Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive 6

< Wikipedia talk:Vital articles | Level/5
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Tai123.123 in topic Split the "Society and social science" category, and relevant changes
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Remove Ana Kasparian

PASSED
4–2, removed Rreagan007 (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

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

I'm very surprised she's even on this list. It's a stretch to even call her a "jounalist". She's really just a commentator who talks about other peoples' news stories. Besides, we also have Cenk Uygur listed, and we don't really need both co-hosts of the same show.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support per Rreagan. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 21:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support. Born in 1986. Almost nobody born that recently is 'vital'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I disagree with the assertion that "It's a stretch to even call her a [journalist]". She has interviewed world leaders and U.S. politicians, she was a lecturer on journalism at CSU Northridge, and currently holds editorial control of The Young Turks, a significant outlet in a category of "web journalism". I believe opinion journalism would be a strange genre to exclude when determining which journalists are most notable, particularly online. In terms of notability, she was on Forbes "30 under 30" in 2016. In the category I'd say she's more "vital" than Nick Denton. And on the topic of birth year I'd like to point out that the late Paul Horner was born in 1978. BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose News commentators are journalists. She's even a good find for the list. Who else would you put on a list of journalists primarily known for their onine activities? For gender diversity, she is an ideal candidate. The category web journalists is bound to have several young people because the younger generation tends to get hired for internet journalism. --Spaced about (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Discussion

Removing this messes up the counts in the journalist section and will make them uneven; but who cares about consistency.... Also if people born in 1986 are not vital for this level, prepare to remove hundreds. GuzzyG (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

These lists are under constant construction and the quota isn't set in stone, is it? The two others listed, Nick Denton and Paul Horner, appear more suitable for removal if necessary. Especially Horner. For internet journalism we might have to have a separate subsection for PR-journalists, where Horner would fit though.
What should the section on web journalists look like? Andrew Breitbart, Arianna Huffington, Ezra Klein, Griffin McElroy, and Nate Silver all fit the category web journalists, all of these except McElroy are listed (as journalists, Silver is misplaced in the social scientists section). They should all be moved to this category. Kasparian and Cenk Uygur then complement that list perfectly. --Spaced about (talk)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_16#Remove_Cenk_Uyghur - Here is lik to discussion where Cenk Uygur was reported as odd/controversial addition. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5-0 Rsk6400 (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Remove David Irving

He's not a historian in any meaningful sense of the word. He is a Holocaust denier and conspiracy theorist whose work has been discredited and rejected (see article lead). Even if the label historian is applied to him, his work does not rise to the level of the other historians in this group.   // Timothy :: talk  18:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom.   // Timothy :: talk  18:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. You've made a pretty solid case. pbp 18:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Being a history teacher at a German Gymnasium (high school), I don't think that he is important enough to be level-5 vital. He is not a serious historian, but - as has been stated above - Holocaust denier and conspiracy theorist. --Rsk6400 (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  4. I think he should be moved to some other section though. I think his notoriety still makes him vital as a conspiract theorist. --Makkool (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  5. Per nom. --Thi (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  • I will add that Irving's writings have been discussed in the RS notice boards and he is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. [1]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Oswald Spengler moved into Philosophers 3-1 Rsk6400 (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Remove Oswald Spengler and Add into Philosophers

Notable as a philosopher of history, but not notable as a historian. Would be more appropriate with Philosophers rather than Historians.

Support
  1. per nom.   // Timothy :: talk  22:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. --Makkool (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  3. Very notable as an anti-democratic thinker at the beginning of the 20th century, but not as a historian. --Rsk6400 (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Famous author. --Thi (talk) 09:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
  • I amended the proposal with "Would be more appropriate in Philosophers.". I do think he belongs as a Level 5 vital, just not in this category.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed 9-1 Rsk6400 (talk) 05:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Not particularly notable PUA/provocateur Spacepine (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Remove Roosh V

Support
  1. Support Spacepine
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 11:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support -- Arman (Talk) 09:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support how on earth was this inconsequential fool ever included?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  7. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  8. Support per nom   // Timothy :: talk  18:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  9. Support: there are probably thousands of "Rebels, revolutionaries and activists" that can be included before this article comes even close in notability. --MarioGom (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose as odious as this vote is, if we have 500 activists, it should cover every form of activism and men's rights is one form of activism. until the section is full why is there such a urge for removal? Why was the super negative guy picked over the autism, asexual, body-positive activists who have gotten less attention? we can't remove every bad kind of activism from a list of 500. Also this list isn't a honor, we have 250 criminals. not everyone is going to be an amazing person. Being one of the top 2 PUAs is enough for a 15k list. Erik von Markovik the other one is listed too. But let's show off the diversity i've created in the activists section, we have feminists and anti feminists, civil rights activists and odious people like William Luther Pierce, Gay rights activists and odious people like Fred Phelps, odious people like David Thorstad, pro and anti guns rights, pro weed legalization activists and anti drugs activists, domestic violence campaigners, union activists, =asexual rights activists, autism rights, pro body weight activists, im working on a massive list of activists and to cut out just the bad is a major setback, on a list of 500 activists is there a reason not to list one men's rights activist? Who's better / more known? I don't know. I had two to be fair, Warren Farrell and Roosh V. Anyway just thought i would give my reason for listing him, it'd be a disappointment if one kind of activism is left out because it's super bad on such a massive project. GuzzyG (talk) 05:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    Props for the list, I think it's covered a great range of activists! But by wiki's own article on the subject Roosh V isn't event mentioned - I added Warren Farrell instead. Spacepine (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
    ... and if more than one is justified, I suspect there are better options --Spacepine (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
    Warren Farrell was on my to do list instead, i thought i must have added him. My mistake, sorry. I was not adding anyone until i transcribed the lists to my excel sheets that i work on where i track every addition by wikipedia page views, worldcat hits, britannica mentions, wikidata languages, wikiedits, google trends and a bunch of different methods, which is a part of my own independent biographical dictionary and database i am working on. My preferred methods of addition to this list is covering each genre of a field and people from each century. Naturally that means i am in support of 21st century people, now that i have finished with this section and have seen we have space for 97 more articles; i am in favor of adding more 21st century activism articles like DeRay Mckesson, Shaun King, Colin Kaepernick, Brianna Wu, Zoë Quinn, Jazz Jennings, Emma González and David Hogg. But on the other hand while we have Milo Yiannopoulos under commentators/journalists and Tommy Robinson (i didnt add Tommy). I do not believe articles such as Roosh V and articles like Lauren Southern for example are that much out of place as the Manosphere (which is what i meant) and the Alt-right are unfortunately prominent in the United States and in which have had a part in the election of the President of the United States. I think the "manosphere/red pill" movement and "alt-right" movement are dominant forms of online right wing activism and have a place in a list of 500 figures, [2] roosh himself gets 1.5 mil pageviews, which is pretty much a higher then average viewcount then normal 21st century activists and [3] the average alt-right figure at about 2.5 mil; meanwhile Warren Farrell [4] gets 236k total; so quite the difference. Now pageviews mean nothing in a historical sense; but as a tracking method for 21st century figures who are yet to be written about in a past tense it's a good measure. If we have over 50 serial killers, mass murderers and murderers being a "notorious PUA/provocateur" doesn't seem like a particularly useful removal rationale. Obviously i dislike having to defend such a figure, but as you see if you look over every section of this list and go indepth on the people listed in each field, i just have a core philosophy of trying to include everything (for example in models i list: normal models, male models, plus-size models, fitness models, cosplayers, one of each major four beauty pageant winners, playboy playmate, artists models, fetish/pin-up models and glamour models while including some from every decade of fashion modeling from the 1950s to the 2010s) i mention that so my vote is taken on it's own and not as a fan of such a subject of it. People disagree but my philosophy of building a encyclopedia is covering every strain of human endeavor and on that note Roosh is the main architect of the Manosphere which is a dominant form of men's rights activism and on that note is why i oppose the removal. Sorry if i sounded aggressive in my initial post and i shouldve made a better rationale for my vote. GuzzyG (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
    No worries at all, thanks for clarifying. I'm not objecting to his inclusion because he's a turd, but because he hasn't really done much... I think the "manosphere" in general is pretty scattered, mostly exists online and there's little verifiable information on any given leader so I would prefer to include the concept, rather than choose a figurehead. Individual White supremicists and Christian right leaders have a lot of information about them however, and probably have a larger impact on the global alt-right movement. I would support including a few of them (although it seems wrong to categorise them as activists, since they are largely regressive) --Spacepine (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Has already been removed on 28 Feb 2020, seems the closing of the discussion has been forgotten Rsk6400 (talk) 05:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added to level 4. --Thi (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Add Silicon Valley

Not sure if we classify it as business or geography, but I think it's clearly vital at the 50,000 level pbp 17:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 17:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support as per nom. J947 (c), at 03:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support This would be a better lvl 4   // Timothy :: talk  01:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5-0 Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Remove Ecce Homo (Martínez and Giménez, Borja)

I think this one may have been placed as a joke. It is only notable for what has happened to it in modern times, and while this is an argument for its inclusion, I believe such notability would have expired by now as it happened almost ten years ago. I do believe it is important that the 300 article standard should be met, but I don't think this work is notable even to that extent. J2m5 (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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

General discussion

@J2m5: You can just add articles yourself, because we have not yet reached the quota for specific visual artworks. --Makkool (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Makkool: I have added Black Square, Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge, Girl with Peaches, Dancing Girl, Charles I in Three Positions, Self-Portrait with Thorn Necklace and Hummingbird and Detroit Industry Murals. I'll remove the addition proposals because they clog up the rest of the discussion. If I think of any more in the meantime I will add them as well. Thanks for the reply! J2m5 (talk) 07:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I have since added The Potato Eaters, The Love Embrace of the Universe, the Earth (Mexico), Myself, Diego, and Señor Xolotl, I and the Village. J2m5 (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Recent art removals

Can we get a more widespread discussion on these arts removals, from just a brief look through books like A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Common Sense, A Mathematical Theory of Communication, On Liberty, Yongle Encyclopedia, Harmonices Mundi, Domesday Book, Phèdre and Shakuntala (play) all significant works with massive importance on a area of history, are being removed for books like Battle Cry of Freedom (book), In the Heart of the Sea, The Known World, The Line of Beauty, Malone Dies, The Sense of an Ending, and The Color of Water all books of no long term importance/clear societal impact like Vindication or Common Sense have had;music articles like Requiem (Mozart), Nabucco, and Gymnopédies are being removed while articles like They Reminisce Over You (T.R.O.Y.) and Leck mich im Arsch stay on. Articles like Theatre of France, Theater in the United States, and Public speaking are being removed; the first two being vital in theater as we list many overview articles like "cinema/music of" etc and public speaking should arguably be on the level 4 list. I start this discussion because i think any big removals like these need discussion.

Also this might be a good time to figure out what the quotas should be; they seem very off compared to the level 4 list. On level 4 we list; 160 literature works, 35 musical works, 30 art works, 32 films and 24 fictional characters but on the level 5 list we list 843 literature works, 400 musical works, 300 art works, 200 films and 150 fictional characters. Shouldn't film be closer to music and have more than art; considering films have more effect on modern society than artworks? It probably should've been 300 films and 200 artworks, considering even that 200 artworks is pushing it. Someone with the know how should do the math on the increase here. I might end up doing a count of how many works we list by each artist soon too. GuzzyG (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I suggest following swaps: Nonfiction: The Color of Water -> Domesday Book, In the Heart of the Sea -> Common Sense (pamphlet), The Abolition of Man (Till We Have Faces is by the same author) -> An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Battle Cry of Freedom (book) -> A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Think and Grow Rich -> On Liberty. Fiction: The Sense of an Ending -> Shakuntala (play), The Three-Body Problem -> Phèdre, Crisis on Infinite Earths -> Till We Have Faces. Music: They Reminisce Over You (T.R.O.Y. -> Gymnopédies, Leck mich im Arsch -> Requiem (Mozart), Ten (Pearl Jam album) (Nirvana's Nevermind is listed) -> Hungarian Dances (Brahms), Comfortably Numb (The Wall album is listed) -> Thaïs (opera), Axel F -> Nabucco. --Thi (talk) 12:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I made the changes, including swap Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus with Yongle Encyclopedia. --Thi (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed 3-1 Rsk6400 (talk) 06:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Remove Semitic people

As the article states, the term "Semitic peoples ... was a term for an ethnic, cultural or racial group. The terminology is now largely obsolete outside the grouping 'Semitic languages' in linguistics." Since Semitic languages is a totally different lemma (already listed as level-4 vital), there is no need to retain an article on an "obsolete" racial group. Of course, Jews (now listed as a sub-group of "Semitic people") has to be retained.

Support
  1. As nom. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  2. --Makkool (talk) 10:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  3. Per nom. Note that Antisemitism is already listed as level-5 in Society and social sciences. --MarioGom (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I think it's important to retain this article, for both historical reasons and current usages, such as anti-semitic. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Caucasian race, Hamites, Mongoloid, and Negroid removed; Aryan race moved Rsk6400 (talk) 09:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Remove Caucasian race, Aryan race, Hamites, Mongoloid, and Negroid

All five articles are about Historical race concepts, which are no longer used by science. While the notion that mankind is divided into distinct races is important for historians (and, sadly, for researchers on today's racism), the individual race concepts are not.

Support
  1. As nom. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  2. Should be replaced with white people, black people, et cetera. Although I think the Aryan race is such a vital historical concept, that it should be moved to the History section. --Makkool (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
    I just added "White people" and "Black people" to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Ethnic groups, hoping that is the right place. Since that group is not complete, more articles can be added there. I looked for a suitable place for "Aryan race" under History, but I'm really at a loss where to put it. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
    Under Nazism, maybe. --Makkool (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
    Done, it is now under Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Ideology and political theory, next to Nazism. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  3. Agree with Makkool. --Thi (talk) 08:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom.   // Timothy :: talk  18:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. They're still of historical importance and I think that makes them vital. They're also still sort of used today. Whenever you see a form that asks you to check a race like "black", "white", or "Asian", these are essentially equivalent to Negroid, Caucasian, and Mongoloid. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
    The individual concepts are not important for history, because they never reached the status of a coherent scientific theory. More important, today's forms asking about your racial identity (hopefully) target the community you identify with. And "black community" (a non-racist concept based on social life) is not "essentially equivalent" to "Negroid race" (a racist concept based on prejudice). --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
    Race is not just about self-identification, it's also about how other people perceive you and about your ancestral genetics as well. There is a general concept of "white Europeans" or "black sub-Saharan Africans" that is still used to categorize people in a wide variety of contexts. Even the concept of "mixed-race" becomes meaningless if you don't have distinct racial categorizations to begin with. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
    We are not talking about the articles on "white European" (which redirects to White people) or "black sub-Saharan Africans" (doesn't exist, "Black African" redirects to Black people), but about the articles named in the headline. I doubt if there is a "wide variety of contexts" in which the concept of a "Negroid race" (or one of the other concepts) "is still used to categorize people" (except by racists). Rsk6400 (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
    Well, Caucasian (aka Caucasoid) is still widely used. Negro (aka Negroid) was commonly used, but has certainly fallen out of routine usage, though more historical usages still exist (e.g. United Negro College Fund). And I distictly remember one of my textbooks in college at a major state university in the early 2000s used the term "Mongoloid features". Rreagan007 (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  2. Keep the first two at least. Race is a social construct, and a rather bunk one at that, but these concepts have unfortunately been important in human history. pbp 00:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nice model

You have the Nice model under physical cosmology, whereas it is actually a model for the formation of the Solar System planets. I think it should be placed under Solar System. Praemonitus (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I have moved it under Solar System per your suggestion. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Inactive Bot

Latest comment: 4 years ago16 comments8 people in discussion

I've recently noticed that Bot0612 is inactive. So is the user operating it. It's written that Rreagan007 is supposed to count, but they didn't do that for a long time. The last update of the count was on February, exactly 8 months ago, and I am certain that the number of articles has increased since then. I didn't know who to report it to, so I went here. A new bot is very much needed. Fr.dror (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

No one is responding, despite the increased view count, and I don't know where to report it. All that's needed is a user that is able to build a simple counuting bot, nothing else. Fr.dror (talk) 08:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
@Fr.dror: I agree with you that we need a bot to do that. Unfortunately, I don't know how to build or run a bot, unless there's some code somewhere I could appropriate to build this bot. pbp 13:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Earlier discussion (archived)--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 19:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Dammit. Seems as thought it's complicated, but I really don't know why, I started counting manualy and I found an algorythem that works. Maybe I'll try to fix it. And I'll probably consult the user who tried to fix it but failed. Fr.dror (talk) 10:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I would suggest to report it to Wikipedia:Bot requests (BTW we could also prove more editors here). Dawid2009 (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
@Rreagan007: Yes, please take it to Bot requests, doing this manually will lead to errors and is just time consuming. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, let's take it to Bot Requests (even though there's a backlog there); Bot maintenance is crucial for preventing this project from decaying. I'd also support the creation of additional tools, such as one for identifying articles that have been listed twice or articles listed at a higher level but not a lower one. Sdkb (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
It was also already earier discussed here. If nobody will keep here any comment in next few days I will try singlhandedly report it to WP:Bot requests. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Hallelujah! A new bot is in operation (albeit not without quirks; Sports, games and recreation is way off at the time of writing)--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 15:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
All further nominations withdrawn by nominatior

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

Spin of "Fashion and other entertainment industries" onto new own page

Support
  1. Support As nom. The word "other" would be associated with context that it is dedicated section for other entertainments than games. This section would be the most below under games section. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Spin of "Cooking and cuisine" onto new own page

Support
  1. Support As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Sociobiology and Human sexuality

I am also wondering what we could do with "humamsexuality" section and section related with friendship/familu/neighborhood etc.. Should we have in biology section dedicated category for sociobiology (where we would put human sexuality)? @Maunus: You edit pages associated with anthropology, what do you think? Dawid2009 (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

We should definitely not have a section dedicated to sociobiology, since this is not a field of current research into human behavior, and is considered obsolete by anthropologists (still used for non-human animals), previous human sociobiologists have now mostly moved to Evolutionary Psychology. The right field would be biological anthropology, or perhaps better, simply anthropology, since both sexuality and kinship/sociality falls into both social anthropology and biological anthropology. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Sociobiology is a subfield of sociology. Well, also of biology, but in general it is closer to socio than bio. Keep those topic(s) there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I recently added sociobiology. After some research I came to the conclusion that it fits biology more than sociology which is in line with what Maunus says here. Sociobiology is not typically mentioned in sociology books. Human sexuality belongs in the health subsection, imo. --Spaced about (talk) 09:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

COVID-19 Self made masks - Tissue paper quality characteristics; request support to increase it's current level 5 status

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

How do I ask for support for that? Can't find it using the search. University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital Experts released a youtube video about making self made masks by sandwiching a facial tissue between 2 kitchen paper towels. I have a lot of experience with other self-made projects - actually the wikipedia is one as well - that make a LOT of difference and have a HUGE positive impact. Of course people who are in a hospital, in a room treating covid-19 patients need professional gear, but for people going into the supermarket, these self made masks are making a huge difference in delaying the surge in contaminations. I'd like to get support to increase the level 5 of the article on facial tissue so we can get to people who work in that industry and can add info on a norm for facial tissue to get an idea of how efficient such a mask would be against dust/microbes and the covid-19. Thy SvenAERTS (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

If you want to upgrade the facial tissue article to level 4 (more vital) you should make the proposition at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Thy SvenAERTS (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, already, though the discussion for level 4 continues. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Add 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

I know that there might be a bit of recentism here but shouldn't 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic or at least Coronavirus disease 2019 be here given the amount of impact its already had and the huge amount of views? Note that Black Death for example is a level 5 3 VA. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Black death killed about 10,000 times as many people as COVID-19 has so far, so I don't think that's the best comparison. But I support adding the pandemic – seems to be of similar importance to events listed at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#21st century (38 articles). —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I would support adding it under Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#21st century (38 articles). Having caused the second, fifth, and thirteenth biggest stock market losses since 1896 (see List of largest daily changes in the Dow Jones Industrial Average#Largest percentage changes) makes me confident that this is an enduring topic likely to be discussed as a major event in 21st century history. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
@Crouch, Swale, Mx. Granger, and Wugapodes: Please see this proposal and this proposal up a level. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 03:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Looks like someone added it already. This might be moved to level 4 in the future, we'll see. --mfb (talk) 05:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes its been done, lets see if it goes up to 4 or if the disease its self also gets on. Actually Black Death is a level 3, I noticed that when I checked it so I don't know why I said level 5 above. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I see it was added on the 17th to the history list but only noted on the article's talk page a few hours ago. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
@Crouch, Swale: A bot is planned to tag the talk pages when VA5 gets more complete; it isn't necessary right now. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 03:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
That's what I thought was done already (example). In response to the point that Black Death killed many more people, I'd note that 7 July 2005 London bombings had 56 deaths, 2011 Norway attacks had 77 and September 11 attacks (level 4) had 2,996 compared with 16,000+ for this plus its likely to continue. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Remove Jerry Lawler

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion
Discussion ran for two months, result: 66% support removing, which per the rules, mandates removal. starship.paint (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

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


Note: Lawler was added to the list without discussion [5][6] within the last year. He was neither the best wrestling commentator ever (see Jim Ross, Bobby Heenan, Gordon Solie, Lance Russell, Gorilla Monsoon), nor a national icon as a wrestler, because when Lawler was mainly performing as a wrestler, professional wrestling in the United States was mostly comprised of regional pro-wrestling companies, not national pro-wrestling companies. All his championships were regional ones, not national ones. starship.paint (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. per nom starship.paint (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. He'll always be king of Memphis but perhaps not king of the world.LM2000 (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  3. Agree. Lawler is the King of Memphis, but not on a National or World level. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  4. Adding to this list (as opposed to the higher levels) without discussion is not an issue (and indeed the norm) if I'm not mistaken. Nevertheless, I agree with everyone else. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 11:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Lawler crawled out of his regional cartoon outhouse and took the whole cruddy scene with him to the grand shining sewers of New York, where he and Kaufmann opened the doors for all sorts of famous pop culture moments. Hogan choking Belzer! Schultz toppling Stossel! Warrior mindf*dging Arsenio! We should have at least 30 spots in this Vital Vestibule, room enough for this shadow demon and five new and exciting members from the Far East and South-beyond-the-South. Cut no one! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. the quota isn't set yet. tv/dance/comedy needs to be cut, but i plan to up wrestlers a bit, there should be as many as radio people and arguably models, infact there would be if wrestlers were not in sports first and thus the quota already made before they went to entertainers. Lawler is one of the most visible wrestlers due to his Kaufman association. GuzzyG (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

On that note, this list needs to be balanced more, so i'd have to see with Lawler. we need a balance between women, old timers missing like Martin Burns/George Hackenschmidt/Toots Mondt, all three top Lucha stars Mil Máscaras aswell, maybe other Japanese stars like Keiji Mutoh/Jumbo Tsuruta/Jushin Liger, the short era of British popularity Giant Haystacks/Shirley Crabtree, a Puerto Rico rep Pedro Morales, Shawn Michaels lol and a stable like New World Order (professional wrestling) and a tag team like The Road Warriors. Since this is a entertainment field, arguably even a ref like Earl Hebner or a ring announcer like Howard Finkel. As many areas as possible need to be represented. i'm going to clean up the list eventually, since it's over quota and i messed up a bit, but pro wrestling will probably get more, Jerry can be reevaulated then imo. GuzzyG (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: - so what would be the new quota? Who decides it? starship.paint (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: Probably 10 more for pro wrestling, but one would include Jim Ross being moved out of journalists into pro wrestling. there's not really a deciding process for this list, but the quotas are not proportionate to the lvl 4 list and are not proportionate to anything else (radio hosts being as much as pro wrestlers despite the latter being more prominent internationally and pro wrestlers getting more attention on wiki, which means pro wrestler articles have more of a need to be of high quality), so since im responsible for that, i was going to re-do them to give everything more balance. this list has been largely abandoned and since i am responsible for most of the additions, i was gonna correct it myself. Articles like Marie-Thérèse de Subligny (too niche), Joey Greco (too niche/american based) and Seth Rogen (too recent/american based, we could replace him with articles like Ahmed Zaki (actor), can be all cut down and articles like Blue Demon added because they clearly represent a more diverse point of view of what entertainers are vital worldwide. it's a long process and will probably take me a month and a half to work on it to research everything, but i have big hopes for this list and i plan to re-do some of the inside quotas when required. GuzzyG (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Blue Demon

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
Discussion ran for two months, result: 100% support adding, which per the rules, mandates inclusion. starship.paint (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

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

"An icon in Mexican wrestling and culture", who "transcended" wrestling to become an "authentic" movie star, as described by ESPN. "Legendary", stated BBC. One of the "three greatest luchadores in Mexican history", who also acted in "cult films", stated the Los Angeles Times. One of "Mexico's most famous luchadores", stated NPR. Right now 20/25 wrestlers in the list were based in the United States, this would balance the list internationally. starship.paint (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. per nom starship.paint (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. Fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  3. per nom.LM2000 (talk) 08:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  4. A huge lucha libre and Mexican icon. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  5. he was already gonna get added when teh quotas fixed/cleaned up, along with Mil Máscaras. GuzzyG (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Chyna

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
Discussion ran for two months, result: 60% support removing, which per the rules, mandates removal. starship.paint (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

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


Note: Chyna was added without discussion within the last year. Relatively short career in the WWF (4 years - 1997 to 2001), unnoteworthy career outside the WWF. Did break the mold with intergender matches, but did not leave much influence. Did win a secondary men's title, but not a men's world championship. Intergender matches were hardly significant in the WWF/WWE after Chyna. She failed to lift up women's wrestling in the United States, which continued to be not taken seriously (women's matches being treated as toilet breaks) in WWE, the dominant company nationally and internationally, until an upturn beginning in 2014. However, the upturn in WWE did not feature wrestlers in the mold of Chyna.

Support
  1. per nom starship.paint (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. She left an impact in WWF during her short career but I think it'd be hard to make a case that she's a top 25 wrestler in that company let alone all of pro wrestling history.LM2000 (talk) 08:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  3. She was important, but not a huge influence or game changer, like Toyota. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Intercontinental Champion, Royal Rumble participant, popular ringside enforcer. Even as a genderless professional wrestler, that's pretty impressive! But as a woman, even slightly moreso. That she wasn't (couldn't have been) followed by a line of clones is a point in her favour, in my view. Part of having an extraordinary life story. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. one of the most dominant women, we absolutely need her. she's better then Trish or Lita and we absolutely need to cover this area of women's wrestling. GuzzyG (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Manami Toyota

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
Discussion ran for two months, result: 100% support adding, which per the rules, mandates inclusion. starship.paint (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

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

All three women on the professional wrestling list are Americans who largely wrestled in the United States. I propose a representative of Japanese women's wrestling (also known as joshi puroresu), Manami Toyota. While in the United States, the rise of women's wrestling to match men's wrestling is only currently happening, in Japan this happened much earlier. According to Dave Meltzer, the preeminent wrestling journalist here, Toyota was may have been the greatest woman wrestler of all-time, on a par if not superior to any male pro wrestler of the 1990s as far as athleticism and garnering a reaction from fans, one of the first generation of women stars respected by the male wrestling fans, boosting the popularity of women's wrestling in Japan in the early 90s. Toyota is also acknowledged by The Washington Post as perhaps the greatest female wrestler of all time. Similarly, the Baltimore Sun - Toyota was considered one of the elite workers in the industry – male or female – in the '90s while competing for All-Japan Women's Pro Wrestling ... perhaps the greatest in-ring female performer of all time

Support
  1. per nom starship.paint (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. Basically joshi's Cena. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  3. per nom.LM2000 (talk) 08:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  4. One of the greatest, most influencial wrestlers in history. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  5. She was always going to be added in the new quota update. GuzzyG (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Jiffy (time)

Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion
PASSED
5-1, removed. --Rsk6400 (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Why is jiffy (time) a vital article? It is an obscure term that is little used in any field and has no universally recognised definition. It is more along the lines of a scientific joke. I don't see any discussion in the archives. SpinningSpark 08:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with SpinningSpark and suggest to remove it.

Support
  1. As nom. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support - the articles listed below are more important. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support. Agree with nom. Better to replace it with a scientifically consistent measurement. Gizza (t)(c) 06:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 11:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support per all. Mr. Heart (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose for now. According to the article, there are multiple uses of "jiffy" as a unit or measure across various disciplines. We're still well under quota in that section. I suggest we wait and see what things look like once the section is closer to being complete. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
    What quota are you referring to? I'm not all that familiar with this project. Is it the 340/400 basics and measurement articles? I don't see how multiple meanings makes for a vital article. That puts the page in WP:DICT territory which means it shouldn't exist at all as a standalone page. I think it is embarrasing having this collection of nonce-like uses as a vital article. By the way, most of those uses boil down to a technology use, not a science use so it's potentially in the wrong section anyway. SpinningSpark 00:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, the quota for the measurements section is 400 and we are well under it currently. And it's not in the wrong section. It belongs in the measurements section as the article is about a unit of measurement. You can find all the quotas for each section listed in the chart on the Level 5 main page. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Independence, Missouri

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
PASSED
4-0, removed. --Rreagan007 (talk) 05:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Suburb of Kansas City, Missouri which isn't even that large.

Support
  1. As nominator. feminist (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. per nom.   // Timothy :: talk  00:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support a bit odd it was there in the first place. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I'm of mixed emotions on this. It has some historical importance as one of the gateways to the West but not much present-day significance. pbp 17:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Animals

Latest comment: 2 years ago179 comments33 people in discussion

Add Murray cod

Support
  1. Support as nominator -- Aeonx (talk) 08:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss


Add Wolf spider

Support
  1. Support as nominator -- Aeonx (talk) 08:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  2. Support. One of the more popular spiders. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss


Add Sand tiger shark

Support
  1. Support as nominator -- Aeonx (talk) 08:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss


Add Timema

Support
  1. Support as nominator -- Aeonx (talk) 08:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss


Add False killer whale

Support
  1. Support as nominator -- Aeonx (talk) 08:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss


Add Leopard seal

Support
  1. Support as nominator -- Aeonx (talk) 08:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  2. Support. Look, at least it’s not a sea lion. I can do without sea lions. Last line is a joke, if any sea lions are watching. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss


Add Blue-tongued skink

Support
  1. Support as nominator -- Aeonx (talk) 08:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss


Add Gang-gang cockatoo

Support
  1. Support as nominator -- Aeonx (talk) 08:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss



Add Phytosaur

Group of prehistoric reptiles that is the sister taxon to Archosauria (contains birds, crocodilians, pterosaurs and dinosaurs)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. starship.paint (exalt) 06:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  2. Support I think Orders are more significant than individual species. And despite their misleading name, the phytosaurs were a large group of semi-aquatic predators. Their morphological resemblance to the Crocodilia is quite interesting. Dimadick (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Scutosaurus

Prehistoric herbivorous reptile of the Permian era. Good representative of a group (Parareptilia) distinct from all living reptiles.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. starship.paint (exalt) 06:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss


Add Edaphosaurus

Significant large herbivorous Synapsid (Level 4 article). Synapsids eventually evolved into mammals.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. starship.paint (exalt) 01:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss


Add Dicynodont

Dominant herbivores during the Late Permian. Some survived past the Permian–Triassic extinction event. At least 50 million years of existence. Significant variations in size from rat to elephant.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. starship.paint (exalt) 01:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss


Add Gorgonops

Prehistoric therapsid from the Permian, dominant predator of its time. Holotype of its type species. starship.paint (exalt) 05:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. starship.paint (exalt) 05:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss


Add Plesiosauroidea

Long-necked plesiosaurs (Level 4 article).

Support
  1. Support as nominator. starship.paint (exalt) 01:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  2. Support I am surprised they were missing. Cryptozoologists have been fantasizing about discovering living samples, and this group appears relatively frequently in fiction. Dimadick (talk) 08:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Pliosauridae

Short-necked plesiosaurs (Level 4 article).

Support
  1. Support as nominator. starship.paint (exalt) 01:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Nothosaurus

Triassic marine reptile. No other Triassic marine reptiles are listed. No other nothosaurs are listed either.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. starship.paint (exalt) 01:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss


Add Leedsichthys

Prehistoric fish from the Jurassic, was the largest bony fish ever. At least 4 times as long as current largest bony fish Mola mola.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. starship.paint (exalt) 02:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Megalodon

Prehistoric shark that survived for around 20 million years, one of the largest predators ever.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. starship.paint (exalt) 02:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Dunkleosteus

Prehistoric armored fish, among the largest Placoderms ever (Level 4 article)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. starship.paint (exalt) 02:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss


Add Haikouichthys

Prehistoric fish from the Cambrian era, one of the earliest fishes.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. starship.paint (exalt) 05:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss


Add Tiktaalik

Prehistoric fish, transitional fossil between fish and four-legged land animals (amphibians, reptiles).

Support
  1. Support as nominator. starship.paint (exalt) 05:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss


Add Ichthyostega

Transitional fossil between fish and four-legged land animals (amphibians, reptiles).

Support
  1. Support as nominator. starship.paint (exalt) 05:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss


Add Temnospondyli

A group of primitive amphibians that survived for over 200 million years.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. starship.paint (exalt) 06:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss


Add Ammonoidea

Prehistoric molluscs that survived for over 300 million years. So common that they are used as index fossils.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. starship.paint (exalt) 05:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 08:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Belemnoidea

Another group of prehistoric molluscs that survived for over 250 million years.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. starship.paint (exalt) 06:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 08:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Anomalocaris

Prehistoric aquatic arthropod from the Cambrian era, one of the earliest apex predators.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. starship.paint (exalt) 05:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss


Add Eurypterus

Prehistoric aquatic arthropod. The most common eurypterid (Level 4 article) - 95% of all known eurypterid specimens are this species.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. starship.paint (exalt) 05:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss


Add Jaekelopterus

Prehistoric aquatic arthropod from the Devonian era. Largest eurypterid (Level 4 article) and largest known arthropod.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. starship.paint (exalt) 05:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss


Add Arthropleura

Prehistoric arthropod resembling a millipede, from the Carboniferous era. The largest land invertebrate ever.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. starship.paint (exalt) 01:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss


Add Meganisoptera or Meganeura

The former are prehistoric insects that survived for at least 40 million years. Includes the largest insect ever Meganeuropsis permiana, also includes Meganeura. Please state your preference on which below.

Support
  1. Support Meganisoptera, first choice. Support Meganeura, second choice. starship.paint (exalt) 02:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  2. Support Meganisoptera. The Order is more significant than the species. Dimadick (talk) 08:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I won't mark this as an oppose per se but I think that Meganeura is much more well-known and significant in the popular consciousness than its parent group. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Lythronaxargestes: - acknowledged and edited nom since no one else has voted. starship.paint (exalt) 06:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Add Argentavis

Prehistoric bird from the Late Miocene, among the largest birds ever - 5-6m wingspan. starship.paint (exalt) 02:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. starship.paint (exalt) 02:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss


Add Pelagornis sandersi

Prehistoric bird from the Oligocene, the largest bird ever - 6-7m wingspan. starship.paint (exalt) 02:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. starship.paint (exalt) 02:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss


Add Therizinosaurus

Unique herbivorous theropod with long claws, distinguishing it from other theropods.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. starship.paint (exalt) 01:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss


Add Heterodontosaurus

Prehistoric dinosaur from the Triassic, one of the earliest of the Ornithischia (later evolved to ceratopsians, stegosaurs, ankylosaurs, pachycephalosaurs, ornithopods).

Support
  1. Support as nominator. starship.paint (exalt) 05:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss


Add Psittacosaurus

Prehistoric dinosaur from the Cretaceous, "a basal member of Ceratopsia", "is among the most diverse and abundant dinosaurs".

Support
  1. Support as nominator. starship.paint (exalt) 05:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss


Add Herrarasaurus

One of the earliest dinosaurs. Believed to be an ancestor of the theropods (e.g. T.rex) and the sauropods (e.g. Apatosaurus)


Support
  1. Support as nominator. starship.paint (exalt) 11:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss


Add Plateosaurus

Prehistoric dinosaur from the Triassic era, an ancestor to the sauropods (e.g. Apatosaurus)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. starship.paint (exalt) 11:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss


Add Parasaurolophus

Iconic ornithopod dinosaur from the Cretaceous era, due to its unique head crest.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. starship.paint (exalt) 11:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss


Add Mammaliaformes

Ancestors of mammals.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. starship.paint (exalt) 11:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss


Add Cotylorhynchus

Significant large herbivorous Synapsid (Level 4 article). Synapsids eventually evolved into mammals.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. starship.paint (exalt) 11:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss


Add Woolly mammoth

Iconic animal from the Ice Age. Very well studied. Very well preserved. Culturally significant.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. starship.paint (exalt) 14:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  2. Support iconic animal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Parareptilia

Major radiation of early reptiles, existed for over 100 million years.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Pareiasaur

Major radiation of parareptiles, a dominant group of land vertebrates during the Late Permian

Support
  1. Support as nominator. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. starship.paint (exalt) 15:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Sauria

Major clade of reptiles. Based on DNA, the crown group of modern reptiles.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. starship.paint (exalt) 15:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Rhynchocephalia

Major clade of reptiles, one of only 5 living orders of reptiles (including birds)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. starship.paint (exalt) 15:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Dinocephalia

Major clade of therapsids, dominant group of therapsids during the Middle Permian

Support
  1. Support as nominator. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. starship.paint (exalt) 15:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Arachnids

Hey, I'm definitely completing this list the sooner I can, but for reasons, I absolutely can't do arachnids. Which doesn't mean I don't know much about spiders, but I can't search about them. So, if anyone would be kind enough to add roughly 20-25 articles. The other problem being that I'm a french-speaker, so I only know about those in french, and I can't search about traduction either, Google Trad being unreliable and Wikipedia meaning I'll have that in my historic, even if I disable images. I'll made a short list of what could be included, in french, and if anyone is bold enough to add more, go for it.

Dolomède/Araignée pécheuse (don't know if those two are synonyms)

Tégénaire

Argyronète

Epeire

Araignée bolas

Néphile/Nephilidae

Faucheux (cellar spider)

Harvestman

Trombidion (acarian)

Aoûtat (acarian)

Ciron (acarian)

Scorpion du vent (Wind solifuge ? scorpion ?)

Araignée banane (Banana spider ?)

Mygale du Mexique (Mexico tarentula/mygal/spider ?)

Mygale bleue (Blue tarentula ?)

Also there's this genus of salticidae which uses complex breeding rituals, I think it would probably be a relevant addition. Sorry for letting others do my job, but I ain't doing it myself. Alternatively I can just fill up what I intend to place with unrelevant mascots, so there's still things to suppress without debate in the eventuality someone is interested later.

Also, while I'm on it, per "If the number of articles in a particular subpage of the Lv5 VA list is still below the quota (especially substantially lower than it), then Wikipedians can add articles related to the subpage's corresponding topics to the subpage without any prior discussion.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)", everybody is allowed to modify this file as long as the additions are relevant and undiscussed. Larrayal (talk) 13:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Remove Ham (son of Noah), Shem, and Japheth

Discussion ran for over eight months, result: 100% support removing, but only two votes. Removed by nominator. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

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

In the articles, there is nothing giving any importance to these sons of Noah.

Support
  1. As nom. --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support, Noah alone is enough. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion is now more than eight months old. I'll remove the article, using WP:Common sense. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Hermann Balck

Discussion ran for over a year. The only vote was in favour of removal. Removed by nominator. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

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

I'm a history teacher at a German Gymnasium (high school) and never heard of him. After reading the article, I don't find anything making him particularly notable. In general, I think 35 German military people are too much, if you compare e.g. with the few French (listed under "General"). --Rsk6400 (talk) 10:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion is now more than one year old. I just removed the article, using WP:Common sense. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Christmas Island and Norfolk Island

Passed. Heart (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

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


While I don't think political "leaders" from this small outposts are notable, the outposts themselves may be. pbp 22:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 22:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Hyperbolick (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  4. Support Dimadick (talk) 09:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

While population of this outpost nowdays is larger than VaticanCity I will not support this proposal. This outpost from supermely young and quite small country currently has 1500+ population. Is every town with +15 000 population and very long history automatically vital? Dawid2009 (talk) 10:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

We should have a more general discussion on whether all dependent territories are vital at Level 5. Or at least all inhabited dependent territories. The dependent territory article lists out all of them so you can get an idea of how much the list here will grow if we add all of them (not by much since many are already Level 5 if not Level 4). Gizza (t)(c) 11:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I have been adding islands to the physical geography section and I have listed both there. While I agree with Dawid2009 in that these two entities are not vital as dependent territories, because of their short history, I think they should be kept in physical geography. We have still plenty of room there, and both Norfolk Island and Christmas Island are printed in most globes and world maps you can buy, which I think is grounds for listing them at Level 5. --Makkool (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add San Francisco Bay Area and Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex

Passed. Heart (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

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


Two of the largest conurbations in the US which are both anchored by multiple cities.

Support
  1. As nominator. feminist (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. per nom.   // Timothy :: talk  01:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Listing Dallas and San Francisco is enough. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Southern California and Northern California

Passed. Heart (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

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


Either is larger in area or population than many countries. There have traditionally been cultural differences and rivalry between the two pbp 17:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 17:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Per nom and per number of views each receieves. (I'm biased though)   // Timothy :: talk  17:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support California is probably large enough and the two regions are probably distinct enough that they deserve to be listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support as both have been suggested as suitable for separate statehood, which ought to be a good test. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  5. Support Dimadick (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Rhine-Ruhr

Passed. Heart (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

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


Another region anchored by multiple cities.

Support
  1. As nominator. feminist Wear a mask to protect everyone 11:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support. Germany (approx. 80 mill. inhabitants) has 15 articles, while Hungary (10 mill.) has 20, so I think some important German regions below the level of land should be added - and Rhine-Ruhr is really important. Rsk6400 (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
  3. Extremely important region of Germany and frequently referenced. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Dimadick (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Necromancy

Failed. Heart (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

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


Proposed to remove Necromancy from level 5. This list already contains Magic (supernatural), along with several specific aspects of its belief and practice, Divination, and Afterlife. This list does not include Oneiromancy, Haruspex, Arithmancy, or other specific forms of divination. Darker Dreams (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. Darker Dreams (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Practiced for thousands of years, and still influences modern culture and fiction. Dimadick (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose as per Dimadick. Has more hold on popular imagination than any others. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, as per the above two reasons. ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add COVID-19_pandemic

PASSED
COVID-19 is already listed in History section.--Thi (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

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

COVID-19_pandemic is important as COVID-19.--Here's 28 and did I make a mess? 04:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator.--Here's 28 and did I make a mess? 04:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

This is already on the level 4 Dawid2009 (talk)

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

Actor quotas

The following discussion is closed. 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 arhives TRM pointed that there are too few actors from Asia. I also noted that @Philburmc: suggested addition of Michel Bouquet to the level 4 but he is not even on the level 5. Do you guys have any comment here? I personally do not but I am not sure at least why ballance beetwen Asia/West is other among men and women? Dawid2009 (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

This is true; as i have done with the music section; i will be going through the actors and correcting this. Bouquet is just not notable enough for this list. Because i did the majority of the women while the men had a massive dump of European actors particularly Russian at the start. Just stay with me on this one; im working on it. GuzzyG (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Li Xian

FAILED
1-3, not added. --Thi (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Li Xian is a rising actor in China with lot of projects ahead, the article currently grade B. Puchicatos (talk) 06:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
  1. Many actors are up and coming, but don't make it onto the list. No reason to start now. Mr. Heart (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, there are more vital actors in China. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - rising actors simply don't qualify. We should be adding people on the level of Tony Leung Chiu-wai. starship.paint (exalt) 01:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. 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 archives thare was proposal to make section for "Military criminals", what do you think about section called "Outlaws" where we could also list highwaymans? In the past I kept in User:Dawid2009/outlaws some outlawery-related, quoted in academic books which maybe could be interesing to inclusion. I am also wondering about number of businessman (in the pas @Cobblet: has said on his own talk page that including explorers and businesspeople is not good idea and balance beetwen 1200 sports people and several houndrets explorers and businesspeople (combined) maybe is not the best idea. Is really 20-th YouTuber more vital than average businessmen mentioned in forbes (just for example Mateusz Mach)? Dawid2009 (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

No; outlaws are rebels/revolutionaries. They fit there. KSI (entertainer) was the 20th YouTuber and yes, he's more important than Mach; [[7]] to Gen z; youtubers are as big as actors were in the golden age of hollywood. We list far too low web entertainers in that case. GuzzyG (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

People notable for notoriety

The following discussion is closed. 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 would like to echo that @GuzzyG: recently readded to the level John and Lorena Bobbitt (Now, I did not reverted it and started discussion here as it would be 3-revert rule by philosophy of Wikipedia). Personally IMO John and Lorena Bobbit are not example notoriety-bios with significant cultural impact but there are other biographies also notable for notioriety which had impact and sometimes their inclusion could be problematic. I personally for example see issue that we list maybe too many prostitutes whose anyway are way less notable than (missed, perhaps correctly) Sarah Baartman and inclusion of this one also would be problematic as there are far too many parent topics more vital than she (name of disorder, name of tribe, probably historical articles articles around her). Personally I do not take big issue with people notable for notoriety (We list Adolf Hitler on the level 3 for example) but I think we should finally start discussion how far we can let Vital article project to covering so much detalic things. I honestly verry, verry apreciate titanic constribution of GuzzyG (he done a lot of good additions to people sections) to that list but later or earlier I think we should finally discuss this issuea, especially that some of users (not me) even have been littly discouraged/disapointed to people section in the archives. IMO this post is good statement to say that we list for example too few tribes/languages and maybe number of people included to "Sex work" section is littly to big? I am also wondering about swap John and Lorera as I did not find how they are known outside UK and have larger impact on culture than e g recently removed fictional characters. What do you think? Dawid2009 (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)'

This 30!! year old case still gets TV documentaries Lorena and has a article viewership [8] of 6,325,804 total. Which mean's it's a highly viewed pop culture article; removing this won't do anything but leave a spot in the "other" section; so to replace it, you'd have to find a better swap there. Sarah Baartman should be listed somewhere. Sex work is the oldest job and one of the most written about; highly disagree on it being covered less; most people that have a disagreement misunderstand that this is a curated list based on pop culture; "vital" in name only; they're never gonna like this list. GuzzyG (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Sarah Baartman and Ota Benga are now listed under case studies. GuzzyG (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Section for eccentricies in People/Miscellaneous?

The following discussion is closed. 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 missing group of people that are sometimes included in encyclopedias, but that are missing from Level 5 vital articles, are people notable for the eccetricity or peculiar circumstances in their life. People like Florence Foster Jenkins, Robert Coates (actor), Mary Toft or Timothy Dexter. Could we have space for these kind of articles as well? --Makkool (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but it's all about finding room. When i get to the Misc section i'll see if we have room. Articles that get alot of traffic via "did you know" type lists are important to have featured articles on aswell. GuzzyG (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Physical geography quota

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

It seems to me that physical geography is one of those sections that should have more relative representation the farther down the list you go (i.e. more than 5x the amount of articles at level 4). I think upping the quota from 1600 to, say, 1900 would be good. I think we could take some quota from other sections to do this. My proposal is to add 300 articles to physical geography, and remove 200 from astronomy and 100 from philosophy to compensate. Does anyone have better ideas of what sections to quota-reduce? 2604:C340:AC:4:6531:DE8B:5111:CDEE (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

FYI I'm the same person that just added some articles to the page, but apparently my IP changed in that short timespan 2604:C340:AC:4:6531:DE8B:5111:CDEE (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Everyday life section seems to need reducing. I am not so fond of taking quota from Philosophy and religion, it is traditional encyclopedic area. --Thi (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Agree. We could reduce from the sports quota, as the amount of those articles hasn't increased much. --Makkool (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed response. Taking your responses into account, I think reducing the sports quota by 50, astronomy by 150, and everyday life by 100 would be good. If no objections, I'll implement in a few days. 2604:C340:AC:4:40D0:4F50:72AC:5C61 (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I went ahead and updated them. 2604:C340:AC:4:F517:92F2:FFE6:9490 (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Māui (mythology)

PASSED
4–0, added Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Polynesian mythology is solely represented by Pele. Room for a second figure, and Māui exists broadly across Polynesian culture. Has always been significant but, facing reality, portrayal in Moana has further lifted his star. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  2. Support Folk hero with actions comparable to Prometheus. Dimadick (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. Gizza (talk • voy) 03:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

If nobody disputes, safe to go ahead and add, then? Hyperbolick (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Have added, btw. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Reverted, due to not meeting criteria. Heart (talk) 03:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@HeartGlow30797: What criteria? Hyperbolick (talk) 06:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Any added needed a to have at least 5 votes in support. Heart (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
@HeartGlow30797: No. Wikipedia:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions - all levels except for level 5 require five or more support votes and a two-thirds majority for a topic to be added or removed. Level 5 is way under construction and do not have any formal process yet. Ask User:Cobblet who added that information. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Adding it back due to this. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add BlackRock

ADDED
Added with proper replacement target identified

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

World's largest asset manager, arguably more significant than many banks we currently list. feminist (talk) | free Hong Kong 14:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator. feminist (talk) | free Hong Kong 14:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss


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

Add ASML Holding

ADDED
Added with pdiscretion

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

Largest technology company in Europe by market capitalization. Arguably the most important (read: vital) semiconductor company in the world. feminist (talk) | free Hong Kong 14:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator. feminist (talk) | free Hong Kong 14:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
I have taken the discretion to add it to the list.C933103 (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2022 (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 Agricultural Bank of China, China Construction Bank

REMOVED
Removed for other obviously more notable entities

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

Of the 18 listed banks, four are from China. (Already excluded Hong Kong). I don't think the list need this many Chinese banks compared to banks in other countries. So I propose removing these two with less significance.C933103 (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator. C933103 (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2022 (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 Interactive Brokers

ADDED
Added with proper replacement target identified

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

Appears to be most important stock trading company in the world now.C933103 (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator. C933103 (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2022 (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.
ALL NATIONAL FLAGS AND COAT OF ARMS HAVE BEEN REMOVED
Discussion closed with consensus reached

The following discussion is closed. 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 more National flags, Coat of arms and National athemns

Is someone interested in addition of more flags, coats of arm and national athemns? Personally I think National flag and Coat of arm, both clearly should be level 4 article. We are more and more close to the limit at the level 5 and if we pass limit I belive many topics could be swapped for coat of arms or flags. In my opinion Coat of arms of Armenia or Flag of the United Kingdom are clearly vital articles and if we have specific olympic iteration or video game topic I would even except to list all national flags. Interesing would be also inclusion coat of arms for cities. Thoughts? Dawid2009 (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. You can find relevant articles listed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. Dimadick (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Feminist:, @Purplebackpack89:, @Power~enwiki: What do you think about it? Are you also still interested in estabilising cities and subdivisions? Dawid2009 (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I already added all national flags. I think all of them are certainly vital (Flag of Nepal has comparable Wikipedia own's statistic to Tenzing Norgay who is listed on the list with five times harder requirement). During that time I found two interesing things: 1Flag of Russia, Flag of China and Flag of USA are listed among history section too (IMO adding more "History of country would be better for that section) 2 Flag of India and Flag of South Africa got rate from Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team but never have been nominated to the level 4. Dawid2009 (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
To add to this, It is very posible that I accidentally missed one or handful countries; now I have problem to review it and found among ~~200 ones. I hope that I did not missed any important country but it would be nice if someone could help review this list. Dawid2009 (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Remove all coats of arms

None of these ~200 articles are important enough for this level. Coat of arms of Lesotho and Coat of arms of Slovenia are two random examples of unimportant articles from this section. Even the more discussed topics like Coat of arms of Spain aren't necessary. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

  • Mostly support. Think perhaps a handful can be selected and kept, but would be very few at this level. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Most of these are not vital. casualdejekyll (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Most are not vital except for perhaps a few exceptions. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support completely but with some exceptions ; important countries such as the US, France, the UK, Germany, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, Russia and South Africa should keep their coat of arms. Similarly, I think most of the flags should be removed, but it's a question for another time and we should work on a complete rework of some sections (500 articles in Television, 300 universities, but only 100 articles in the Ethnology sections ?). Responding to the opposition, this list is not here to serve an agenda, nor to pretend that every country are equals and equally releavant in the grand scheme of things. It's here to say what are the most important articles to work on, and I do believe that articles like Comanche should have priority over Coat of arms of Nauru. Larrayal (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Comment. Do we have the flags of every country? I could see the flags being vital at this level but most coat of arms probably not. Gizza (talk • voy) 10:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
We do have flags of every country listed. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2022 (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.

Please add an article (Vaccine hesitancy)

ADDED
Added

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

Hello. --Алёна Пескова (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Quote from article (It is identified by the World Health Organization as one of the top ten global health threats of 2019.). --Алёна Пескова (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I've added this myself to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Health since it is still far below quota. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Galileo (spacecraft)

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

Galileo (spacecraft) is listed as a level-5 vital article, but I've recently split it into two articles: Galileo (spacecraft) and Galileo program. Which one should be the Vital article? Or both? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I think Galileo project (the current title of Galileo program) should be listed, as it is the broader article. Galileo (spacecraft) only covers the spacecraft's technical specifications, while Galileo project covers the missions the spacecraft is involved in and their results. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I have boldly swapped Galileo (spacecraft) with Galileo project. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2022 (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.

Split the "Society and social science" category, and relevant changes

Latest comment: 2 years ago58 comments23 people in discussion
DONE
Split agreed

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

  1. At 4625 articles, the list is now largest among all vital article list, and creating difficulty in navigating
  2. Some topics are unlike others in this category. Hence, I would suggest splitting the list as follow:
    • "Basic", "Psychology", "Sociology" (214/320) → Social studies (214/350)
    • "Business and economics", "Law" (1240/1165) → Law and economy (1240/1200)
    • "Communication", "Culture", "Education", "Ethnology and Anthropology", "Language" (1230/1175) → Culture and heritage (1230/1200)
    • "Journalism and mass media" (880/475) → Media (880/650)
    • "Organizations", "Politics and government", "Society", "War and military" (1057/865) → Politics and organizations (1057/1000)
  3. Doing so would increase the total category threshold from 4000 to 4400, which is still short from the current total article count of 4625, but it would become realistic for the list to be able to meet the target quota.
  4. The additional quota of 400 articles quota, in addition to the current excess of 50, need to be removed from other categories, in order to keep the list limited to 50000 in total. I would personally propose taking quota away from categories that are still far from filing up and have a high quota, for example taking 300 away from Biology, 50 from Chemistry, 50 from Earth Science, and 50 from Physics, making their quota becoming 1300, 1150, 1150, 1150 respectively, for their current article count of 891, 702, 848, 959. Total article quota for Biological and health science will drop to 6100 and for physical science will drop to 4750, which mean combined together there will still be more than 10000 science articles. C933103 (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Support
  1. Support subpages, overall bump to 4200-4400: I agree 4000 articles is a lot for a single page. As for the quota change, I don't have much opinion on where the slots come from or which subcategories they go to. The Society section being so over-budget does suggest the current quota is an underestimate; shaving some Society articles to meet the new quota in the middle seems fair. Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  2. Support this seems a better organization. I also support bumping the quota by reducing the number of biographies. For example, in the military area key military articles are not listed as vital articles for lack of space but the biography section has space for military figures of much lower importance. (t · c) buidhe 07:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Sadly, I don't think this is the way it should be done. There's a lot of articles that absolutely don't deserve to be Vital articles in this list. We should really stick to the first 4000 limit for now. I am absolutely not supporting cutting relevant elements from fields as important that health, physics, and biology, so Nauru can keep its coat of arms and the US absolutely all of its most irrelevant universities. We NEED to remove those 625 articles, not to leave them as they currently are while other sections are impacted due to the wasted status of this one. It is still realist for the list to attain the asked criteria - we just need to stop according too much importance to the 386 flags and coat of arms, the 488 television articles and the 303 universities, and focus on what really matters - cultures, international laws, languages, generalities, etc. I however agree that the page is difficult to navigate ; the fact is that it has always been a wastebasket, with several elements that were refused in other sections (see Game of Thrones and Dr. Who, that should clearly be with other movies in Arts, for example). The first quota wasn't an overestimate ; I bet somebody just thought it wasn't the list of vital articles but the Lists of American universities and colleges and the Gallery of sovereign state flags. Larrayal (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I agree with the above sentiment. If you want increased quota for social science articles, check you've removed the ones that aren't needed first. The quotas were picked and allocated at certain levels for a reason. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Discuss
  • I axed all the flag articles and asked Sdkb to look at the universities, of which I agree there are too many. (t · c) buidhe 13:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • After reading the entire page, I found that the biggest excess is probably American TV program articles. There quota for all journalism and mass media is 475, yet the list includes 230 US TV programs, mostly soap opera, that make up almost half the whole quota. I think it's probably appropriate to remove half of these TV programs, but I am not familiar with US TV to decide which should be removed.C933103 (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Updated article count and quota proposal as of Feb 14

There were some significant changes in a number of categories, and due to some resisting the 10% increase in quota, I have made the follow amended proposal on quota with updated article counts for reference (There will still be minor changes in quota to round them up):

  • "Basic", "Psychology", "Sociology" (214/320) → Social studies (214/400)
  • "Business and economics", "Law" (1219/1165) → Law and economy (1219/1200)
  • "Communication", "Culture", "Education", "Ethnology and Anthropology", "Language" (1244/1175) → Culture and heritage (1244/1200) (Pending reduction in education institute count)
  • "Journalism and mass media" (878/475) → Media (878/500) (Pending reduction in TV program count)
  • "Organizations", "Politics and government", "Society", "War and military" (672/865) → Politics and organizations (672/900)

Due to the rounding up effect, the new quota will become 4200, with the main gain being the Social studies category which haven't filled up yet, but definitely can have more articles added into the list. For reason of simplicity, the updated proposal would not call for removal of quota from any other categories, but rather leave the total quota temporarily inflated to 50,250 from the current 50,050, pending furture discussions on which categories should see reduction in quota.C933103 (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Re-categorization without quota change

Due to most commenters expressed approval on spit-up, but some have reserve against quota increase, I have decided to spit the section without increasing quota. Due to the lack of increase in quota, the re-categorization will be further adjusted to avoid categories that are too small, in the following way:

  • "Basic", "Psychology", "Society", "Sociology" → Social studies (530 quota)
  • "Business and economics", "Law", "Organizations", "Politics and government", "War and military" → Politic and economic (1820 quota)
  • "Communication", "Culture", "Education", "Ethnology and Anthropology", "Language", "Journalism and mass media" → Culture (1650 quota)

C933103 (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2022 (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 Body image disturbance

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

CThe topic of the article is a very topical issue, especially due to the pandemic and the lock-down and correlated with the increase in eating disorders in young people. The article was recently rated as GA Srobodao84 (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Already added by someone else. As the Health section is still below quota, additions can be done without discussion. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2022 (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.

Sports entertainment/amusement park people section in entertainers, temp test

I've listed sports entertainers (pro wrestlers, olden roller derby, monster truck driving, Meadowlark Lemon) in the "other entertainment" section by cutting the models, magicians and radio/podcasts section down by ten each and the adult/other sections by five each. I strongly believe these figures should be listed here; we're a encyclopedia and we should go by established ways to label things, "Professional wrestling (often shortened to pro wrestling or simply wrestling) is a form of performance art[1][2][3][4][5] and entertainment[6][7] that combines athletics with theatrical performance." is how professional wrestling is described in the first sentence; we shouldn't differ from our main article; it's a form of entertainment and thus it's performers are entertainers and not traditional athletes like traditional wrestlers; the leading company describes themselves as sports entertainers and as entertainment; it's weird to list WWE; which is described on it's article as a "American integrated media and entertainment company" as a sports league which we do aswell. People like Jerry Lawler are being listed in commentators when they're playing a entertainment role; if we list wrestlers here; we can include everyone connected to wrestling in this one section; as they're all involved in the entertainment. We list P. T. Barnum here in circus so it won't conflict if we list a person like Vince McMahon either. We're low on actual combat sport athletes and boxing with missing people like Oscar De La Hoya too; which correcting this will fix. It's established that pro wrestling is entertainment and thus wrestlers are entertainers and we shouldn't change that. The point of these fields is to entertain; not to win and that's the difference and why they should be listed apart from traditional sports.

I also created a 10 person "Amusement parks people" section; since it's better than some being under "other artists" and under "inventors"; they'll all be in one place; they may be involved in the business of entertainment and not entertainers themselves but we list Barnum under circus and it's the same thing.

I've done the edit, so people can see how it looks; but i haven't removed them from the sports page / the amusement park people on their listed pages; does anyone have any strong objections to these two fields being listed here and just going back to the status quo? GuzzyG (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I definitely favor listing these kinds of "sports entertainers" under entertainment rather than sports. Orser67 (talk) 04:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

What is the need for bias? I believe people are people, not government pawns.

Voice actor bias

This section is biased. Of the 30 people there, 28 are English-language and 2 are Japanese-language. There aren't even any predominantly-anime dub voice actors nor even those based in Texas where Funimation is. Thoughts? I'm informing WT:ANIME. ミラP 21:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Limit English-language VAs to 20
  • Increase Japanese-language VAs to 8
  • For Spanish-language VAs: add Rogelio Hernandez. No article on enwiki yet, but Alasdair Fotheringham acknowledged his voice as "indistinguishable from those of some of Hollywood's greatest stars"
  • Italian voice acting is the biggest of its kind if you don't count English and Japanese, so add one Italian-language VA: either Alberto Sordi because he is the best Italian voice actor, or Francesco Pannofino
Mitsuo Iwata, maybe? Yūki Kaji? Hyperbolick (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
@Hyperbolick: I'm also considering Miyuki Sawashiro, Nana Mizuki and Rica Matsumoto ミラP 23:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
All good. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree these are good adds, i always wanted to add some Japanese voice actors but didn't have the expertise, the section was filled by someone else before i could. I'd support cuts except the full simpsons cast since we list that at level 4. These are all good adds. Alberto Sordi is already listed under film actors. GuzzyG (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@GuzzyG: Okay, for Italians we'll go with Francesco Pannofino. But I'm not sure we should cut all of the non-Simpsons VAs since some of them primarily do work for level 4 content like Looney Tunes, Mickey Mouse, and Mario. We should go case-by-case first and take this section into account. ミラP 20:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Urk, probematic section in general. Ouside very niche fandoms, people can't name them. Unlike actors, many people don't even know voice acting is a profession. I know V5 has room, but in all honesty I am not convinced any voice actors should qualify here. In the end, when we max 'actor' category, I bet we can find an example of a more impactful (notable, whatever) but not included actor for any voice actor we compare him or her with that is still present here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Piotrus: Let's see here, Japan has 126 million people and the US 327 million; and anime makes a lot of money and is taken more seriously in Japan more than cartoons are in the USA. Does that change anything? ミラP 02:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Miraclepine: Case by case basis. I know some voice actors are minor celebrities, the question is, are even the biggest VA celebrities more 'vital' than the Top x,000 actors we have room for? Right now me may have room for some, but once we hit our max items, I think they may have a tough time defending themselves. Through a few may survive. Again, I think this is not really an issue until we are out of room for new actors, the the 'vital mortal combat' will begin :) PS. For the record, I do think the current proportion are unfair to Japanese VAs. PPS. The ones which will IMHO survive are the ones which are also celebrities due to other reasons (idols, singers, in general). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

First proposal

@Hyperbolick, GuzzyG, and Piotrus: My proposal for the 20 English-language VAs is up and ready. ミラP 04:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

  1.   Mel Blanc
  2.   Nancy Cartwright
  3.   Dan Castellaneta
  4.   Christine Cavanaugh
  5.   Milton Cross
  6.   Jim Cummings
  7.   Jim Dale
  8.   John DiMaggio
  9.   June Foray
  10.   Jennifer Hale
  11.   Don LaFontaine
  12.   Charles Martinet
  13.   Don Messick
  14.   Vic Mignogna
  15.   Don Pardo
  16.   Rob Paulsen
  17.   Tara Strong
  18.   Peter Thomas
  19.   Frank Welker
  20.   Billy West
I'd prefer all Simpsons cast to be kept, as that's the ultimate example of a American animated work, but i completely support all the rest. GuzzyG (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@GuzzyG: I cut some of the Simpsons VAs became some of them are not as vital as the others. Marge and Lisa’s VAs have less variety in notability than Homet and Bart’s VAs, while Hank Azeris doesn’t voice anyone in the Simpsons family. ミラP 06:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@Miraclepine: It's no issue and i am fine with those three being removed, it's just a shame the quotas are not big enough as they're important enough, either way you've did a good job, i appreciate the work you've done so far. GuzzyG (talk) 07:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@GuzzyG: Thank you. I’ll consider whether or not expand the quotas later tomorrow. ミラP 07:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@Miraclepine: No, i don't think that's necessary as everything's already filled out. Probably a bit weird to list every cast member of a show anyway, the only show we do that for in normal actors is Friends i think; also i forgot two that i was thinking of before, what do you think of Veronica Taylor and Adriana Caselotti; they both represent two important characters in animation history. What do you think on their chances? GuzzyG (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@GuzzyG: We'll add them in. Now who do we swap out from the list? I'm leaning John DiMaggio but I'm not sure which one to do: Rob Paulsen or Billy West? ミラP 17:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@Miraclepine:I'd support swapping both DiMaggio and West; Futurama could overlap with the Simpsons and Paulsen has Emmys and Annies, while West doesn't. Paulsen has the most wikilanguages on wikidata at 36 vs West's 27 and Paulsen's article has 2,324 edits compared to West's article having 2,208 edits. I think that makes it clear Paulsen has had the biggest impact on the field. GuzzyG (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@GuzzyG: Keep only Rob Paulsen, got it. Now onto the Japanese. ミラP 18:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

For Japanese language voice actors, I'd suggest Koichi Yamadera? He's not only a voice actor but he's also on a similar level to Mamoru Miyano, being that he's done lots of things in television, video games, and narration including being the host of Oha Suta (a kids' variety show) for more than 10 years. I'm also surprised to see Kana Hanazawa on there when there are more prolific veterans like Megumi Hayashibara or Maaya Sakamoto. (Or even Aya Hirano, even -- she pioneered the Japanese idol and voice actress crossover.) lullabying (talk) 03:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

My few cents: Jennifer Hale doesn't seem to have won any significant awards. Ditto for Don Pardo, Milton Cross, Peter Thomas (announcer), Vic Mignogna, Charles Martinet, Don LaFontaine, Jim Cummings, Don Messick, Mel Blanc,Billy West. For me the line is drawn with comparison for example to Frank Welker "for his lifetime achievement". Others have won something that seems significant too. But the ones I link first haven't yet done so, and so I am uneasy keeping them over people from other fields (more actors, etc.) who have won so. For example, there are still many Emmy winners and I think some Oscar winners not on our list. The argument that we need to be 'representative' of various fields is fine, but weight is an issue, plus some fields are not represented. My vote is to cut the ones I named in my first sentence, keep the others. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

what awards are announcers like Pardo, Cross and Thomas supposed to win? How are 15000 people suppposed to be award winners? Emmy winners are television actors from one country, much less vital than oscar actors, and no; i personally added every oscar winner for actors/actresses/supporting actor/actress and director. If you wanna add the 850-1k best actors because you think we shouldn't list anything else than i strongly disagree, by that measure we should just up this list to 15k philosophers, physicists, politicians and saints. To deny MEL BLANC isn't a notable voice actor is ABSURD and a complete misunderstanding of voice acting. Also the clearest example of why this "awards only" approach to fields is wrong. Alfred Hitchcock never won a oscar, either let's remove him from the level 4 list. Also, exactly what entertainment fields are missing? We can add some,we cover everything from Cabaret Rodolphe Salis, to a jester Triboulet (yes, i'd support Stańczyk as well, to a geisha Mineko Iwasaki to a Koothu rep Mani Madhava Chakyar, i try to cover as much as possible, actors are exhausted; or are they not vital for not winning awards and we need Zac Efron (the level of actor, left)? GuzzyG (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Mel Blanc definitely needs to be on a list of 20 voice actors. I'm not convinced we need multiple Simpsons voice actors. pbp 05:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I understand that few editors (I also was something about it) suggested/"consensused" in the past that level 5 should cover topics which can not be added to the level 4 due to recentism and they somewhrere could be listed but why we gonna into it by such exccredation? We have now far more actors (listed in multiple sections) from USA than all figures from Abrahamic religions through whole milleniums human history. ITW? I could understand if the quotas of figures from Abragamic religions would be the same what actors from usa ( but it still would not be sensible for purly historistic encyclopedia BTW) but why we makes this list so much similar to WP:5000 (there is also list on wijiproject biography page) and why we removed religious figures wp:bold "when we were over quota" in religious section when our projesr is "highly under construction" an the wutas are only "suggestion", not "consensused process". We should wait couple monthst until we will make any votings entry by entry instead wp:bold as long as someone can give rationale on the page. In onther case nobody will consider 5 level seriously and it is serious issue because of on noticeboards at village-ideas suggested level 6! Some people suggested there that level 5 is too broad but main issue is that we missed too many broad articles. The only woman sport journalist and even the only non-English sport journalist on this list is Esport player (IMO wrongly because of I belive there are better woman and among non-English sport journalist at least founder of LEquipe would be much better choice) and this bios is not more vital than various soccer clubs which we miss and thesemissed siccer clubs also should not be FA before something like "Sport in Brasil" Dawid2009 (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
You skipped Erin Andrews and Doreen Simmons....... and let's be honest, most women sports journalist will get criticized by the purists because their articles are mostly short and there's rarely awards in sports journalism. The esports article is the only representative of that sport, not because shes a woman. [9] esports and youtubers are getting as big as traditional sports so in a modern encyclopedia it should be covered, a woman just happens to be the best known. Also i planned to add Goddet, but the quota for journalists was reduced for yet more writers. (there's a massive recency bloat in writers in which i am yet to go through and fix). Either way it wasn't hard to swap in Goddet. GuzzyG (talk) 07:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
There i just added Helen Rollason and Jacqui Oatley who i would've and planned to add before the quotas were cut; it's not hard; i do this all day; name something and we can find it; i more than likely have it in backup for my own personal 50k list. GuzzyG (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Round 2

  1.   Mel Blanc
  2.   Nancy Cartwright
  3.   Adriana Caselotti
  4.   Dan Castellaneta
  5.   Christine Cavanaugh
  6.   Milton Cross
  7.   Jim Cummings
  8.   Jim Dale
  9.   June Foray
  10.   Jennifer Hale
  11.   Don LaFontaine
  12.   Charles Martinet
  13.   Don Messick
  14.   Vic Mignogna
  15.   Don Pardo
  16.   Rob Paulsen
  17.   Tara Strong
  18.   Veronica Taylor
  19.   Peter Thomas
  20.   Frank Welker
I think they're all very good additions compared to our current list, i support them all; they haven't won a Emmy Award lifetime achievement award but considering that's completely unrelated to their field and even country it doesn't matter at all. Good work on the good additions. GuzzyG (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Great work! Mamoru Miyano should definitely stay for being a voice actor who has won many awards and has an active live-action and singing career. Koichi Yamadera has a very diverse voice acting profile and is pretty much well-known in Japan even by non-anime fans (since a generation of Japanese kids grew up with him as he was the host of Oha Suta). Nana Mizuki and Aya Hirano were part of the boom that pioneered the crossover between Japanese idols and voice acting. Maaya Sakamoto is also a good choice. lullabying (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Unobjectionable. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
@Miraclepine: I think this is clear consensus for now atleast, you can do the swaps now, if anyone objects they can always start a discussion, it'll be better than our current listings anyway, it'll be best to have this section cleaned up. The only problem with the entertainers section after that will be that there's no sports entertainers section (for people like the professional wrestlers and Meadowlark Lemon and Joan Weston) in which the point of their career was to entertain first. it's weird to list pro wrestlers with actual olympic wrestlers, we can get space from the magician (10), adult (5), model (5), radio (5) sections. GuzzyG (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Add Troy Baker

One of the most prolific video game voice actors thus I support adding. In addition to help diversifying the range of voice actors (only two video game ones are could find Charles Martinet and Jennifer Hale). Unlike Martinet, Baker tends to feature in more story-driven games which critics tend to take more notice for performance-wise rather than gameplay-driven games like Mario.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support per nom.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  2. Support A voice actor for 17 years and counting, with several notable roles. Dimadick (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Emily Kame Kngwarreye

Add Emily Kame Kngwarreye to artists/painters

Add Hilma af Klint

The Swedish painter was the first abstract artist. Predates Wassily Kandinsky, who is at Level 4. See this summary for more.

Support
  1. As nom. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Pioneer of abstract art. Exemplifies how theosophical ideas influenced modern art. --Thi (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support much per the others. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Shotaro Ishinomori

Because he has been considered to be "the king of manga" or "the emperor of manga", and created the immensely popular long-running series such as the Super Sentai series (later adapted into the Power Rangers series) and the Kamen Rider series, he is no doubt vital at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  2. Support Highly influential in anime, manga, and live-action science fiction. According to his article: "His work posthumously awarded him the Guinness World Record for most comics published by one author, totaling over 128,000 pages across 770 titles across 500 volumes."[1] Dimadick (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

References

  1. ^ "Most comics published by one author". Guinness World Records. Retrieved 11 September 2016.

Re-add Yoshihiro Togashi

Support
  1. As nom. I know that someone removed him from the list in order to make room for non-Western artists (the quota was already reached then), but he still should be re-added since he is no less vital than Eiichiro Oda or Masashi Kishimoto (Togashi's manga works have been no less popular or inferior to these two mangaka's), both which are still retained in the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC) added two internal links and removed two words 15:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  2. Support Wrote at least two long-running series, and his work has received notable adaptations. Dimadick (talk) 09:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support Per reasons above Tai123.123 (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_6&oldid=1104195244"