Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 74

Archive 70

←

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

→

Archive 78

Add Silvio Berlusconi

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.

---

Important figure in Italian history. Recently died. Interstellarity (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose: Maybe a level 5 figure - did nothing for Italy aside from let it stagnant. Best remembered for bonga bonga parties. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Iskandar323. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 21:48, 24 August 2023 (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.

Remove The Birth of a Nation

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

---

As a melodrama, it is not without merits, but it isnt among the greatest films of all time, unlike nearly all other inclusions at this level. It's racism and historical inaccuracies are just embarrasing to watch. If you haven't watched it, you don't miss out on much. It is not in the critics' lists any more and its current rating 6,2/10 in IMDb is modest. If another historical film is needed, Apocalypse Now would be good choice.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose This is a laughable nomination. It's difficult to think of another film that is more "vital" to the topic of film. TBOAN altered the whole landscape of film-making, and it is undoubtedly one of the most important films ever made. It introduced techniques that are still used to this day, and it is still controversial to this day. It also had socio-political ramifications too, leading to the creation of KKK chapters and swelling the national membership to 4 million. "Greatness" is subjective: it may not be a critical darling, but it was enormously popular at the time, and in fact was the highest-grossing film ever until Gone with the Wind came along (holding the record for 25 years). Its impact was profound and industry defining—no other film has come close to the impact TBOAN achieved. I can't believe I am having to defend its place on this list; I know many people have a problem with this movie, and I appreciate why that is the case, but if we are honest and objective about this it clearly belongs here. Betty Logan (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose: It was THE first blockbuster. It has cinematographical significance. Is it racist? Yes. (It helped revive the KKK, for crying in the beer!) Is it more culturally significant than Apocalypse Now? Definitely. pbp 13:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. A topic being racist or bigoted in some other way doesn't make it less vital. Gizza (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2023 (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 Trinity (nuclear test)

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 first detonation of an atomic bomb in world history, the then-culmination of the efforts of the Manhattan Project, probably deserves a spot next to Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Manhattan Project covers it pretty well. I would support VIT5, though. 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

   Festucalex it does seem pretty odd to me that there are five, rather than one, pages for proposing additions... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

   @Theleekycauldron: There are 5 levels of vitality, that's why. In practice, only VIT4 and VIT5 regularly get proposals, as VIT{1..3} are pretty much set and dried at this point. Did you intend for this to be proposed in VIT5? 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

   No, but – you could just have one talk page, where you propose an article, and then consensus decides which level it should go to? More centralized, less repetitive. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

   @Theleekycauldron: That would be confusing, to be quite honest. When I propose an addition, I usually know which level I'm referring to, and there's no need to add that dimension to every. single. discussion. We already get some near-WP:TRAINWRECKs in here, more clutter is not needed. Imagine having to manage ITN in the same queues as DYK, the sheer chaos that would cause. 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

   I'll take your word for it :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

2. Oppose Covered by the Manhattan Project. --Thi (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Festucalex. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 21:48, 24 August 2023 (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 Second Vatican Council

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.

---

Epoch-defining moment in the world's largest faith.

Support

1. Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 08:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Pope John XXXIII is listed. History of the Catholic Church would be more vital topic. --Thi (talk) 09:52, 19 May 2023 (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 Filename extension

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

---

As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as proposer: Dawid2009 (talk · contribs) 12:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added here by Festucalex)

Oppose

1. Belongs where it is now, in VIT5. 〜 Festucalex • talk 12:07, 25 May 2023 (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 Donald Trump

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.

---

Trump's legacy is likely unsettled considering that he has been in the news recently over his indictments and 2024 presidential campaign. I would recommend removing this for now and reconsider within 5 years time. Interstellarity (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Love him or loathe him, he is absolutely integral to the topic of American politics: his shocking, meteoric rise, the only president to be impeached twice, the sustained assault on American democracy and subsequent insurrection. His political legacy will continue for years to come through his SCOTUS appointments, which have have already been felt in the repeal of Roe v. Wade. I don't see his importance to the topic subsiding, considering the next act could see him back in the White House or in prison, or both... Betty Logan (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose: While the nominator is correct that his legacy IS in flux, he HAS been VERY influential in American political discourse for the better part of a decade pbp 12:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose. He is already the most infamous U.S. president of all time. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

1. Donald Trump has been discussed in N April 2017, N May 2017, N July 2019, and Y June 2021. I'll hold now for more discussion and make up my mind later. Reading the archives, both sides have a point. Very fine arguments on both sides. 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:28, 27 June 2023 (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 Triumph of the Will, add Man with a Movie Camera

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.

---

Leni Riefenstahl is already listed at this level. Triumph of the Will is just a boring piece of propaganda. Soviet cinema produced socialist realism and few masterpieces, but Dziga Vertov's Man with a Movie Camera is highly respected documentary. It is named the best documentary of all time in British Film Institute's Sight & Sound magazine. In the 2022 Sight & Sound poll, film critics all over the world voted it the 9th greatest film ever made. It is the third best film in the history of Ukrainian cinema according to the national film centre.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I think dismissing Triumph of the Will as "boring propaganda" is deliberately down-playing its historical significance. Hitler was the first politician to truly recognize and embrace the medium of film, and Triumph's influence permeates through polemical film-making to this day, and can even be felt in other aspects of politics such as Trump rallies. I wouldn't be surprised if it is the most referenced film of all-time—pretty much every documentary ever made about the Nazis features footage from this film. I think there is a good argument for adding Man with a Movie Camera, but a good reason has not been presented for removing Triumph of the Will. Betty Logan (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose. It is of more historical significance. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:44, 31 August 2023 (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 Jason

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.

---

"Jason as an ancient Greek mythological hero and leader of the Argonauts, whose quest for the Golden Fleece featured in Greek literature. Jason appeared in various literary works in the classical world of Greece and Rome, including the epic poem Argonautica and the tragedy Medea." The story of Jason and the Argonauts and the quest for Golden Fleece is one of the best-known tales of Greek mythology. It gives background for the story of Medea which is listed at this level.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose—less significant than the others. We can't add every single Greek hero here. 〜 Festucalex • talk 16:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Festucalex. Gizza (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Festucalex. The Blue Rider ✉ 10:30, 31 August 2023 (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 Opera house, add History of opera

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.

---

Opera house is just one of many opera terms. History of opera informs for example about many important opera composers which are not listed at this level: Lully, Scarlatti, Gluck, etc.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
2. Support—makes a lot of sense. 〜 Festucalex • talk 16:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. The Blue Rider ✉ 10:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC) 21:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
5. Interstellarity (talk) 11:52, 31 August 2023 (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 Physiology

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.

---

Important topic in biology and medicine. Already part of a heading under Biology and health sciences but the article itself isn't listed. WikiProject Physiology has nearly 4000 articles. The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine exists. Honestly I think there's a case this should be Level 3, but let's start here.

Support

1. Support as nom. the wub "?!" 01:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
3. 〜 Festucalex • talk 08:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
4. Support fairly big omission. Gizza (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Lorax (talk) 04:13, 9 August 2023 (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 Symon Petliura

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.

---

A controversial figure associated with antisemitic violence, not well known outside Ukraine.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
2. Support Swap with Stepan Bandera. 〜 Festucalex • talk 22:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
3. Support as nom. Who? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. The Blue Rider ✉ 10:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC) 21:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
5. Interstellarity (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
6. Support. Being a controversial figure associated with antisemitic violence isn't disqualifying. Hitler is listed at Level 3 after all. But not being well known outside of Ukraine is a problem. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2023 (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 Nestor Makhno

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.

---

Ukrainian anarchist revolutionary, relatively obscure figure.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 22:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
3. Support as nom. Who? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. The Blue Rider ✉ 10:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC) 21:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2023 (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 Michel Platini

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.

---

French soccer players are represented by Zidane. Platini was unlucky to play at the same time as Maradona. He is not much remembered today except as a corrupt official.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 22:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
3. Support as nom. Temporarily in the lime light. Will be obscure in no time. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. The Blue Rider ✉ 10:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2023 (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 Nothing

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 Level 5 suits better for this.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
2. What's the proposal? XD 〜 Festucalex • talk 22:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
3. Support: Agree. Pretty low level as a philosophical topic. Not much ado about nothing. :) Iskandar323 (talk) 09:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
5. Interstellarity (talk) 11:50, 31 August 2023 (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 Teetotalism

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.

---

Many people are teatotalers. The temperance movement has been a significant phenomenon in history. [1]

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC) --Thi (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Would support Temperance movement. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
2. Doesn't merit L4. Aszx5000 (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2023 (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 German reunification, add Russian invasion of Ukraine

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.

---

German reunification is covered by other articles at this level such as History of Germany. The ongoing war in Ukraine has already had far-reaching consequences in world politics.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose the removal. The German reunification was an important event in contemporary history. It had a massive snowball effect, the reunification lifted the Iron Curtain which commenced the fall of communism, which then led to the end of the Cold War. This started the era of US hegemony, which persitst to this day and so on... The Blue Rider ✉ 10:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC) 21:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose for now. We need to wait and see what the ramifications of the war are before we can determine its historical significance. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:46, 31 August 2023 (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 of Japan

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.

---

Music of China already offers an overview of musical traditions of China at this level. Japan is second-largest music market in the world. Japanese orchestral music (Toru Takemitsu), film music (Joe Hisaishi), electronic music (Ryuichi Sakamoto), new age music (Kitaro), Japanese hip hop and especially J-pop are well known.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Japan being the second-largest music market is of little value since most of the music is locally produced. Furthermore, it neither has the online presence of Bollywood nor the global reach of Hollywood's music to make it this vital. I also doubt that the above mentioned artists are well-known outside their circles; I personally didn't recognize any. J-pop isn't nearly as famous as its Korean counter-part (listed as VT5) and Japanese hip hop is almost unheard of, internationally. The Blue Rider 01:00, 3 September 2023 (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 The Leopard

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

---

"It became the top-selling novel in Italian history and is considered one of the most important novels in modern Italian literature. In 1959, it won Italy's highest award for fiction, the Strega Prize. In 2012, The Observer named it as one of "the 10 best historical novels". The novel was also made into an award-winning 1963 film of the same name, directed by Luchino Visconti and starring Burt Lancaster, Claudia Cardinale and Alain Delon."

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2023 (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 The Crucible, add Long Day's Journey into Night

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.

---

Arthur Miller is already listed at this level, but Eugene O'Neill is not. "The tragedy Long Day's Journey into Night is often included on lists of the finest U.S. plays in the 20th century, alongside Tennessee Williams's A Streetcar Named Desire and Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman." "It is widely regarded as his magnum opus and one of the great American plays of the 20th century. "

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2023 (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 The Good Soldier Schweik

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 comic and satirical masterpieces of 20th century literature", translated into 58 languages, often described as the best Eastern European novel, second-best novel of all time after Don Quijote or the best novel of 20th century (Bertolt Brecht). [2] [3]

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2023 (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 Primo Levi

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.

---

Primo Levi's classic memoir If this is a Man (Survival in Auschwitz) is one of the most well-known books about the Holocaust. The Royal Institution named his book The Periodic Table the best science book ever written. His works are listed in Harold Bloom's Western Canon and other lists of greatest books of all time.

"No other work interrogates our recent moral history so incisively and it remains one of the essential books of our age" (The Guardian) [4] "Primo Levi is among the most read and most resonant witnesses to the greatest human disaster of a disastrous age. He created more powerful images, more mind-sustaining turns of phrase through which to think about these matters than any other writer. - - It is no more possible to think seriously about the ‘great insanity’ without Levi than to think deeply about 19th-century London without Dickens or 19th-century Paris without Balzac or Baudelaire." (London Review of Books) [5]

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2023 (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 Music of Latin America

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.

---

Salsa is listed, but it is only one of many styles of Latin music. Music in Spanish is currently the second most popular in the world. [6]

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose—belongs where it is, next to Music of Africa. 〜 Festucalex • talk 16:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
2. Latin America music is too much of a recent phenomena to be considered that vital. The Blue Rider ✉ 10:30, 31 August 2023 (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 Snare drum and Timpani

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 snare drum is one of the most important parts of a drum kit. Timpani is the most important drum in Western art music.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 〜 Festucalex • talk 16:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose. We already have drum listed, having an article about a part of the drum would be too specific for VT4. The Blue Rider ✉ 10:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC) 21:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)f

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 Jun'ichirō Tanizaki

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

---

As vital author as Yasunari Kawabata or Yukio Mishima. His essay In Praise of Shadows is a classic book on Japanese aesthetics. [7]

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

1. I know nothing about this entry, but Japanese aesthetics seems kind of a niche topic. The Blue Rider ✉ 10:30, 31 August 2023 (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 Freedom of thought

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.

---

Freedom of thought is an absolute right that is contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. "The freedom of thought is considered to be the foundation for human dignity and agency, and a cornerstone for all human rights." [8]

Important concept in democracy, especially in the age of digital mass surveillance. [9]

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC) --Thi (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
3. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:38, 14 September 2023 (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 Encyclopédie

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 most important publications of the Enlightenment. It influenced the French Revolution. As a precursor to Wikipedia, it was "the first methodical endeavor to determine and present the entire scope of human knowledge." [10]

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC) --Thi (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
2. Strong Support 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
3. Ilya O. Sarvar (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
4. Per nom. The Blue Rider 15:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Interstellarity (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

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 Henry Kissinger

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 most influential (and notorious) people of the 20th century. He had a hand in many historical events around the world.

Support

1. Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 05:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
3. --NSNW (talk) 02:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Do we need both Nixon and Kissinger? We have a lot of Americans already. Is he more notable than the majority of American presidents, including the current one, who served 36 years in the Senate but is trending oppose above? Is he one of the 7-8 most notable American politicians who WEREN'T president? We don't even have John Quincy Adams at this level, why Kissinger? pbp 20:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Not vital at this level. More presidents not listed are more vital than he is. Rreagan007 (talk)
3. Oppose, per pbp's comments. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

Are we saying the 1960s and early 1970s are the most important part of American history? If this passes and Kissinger is the 28th American politician on this list, four or five of them will be from about a 15-year period: JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Kissinger, and the tail end of J. Edgar Hoover.

By contrast...

• we only have four American politicians in the 48 years since the fall of Saigon (Reagan, Bush, Obama and Trump).
• We only have six and a half from the first 60 years of the 20th century (Teddy, Wilson, FDR, Eleanor, Truman, Eisenhower, and the earlier part of J. Edgar Hoover)
• We only have two from 1861 to 1900 (Lincoln and Sitting Bull).
• And we only have seven from 1815 to 1900 (those two, plus Marshall, Clay, Calhoun, Jackson and Polk)

What does Kissinger add that isn't already represented by Dick Nixon? Why is a 15-year period THAT significant? pbp 15:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I can perhaps offer a bit of insight, as I'm not sure you're an American. I'm also not sure how much you know about the man himself. Kissinger represents more than just Nixon. He represents much of the controversy surrounding American interventionism in the late 60's and early 70's. Much of his legacy is about the lengths the United States would go to achieve the end goal: eradicating communism across the world. Great lengths, in fact. To answer your other point, the 15-year period in question was, till recently, the most socially and culturally turbulent time in America since the Civil War, some of it as a result of Kissinger. Lastly, to your point about being too many Americans, Kissinger in some ways is representative of the recent diplomatic and war history of not just America but also Vietnam and other Indochina nations, Chile, Argentina, and others. ~~~~ NSNW (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@NSNW: FWIW, I am an American and I have a degree in American history. Although, to be fair, my historical interests are other periods than 1960s and 70s foreign affairs. pbp 17:00, 12 June 2023 (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 historical method, primary source, secondary source, tertiary source, and historical figure.

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

---

It's a bit strange not already seeing some of these pages on the list of level 4 vital articles let alone, months ago, level 5 since these concepts are inseparable from history itself, especially the first three. I could see some debate on tertiary source as a level 4 vital article and historical figure being more subjective even though arguably the concept has always been prevalent throughout history, but historians have always relied on research and interpretation using the historical method plus discerning the (obvious) differences between primary and secondary sources to document historical events, people, legacies, etc. Wikipedia itself identifies the importance of assessing primary and secondary sources, acknowledging that neither are inherently "good" or "bad" but that they must be carefully used. PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator. PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
2. Support historical method, primary source, and secondary source. 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Historical method. It covers everything else. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Historical method. Source criticism is important topic. --Thi (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Historical method. Interstellarity (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose primary source, secondary source, tertiary source, and historical figure. They are all covered by the Historical method article. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Rreagan007. --Thi (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2023 (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 Vince Lombardi

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 added as an example of football coach before Level 5 was created. I guess you don't need to know Lombardi, unless you are really into American football.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
2. Support -- Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. The Blue Rider ✉ 10:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC) 21:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Cobblet (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Support per nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:32, 14 September 2023 (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 The Marriage of Figaro

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 perfect opera. The second-most perfect work of art in existence." "Short of certain Shakespeare plays, there is not a single more perfect work for the theater in existence than The Marriage of Figaro." "Funny, sad, profound, lowbrow, complex and simple all at once. Pure pleasure in music." Etc. [11]

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
2. Strongest possible support—one of the single most vital and culture-defining pieces of music in Western history. 〜 Festucalex • talk 16:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
3. Support as nom. Should be up there with the Magic Flute. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support. While I agree wholeheartedly with Cobblet that it is a problem that there aren't any musical works from outside the Western tradition, that can be solved by proposing such works for addition. The category is still under-quota, after all. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose Listing a third Mozart opera (and we also list one of his symphonies) when there is not a single musical work listed that comes from outside the Western tradition is absurd. Cobblet (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2023 (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 Taiko

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.

---

Lots of western drums are listed on this level 4 list along with Djembe from Africa.

Taiko is actually a broad category of all types of drums from Japan (referred to as Wadaiko). This incorporates over a dozen of very different styles of drum which all could have their own dedicated pages over time.

Taiko is already a level 5 article, however considering it a broader category which refers to multiple types of drums I think it should be moved to level 4. Someguyfromboston (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose. No western drums are listed, only the generic category, drum, is. You often associate drums with the culture of Africa, the djembe being the most prominent one. That most certainty doesn't happen with Japan; the taiko drum is rather obscure.

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

Add History of theatre

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.

---

Important topic with many interesting subtopics.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 16:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. The Blue Rider ✉ 10:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:36, 14 September 2023 (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 Principle, add Rationality

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.

---

Principle is actually an extended disambiguation page. It lists several scientific laws, logical laws and ethical principles, which have little in common. Rationality is important concept in philosophy and social sciences. It makes more sense to include Rationality than Principle. Especially instrumental and value rationality are vital concepts in ethics.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC) --Thi (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
3. Support removal. It's not vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Interstellarity (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support removal Cobblet (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition Why do we need separate articles on reason and rationality? Cobblet (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose addition. I agree with Cobblet. We don't need both reason and rationality listed at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2023 (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 Heart transplantation

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 heart transplantation was important milestone in the history of medicine.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC) --Thi (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose. We already have Organ transplantation at this level. While undoubtedly an impressive medical achievement, heart transplants only make up a small fraction of transplants, with more than ten times as many kidney transplants for example. the wub "?!" 16:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose per the wub. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose I agree with the wub. We don't need both at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2023 (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 Spirit

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.

---

Other concepts cover Spirit at this level: Soul, Supernatural, Cartesian dualism, Animism and Brahman.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC) --Thi (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
3. Ilya O. Sarvar (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
4. Aszx5000 (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
5. Interstellarity (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. A frequently used concept guarantees its vitality at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose Dawid2009 (talk) 04:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

Currently, the template suggests the article be merged into Soul. --Thi (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2023 (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 The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to 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.

---

Not as vital at this level as The Origin of Species. We can swap it with Science communication and Encyclopédie.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC) --Thi (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
3. the wub "?!" 23:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Ilya O. Sarvar (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2023 (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 John Quincy Adams

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.

---

When I look at some of the American politicians we have on this list, and the two we're considering above (Kissinger and Biden), I think we HAVE to at least have JQA in the conversation. Like Kissinger, JQA was Secretary of State...he happened to be Secretary of State when the Monroe Doctrine was being devised. JQA was also President, albeit not a great one; Kissinger never was. Later in life, JQA was an influential spokesperson for abolitions. A few years ago, he was ranked by the Atlantic Monthly as one of the 60 most influential Americans of all time, higher than Nixon, Kissinger, JFK, Bush and several others on this list.

Support

1. pbp 15:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. We already have 13 US presidents plus some other american politicians listed, the 6th president should be at most a VT5. The Blue Rider ✉ 10:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC) 21:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I just don't see what's so vital about JQA as to include him. It doesn't help that the nomination seems to have been made as a counter-reaction to Kissinger's nomination, rather than based on its own merits. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose because of lack of consensus. Calhoun and Jackson from the same era are listed. --Thi (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2023 (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.

Remove Chaturanga

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.

---

While it's interesting as a supposed precursor to chess, xiangqi and shogi, it isn't vital to an understanding of any of them, and doesn't seem vital as a topic in itself.

Support

1. As nominator. the wub "?!" 23:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 06:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Interstellarity (talk) 11:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
6. Support per nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose historic games and activities are vital. An encyclopedia is expected to cover all fields of knowledge across all of human history. Removing anything outside of modern times just reinforces recentist bias. I would add Senet back as well. Gizza (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose Dawid2009 (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2023 (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.

Swap: remove Uncle Tom's Cabin, add Vanity Fair (novel)

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

---

"In the 20th century, a number of writers attacked Uncle Tom's Cabin not only for the stereotypes the novel had created about African-Americans but also because of "the utter disdain of the Tom character by the black community"" [12] We didnt't list Pocahontas at this level ("Pocahontas's fame is entirely a result of western romanticizing. Adding her won't do much to help improve the representation of Native American culture, since what she represents isn't Native American culture but rather Western stereotypes about Native American culture." (Sdkb) William Makepeace Thackeray and his novel Vanity Fair is easy to spot from the encyclopedias and the lists of all-time greatest books.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
2. Support --Tabu Makiadi (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The book helped start the American Civil War. Nuff said. Contemporary acclaim isn't necessarily the best measure of influence or vitality. pbp 13:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
2. Strongest possible oppose: Uncle Tom's Cabin had an undeniably large effect on American history. 〜 Festucalex • talk 18:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose per pbp and Festucalex. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:31, 14 September 2023 (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 Tina Turner

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.

---

Important figure in music history. Interstellarity (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as proposer: Interstellarity (talk · contribs) 12:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added here by Festucalex)
2. Giant in her field. Noting that her death received rapid and near universal support for a blurb on the main page. the wub "?!" 00:04, 4 June 2023 (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 Mathematician

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 quota is over and we have already removed a similar article, Scientist.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC) --Thi (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
3. Ilya O. Sarvar (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Interstellarity (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Support Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Changed my mind. 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose The person who loves reading (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2023 (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 Principia Mathematica

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.

---

A project failed when Kurt Gödel proved his incompleteness theorem.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
2. Support. Over-hyped monument to Russell whose futility has only grown with time Aszx5000 (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support - the wub "?!" 17:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Doesn't matter if it failed. It was one of the most important mathematical projects in the 20th century. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:20, 28 April 2023 (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 Luigi Galvani

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.

---

Important figure in the history of science.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC) --Thi (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 23:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Strong support. Galvani was the first to clearly demonstrate electrochemistry, laying the groundwork for quite a vital scientific field and giving birth to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, the first story of modern science fiction. The concept of galvanization has also entered the popular consciousness, even among people that are unaware of Galvani. I can't think of any reasons to oppose this. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2023 (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 Coca-Cola for Cola

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 we should list Coke when we don’t list Pepsi. Swapping for the generic Cola should do the trick. Interstellarity (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose swap, but Support adding Pepsi. Both of these are some of the most widespread and universal products in human history. Cola as concept belongs well where it is now, in VIT5. 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose swap, but Support adding Pepsi. Per Festucalex. Aszx5000 (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose adding Pepsi Just another brand, not iconic. --Thi (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

• I'm fine with adding Pepsi. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:16, 2 October 2023 (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 Theseus

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.

---

Theseus' slaying of the Minotaur is one of the most famous Greek myths. He appears in many works of art, opera and fiction.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
2. Support—would go well with the other Greek heroes already there. They are: Achilles, Aeneas, Heracles, Odysseus, and Perseus. 〜 Festucalex • talk 16:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
3. Support - arguably weighs in above Aeneas and even Perseus. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support per above. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The Minotaur is much more well known than Theseus and it's only at VT5. I support adding Minotaur instead. The Blue Rider ✉ 10:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC) 21:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per above Dawid2009 (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Minotaur is more vital and not listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose It would be better to list Minotaur here, as it is more well known. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Oppose But do add Minotaur. Curbon7 (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2023 (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 motorcycle racing

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

---

It is no doubt as vital as auto racing, which is currently listed.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. It is no doubt as vital as auto racing is not a particularly convincing argument. Cars are perhaps the epitome of the ultra-develop world we live in, everyone loves and uses cars. The same thing can't be said about motorcycles, they are way less popular and this reflects on the sports notability too. Can the average person name a motorcycle event? Probably not. On the other hand, almost everyone knows about Formula-1 or the Dakar Rally. The Blue Rider ✉ 16:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
3. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose per The Blue Rider. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:37, 14 September 2023 (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 Claude Bernard

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 father of modern physiology and one of the founders of experimental medicine. [13] [14]

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Interstellarity (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Pretty vital biography. The Blue Rider 11:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2023 (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 Battle of Stalingrad and Normandy landings

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

---

Both of these events are widely cited as the turning points of WWII on the Eastern front and the Western front respectively.

Support

1. Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose redundant to Eastern and Western front at this level respectively. Will support at L5 if not there already. It would be like adding the Battle of Midway and Battle of Waterloo. We don't have space on adding the turning points battles of all major wars. Gizza (talk) 02:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose Covered by other articles at this level. --Thi (talk) 07:52, 7 June 2023 (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.

Move Split, Croatia from historical cities to...current cities

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 historical cities category is for ancient cities of importance that are now tiny or nonexistent. Split is one of the largest current cities in Croatia, so it should be with other current large cities pbp 15:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 15:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

I think you can move it boldly (presumed consensus). --Thi (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, this article was added to Level 4 without discussion. It wasn't even listed at Level 5. I have removed it. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2023 (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 Musicology

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 study of music is a vital topic at this level.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC) --Thi (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
3. Ilya O. Sarvar (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Music theory, the most relevant sub-field of musicology is already VT4; no need to list both. The Blue Rider 15:20, 2 September 2023 (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 Text file

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

---

As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as proposer: Dawid2009 (talk · contribs) 12:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added here by Festucalex)
2. Support: text files are a very fundamental type of file. 〜 Festucalex • talk 12:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Computer file seems sufficient to cover this topic. The Blue Rider 15:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
2. More vital as Level 5 topic. --Thi (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Doesn't seem vital enough for Level 4. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose the computer/IT section is already bloated. Gizza (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2023 (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 Pepsi

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 we have have Coca-Cola on the list when we don't list Pepsi since it is the main competitor to Coke. Interstellarity (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As proposer: Interstellarity (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
2. As stated above 〜 Festucalex • talk 20:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
3. Support adding Pepsi. Per Festucalex. Aszx5000 (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Doesn't stand out. --Thi (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
2. Pepsi doesn't compare to Coca-cola in any measure, be it market-share, popularity, soft power, etc. Plus, 2 carbonated soft drinks in level 4 seems excessive. The Blue Rider ✉ 10:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC) 21:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
3. Pepsi is not as famous or iconic as C-C. Could be at V5 I guess. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose per above. Gizza (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

There are lots of industries that have no brand/company representation at all, in food/drink and beyond. Why would cola specifically need two representative articles? Everyone agrees Coca-Cola is more vital than Pepsi. Within snack/junk food/drink, I believe we removed cola as "redundant to CC and soda" even though I didn't support it. We removed crisps even though I opposed it. We removed red and white wine. Things like popcorn have been suggested for addition but failed, as has the drink milkshake and Champagne. We don't list things lie apple juice or orange juice. Some of these articles I think would be higher priority.  Carlwev  23:01, 22 October 2023 (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 Minotaur

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

---

Since several people voiced support for adding this article in the Theseus nomination that failed to achieve consensus, I have opened this nomination and transferred the previous support votes here.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
2. The Minotaur is much more important than Theseus and it's only at VT5. I support adding Minotaur instead. The Blue Rider ✉ 10:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC) 21:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
3. It would be better to list Minotaur here, as it is more well known. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
4. But do add Minotaur. Curbon7 (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Support --Thi (talk) 07:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
6. Interstellarity (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• Not sure about the validity of 'transferring votes' but sure. The Blue Rider 08:30, 2 October 2023 (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 Matrilineality and Patrilineality

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

---

We already list Lineage (anthropology) at this level, which covers both matrilineality and patrilineality, so there is no need to list them both separately at this level.

Support

1. Support, as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support These should be level 5 at best. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Interstellarity (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
6. Per Rreagan007. — The Blue Rider 19:10, 28 October 2023 (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 National flag

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

---

Since we have nathem and national anthem thn why not national flag? How National flag of USA is less vital than George Washington or Michael Jordan or Wilt Chamberlain say?

Support

1. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Arguably flags are more famous than anthem. I support addition or a swap. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Important topic for the national identity of a country/nation. The Blue Rider 11:01, 30 October 2023 (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.

---

Important form of classical music.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC) --Thi (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
2. Ilya O. Sarvar (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Support - A major form of European classical music for centuries. Jusdafax (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Would support VIT5 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
2. Why is it important? The nominator argument is insufficient and I'm too lazy to try to stablish its vitality. The Blue Rider 09:32, 20 October 2023 (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 luck.

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 belief/concept of luck is embedded into almost everyone's minds, regardless of whether they truly believe it or not. It was and still is an inherent part of superstitions and religion, ranging from good luck charms to bad luck signs/actions to fortunes. Other vital article categories like religion or the supernatural alone cannot define luck in its entirety as it's widespread in terms of where the definition is applied, plus it can be used as a theme in literature as well. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as proposer: PrimalMustelid (talk · contribs) 18:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC) (vote added by Festucalex)
2. Support. It's an important social concept. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose—luck belongs in VIT5 at most. 〜 Festucalex • talk 18:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose Covered mainly by Superstition. --Thi (talk) 10:17, 31 August 2023 (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 Northeastern 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.

---

There seems to be links to all the regions except for this one. While it does appear on the list as a subcategory to group the other places listed like New England, New York, and Pennsylvania, there is no link that links it there. I think this addition makes sense so that all the major regions are covered. Interstellarity (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Those three articles, New England, New York and Pennsylvania already cover Northeastern United States pretty well. Let's not contribute further for the western-centricism. The Blue Rider ✉ 17:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Already covered by other articles as stated above. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose Covered by other articles. --Thi (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose as covered by other articles and per concerns of US-centrism. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

I'd be interested to know why other regions like Southern United States, Midwestern United States, and Western United States are listed. Don't articles like California, Texas, Florida, Illinois, Alaska, and Hawaii cover them well? Do you think they should be removed? What do you think? Interstellarity (talk) 12:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I would absolutely support the removal of these other regions as well. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm with Grnrchst. The particular concept of the regions isn't specially vital; states like California, Texas and Florida are. Doesn't make sense to list both. The Blue Rider 15:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Remove Southern United States, Midwestern United States, and Western United States

Per discussion above. Interstellarity (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Per earlier comments. The Blue Rider 21:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per earlier comments. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support. Too US-centric. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Since the United States of America is currently a world power, the list definitely should contain more articles about regions in America.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose. This is very different from Northeastern United States, which is adequately covered by other listed articles, while these regions are not. The U.S. is a very large country and these different regions have very distinct cultures and histories. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

   The culture of the US is pretty homogeneous; all the major states for each region are already part of the list. The Blue Rider 23:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

   You aren't from the U.S. are you? Regardless, if we are going to remove articles from that section it would be better to remove individual states before removing the larger regions, particularly states like Illinois and Pennsylvania, and the sub-state area Silicon Valley, which I don't see as that vital. And they are certainly less vital than the 3 articles being proposed for removal here. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

   The only people that would have a significant difference in culture would be Native Americans and the most prominent ones, the Navajos, Inuits, Sioux, etc, are already listed.

   Those regions do not adequately represent the people on it, they are more of a geographical definition. Indeed, those two states are also misplaced, especially Illinois since Chicago is also a VT4. The Blue Rider 08:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

3. Oppose pbp 17:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

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 Lemonade

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.

---

Vital at this level. As experienced editor on VA I had on my mind to add this onw the level 3 among articles like coffe, soybean etc but what i can see it is not even on the levrl 4! Where we list obscure hobbjes like Basque pelota! No way to not list it...Dawid2009 (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. nom Dawid2009 (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. As yummy as it might be, not a VT4; its already covered by lemon. The Blue Rider ✉ 17:08, 1 September 2023 (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 John C. Calhoun and Henry Clay

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 am completely lost as to why either of these men are considered VT4. They certainly held a lot of positions in the US government and were in proximity to a number of important people, but I don't understand what about them is independently vital enough for this level. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose: pbp 16:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC) For starters, if we remove these two gentlemen, the period of American history from 1815 to 1861, a very important period in the development of the United States, would be barely represented at all. Secondly, despite the fact that they never were President, they are still among the most influential people of the 1815-61 period in American history, and probably among the 25-30 most influential politicians in all of American history. Both got their start as part of the "War Hawks" coalition that marched the U.S. into the War of 1812. Both were named to the top five Senators all time.
   • The period of 1815 to 1861 was dominated by a sectional struggle between Northern abolitionists and the Southern slave power, with Calhoun being the principal spokesman for the Southern Slave Power. He provided the philosophical framework for nullification and secession, and started the Nullification Crisis. pbp 16:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
   • To keep the Union intact, several compromises between North and South had to be forged. Two of the more important ones were the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850, both engineered by Henry Clay, earning him the moniker "The Great Compromiser". Clay also forged a legislative compromise to end the Nullification Crisis. Henry Clay also founded the Whig Party (indeed, he is the only Whig politician on the list) and ran for President three times.
2. Oppose. These two are pretty important. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 06:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose. These are both quite important figures in American history. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

Note that removal of these two gentlemen have been proposed several times and have been retained each time. Most recent discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 72. I don't quite understand why we go through this rigmarole with these two every year or two. pbp 16:43, 13 September 2023 (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 Soong Mei-ling

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 Lady of Republic of China. She is one of seven women which are not only listed at Britannica's top 100 women but also mentioned/refferenced at the summary, she is labelle there as Dragon Lady (next to Iron Lady, Jesus' Mother, First Muhammad Follower, Queen of Pop, Queen Bey and Queen of all Media). So if Britannica would keep deeper content as premium view then we could only know that they ranked in top 100: Mary,Khadija, MArgaret TRacher, Madonna, Beyonce, Oprah Winfrey and Soong Mei-ling. She does not has primary topic for Dragon Lady but when I went to that page I excepted to check (out of curiostiy) which woman from Britannica has nickname Dragon Lady. Since we have not many women and perhaps not many non-western/non-white, I think we can reconsider addition of her.

Support

1. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
3. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Per nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2023 (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 Chinese Communist Party

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 major players in international politics today. The ruling party of an emergent global superpower.

Support

1. Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
2. Support -- Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
4. The single most powerful party in the world. The Blue Rider 10:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Good idea. J947 † ^edits 02:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Adding Democratic Party (United States) or Republican Party (United States) would be more important. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose Higly effective class of engineers in mainland China, but the dynamics of two-party system are more often discussed worldwide. --Thi (talk) 10:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

• I could see it added, but Rreagan007 makes a good point. Those should be added too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why the CCP is being opposed on the basis that the Democratic and Republican Party are supposedly more important. Adding the CCP does not deny adding them too. The Blue Rider 10:26, 17 October 2023 (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 William Jennings Bryan

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 an influential figure of the Democratic Party. Interstellarity (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. A thrice-failed candidate for President who didn't seem to have any meaningful effect on government policy doesn't strike me as Vit4. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
2. I probably also lean oppose here, but to say he didn't have any meaningful impact simply because he did not win the presidential election is a very superficial reading of history. Curbon7 (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose Not as influential as other figures from the same era. --Thi (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Definitely not as influential as Calhoun and Clay, who were proposed for removal below. Probably not as notable as Grover Cleveland, who won two elections (and the popular vote three times) or as Joe Biden, who we voted not to add. Ran on an essentially reactionary and racist platform that was outdated even for 1896. pbp 17:27, 13 September 2023 (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 Pancake

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

---

Since this dish is ubiquitous on earth, it is no doubt vital at this level.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Pancakes are popular across most of the planet, and they have been around since prehistoric times. Also, Pancake Day exists. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Swap with Biscuit. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

   Biscuit is definitely vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

4. Support-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Say no to pancakes. --Thi (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Fail to see how it's a VT4 article. The Blue Rider 10:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose as a fairly niche food by vitality standards from my POV. Think there may be some American bias coming out, which the proposed swap encapsulates. J947 † ^edits 02:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose - Agree with opposes that say this is not a level 4 article. Jusdafax (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

• Popularity alone is not the best measurement of vitality. The Blue Rider 18:29, 2 October 2023 (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 Digital Revolution

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

---

It is an important era since it is when the internet came around. Interstellarity (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
2. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 04:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Information Age is at V3 and I have serious concerns those topics should be merged. (Also, information revolution). I don't think you can justify including IA at V3 and not the others... it's pretty random. Merge discussion needs to happen first. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Wait per Piotrus. J947 † ^edits 02:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Agreed with need for merger czar 03:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

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 Amazons

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.

---

A famous Greek myth, probably inspired by real female warriors of Scythian and Sarmatian cultures. Amazons appear in art, literature, popular culture (Wonder Woman), organizations and landmarks (the Amazon river). "Nowadays, Amazons are seen as a feminist symbol for the subversion of outdated gender stereotypes." (Mythpedia)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
2. Support -- Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
3. The Blue Rider ✉ 21:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Classic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Where are the nominator's claims in our article itself? Needs reliable sources. czar 03:50, 9 November 2023 (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 Tom Brady

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 the last discussion regarding Tom Brady went nowhere, but we really need to add him. He’s usually considered the greatest American football players of all time, like Babe Ruth, Michael Jordan, and Pele are to their sports. Also it’s very weird that the two level 4 American football players aren’t quarterbacks, which is considered the most important position in the sport. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 06:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support, per nom. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 06:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

   Weak support. I'm neither from the US nor a sports fan in general and I've heard of him. Furthermore, a quick Google search consistently ranks him as (one of) the best NFL players of all time. The Blue Rider 11:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC) I thought this was a VT5 proposal, most certainly not level 4 vital.

2. Support Widely considered one of the best football players of all time. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
4. I'd hear recentism arguments here but per its lede, "Brady is widely regarded as the greatest quarterback of all time and one of the greatest players in NFL history." czar 03:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Interstellarity (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Support per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Dawid2009 (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
2. The Blue Rider 18:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

Pretty American-centric. Remember, folks, American football is popular in USA - and not much elsewhere. Not opposed per se if we need US-centric articles, but he is not vital to the world sport scence. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I understand that, but he is probably the most vital player for American football, and if we can only have one player in VA4, he would be the best choice. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR If we have room for one player, that's fine. Do we have equivalent players for the most popular sports in other countries? And how many players per country? Presumably, US should also get their most famous baseball player to? Random musing: these days many foreigners think most famouls Polish person is Robert Lewandowski. He is V5, with 1/3 of the page views of Brady [15] vs [16]. Is 3x the views sufficient to move Brady to V4 but keep Lewandowski at V5? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

We have the equivalent players for many other sports, including some at Level 3. I do not think the Polish person is a good analogy. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Would consider supporting as a swap. J947 † ^edits 02:28, 4 November 2023 (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 Minecraft

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 most famous video games of all time, and the best selling video game of all time. Minecraft has become a major part of internet culture that most people will have heard of even if they don't play video games.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. One of many popular games. Not as iconic as Tetris. --Thi (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
2. The game was on the brink of death for many years, it only recently got a surge of activity which seems to be dissipating again. Contrary to Tetris, it does not have a cult following and contrary to Pokemon, it does not have an influential franchise behind it. Though, if its educational aspect gains more traction it could be VT4. — The Blue Rider 13:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Per Thi czar 03:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

• We currently only list 2 video game articles at this level: Tetris and Pokémon (which covers the entire franchise, not just the video games), though we also list Mario (the character) under the fictional characters section. I would say that Super Mario Bros. is more vital, though that would probably be swapped with the Mario character article. After that I'd probably say that the Grand Theft Auto franchise article or World of Warcraft are also more vital than Minecraft. I would also consider removing the Pokémon article. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  I am pretty sure Minecraft is more well-known than GTA and Tetris, especially to the modern generation. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I think GTA would be just as well known by Zoomers. And Tetris would be better known by all. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Inspired by this nomination and discussion, I spent today dozens of minutes comparing pageviews of video games and these were the top ones before I got bored. Top one is Assassin's Creed (which I wouldn't put at level 4) closely followed by Minecraft. For the record, I don't consider pure fame to be the be-all end-all in determining vitality.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

1. Still pretty iconic. That said, at V4 we only list Pokémon and Tetris. Minecraft might be not in the same league. Many other games would be at that leve, I think (Pac-man, Alien Invaders from classics, for example...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

   @QuicoleJR Check out game canon. Are all of those games listed at V4? Minecraft is not even there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:32, 20 October 2023 (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 Greta Thunberg

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.

---

Greta Thunberg is currently a level 5 vital article. It should be moved to level 4, where the number of People is currently 11 under the target (of 2000), so could be added without removing anyone else from the list. She is significantly more well-known and influential than many of the other political figures, and even more so than many of the artists and sports figures. This is supported by the myriad of awards and titles she has received, e.g. TIME person of the year and nominated for the Nobel peace prize.

In a time where there is an overwhelming scientific consensus about the consequences of anthropogenic climate change, the figures leading the political movements bringing about change are undeniably historically significant. Some might dislike this nomination on the basis of their political views, but they cannot deny that she has had a huge impact.

Additionally, there is a significant bias in the list towards military leaders and politicians, while underrepresenting leading figures in popular movements.

If not for the deceased policy, I would even suggest to move her to level 3.

Support

1. Editor07022019 (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. This strikes me as WP:RECENTISM. I don't think her life accomplishments, thus far, are anywhere close to enough to warrant inclusion at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose there are more significant environmental activists missing. A classic case of recentism as Reagan007 said. Gizza (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose for now. She still has her whole life and activist career ahead of her. Might be worth revisiting at some point in the future, as she is involved with more actions. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose - per above opposes. Jusdafax (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

Neutral Purely because of she was regarded by Britannica among 100 most influential women (see Britannica's top 100 women) but I do not believe it will have much chance to pass (we list hardly anyone born after 1980, what alone 2000) and there are many women I would list ahead of her, for example Pocahontas or Sacagawea. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2023 (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 Anchorage

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.

---

Only major city in Alaska. I think it makes sense to list Anchorage when we list Honolulu as the only major Hawaiian city. Major hub for cargo. Interstellarity (talk) 13:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 13:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Anchorage is a pretty unimportant city in all prismes. — The Blue Rider 09:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

   Compared to the next largest city in Alaska, Anchorage has 9 times the population of Fairbanks. If we don’t add Anchorage, I’d be fine removing Honolulu. I just don’t think it makes sense to list Honolulu over Anchorage especially since the next largest city in Hawaii doesn’t come close to the population. If I were doing a tier list of Alaskan cities, I’d put Anchorage at level 1, Fairbanks and Juneau at level 2, and smaller cities at level 3. It’s also an important hub for cargo since it’s connected to 90% of the world. Interstellarity (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

   There are other reasons to list a city other than demographically. I do agree that Anchorage is the most important Alaskan city but I don't think that title warrants a level 4 vitality. — The Blue Rider 13:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

2. I don't see any reason to add other than "Alaska". Not every American state demands a city be at this level. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. J947 † ^edits 02:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose as I said at the remove Honolulu discussion, Honolulu is a prominent tourist desitination and thus way different as an encyclopedic need than Anchorage. I think being a tourist hub is more of a vital subject than a cargo hub.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
5. czar 16:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Oppose Not seeing a reason why it is vital at this level. There are several more vital U.S. cities not listed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

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.

Remove Honolulu

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.

---

Honolulu is no more significant than Anchorage, which is not listed. We list Hawaii and that is enough to cover the vitality of Hawaii at this level. Interstellarity (talk) 11:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 11:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Support. The city itself is really not vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support due to the significant overlap between Hawaii and Honolulu: there's not really room for more than one representative for Hawaii. J947 † ^edits 02:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Hawaii is not a particularly influential state so it doesn't warrant its capital to be listed. The Blue Rider 21:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
5. czar 16:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Support I think Hawaii is sufficient for this level. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Due to the uniqueness of the ethnic mix and culture of the city. We should retain a majority minority city on the list. We should probably remove a more demographically run of the mill city. This city is one of the most important tourist destinations in the country (ranking with Las Vegas and New Orleans in terms of dependence on tourism) and very different from Anchorage, which is really just an WP:OTHERSTUFF arguement.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose - Hawaii the state and Honolulu the city are two very different things. The comparison to Anchorage, Alaska by the nom is, in my view, incorrect. Tony makes some strong points in opposition above. Jusdafax (talk) 06:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

   Other than the OTHERSTUFF, Tony's arguments seem quite weak. "We should retain a majority minority city on the list", what? That's not a factor for vitality. Honolulu barely grasps the top 10 of USA's most visited cities. The Blue Rider 21:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

   User:The Blue Rider, you are probably measuring tourism by headcount, and I am probably measuring it by tourism dollars. Honolulu is an expensive place to visit. You have to by a relatively expensive airplane seat for each visitor and then start spending. You can't pile in a car, pack a picnic basket and tent and pay the national parks admission and go back home. Visitors are proping up the airline industry, the hotel industry, the restaurant industry and all other tourism subindustries.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

   P.S. User:The Blue Rider you were missed during your week+ absense.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

   Yes, I was. I saw a report stating $16 billion were created in 2019 by tourism in Hawaii; this isn't a particular significant number. Thank you, I missed your basketball analogies as well :) The Blue Rider 09:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

   Where does it rank in terms of dollar terms. Suppose I have a minivan family (I guess 4-5 kids and a wife). When I pack up the minivan, put one tank of gas in it and drive from Chicago to see the Gateway Arch in St. Louis, that does not do nearly as much for the economy as it does if I put them all in a plane to go to Honolulu. I can't pull the camper or pitch a tent so I have to pay for hotels. Because of the cost of airfare, If I go to Honolulu, I am going to stay at least 5 or 6 days to get my moneys worth, which means a lot of hotel nights. If I go to St. Louis it would be a great long weekend trip. I also think Honolulu is much higher in terms of international arrivals in comparison to general arrivals than other VA4 cities because of its proximity to Asia. Honolulu is a different tourist city than most of the VA4 cities. I don't have the numbers to really back up my argument, but it seems intuitive.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

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 Gambia River

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

---

This river is so important that an entire country formed around it.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, doesn't quite rise to the same level of importance as the other rivers listed for mine. In terms of breadth of coverage, Senegal River and The Gambia cover it fairly nicely. J947 † ^edits 02:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Per below and J947. The Blue Rider 21:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
3. czar 16:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

• The majority of civilizations settle around rivers, for example, pratically all the population of Egypt is around the Nile. The Gambia was formed because the British settled there, whilst the French at the Senegal river and because they initially showed more interest in the region The Gambia became an enclave.

The Gambia River's size is somewhat considerable (1,120km) though only half of it is navigable; it serves a couple of cities. It had historical importance to indigenous and foreign kingdoms and biological and geological importance seem moderate and weak, respectively. I will abstain for now. The Blue Rider 01:45, 30 October 2023 (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 Bigamy

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

---

We already list Polygamy at this level, and bigamy is just a particular type of polygamy. We don't need to list both at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support, as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support Not really vital at this level. --Thi (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Per Rreagan007. The Blue Rider 10:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
5. czar 03:50, 9 November 2023 (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 Ruminant

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.

---

Ruminants are a very important animal topic as a suborder within the Artiodactyla. Not only does it clearly average over 900 pageviews a day on Wikipedia, but Google Scholar results turn up over 991,000 search results for "ruminant" alone or 1,030,000 with "ruminants." It mainly boils down to the main digestive trait ruminants had and still have, by "chewing the cud," that has made them very successful compared to other members of the Euungulata within the Neogene onward (they appeared already since the late Eocene at least). The Cervidae and Bovidae in particular are notably for being some of the most diverse large mammal groups. Understanding of ruminants have proven essential for farmers of the past and the modern day as they must plan out nutritional strategies for maintaining their health, not to mention that scientists regularly target diseases that impact domestic ruminants. Therefore, they are quite important animals economically. Domestic ruminants and ruminants as invasive species are both also massively impactful towards their environments, meaning that their role in environmental turnovers and climate change are considered essential. There's also little disagreement that the Ruminantia as a whole is very relevant in popular culture as a whole, ranging from white-tailed deer to cows to giraffes.

Therefore, I believe that ruminants are very vital as a topic towards multiple categories of science, from biology to paleontology to environmentalism to agriculture that they deserve to be level 4. I know that topics like Bovidae and Artiodactyl cover it in part, but I believe that ruminant is a very distinct and recognizable term on its own that it deserves more attention. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. PrimalMustelid (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Per PrimalMustelid. The Blue Rider 21:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support good find. Gizza (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
5. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 15:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not classic knowledge for a secondary school student; handled adequately at VIT5 czar 16:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

   I don't where you're from, but in my country everyone must certainly learns what is a ruminant. The Blue Rider 17:45, 9 November 2023 (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 Victoria Island

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.

---

Canadian arctic island. Big but otherwise unimportant. There's two other Canadian arctic islands and the general archipelago listed. That's IMO way too much, even as someone interested in these regions.

Support

1. Support as nom. J947 † ^edits 03:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support Yeah, this is VA5. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Nothing in the article indicates it is of much importance, except maybe that it was inhabited by predecessors of modern Inuits - and even then the people in question would probably be of more vitality.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
4. czar 16:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Interstellarity (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Support redundant to Arctic Archipelago at this level. Gizza (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose. It's the 8th largest island in the world. It should be listed at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

How is it more important than Nunavut? J947 † ^edits 01:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a fair point. And also Arctic Archipelago is listed at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 09:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I guess that while I know it's a long-standing position here to include lots of islands, it feels to a degree like they just happen to be not connected to a greater landmass and are of the same importance as any continental slab of land the same side. Especially when it comes to something like Victoria that's only surrounded by channels of water before land again, it's not even of particular geological importance (let alone societal). J947 † ^edits 09:57, 13 November 2023 (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 powerlifting

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 have gone through the level 4 archives and reviewed all uncapped discussions. There seems to be one discussion that achieved consensus and that never got closed. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_72#Swap:_Remove_Arm_wrestling,_add_Powerlifting (add was 6-1). Is it O.K. just to add this one?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree you can just add it. Just refer to the old discussion in the edit summary. Gizza (talk) 03:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I have never closed a vital article discussion. Is there a set of procedures somewhere? Also, since I was a nationally ranked powerlifter for 3 years, I feel like I should not been seen as the actual executer of this correction.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Dude, that's not relevant; everyone has biases, you already got clearance from another user to close the discussion...you need to put the archive template on this discussion, add the talk page banner to the article, add the article to the respective (sub-)category and update the respective quota numbers. The Blue Rider 11:24, 22 November 2023 (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 History of philosophy

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

---

Now that someone made this article, I think it is vital as a history of one of the most important fields of study. We do list History of religion. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support, especially since Philosophy itself is VA1. --Kammerer55 (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support. Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Interstellarity (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Supported this when it was a redirect, will support it now. Probably makes VA3 too. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
7. Sure. Seeing as it is snow pass I hope nobody minds if I ping an interested editor, who hopefully will take interest in the discussions here: User:Nihil novi. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
8. Support. It seems a fundamental topic. Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
9. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

I think this might be worth closing now rather than waiting 2 weeks, since it is clearly going to pass. Interstellarity (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2023 (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 Jean Siméon Chardin

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.

---

"Jean-Siméon Chardin was one of the most important French artists of the 18th century, celebrated for his still lives and scenes of daily life." [17] "Today Chardin is considered the greatest still-life painter of the 18th century, and his canvases are coveted by the world’s most distinguished museums and collectors." [18] "Chardin remains one of the great Old Masters of the 18th century and one of the best still life painters of all time." [19]

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Interstellarity (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. VIT5 is sufficient. No assertion in the article's lede section of the topic's enduring importance or essentialness in its category. Nom's legacy claims are not in the article. czar 03:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Czar. Gizza (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose, yes level 5 but not of the status/legacy for level 4. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2023 (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 Sex education, add Science education

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.

---

Science education where is redirect Biology education and article on Human sexuality should cover subject nominted for removal. How it is more important than whatever not listed here: Natural science or Mathematics education or Physical education, Pedagogy etc? It is not particularly importat as people could live without that education for thousands years (in contrast to mathematic science). This relatively new/recent subject is less global than Religious education and more niche like say Chess education, raised a lot of language versions just because of political controversies and netflix tv serie with the same title, surely not global (It is forgein for plenty people) Dawid2009 (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose sex education is a critical subject in modern education. Science education is almost redundant to science and the scientific method. Gizza (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose adding Science education since it's indeed well-covered by Science. However, if we keep Sex education (which currently seems to be the least viewed out of 33 articles of Sexuality and gender section), then we should at least add Physical education as well, since it is quite a unique and global aspect of Education with lower overlap with other topics, and the Education/General section now has only 14 articles but probably deserves to have more. --Kammerer55 (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

   I would support adding Physical education. Gizza (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

3. Oppose per Gizza. I have suggested Science communication instead of Science education. --Thi (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

Chess education is niche education, while sex education isn't.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:28, 17 October 2023 (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 Francesco Hayez

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.

---

Categorised as high-importance by Version 1.0 editorial team

Support

1. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Hayez is random choice. He is often not listed in encylopedias and other sources, unlike such painters as Thomas Gainsborough or Winslow Homer, for example. --Thi (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Sorry, but "He is considered one of the leading artists of Romanticism in mid-19th-century Milan". Maybe it's just the fault of badly worded lead, but it is saying he was just one of the leading artists in a medium-importance city for a decade or two... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Level 5 is sufficient. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2023 (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 Cancun

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.

---

Important city on the Yucatan Peninsula. Interstellarity (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Support One of the greatest planned city successes. The rise from a population of 3 in 1970 to about 900,000 now is very notable and as a premier tourist destination it is a vital subject for the reader.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 21:19, November 3, 2023 (UTC)-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

   We've already got a few planned cities and if we want another one Dodoma as Tanzania's capital makes more sense. I'd support a swap of Dodoma for Beira. J947 † ^edits 02:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

   Dodoma was swapped out for Benghazi in early 2015 on historical grounds (Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_41#Swap:_Remove_Dodoma,_Add_Benghazi), but I could see a country with a population of 60m+ having a second city, although I could see Arusha also being a future contender, as it is the proposed capital of the East African Federation. Overall, I support a second city in Tanzania being added, as Tanzania has one city for every 62m people, while Mexico only has one city for every 13m people. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

   Tanzania most certainty deserves said 2nd city, but as you say the East African Federation is just a project and isn't likely to exist to in the near future either, plus the mere the title of being the capital isn't enough for level 4 vitality. The Blue Rider 13:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

3. Support Extremely popular travel destination. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. A major tourist hub, otherwise not financially nor historically important. — The Blue Rider 09:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
2. It's a tourist city and little more. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

   weak oppose Unlike Honolulu, which is a tourist hub, a state capital and the largest city in the state, Cancun is just a tourist hub. I see the population has quintupled since I visited in the early 90s, but it is still under a million and outside of the top 20 in the country.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

3. In addition to the above, would be a very U.S.-centric listing. Mérida adequately covers Yucatán. J947 ‡ ^edits 08:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

   User:J947 not in the US.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

   Of course, but it's only a tourist destination for Americans pretty much. J947 ‡ ^edits 20:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

1. Very interesting history of its rise from population 3 to 900,000 in a little over 50 years.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:53, 3 November 2023 (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 Water Lilies (Monet series), add Liberty Leading the 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.

---

Liberty Leading the People is clearly more vital. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Support addition. Liberty Leading the People is the most famous depiction of Liberty and as so it inspired many other famous artworks, such as the Statue of Liberty. The Blue Rider 16:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support addition-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support addition Interstellarity (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal. Monet started the impressionist movement and its Water Lilies series encompasses all of his most important works. The section is under quota so I see no reason to remove an influential work. The Blue Rider 16:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal this is the most important series of a vital artist. Museums around the world highlight elements of this series.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal per above opposes. Jusdafax (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose removal Interstellarity (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2023 (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 Archive

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 don't need to list both archive and library at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Without archives libraries, universities, governments and many other institutions wouldn't exist. The Blue Rider 21:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose Archives and libraries are distinct institutions. Both are vital. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2023 (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.

Remove History of Scotland

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.

---

Added in 2016, failed removal in 2021–22. I think that when one judges how Scotland is in general well-represented at this level already that adding History of Scotland was a mistake. Firstly, a region Scotland's size would normally justify one city at the most. However, Scotland being a very two-city nation, we list both Edinburgh and Glasgow. Secondly, there's another marginal inclusion in Scottish Highlands that we list.

The point is, that given Scotland already benefits from the cutoff being at 10,000 articles rather than 8,000, listing a 3rd marginal inclusion in the History of Scotland is not warranted. Scotland no doubt has a rich history, but much of it is already covered: the rationale for listing all of Edinburgh, Glasgow, and the Scottish Highlands is historical importance.

I considered proposing this as a swap, but couldn't decide what with (History of the Democratic Republic of the Congo? History of Argentina? History of Bangladesh?) – but that part can come later; think of this as a delayed swap.

Support

1. Support as nom. J947 † ^edits 22:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support per my reasons in the 2016 discussion. Gizza (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
3. I have trouble seeing history of any subregion (not a country/continent/major landmass) as vital at V4 level. This seems like the usual English-centric bias to me. History of Scotland is vital to the history of UK/British isles but not to the world. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose for the same reasons as last time. This is the English Wikipedia and the history articles of countries like England and Scotland are vital at this level, as they are of particular interest to English readers. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

   So I take it that you'd support the addition of History of Bangladesh, which has 5–6x the English speakers as Scotland? J947 † ^edits 00:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

   Actually, yes I would. And also History of New Zealand. Rreagan007 (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

   To that addition, as a Kiwi – nah. It's a very short, relatively boring history with little global importance. I'd rather the histories of Wales, Ghana, Zimbabwe, Cameroon, even from a purely English-speaking POV. J947 † ^edits 10:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

   It is specifically mentioned in the rules of VA, that the project is not anglophone-centric so this rationale is worth zero. The Blue Rider 21:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

   And just what do you think this means: "The vital article lists are meant to guide the prioritization of improvements to vital articles and to monitor their quality. They are tailored to the English Wikipedia, unlike the list of articles every Wikipedia should have on Meta-Wiki."? Rreagan007 (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

   That's a common misinterpretation, yes it is only for English Wikipedia, specially since many articles aren't translated to all (major) languages but that doesn't mean there's bias as clearly stated in the FAQ: This vitals list is for English Wikipedia. While one may think this would require there to be English-speaking bias, this is not the case here, since English is the global language. For example, the current consensus is to list two cities in China (Hong Kong, Beijing) and India (Delhi, Mumbai), but only one in the United States. The Blue Rider 21:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

   Please link me to the discussion that achieved consensus for putting that statement into the FAQ. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Rreagan007. We are under quota for history, and, frankly, I'd rather have this article than either city. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose Ignoring the oof-worthy reference to Scotland as a "region", naw, it's a long and important history: from some of the earliest, most impressive and well-preserved Neolithic communities in Europe; to the well-charted Pictish resistance to the Romans; to feudal history that had it as one of the more important players in western Europe; to the incredibly dense and fraught wars of religion; to the Enlightenment and beyond. It's far more than just two cities and the highlands, understanding Scottish history helps one understand the history of Ireland and England as well. I'd echo the above comments on quota and that adding more country histories would be a better option than removing any, at least for now. I'd absolutely support adding the histories of Argentina, Bangladesh and Congo (I'd also suggest the histories of Zimbabwe, Mali and Tanzania) --Grnrchst (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

   To toot my own pipe a bit, Scotland is the birthplace of capitalism. That alone I think makes understanding its history important. --Grnrchst (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

   Re "region", I should have wrote "nation". It's just that given the context of that sentence using "country" would be weird; it would in that specific instance meld the meanings of "nation" and "sovereign state" together undesirably. And I know that people get confused when non–sovereign states are referred to as countries... J947 ‡ ^edits 08:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

4. Oppose per Grnrchst. The Blue Rider 21:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Pinging Grnrchst since it seems that they are an expert on matters relating to Scotland. The Blue Rider 21:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  Adding that one to my CV haha. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2023 (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.

Silicon Valley

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. Interstellarity (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I'd rather have Silicon Valley in its own right than the individual cities. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
2. The tech hub has had a global impact. starship.paint (RUN) 15:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Presidentman. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
5. It is world-famous region, and I'd argue more people know about it than about either of the two states discussed above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

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 Shanghai Library

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

---

It is the largest library in China. Interstellarity (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The largest but is it the most important? I would argue that no. The Blue Rider 23:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
2. I can see it at V5, but V4? Largest library in a large country is still trivial-ish IMHO. Has it been crucial for Chinese culture or science? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Evidence for its overall significance is lacking in the article itself. starship.paint (RUN) 08:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Only some examples of libraries are needed at this level. --Thi (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

1. Why not start at level 5 and see if it gets support there first?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

   Agree. Gizza (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2023 (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 Cleveland, Add Columbus, Ohio

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

---

It is by far the more populated city compared to other cities in Ohio. Interstellarity (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) If we’re going by population, then Cleveland was a larger city than Columbus for most of its history and still has a higher urban area and metro area population.
2. According to List of largest cities of U.S. states and territories by historical population Cleveland was the highest from the 1890 census to the 1980 census and Columbus has been higher since 1990. I consider Cleveland to to be more important for its historic prominence. It has the perceived importance of a major league sports town. The metro areas are so comparable in size 2,063,132 (CLV) and 2,161,511 (COL) according to this link. When I worked on the 2008 Obama campaign, I was sent to work Cuyahoga County, Ohio I have no idea why this was a more pivotal county than the set of counties that Columbus is composed of. Based on my perceived importance as a sports fan, I think Cleveland is more important.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose per TonyTheTiger. Gizza (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Cleveland is a more historically significant city and has a larger metropolitan area pbp 16:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

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 Agnès Varda

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.

---

Arguably the most acclaimed woman filmmaker of all time. A key figure in the French New Wave and feminist cinema. Her films La Pointe Courte, Cleo from 5 to 7, Le Bonheur, Vagabond, and The Gleaners and I, are regarded as classics, and their influence has grown with time. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support, as nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk)
2. Support "In 2019, the BBC polled 368 film experts from 84 countries to name the 100 best films by women directors. Varda was the most-named director, with six different films on the list." In Sight and Sound Greatest Films of All Time 2022 poll Cléo from 5 to 7 appeared in 14th place and second in BBC list. --Thi (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support "one of the Gods of Cinema" according to Martin Scorsese Lorax (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Support per above. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2023 (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 Yang Guifei

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.

---

An alternative option if nomination of Soong would not pass or end as no consensus (I assume may be hard to pass due to overlap with Chiang Kai-shek). We are under quota.

Support

1. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Reasonable choice. Would support it either way. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Per nom. I would still support this independent of whether Soong is added. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
6. Support per above. Gizza (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
7. Historical figure turned cultural figure. starship.paint (RUN) 15:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• Point of order This article is not listed at Level 5. Usually articles have to be added at the lowest level before we consider them for inclusion at a higher level. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2023 (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 Cantar de mio Cid

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.

---

A foundational work in Spanish literature. Hard to overstate its historical, cultural, and literary significance. Also note, we currently list only two Spanish language works at this level. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. What makes Cantar de mio Cid more important than Os Lusíadas or the Mystery Play of Elche? I fail to see it. The Blue Rider 20:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
2. El Cid is listed in biographies. --Thi (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Per above. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

1. @Tabu Makiadi: Which two other Spanish works do we list and in which section? I am having trouble finding them, and that context would be useful for judging balance. How about countries of comparable size and influence, ex. Poland, Ukraine and Italy? How many works do they have? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

   The others are Don Quixote (obviously) and One Hundred Years of Solitude.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:03, 29 November 2023 (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 St. Louis, Add Indianapolis

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.

---

Indianapolis is a more important city than St. Louis. Interstellarity (talk) 14:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 14:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Indianapolis does not at all have the same historical or cultural importance that St. Louis does. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Presidentman, and St. Louis has the larger metro population anyway. J947 † ^edits 23:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose due to the historical importance of the gateway to the west.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose St. Louis is historically and culturally important city. --Thi (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Oppose per historical and cultural importance. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
6. Oppose per above. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

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 Edmonton

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.

---

Edmonton is a part of Alberta and is just as significant as Calgary which we list. Interstellarity (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Canada already has five cities. We're proposing removal or opposing addition of Usonian cities with considerably larger populations than Edmonton. pbp 15:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose Not the first Canadian city I would add. Calgary is sufficient for Albertan representation. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Per above. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

I won’t propose this yet, but maybe Quebec City would be a good addition. Just wanted to gather some thoughts regarding other Canadian cities that could possibly be added. Interstellarity (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I would support Quebec City over Edmonton but not swayed it is vital at this level. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:18, 3 December 2023 (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 Long Island

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 the most populous island in the United States especially when other countries’ islands like Honshu and Great Britain are listed. Interstellarity (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. New York is already overrepresented, especially with Manhattan being added. The Blue Rider 19:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Per above. I believe that Honshu  4 and Great Britain  4 belong to the list mostly because of their geographical significance, and Long Island does not seem to be among the top ones geographically. --Kammerer55 (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Honshu has 100+ million people, Great Britain has 65+ million people, Long Island has 8 million people. starship.paint (RUN) 06:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Per Kammerer55 and others. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Weak oppose per The Blue Rider. If Long Island wasn't already tied closely to NYC, I would support adding it. The continental U.S. is weirdly underrepresented in terms of islands. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

   The U.S. doesn't actually have many important islands, somewhat weirdly. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

6. I'm failing to see how Long Island is comparable to Honshu and Great Britain, as the latter two make up most of the land of their respective countries. ayakanaa ( t · c ) 18:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
7. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
8. --Thi (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2023 (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.