted for a while, but since it wasn't closed yet, I figured maybe there was still some ambivalence. And yeah, I was joking a little, but for logic topics, I'd probably even rank this as more vital than Boolean algebra. That's listed under algebra here, which is fine since it straddles the two fields. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

3. Support -- essentially the most important order of logic. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Per Thi Dawid2009 (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. starship.paint (exalt) 11:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

I will just note that we are currently at quota in the Math section, so ideally we would find a less worthy article to remove if this one is added. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: remove Jeanne Moreau, add Catherine Deneuve

Catherine Deneuve is known as one of the best-respected actresses in the French film industry. [29]. She starred in many critically acclaimed films such as The Umbrellas of Cherbourg, Repulsion (Roman Polanski 1965), Belle de Jour (Luis Buñuel) and The Last Metro (François Truffaut). [30] She was also in New York Times’ list of 25 Greatest Actors of the 21st Century.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
2. Support removal Moreau is not necessary, but neither is Deneuve, especially given that she is still alive. Zelkia1101 (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition per above Zelkia1101 (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2021 (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.

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 Wim Wenders

This list has way too many articles. This article is not necessary to be in this list. Interstellarity (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. Support nom. Interstellarity (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
2. Support Fritz Lang, Leni Riefenstahl, Klaus Kinski, Marlene Dietrich, and Werner Herzog are already listed and German cinema is fine with five representatives. F. W. Murnau is infinitely more important to the development of world cinema and Rainer Werner Fassbinder is a equal. They're just as worthy but we can't have three more Germans, so none would be better. We don't have directors from the whole continent of Africa like Ousmane Sembène or Youssef Chahine or countries with over 100 mil population like the Philippines Lino Brocka or Brazil Glauber Rocha, if we had to cover a global art film scene these would all be better picks than another German, we have to put it in perspective here. GuzzyG (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per nom czar 23:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. starship.paint (exalt) 14:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Riefenstahl and Kinski can go first. --Thi (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Add Ousmane Sembène

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.

---

"one of the greatest authors of Africa and he has often been called the "father of African film"" from his article, the most influential and prominent African filmmaker and considering Nigerian film is the third largest in the world behind India and the US, we should have a representative.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Philburmc (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. starship.paint (exalt) 07:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
6. Support Dimadick (talk) 08:19, 24 August 2021 (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.

Remove Grigory Potemkin

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

---

Not particularly vital at this level, not incomparable figure among many historical leaders.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Not of vital importance to anyone but Catherine the Great, we list so many dynasty founders of other, more important regions to cover that we can lose this non-direct leader of Russia when we cover so many other Russian leaders. Martha Washington or Diana, Princess of Wales would even be better. We already list Marie Antoinette and Madame de Pompadour and that's enough for this area. GuzzyG (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support - Interstellarity (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per nom czar 23:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. starship.paint (exalt) 01:02, 22 August 2021 (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.

Remove Jehovah

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

---

We're still over quota in this section and we need to cut a few more articles. We currently list both Jehovah and Yahweh at this level, but "Jehovah" is just the Latinization of Yahweh. We don't need both listed at this level.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Support as in previous nomination. --Thi (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
3. Support as per nom. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per nom czar 23:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. starship.paint (exalt) 15:59, 21 August 2021 (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.

Remove Safe sex

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.

---

Too much overlap with other articles we list at this level like Condom and Sex education.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support as per Rreagan007. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Level 5 inclusion is perhaps sufficient. --Thi (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per nom czar 23:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. starship.paint (exalt) 00:24, 22 August 2021 (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.

Remove Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy

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

---

We have way too many articles at this level. We should try to remove less important articles to make room for more important articles. Interstellarity (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Nom. Interstellarity (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Support. This is a generalized class of infections, like Pathogenic bacteria or Viral disease, both of which are currently Level 5. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Support. Prion is listed at this level. --Thi (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per nom czar 23:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. starship.paint (exalt) 11:35, 21 August 2021 (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.

Remove Mechanical filter

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.

---

Too specific for this level. Interstellarity (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
3. Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per nom czar 23:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. starship.paint (exalt) 11:27, 21 August 2021 (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.

Remove Electric stove

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

---

We have way too many articles at this level. We should try to remove less important articles to make room for more important articles. Interstellarity (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Nom. Interstellarity (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Support. Not vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per above. --Thi (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per nom czar 23:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
5. Support per above. starship.paint (exalt) 11:27, 21 August 2021 (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.

Remove Howitzer

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

---

We have way too many articles at this level. We should try to remove less important articles to make room for more important articles. Interstellarity (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Nom. Interstellarity (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Support. We already have enough articles on artillery at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per above. --Thi (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
4. Support czar 22:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
5. Support per above. starship.paint (exalt) 11:27, 21 August 2021 (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.

Remove Watch

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

---

Not all languages have term for both wristwatch and pocket watch. For a swap I suggest to add x86 into Computer hardware.

Support

1. Support as nom --Tucvbif (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2021 (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.

Swap: remove John Singer Sargent, add Antoon van Dyck

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.

---

Van Dyck is clearly more famous painter, article about him is typical encyclopedic content. Sargent spent most of his life in Europe and other artists represent American art. Art critic Waldemar Januszczak says: "Sargent was the supreme underachiever... When he is not painting beautiful women in beautiful dresses, his art seems unsure what to do next." [31]

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

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.

Add Monroe Doctrine

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

---

Per discussion, this is a better choice than James Monroe. Interstellarity (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support The Doctrine has had more of a historical impact than Monroe himself. With this doctrine, the United States claimed the Americas as its sphere of influence. Dimadick (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Quite basic topic in political history. --Thi (talk) 07:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Yes.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 11:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
6. Support per above. Gizza (talk • voy) 03:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

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

Add The School of Athens

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.

---

Raphael is one of the most famous painters of all time. The figures in this iconic painting are often used for example in book covers or illustrate texts about philosophy, history, science or mathematics. [32] I think that it is vital to know.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
2. Support - Interstellarity (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2021 (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.

Remove Wicca

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.

---

Too many Religion and philosophy articles. Subset of Modern Paganism which is listed at Level 4. Doesn’t seem to have very many Wiccans.

Support

1. Per nom. starship.paint (exalt) 14:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Important form of neopaganism. --Thi (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Neopaganism is underrepresented. We need more articles on pagan topics and less on monotheism. Dimadick (talk) 08:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. Gizza (talk • voy) 23:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Add white people and black people

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

---

Support

1. As nom. We've heard these two terms all the time, yet neither of them is currently listed, which surprises me.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Rather important racial classifications. Dimadick (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Race (human categorization) (parent topic) at VIT4 is sufficient. czar 23:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Race and Racism are listed. --Thi (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. There isn't enough space to list every race and racial issue at this level. Gizza (talk • voy) 23:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

• But why not also Yellow people and Red people?--Tucvbif (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree. And why not Brown people and Olive people. Gizza (talk • voy) 23:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Add Interview

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.

---

For the record, Interview is listed as a level 5 vital article, it might be worth considering moving it up here, it is rather common type of data gathering and used outside just research, too. And if added it should be moved to 'General' level section too. (At V5 it is listed under journalism, but it is of course used in other spheres of life, such as science or law enforcement, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as the nominator. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support important form of communication in several areas, jobs, journalism, research. Move to general - communication section onn society tab. --Spaced about (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
3. Support Important research-related topic. --Thi (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. An interview is just a type of conversation, and we don't list conversation at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose per below discussion czar 23:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose. I would support adding conversation first, which is the parent topic. Gizza (talk • voy) 03:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Why is this better than meeting, conversation or dialogue?  Carlwev  21:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

It isn't. Especially conversation is absolutely vital at level 4, and the others sound good, too. These are basic forms of communication, and the lack of these articles is just one example of why I think social sciences lack coverage. --Spaced about (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Bias is not listed at level 4 as well, which is very absurd, despite the fact that the level 4 list has exceeded the 10,000 limit. Maybe replacing confirmation bias with bias is a good way to address this problem.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Remove Dynamic random-access memory

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.

---

Too specific for this level. Interstellarity (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per nom czar 23:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. starship.paint (exalt) 11:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. Gizza (talk • voy) 23:31, 20 September 2021 (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.

Add Louise Michel

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.

---

Emblematic historical figure of the Paris Commune and labor/anarchist movements, commonly invoked as the portrait of a social revolutionary.

Support

1. As nom czar 07:31, 14 August 2021 (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.

Re-add Lou Gehrig

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

---

Support

1. As nom. Since he was the first MLB player to have his uniform number (4) retired by a team, the article is no doubt vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose A relatively obscure American, not on the level of most international football players. Primarily remembered as the most famous patient to suffer from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, rather than anything related to his career. Dimadick (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
2. We already have the level-3.5 Babe Ruth and Jackie Robinson, and are over quota.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Remove Delian League

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

---

Per previous nomination: "The Delian League is already covered in three other articles in the level-4 list (Classical Athens, Greco-Persian Wars, Peloponnesian War)."

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support - 70 years isn't a very long time as far an ancient history goes. I would support adding the Bosporan Kingdom that lasted for 800 years as per the previous proposal archived and linked above. Gizza (talk • voy) 06:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The Delian League (478-404 BC) was an association of hundred of Greek city-states under Athens' leadership, and a major player in both the Wars of the Delian League (477–449 BC) against the Achaemenid Empire, and the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC) against the Peloponnesian League. Much of the history of the Eastern Mediterranean in the 5th century BC makes no sense without it. Dimadick (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Swap: Remove San Jose, California, add ???

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

---

This is probably at least a little hypocritical given my Brooklyn proposal above, which is why I'm only supporting this iff that proposal fails. San Jose is adequately covered on this list by both San Francisco and Silicon Valley. I don't know what, if anything, we can replace it with, but perhaps another Asian or African city is in order.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Even though I'm the nom, a closer should count this only iff the Brooklyn proposal fails.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
2. Support. U.S. is already overrepresented at this level and Level 5 is sufficient. By population (10th in nation), not a basis for inclusion. By culture, already covered more precisely by Silicon Valley. czar 22:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Too important as a business hub. Its article notes that "Thirty-five percent of all venture capital funds in the U.S. are invested in San Jose and Silicon Valley companies." It also has a much larger population than San Francisco. Dimadick (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Third-most populous city in California, state with largest economy in the United States. --Thi (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Add Lied

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

---

The most famous lied singer Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau is listed but not lied itself. Some of the most famous classical works are lieds, for example Schubert's Winterreise.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2021 (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 Chamber music

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.

---

Basic concept in classical music.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2021 (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 Fence

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.

---

Somehow not even on the level-5 list; seems to be an oversight. Pen (enclosure) is also not present, that might be too much overlap for this level. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
2. Support good catch. Gizza (talk • voy) 05:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. VIT5 would be sufficient. czar 23:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Remove Light-emitting diode

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.

---

Too specific for this level. Interstellarity (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. VIT5 is sufficient for this specificity. czar 23:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Important in lighting. --Thi (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Thi. Gizza (talk • voy) 08:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

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.

Add William Byrd

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

---

He was one of great masters of English Renaissance music. He is often listed among the most important and interesting composers in history, the fourth B before Bach, Beethoven and Brahms. "Byrd's musical stature can hardly be overrated." (Britannica) He composed for keyboards and both secular and sacred vocal music. With Thomas Tallis he is the father of English church music.

"Byrd was the leading English composer of his generation, and together with his continental colleagues Giovanni Palestrina (c.1525-1594) and Orlando de Lassus (1532-1594), one of the acknowledged great masters of the late Renaissance. Byrd is considered by many the greatest English composer of any age, and indeed his substantial volume of high quality compositions in every genre of the time makes it easy to consider him the greatest composer of the Renaissance – his versatility and genius outshining those of Palestrina and Lassus in a self-evident way. English music of the period was amazingly rich, dominating the music of the continent in depth and variety, in a way that was not seen before or since. Also, Byrd's pre-eminent position at the beginning of music publication in England allowed him to leave a substantial printed legacy at the inception of many important musical forms. It would be impossible to over-estimate his subsequent influence on the music of England, the Low Countries, and Germany." (Classical.net) [33]

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Byrd was one of the major figures of the English Virginalist School. As a music teacher, he cultivated important students, such as Peter Philips, Thomas Tomkins, and Thomas Weelkes. While Byrd's musical heirs died out by the 1650s, and his works were considered outdated during the Stuart Restoration, there has been a revival of interest in him since the 20th century. We list several recordings of his music in the 21st century. Dimadick (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2021 (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.

Swap Mahathir Mohamad for Tunku Abdul Rahman

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.

---

From Rahman's article " In 1963, he successfully incorporated the Federation of Malaya, British North Borneo (renamed Sabah), Sarawak, and Singapore into the state of Malaysia. However, tensions between the Malay and Chinese communities resulted in Singapore's expulsion in 1965" and "Tunku Abdul Rahman is widely regarded, even by his critics, as Malaysia's "founding father", the architect of Malayan independence and the formation of Malaysia. As such, he is often referred to as Bapa Kemerdekaan (Father of Independence) or Bapa Malaysia (Father of Malaysia)". He seems to have been head of Malaysia through all of it's most important moments and as a historical figure he is a better representative than a currently active politician. Mohamad may have did alot but Rahman is responsible for the foundation of his country. It'd be a improvement to this list.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
2. Support removal - Interstellarity (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2021 (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.

Remove George Curzon, 1st Marquess Curzon of Kedleston, add Charles Cornwallis, 1st Marquess Cornwallis

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.

---

Lord Curzon’s presence on this list has always been strange to me, given that he is not that important a figure in world history and is relatively unknown. I understand people want a representative of the British Raj, but I think I have a better one in mind—Charles Cornwallis. Lord Cornwallis is best known for being defeated by Washington and Rochambeau at the Battle of Yorktown, but his influence extends much farther than just the American Revolution. As Lord Leutienant of Ireland, Cornwallis helped orchestrate that country’s merger with the rest of Great Britain, an action what would exert enormous influence on 19th and 20th century history (Irish civil war, the Troubles, etc.). In India, where Cornwallis served as governor, he introduced a bevy of reforms, like the Cornwallis Code, and fortified British settlement in Bengal. His reforms in India paved the way for the establishment of the British Raj years later, and he is arguably the most important figure in the history of British India, mostly for cementing the Empire’s grasp on the continent. Many of Cornwallis’s reforms persisted right up to Indian independence, which should speak to his vitality. In addition, Cornwallis consistently ranks higher than Curzon in page views.

Support

1. Support as nom Zelkia1101 (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
2. Support removal per nom. --Thi (talk) 08:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Curzon was Viceroy of India, he served as an influential figure in the Great Game, he was responsible for the British expedition to Tibet (the only British invasion in Tibet), and presided over the controversial Partition of Bengal (1905). He was later one of the leading cabinet members during World War I, and his war aims included British control over Palestine and Syria. In 1923, Curzon was considered likely for appointment as Prime Minister, and his candidacy was defeated due to an argument that prime ministers should originate in the House of Commons. This set a precedent. Dimadick (talk) 11:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Swap: remove Totila, add Belisarius

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.

---

Britannica describes Belisarius: "Byzantine general, the leading military figure in the age of the Byzantine emperor Justinian I. As one of the last important figures in the Roman military tradition, he led imperial armies against the Sāsānian empire (Persia), the Vandal kingdom of North Africa, the Ostrogothic regime of Italy, and the barbarian tribes encroaching upon Constantinople (Istanbul)." He is more well known than his enemy Totila.

"For Liddell Hart, Belisarius was also the consummate practitioner of the so-called 'indirect approach' and the 'master of the art of converting his weakness into strength; and the opponent’s strength into a weakness.' T.E. Lawrence, an avid reader of the ancient military classics, considered 'the Thracian genius' to be one of 'three really first-class Roman generals in history' (the other two being Scipio Africanus and Julius Caesar) and encouraged his friend, Robert Graves, to write the novel Count Belisarius. This piece of historically informed fiction retraces Belisarius’s military campaigns and was much admired by Winston Churchill, who is said to have often turned to it for guidance during the fraught early years of World War II." [34]

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 08:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
2. Support Seems to be a much better nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
3. Support Per the main article: "He conquered the Vandal Kingdom of North Africa in the Vandalic War in nine months and conquered much of Italy during the Gothic War. He also defeated the Vandal armies in the battle of Ad Decimum and played an important role at Tricamarum, compelling the Vandal king, Gelimer, to surrender. During the Gothic War, he took Rome and then held out against great odds during the Siege of Rome." Due to Belisarius, we have the articles Byzantine Italy (c. 540-1071) and the Byzantine Papacy (537-752). Dimadick (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
4. Support removal, neutral on addition - Interstellarity (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. starship.paint (exalt) 05:38, 22 August 2021 (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 Richard Arkwright

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

---

"He is credited as the driving force behind the development of the spinning frame, known as the water frame after it was adapted to use water power; and he patented a rotary carding engine to convert raw cotton to "cotton lap" prior to spinning. He was the first to develop factories housing both mechanised carding and spinning operations"

"His organizational skills earned him the accolade "father of the modern industrial factory system"

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strongly oppose more biography fluff while the major invention spinning jenny isn't even listed at any level. The spinning jenny is one of the inventions credited with starting the industrial revolution. --12:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

   Clarifying that that comment was by Spaced about. —J947 ^(c), at 20:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

2. Oppose @GuzzyG, Dimadick, Thi, and RekishiEJ: I would support Another bio related with industrial Revolution if we include/swap James Watt to the level 3 to represent industrial revolution. He is one of 1-3 people mentioned at image in article human history. The Strongest player to be added onnthe level 3 in terms "ranking of the most influential people of all time" Dawid2009 (talk) 08:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

James Hargreaves invented the spinning jenny, Richard Arkwright patented the spinning frame and Samuel Crompton combined them as the spinning mule. --Thi (talk) 20:48, 19 December 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.

Add Stonewall riots

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.

---

Actually this event was the most important in history of LGBT.

Support

1. As nom. I'm surprised that it is not listed at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Highly influential event: "Within two years of the Stonewall riots there were gay rights groups in every major American city, as well as Canada, Australia and Western Europe. People who joined activist organizations after the riots had very little in common other than their same-sex attraction. Many who arrived at GLF or GAA meetings were taken aback by the number of gay people in one place." Dimadick (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per above czar 23:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Too specific, many similar historical topics are not listed at this level. --Thi (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Not comparable to the other historical events we have on this list, like the Yalta Conference or the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, which are far more notable and influence. Level 5 is sufficient for this article. Zelkia1101 (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Add L'Orfeo

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

---

The bias for modern Operas/non-baroque is pretty clear and L'Orfeo's addition is desperately needed as it sums up a lot of Pre-Mozart Opera. L'Orfeo is the oldest Opera still in modern day repertoire (and the 3rd oldest opera – the first two being by Peri and are barely performed) and the most important work of Claudio Monteverdi, who is arguably the most important composers before Bach.

Support

1. Support as nom - Aza24 (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Other listed operas are known by general public and they are often referenced in culture. Orpheus should be listed at this level. --Thi (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Add Galant music

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.

---

Galant style in music can be compared with Rococo style in art, both styles followed the Baroque era. Many important composers are from this era: François Couperin, Georg Philipp Telemann, Jean-Philippe Rameau, Domenico Scarlatti, Giovanni Battista Pergolesi and Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Both Galant and Rococo were reactions against Baroque's complexity, "characteristics that were valued in both genres were freshness, accessibility and charm." Dimadick (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2021 (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.

Remove Brandenburg Concertos

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

---

The list contains two other works by Johann Sebastian Bach.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza (talk • voy) 23:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
3. Support - Interstellarity (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Some of the greatest works by "one of the greatest composers of all time" to quote our own article on J.S. Bach. The Brandenburg Concertos proposed for removal are mentioned prominently in the second sentence in the lede of that same article. This nomination flies in the face of that, and I strongly oppose. Jusdafax (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Add Girl with a Pearl Earring

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.

---

With the removal of any of the paintings above, that leaves some room for what is undoubtably in the top 5 most recognizable pieces of western art. (The other 4 which are likely ones already in the list) Especially since Vermeer's The Art of Painting will likely be removed, this painting, along with The Night Watch, represents the Dutch golden age well.

Support

1. Support as nom Aza24 (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:05, 4 June 2020 (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.

Remove Unitarianism

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.

---

Too many Philosophy and religion articles. Seems like a relatively minor branch of Christianity compared to the others. Also a subset of Nontrinitarianism which is listed at Level 4.

Support

1. per nom. starship.paint (exalt) 15:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Important to know. --Thi (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Remove The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radio series)

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

---

We have way too many articles at this level. We should try to remove less important articles to make room for more important articles. Interstellarity (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Interstellarity (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Support-- Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Impact incomparable with peer articles at this tier. Level 5 is sufficient. czar 22:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Radio drama and comic fiction should have a representation. --Thi (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Influential science fiction work, and I think that science fiction is underrepresented in the vital articles. Dimadick (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Add mountain pass

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.

---

Rated top-importance by WikiProject, extremely important for human navigation

Support

1. Support as nom. 155.98.131.6 (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
2. Support We need more topics about mountains as they are important in topography, geomorphology and for tourists. Mountain peak is another example of object which is important in topography and get top-importance rating by WikiProject. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Dimadick (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. This just doesn't rise to the level of importance to make it at level 4. As I say below, it's less important than Mesa, and I'd be inclined to remove Mesa at this level also. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Rreagan czar 22:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

• Comment my first thought on seeing this was "no way", but on looking at the other articles in this area, it might not actually be all that out of place. Perhaps it's a fine addition, or perhaps the section is bloated. I'll leave that to others to decide. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Taking a look at this section, I'd be more inclined to remove Mesa. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Add Chrome OS

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

---

We cover the major mobile operating systems and cover the desktop operating systems: Windows, macOs, and Linux, however we are missing Chrome OS which is the only major desktop operating system that is not covered at Level. Interstellarity (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Not vital at this level. I'd consider adding the Chrome browser here, based on its impact, but since Web browser itself is VIT4... I'd sooner not bother. czar 23:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Add Gun

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.

---

Absolute must for this level. Interstellarity (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
2. I didn't know that it's not included, which is no doubt a mistake.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
3. Support and would support swapping out others to a lower level, per below. czar 23:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. We're already too heavy in this area and there is just too much overlap with other articles we list at this level, such as small-caliber guns (firearm, rifle, assault rifle, handgun, machine gun, musket, shotgun) and large-caliber guns (cannon, mortar, artillery, and howitzer). If it's so important to list the general article on guns at this level, then one of the other more specific gun articles should be removed. Assault rifle is redundant with the general article on rifles. We could probably do without it at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Swap Ivan Cankar for Ivo Andrić

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

---

The more prominent writer from this area.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal Better at Level 5. --Thi (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
3. Support removal - Interstellarity (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Hyperbolick (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Zelkia1101 (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2021 (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.

Remove East European Plain

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.

---

Too many Geography articles. If this topic is so significant, why is so little written about it? It will be fine at Level 5 European Land Relief.

Support

1. as nom. starship.paint (exalt) 15:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Per nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose That Wikipedia has substandard coverage of the geography of Europe is not a reason to remove the article. Dimadick (talk) 08:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose article quality has no bearing on whether the topic is vital or not. There are many vital stubs while there are many non-vital featured articles. Eastern Europe is a poorly covered region in the English Wikipedia generally so the fact that little is written about it is unsurprising. And I disagree about the coverage of geography. Physical geography in particular with 380 articles is underrepresented considering it is covered exhaustively in traditional encyclopedias. Gizza (talk • voy) 03:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Add Chili sauce and paste

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.

---

Read the article and also look at Template:Hot sauces. This condiment has many varieties, and is being used in most of the continents.

Support

1. Support as nom. starship.paint (exalt) 14:03, 6 September 2021 (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 Body image disturbance

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

---

Srobodao84talk 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

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 Ruth Benedict

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.

---

Because she wrote Patterns of Culture, a vital work of cultural anthropology, and later The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, a book that influenced post-war nihonjinron (日本人論) in Japan substantially, and was the first woman to be recognized as a prominent leader of a learned profession, she is no doubt vital at this level.

Support

1. As nom, though she is not included The Atlantic's list of 100 most influential Americans, this is not a valid argument for opposition since Toni Morrison is also not listed there, yet included in the lv4 VA list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Highly influential in her field. One of the pioneers for psychological anthropology. Dimadick (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose In my opinion History of anthropology would be the best addition. --Thi (talk) 06:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Benedict is a very important figure in anthropology and cultural studies, particularly or the reasons you mentioned. However, I don't think it's appropriate to add her in without a swap. Looking at the rest of the social scientists field, I think Edward Said, Talcott Parsons, Noam Chomsky, and Marcel Mauss are the weakest, so I would be up for swapping any of them for Benedict. I also think we have a good deal of anthropologists on this list, so it would be nice to see more economists, which are in my opinion underrepresented. Henry George and Alfred Marshall are conspicuous absences, in my opinion. Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

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