Continuing off User:J947/sandbox/3.
Contents |
---|
I don't advocate for removing it, but it should be put in the politicians subpage instead since he is widely known as a Japanese diplomat rather than an activist and the English Wikipedia page does not regard him an activist at all.-- RekishiEJ ( talk) 06:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Grigori Rasputin is very controversial figure. Of course he has to be in list of 50000 and 10000 articles. But he is not religious figure – he held no official position in the Russian Orthodox Church, there are no religious works from him. It is not correct take religious charlatan near other figures which are well known in christianity. -- Ibidem ( talk) 12:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters#Entertainers for the list of topics in this category.
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)
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters#Actors for the list of topics in this category.
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters#Actresses for the list of topics in this category.
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters#Directors, producers, showrunners and screenwriters for the list of topics in this category.
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters#Dance for the list of topics in this category.
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters#Comedians for the list of topics in this category.
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters#Television hosts and personalities for the list of topics in this category.
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters#Other entertainment and fields for the list of topics in this category.
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Artists, musicians, and composers#Visual artists for the list of topics in this category.
Add Emily Kame Kngwarreye to artists/painters
Oppose: Apparently hasn't even been recognized with any Australian national level award. (Do correct me if I am wrong, though). -- Arman ( Talk) 09:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Artists, musicians, and composers#Musicians and composers for the list of topics in this category.
Several well-known rappers aren't on here, yet some obscure ones are. If you want my opinion, wanting seventy notable rappers may be a bit too ambitious. Below are five proposed swaps, although more could be changed. GeographyAholic talk 02:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
I have completed the musicians section; all the fluff has been removed; compare the current state of the musicians section [2]] and compare it to what it was [3]. I've worked on the musicians non stop for two weeks; now im doing the artists section; than the entertainers, than sports than misc and so on. I am going through every single person and removing people that are fluff or in areas we already over represent cut and swap. Everything here is perfect except we could've used 5 more Opera singers and R&B placements; as we're light on vocal groups like The Flamingos. But there's just so many musicians in general; we have over 80 missing musicians in the rock hall of fame and the same amount of winning grammy winners. I would like people to specifically go over and criticize the musicians section harshly and where we could improve. I think this section should now require a vote for any swaps; since it's our one complete/stable section/no outright bad additions, what do you all think? I disagree on how i used to operate this list and my additions and completely changed in what i believe belongs on these lists.
Pinging everybody who's edited this area a bit. @ Dawid2009:, @ Purplebackpack89:, @ Thi:, @ Piotrus:, @ DaGizza:, @ J947: and @ Miraclepine:; what do you all think? Are there any areas or really important musicians we are missing in areas of music you know best? @ Neljack: you know alot about opera from what i've seen, is there anyone missing that jumps out of the 50 i've chosen? Pauline Viardot and Giovanni Matteo Mario seem to be the two biggest misses to me. Anyway i'm happy for any constructive criticism as this section is pretty much complete in my eyes and if we were the Britannica/a print book, our first section ready to publish, what do all of you think? GuzzyG ( talk) 00:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Writers and journalists#Writers for the list of topics in this category.
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Writers and journalists#Prose writers for the list of topics in this category.
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Writers and journalists#Poets for the list of topics in this category.
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Writers and journalists#Playwrights for the list of topics in this category.
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Writers and journalists#Journalists for the list of topics in this category.
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.
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)
/info/en/?search=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)
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Politicians and leaders for the list of topics in this category.
Considering the other full sets we have of various other types of political leaders, I've went ahead and added most of the remaining PMs from 1900 onwards, the exceptions being those in the 1890s who served very brief terms. Any objections? p b p 13:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
An * denotes still politicking in 1911. Source.
Germany, Austria, HRE Sophie, Countess of Bar; Bernard VII, Lord of Lippe; William IV, Princely count of Henneberg-Schleusingen; Albert Frederick, Duke of Prussia; Friedrich Günther, Prince of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt
You ask, "Why these countries?" I'm operating on the fact that Britannica 1911 disproportionately covered British, European, American and Commonwealth topics, and therefore, being absent as a politician from those countries would be a particular indictment. p b p 13:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Vincent van Gogh isn't covered either, should we remove him from the level 3 list? I mean if not being covered as a European is a disqualifier for level 5?, ignoring the fact that a "legacy" can be better documented after 100 years, or the fact women Martha Washington and indigenous leaders Te Kooti or figures from a country then without a established history like Australia who was only around 10 years old are going to be obviously missing and as such i don't think basing our modern list of a 100 year old source severely outdated with modern historiography is any improvement. GuzzyG ( talk) 13:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
So just to be clear; are we making it official that out of every country; Tuvalu in particular is the ONE official UN country that will not have a representative? Is there one super important senator we're missing? GuzzyG ( talk) 11:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
The now-stable level 4 list contains 509 politicians of which 320 (62.9%) are from before 1815 and 189 (37.1%) are from after 1815. By contrast, the level 5 list contains 2192 politicians, of which 934 (42.6%) are from before 1815 and 1258 (57.4%) are from after 1815. Or, to put it another way, post-1815 politicians have increased 6.66-fold between Lvs 4 and 5, while pre-1815 politicians have only increased 2.92-fold. Are we too post-1815-heavy? p b p 17:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Miscellaneous#Businesspeople for the list of topics in this category.
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Miscellaneous#Explorers for the list of topics in this category.
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Miscellaneous#Crime for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists#Philosophers for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists#Historians for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists#Social scientists for the list of topics in this category.
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Religious figures for the list of topics in this category.
p b p 00:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
-- Spaced about ( talk) 20:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
The Restoration movement is best presented by the article itself, we don't need representatives, and with a quota of only 500 religious figures we shouldn't add them for the sake of representing earlier centuries, because the recent overhang can be explained by the charismatic movement.
Charismatic movement, in my opinion, is a subsection of Protestantism for now, meaning in 2020. It might change in ten or twenty years. They are commonly perceived as Protestant. The opposite of charismatic is not "mainline". There is fundamental, mainline, evangelical, and charismatic, as I understand it, based on Internet research and experience. (I'm not an expert on Protestantism.) So, I would put only a subheading in Protestantism and nothing else.
Concerning room: William M. Branham is a controversial figure. I would take him off the list. The article, even though featured (recently), is misleading. He doesn't represent any denomination or movement within the Protestant church. We have no data on how large his followership still is, the article says (in the lead) they send out 2 million copies of material - that doesn't mean a thing. I have only limited trust in the rest of the article. He is widely considered a cult leader, portrayed as a prophet by his followers. Not a dangerous cult perhaps, but a cult, and that makes him not a good choice for a representative list of Protestant personalities. Sources that say he's a cult leader seem to have been ignored, maybe accidentally: Gomes, Alan W., Unmasking the Cults, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1995, page 26, confirms this view and is used in the lead in the corresponding German Wikipedia artcle, but not in the English article. The author, Alan Gomes, is affiliated with Biola University, so that's a reliable source. The English featured article names a piece by an author affiliated with Mercer University, also a reliable source, in the second sentence, to create the impression that there is a linear evolution from Branham to the charismatic movement, whose protagonists are not usually perceived as prophets. There are sources for that but I don't think that's the majority. This should be better reflected in the lead of the article. So, regardless of what our featured article says, I think Branham has no place on the list. -- Spaced about ( talk) 11:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I saw the article, I know it's a Christian college, but all the more they should know. If it were true that Branham is an early predecessor of the Charismatic movement, they would acknowledge that. He is not a Charismatic and he's highly criticized, so he's not a typical representative of Protestantism and should be removed.--18:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaced about ( talk • contribs)
Noting that "Abraham and other Old Testament figures are listed under Mythology and legend." under Judaism seems neither correct nor sensitive. Old Testament is a Christian term.-- Jetam2 ( talk) 01:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Military personnel, revolutionaries, and activists#Military personnel and theorists for the list of topics in this category.
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Military personnel, revolutionaries, and activists#Rebels, revolutionaries and activists for the list of topics in this category.
Not particularly notable PUA/provocateur Spacepine ( talk) 13:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Scientists, inventors, and mathematicians for the list of topics in this category.
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Sports figures for the list of topics in this category.
The Weightlifting section is missing some key weightlifting additions, and has sports figures that have never competed in weightlifting. Hamma085 ( talk) 14:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
One of four weightlifters with 3 Olympic gold medals, 5 time World Champion, 10 time European Champion, set over a dozen world records. He is one of the most decorated weightlifters of all time. Hamma085 ( talk) 14:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
One of four weightlifters with 3 Olympic gold medals, 3 time World Champion, 4 time European Champion. Hamma085 ( talk) 14:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
This is due to the fact that 3 of the most influential figures in Strongman and Powerlifting are in the weightlifting section ( Ed Coan, Bill Kazmaier, and Louis Cyr) when they have never competed in an international weightlifting tournament. Hamma085 ( talk) 14:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Hamma085: At the stage we are at on this level you can just add articles yourself, but before adding those you have to consider that we already have reached the prescribed quota of seven in weightlifting. You could propose a change in quota but what would be better is if you considered if these weightlifters are more vital that the ones on the list already. I have no opinion on the section split but if it happens the quota for weightlifting should probably reduce to four. J 947 's public account 01:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
IMO there are several important points:
My "Strength athletics" section shouldve never been renamed weightlifting. Crossfit is athletics. Handball goalkeepers are not vital. Ski jumping is a niche sport compared to figure skating. Martin Strel is just not one of the 20 most important swimmers. I disagree on the rest; as you can see on the music/arts section, i'm working on the fluff but it takes time. Sports and every other section will be done. GuzzyG ( talk) 00:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Guillermo Vilas is a former world No. 2 with 4 Grand Slam wins (some argue that he actually was No. 1 but it is not reflected yet in the official rankings). On the other hand, Maria Bueno is a former No. 1 (in 1959), with 7 singles Grand Slam wins (3 Wimbledons, 4 US Opens) and a calendar Grand Slam in doubles (in 1960, with 11 doubles Grand Slam wins in total). So her resume is a lot more impressive than Vilas's, and if there is a need for a South American player in this list she is a much more deserving candidate to fill this slot. -- Deinocheirus ( talk) 14:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Despite both winning a couple of Grand Slams in their careers, Li Na has never been a No. 1 while Naomi Osaka already reached the top position in the world rankings while most of her career is still ahead of her. There is no doubt that her record is more impressive. Yes, Li Na has been voted to the Hall of Fame by her fans, but is having fans a good enough reason to be included in the list of 50 most important players of all times? I don't think so, otherwise Kournikova should be included as well. -- Deinocheirus ( talk) 14:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Both Kim Clijsters and Bobby Riggs are former world No. 1s, both for pretty short periods of time (Clijsters for total of 20 weeks, Rigggs for incomplete 1 year in 1939). They have similar record in terms of Grand Slam wins (4 for Clijsters, 3 for Riggs), both are Hall of Fame inductees, both have additional achievements (Clijsters has been world No. 1 in doubles, while Riggs won the triple crown at 1939 Wimbledon - thus being a member of pretty exclusive club with just Budge and Sedgman, - and also has been world Pro No. 1 in 1946—1947). So no big difference in terms of achievements, but a huge difference in terms of high profile, although for all wrong reasons. Remember that Riggs was the moving force behind the historical Battle of the Sexes; yes, he was playing the role of a villain, but without him, where would be women's tennis now? Nobody knows but it would pretty sure be lagging behind its current status. There is an additional reason to prefer Riggs over Clijsters: her era (first decade of 2000s) is pretty well covered in the list (both Williams sisters, Hingis, Henin, Capriati, Sharapova are included) while his (1930s) not so much. We have Budge and Perry, and that's it - no Henri Cochet, no Gottfried von Cramm, no Grand Slam-almost-winner Jack Crawford. So a third name definitely wouldn't hurt. If not Riggs, then perhaps Crawford? -- Deinocheirus ( talk) 14:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Since just one slot is allocated to tennis, I would like to suggest a discussion. Currently this slot is occupied by Nick Bollettieri. He is no doubt successful coach but the fact that he has been nominated to the Hall of Fame several times before finally being inducted suggests that he is also a rather controversial figure. Wouldn't it be better to replace him with Harry Hopman who was by any standard no less successful (having worked with an entire generation of great Australian players in 1950s and 1960s), and not just inducted to the HoF but also had a rather popular competition ( Hopman Cup) named after him? Definitely a higher-profile professional. -- Deinocheirus ( talk) 15:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
The People/Sports page lacks structure. How should the entries be grouped?
Is anything misssing? Do we need to group Olympic disciplines separately? -- Spaced about ( talk) 09:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Miscellaneous (minus the explorers, crime people, and businesspeople) and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists#Pseudoscience for the list of topics in this category.
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)
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)'
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)
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#Basics for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#Auxiliary sciences of history for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#History by continent and region for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#History by country for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#History by city for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#Historical cities and archaeological sites for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#History of science and technology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#History by topic for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#Prehistory for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#Ancient history for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#Post-classical history for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#Early modern history for the list of topics in this category.
All other sections are separated, and there isn't enough overlap between the two histories in this specific era to justify why they are together. ~ P*h3i (📨) 04:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#19th century for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#20th century for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#21st century for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Physical#Basics, Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Cities#Urban studies and planning and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Countries#General for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Physical for the list of topics in this category (most fall under this).
Mayon Volcano is known for its symmetrical cone, and also as the most active volcano in the Philippines. – Sanglahi86 ( talk) 17:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Recently a lot of articles of geography by location have been listed in physical geography section. I have been thinking that it is too much, because we don't list any in Level 4. So the margin of growth is great. I think we don't need to list as many geography by country articles as history by country articles in Level 5. What do you guys think? -- Makkool ( talk) 18:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
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)
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Countries#Countries for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Countries#Regions and country subdivisions for the list of topics in this category.
Based on Friedrich Günther, Prince of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt is going to be removed I suggest to swap Westmorland for Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt and also review this list. It is very odd that we do not list subdivision like Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes but subdivisions from Switzerland.
While I don't think political "leaders" from this small outposts are notable, the outposts themselves may be. p b p 22:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
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)
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Cities for the list of topics in this category (most fall under this).
suburb of Taipei. We already have two cities in the Taipei metropolitan area. Viztor ( talk) 05:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Scotland Cities - add Dundee
There are 7 cities in Scotland. By population size they are Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Dundee, Perth, Inverness and Stirling.
At present Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen are included in Vital_articles/Level/5/Geography/Cities#Scotland but Dundee is not.
I would suggest that Dundee should be included as it has more in common with the 3 other "Large cities" in Scotland than with the smaller cities of Perth, Inverness and Stirling.
Evidence: Dundee has ancient Royal Burgh status and has had City Status since 1889 whereas the other smaller Scottish cities are late 20th and early 21st century creations. Dundee is one of the four Scottish cities with a ceremonial Lord Provost (equivalent to English Lord Mayor). 23 of the 25 English cities with Lord Mayors are included in the Level 5 city list. List_of_lord_mayoralties_and_lord_provostships_in_the_United_Kingdom The Scottish Government's Urban Rural Classification distinguishes between Large Urban Areas and other Urban Areas with Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee being the four areas classed as Large Urban Areas. https://www2.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/About/Methodology/UrbanRuralClassification Andrewdpcotton ( talk) 13:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts for the list of articles in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts#Architecture for the list of articles in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts#Cultural venues for the list of articles in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts#Literature for the list of articles in this category.
The digital art section is over-quota, and it currently has 9 examples of web-comics listed. I am asking for your opinions on should we keep them on this list or not. We could remove them, or perhaps move them to another section with free alloted slots, like in the internet subsection of Society.
I suggest we remove all examples of individual webcomics and move the webcomics article to visual arts. None of the examples listed have had a wide and lasting cultural impact, expect maybe Pepe the Frog, which is an internet meme rather than a webcomic. Webcomics fits better at visual arts, because all webcomics are not digital art, but drawn with traditional tools and scanned for distribution. -- Makkool ( talk) 16:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Not sure where, but I think it is missing? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts#Music for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts#Performing arts for the list of articles in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts#Visual arts for the list of topics in this category.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think 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)
@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)
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 made the changes, including swap Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus with Yongle Encyclopedia. -- Thi ( talk) 17:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts#Modern visual arts for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts#Fictional characters for the list of articles in this category.
Right now, this section has few problems. One, is that it is overpopulated (177/150 articles), so should we increase its cap or start killing things? Second, sorry, Western folklore (44/40 articles) vs Eastern folklore (9/10 articles) is a clear systemic BIAS. Those should be equal in size. Seriously, right now this section seems to have one entry for Japan, China and India each. C'mon, people, Santa Claus's reindeer is hardly in the same league as Momotarō or the concept of Yōkai; each of those three countries probably should get 10 characters here. Thoughts? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Philosophy and religion for the list of articles in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Philosophy and religion#Philosophy for the list of articles in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Philosophy and religion#Religion and spirituality for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Philosophy and religion#Specific religions for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Philosophy and religion#Western esotericism and New religious movements for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Philosophy and religion#Mythology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life#Clothing and fashion for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life#Color for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life#Cooking, food and drink for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life#Sexuality for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life/Sports, games and recreation for the list of topics in this category.
What do you think about more "Sport in country" articles. We SUBJECIVELY list plenty of sport teams which are less vital than broader articles like Brazilian Football Confederation. Brazilian Football Confederation is nt more vital than broader article like Football in Brazil but the most vital IMO would be Sport in Brazil. Even if articles "Sport in" gets less hits we need to remember that these ones have more links and sontents, and according to guideline to featureed articles linked articles always have to be improved (everyone who have ever wrote featured article understand what I am talking about... and why if we correct article like "sport in", automatically we have more written thing than after improving article about team). Beyond that "sport in" should be compared to articles like Cinema of France, Italian cuisine, Music of the United States etc.. I do not think that sport and games should have separated category for now, because it can distract people from the list itself what could later resulting in extremally overrepresntation of games/entertaiment/sport. Dawid2009 ( talk) 16:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Quick link: Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Everyday_life/Sports,_games_and_recreation#Board_games_(46/50_articles). I am actually a big board and card game fan (and I've even published an academic article on this), so with this said, I am surprised that those sections get so many entries. I like this stuff a lot, but I think they could be trimmed to free up few spots for other stuff discussed above (whether science or folklore). The main issue I see, otherwise, is that there is a lot of super niche, historical stuff discussed that IMHO never was or is vital, things like Agon (game) or Alquerque - games that are historical trivia footnotes, never had much impact on their contemporary society and are forgotten now. And while modern board and card gaming is still a smaller industry/activity than video games, "Specific video games and series (99 articles)" raises an eybrow where modern board/card games get maybe ~10 entries. For what should be added, it's stuff from cross-comparing Spiel des Jahres and BoardGameGeek top game list ( [12]), which speaking as someone very familiar with this field will give one an idea of what board and card games have been actually significant in the last decade or two. Titles like Gloomhaven, Terraforming Mars, Twilight Imperium, Dominion (game), Pandemic (board game), or more classic Puerto Rico should certainly be on that list, replacing the obscure historical footnotes that never had a significant impact on the society that I mentioned above (this can be easily noted as most of those obscure old games don't have much in way of sections that discuss their significance or reception; they are ludology trivia and nothing but). I'll be bold and do a bunch of adjustments in the near future. I recognize there is always a bit of subjective bias as to titles to add (but then so is the selection of the 99 video games - probably too many anyway - done using subjective criteria, as far as I can tell). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm ambivalent to most of these adds or removals expect murder-mystery game, which I think is a good add. Also, if we're wanting to add more brand-name board games, Candy Land would be my first choice. p b p 00:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Agree that there are too many and/or the wrong variants of poker. Strip poker can be added. Wikipedia doesn't have an article on online versions of board and card games (sort of the "parent" to online poker, among other things), which is too bad, because that would be a good add. Concentration I'd keep but I'd drop some of the others. War I'd add. p b p 00:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
December 2019 (UTC) I support the suggested title removals and also the removal of some of the minor consoles. In addition, I'd remove the "daughter" articles like Final Fantasy V (daughter of Final Fantasy) and Call of Duty 4, with Mario Kart being the one possible exception. We need genre articles for tower defense. As for the recency thing, I think a video game should be 5 years old before being added to this list. p b p 00:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you @ Piotrus: for effort to put about 150+ new suggestion in that area. That’s important point and perfect ocassion to we discuss whole life/recrearion sections and to we later compare it to currently listed 1200 sport bios. My general thoughts:
In my opinion number of listed games looks weak in comprasion to traditions sections but not weak in comprasion to stuff bios whose we list among sportpeople. While I can say that e g missed wedding reception (wedding party redirect there) is more vital than for example musical chairs (popular on wedding parties but also as children’s game) or many other less important games, suggested to remove by Piotrus, on the other hand I am ambivalent about fast removal of so many games when we list (probably to many) dozen video games personalities: 20 Video game designers ( seven Esport players+ Sjokz among sport journalists and Narcissa Wright among entertaiments (BTW also speedrun and couple esport competition ahead of olympic/worl-cup sport articles in this section).
First of all the name: „traditional games” should be renamed (why chess can not be under traditional games, and why we can not list Gomoku next to Tic-tac-toe) or whatever?). I would suggest to split it onto „outdoor games”, and „other (as non video and non tabletop) games” or whatever, something not-complicated to we do not create our imaginate new clasification.
I am ambivalent about adding technical articles like tabletop game or ball game but in general I am weakly oppose addition of new board game types/mechanic-related articles: Hex map, sub-eurogame topics. As there are many few-viewed mentioned list of types of games whose abuse could be probleatic here. Guess game IMO is not very needed when we have already puzzle, riddle, maze, charade.
Removing Schnapsen as redundand to mariage seems be OK as long as we do not Blackball (pool) (subtopics of English billiards); but I also noted that I (maybe just mistaly) putted Mahjong as Trick-taking game ( also parent topic for mariage) at „traditional games” and if we do not list game like Madiao, probably we could remove Ruff and honourswith purly historical importance. We already habe whist and contract bridge on the level 4 (BTW I think it i salso good point to we find discuss where put trick-tking and how all names of the sections should be selected). Your suggestions about Poker-subtopics swaps and adding War sound reasonable to me. Eventually we can swap the war for another card game mentioned in children’s card game template. Karuta as representation of another Japanese game also is interesing addition when we list Jianzi and Kemari which already have something common with Cuju but I am definietly unsure about removal of the Kemari.
I think Calcio florentino is less vital than Cuju and Mesoamerican ball game. Potentially calcio could be sufficently covered by historical articles about soccer which are already listed in history section (mob football or history or soccer) but on the other hand I can not stat what I reasonably think about your suggestion because I have ambivalent thoughs when I see / or I am aware that we list cuple sport journalist who aruably are not more vital than game historians like the Murray. I like your comprasion "history of video games topics" to baby boomers . You have said that we list many video game histrical topics in comprasion to games but I would said that number of video games in general is big in comprasion to any historical entertaiment or any non-entertaiment topic listed in history section. On the other I think chess are actually easy enoug vital for this level when we are so highly under quota. I think that Hacky Sack(seems be more vital than strip poker which you just have suggested toadd) could be kept or swapped for freestyle football when we already list Streetball for basketball Dawid2009 ( talk) 19:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
honestlyand authentically there are no video game perosality on the level 5 who has more language versions than for example "niche" ski jumper like Adam Małysz so for now I actually find it with hardly arguable benefit of being a productive dispute to say that it is underrepresented especially if in the past even @ Purplebackpack89: suggested to keep 60 all video game non-bios topics among 50 000 all articles).I do not dispute that fields like youtubers/esports/game designers are interesig and growing dominated part of 21th century ( + strong top of representtive field if we are going to whatever represent from21th century) but on the other hand it is difficult to say whose among them are the most vital as every biography in that field can be out gone by other fellow biograpy from the same. I appreciate your big effort of creating this list and appreciate fact that you are probably the biget constributor but your stating about 30 video game people vs 30 magicians when just you earlier controlled theose two quotas by WP:bold littly is uncalled-for in light of tentive process (We need suggestions from a much larger pool of editors with expertise in a range of subjects, and a slower process to add articles with more long-term planning on how the list should be structured and organised). Personally I am afraid that numbers of sport-people and entartaiments on this level is currently exaggeration if we do not list all languages more vital than Dolly Pentreath who is already on the list. Beyond that for example, seriously/honestly Cricket have biographies with mind-importance statement by wikiproject... meanwhile William Wadé Harris (top-importanc christianity topic which also represent Africa) is not listed among religious figures. Either way I already opened new section about FAQ . if you have something interesing to say about fact that the FAQ inaccurate describe recentism on L, kept comment there (where I just pinged you), but please no longer reply here, under this subsection, because of here is hard discussion about games but not about thousand topics among whole 50 000 list. Cheers Dawid2009 ( talk) 21:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Althoug the FAQ refer about „anti-rcentism”, currently we have often discussions about fact that some fields (just like films or video games) need this rigoristic limit less than the others (just like literaturę, oral tradition etc.). Is someone interested to correct there? Another interesing thing i salso „tiloring to readers of the English Wikipedia” as it also is going to be more confused on lower (L4 and L5) levels and contradict to WP:Bias which whay active participitians have differ definitions about vitalness in that project. In the past @ Power~enwiki: tried start this discussion on Jimbo’s talk page here but it did not get tany attention. Maybe now on the level 5 (when talk on L5 is more than double times more viewed than talk on L3) we could hve any consensus here? I also echo discussion above where Calcio fiorentino and a lot of parent bvideo games are suggested to the removal meanwhile @ GuzzyG: defend Esport players. I am generally ambivalent as I only will wait for consensus among larer number of ditors but I would like to ping @ Headbomb: who added almost all video game topics on this level and @ Carlwev: who originally pointed in the past that we often miss parent topics on the level 5 (as Carlwev also speciffically were reffering to fact that we were listing for example Esport players before video games, meanwhile we now we again are going to cut video games back). Dawid2009 ( talk) 21:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the current list, I'd purge the following
That would remove 37 entries. A couple of those could be trimmed/replaced with the franchise entry. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I've added Harlem Globetrotters to three NBA teams. This team popularized the game more than any single NBA club. -- Deinocheirus ( talk) 02:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I strongly suggest replacing R.S.C. Anderlecht with AFC Ajax. The Dutch club won the Champions League and its predecessor 4 times (the Belgians never won it) while also adding an Intercontinental Cup and a couple of UEFA Super Cups. All Anderlecht has got is two Cup Winners' Cups (Ajax actually also has one) and one UEFA Cup (Ajax also has one). So I don't see any reason to keep Anderlecht on the list in place of a much more successful club. -- Deinocheirus ( talk) 02:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life#Stages of life for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences for the list of topics in this category.
I think we should add all entries from Template:Generations sidebar here. As far as I can tell neither is listed here, and those are big concepts ( Millennials, Baby boomers, etc.). That's 7 articles. And Generation should be level 4 vital at least, I guess I'll go to V4 talk page and propose adding it there. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
It appears we don't list white people or black people, and possibly a bunch of other ethnic groups. Where should they be added? Sdkb ( talk) 06:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion number of lanugages and tribes included to the level 5 (when language is level 1 article and tribe is level 4 article), could be veeeeeeeerrrrryyyyyy bigg. I would like point that we list Dolly Pentreath who is less notable than Cornish language. What do you guys think? Dawid2009 ( talk) 23:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Basics for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Anthropology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Business and economics for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Culture for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Education for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Ethnology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#International organizations for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Language for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Law for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Mass media for the list of topics in this category.
I just reverted an edit [27] which removed a dozen articles from Society and social sciences. Can we get a consensus on de-inclusion before articles are removed because of "bloat"? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Museums for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Politics and government for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Psychology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Society for the list of topics in this category.
Add Digital divide to society topics? Thoughts? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Sociology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#War and military for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology#Biology basics for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology#Anatomy and morphology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology#Biochemistry and molecular biology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology#Biological processes and physiology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology#Botany for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology#Cell biology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology#Ecology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology#Zoology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Animals for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Health for the list of topics in this category.
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)
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Basics and measurement#Science basics for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Basics and measurement#Measurement for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Astronomy for a complete list of articles in this topic.
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)
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Chemistry for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Earth science for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Physics for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Agriculture for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Biotechnology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Computing and information technology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Electronics for the list of articles in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Engineering for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Industry for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Infrastructure for the list of articles in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Machinery and tools for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Media and communication for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Medical technology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Military technology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Navigation and timekeeping for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Optical technology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Space for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Textiles for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Transportation for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics#Basics for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics#Algebra for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics#Calculus and analysis for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics#Discrete mathematics for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics#Geometry for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics#Probability and statistics for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics#Other for the list of topics in this category.
I believe that the YMCA is vital at this level, but in what section or subsection does it belong? p b p 18:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Purplebackpack89 and Dawid2009: I support having some notable NGOs at Level 5 vitals. The correct location is Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Society_and_social_sciences#Non-governmental_organizations_(60_articles). I'd also suggset adding World Wide Fund for Nature (better known as WWF), BRAC (organization), Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, World Vision and TED (conference). Sources for importance: [29], [30]. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
So a third of it is dominated by subcultures. Not sure if this is far inclusion. Might be worth splitting subcultures to their own section, including them under sociology is very arbitrary. In either way, I'd suggest:
Thoughts? Anyone feels we should vote on any of those? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I think we should add the following to Vital 5 (if not higher), but I am unsure what sections would be best, some kind of general section for sciences? (I will note that IMHO equivalent terms like Axiom, Paradigm, Hypothesis, Theory, Deductive reasoning are a V4 article in Philosophy; Experiment and Observation are V4 in Physics, Conjecture is V4 in Math, Academic journal is V4 in Society, Belief is V3 in Philosophy, Scientific method is V3 at Science). In V5 from the concepts I was reviewing I just found Academic publishing (V5 in Society). Some of what I propose below could go to Philosophy, but probably not all of it.The following are IMHO relevant concepts that should be V5. Some of those might warrant a discussion at V4 level.
Separately, I will also list the concept of Clinical trial, as rather important, through not to all branches of science. That one can probably be added to medicine or health section or such. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Add Star Trek. Not sure where to add as franchise as a whole is more significant than the work in any specific media. Show creator Gene Roddenberry is in under TV people, but media has far surpassed his involvement (compare, both George Lucas and Star Wars--specifically the franchise--included). Hyperbolick ( talk) 21:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I kind of agree with you. I have not been following the level five list as much as the others. At least at level 4 there is no "franchise" section at present, TV shows would be the best place, although technically wrong, same as best place for Star Wars is movies but again technically wrong also. We could discus having a "franchise" or cross media work or another name section, for things like Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Pokemon, Mario, James Bond and others. Perhaps near fictional characters. Characters are based on a single character but are still kind of franchises, like Superman, Batman, Tarzan, Harry Potter, James Bond etc, where as Star Trek Star Wars Pokemon are not about single fictional people. In short, we could discus having a "franchise" section to include articles I mentioned and more. Carl wev 19:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Seems nothing but support. What now? Hyperbolick ( talk) 21:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Seems inapt. UFOs may be much represented in fiction, but the term comes from real life. Sociological, maybe. Hyperbolick ( talk) 23:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
The cultural impact of this game is extremely significant and it should be at Vital 5, if not higher. Not sure which section of Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts would be appropriate. Thoughts? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
IMO both are less vital than many articles which we removed recently in arts by WP:Bold. Xkcd is famous in many laguages but is younger than Penny Arcade and not more influential than Hetalia: Axis Powers or Pepe the frog. Probably Webcomic and Internet meme are anough to cover such articles among 50 000 core topics.
I support removal of Munroe but I'd rather keep xkcd or remove Pepe the Frog. This is purely subjective, but I have heard of Penny Arcade, Hetalia and xkcd but of the two other topics. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Just updating that Munroe has now been removed, i did big cuts to increase our representation of non western arts. This is why votes like this in non complete sections are a waste of time, because i'm constantly changing things up. GuzzyG ( talk) 03:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
It's mostly agreed upon that lists of video games and fictional characters are in need of pruning. (Deciding a specific quota for video games is a separate issue from what I'm going to suggest, although it's needed for the final step.) However I think the existing methods to remove entries by consensus are inefficient when there are very many to remove. What I propose is a procedure in which each entry in a section to prune is assigned a priority score (calculated from the votes it gets) and only the entries with highest priority scores are kept.
First, every user posts a comment where they list A) the entries they wish to keep, and B) the entries they wish to remove. Not every single entry has to be voted on, only those the user has a strong opinion on. (It's acceptable - though not preferable - for an entry to receive no votes at all!) This stage goes on a while - let's say for a month or two or until enough people have voted.
Next, voting is closed and priority scores calculated. Something like the following formula is used: P=(K+2)/(K+R+4)*100, where K is the amount of keep votes and R remove votes an entry has gotten, and P is the priority score as a percentage of keep votes. The +2 and +4 essentially add dummy votes (2 keeps and 2 removes) so that an entry with only a few votes for one side does not instantly get a 100% or 0%. So what happens is that the default P is 50%, and the more votes it gets on one side or the other, the more it approaches 100% or 0%. Entries everybody thinks "obviously belong" on the list get a high P (in video games these would likely be Doom, Space Invaders and such), controversial ones or those with few votes get around 50%, and those that "obviously don't belong" get a low P.
Finally, entries are sorted by their P and only the highest ranked ones that fit within the quota are kept. The cutoff point for P isn't necessarily ~50%; if it's higher then the controversial or overlooked entries will not make it, if it's lower then they will.
Thoughts?-- LaukkuTheGreit ( Talk• Contribs) 13:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
If a section is 98-99% complete, shouldn't we tag it as "complete" and mandate any other additions to be discussed? p b p 19:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I re-worded a paragraph to reflect the reality that we have several completed sections where additions and removals should be discussed. p b p 22:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Old paragraph read:
This list is in the process of being created. Everyone is welcome to participate. If you see an article that you think should be included, then add it to the list. If you are unsure, then you can propose it on the talk page. Please do not remove articles which have some reasonable chance of staying here upon completion. If something was added which seems obviously not able to stand as one of the 50,000 then you can remove it, with discussion if contested, always assuming good faith. Mass deletes of articles should always be preceded by discussion. We should ideally wait until we are close to the quota in each section before engaging in serious debate over what should stay or go.
New one reads:
This list is in the process of being created. Everyone is welcome to participate. If you see an article that you think should be included in an incomplete section, then add it to the list. If you are unsure, then you can propose it on the talk page. Please do not remove articles which have some reasonable chance of staying here upon completion. If something was added which seems obviously not able to stand as one of the 50,000 then you can remove it, with discussion if contested, always assuming good faith. Mass deletes of articles should always be preceded by discussion. Additions AND removals to sections that are complete or nearly complete should be discussed. Sections that are at 98% or more of their capacity have been tagged as "complete" below.
Everybody OK with this change? p b p 22:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Just to show how distorted the socalled target number is: If we extrapolate the table from level 4 to this level it would look approximately like this:
List No. | Section | Level 4 | Level 5 (L4x5) | L5 proportionate to people |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | People | 2,000 | 10,000 | 15,000 |
2 | History | 675 | 3,350 | 5,025 |
3 | Geography | 1,200 | 6,000 | 9,000 |
4 | Arts | 670 | 3,350 | 5,025 |
5 | Philosophy and religion | 430 | 2,150 | 3,225 |
6 | Everyday life | 485 | 2,430 | 3,645 |
7 | Society and social sciences | 925 | 4,650 | 6,975 |
8 | Biological and health sciences | 1,475 | 7,350 | 11,025 |
8.1 | Health, medicine and disease | 275 | 1,330 | 1,995 |
9 | Physical sciences | 1,100 | 5,500 | 8,250 |
9.1 | Basics and measurement | 80 | 390 | 600 |
9.2 | Astronomy | 195 | 900 | 1,335 |
9.3 | Chemistry | 270 | 1,350 | 2,030 |
9.4 | Earth science | 260 | 1,300 | 1950 |
9.5 | Physics | 295 | 1,490 | 2,200 |
10 | Technology | 740 | 3,700 | 5,550 |
11 | Mathematics | 300 | 1,500 | 2,250 |
Total | 5,000 | 50,000 | 75,000 |
Article like History of video games should be listed in history section agaist articles like Generation X. Article like 1896 Athens or History of chess should be listed in history section against articles like history of ballet or History of the FIFA World Cup. Why we list all these historic articles in every day section? And why we list so plenty specialistics terminology to video games? Should we also list endless topics for terminologies related to chess gameplay or clasical music (including very few viewed pages just like altissimo) in art section? Dawid2009 ( talk) 20:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Support As nom Dawid2009 ( talk) 05:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
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)
As a heads up, there is a discussion on making VA a consensus-building discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4#Add Pocahontas. J 947 ( c), at 22:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Continuing off User:J947/sandbox/3.
Contents |
---|
I don't advocate for removing it, but it should be put in the politicians subpage instead since he is widely known as a Japanese diplomat rather than an activist and the English Wikipedia page does not regard him an activist at all.-- RekishiEJ ( talk) 06:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Grigori Rasputin is very controversial figure. Of course he has to be in list of 50000 and 10000 articles. But he is not religious figure – he held no official position in the Russian Orthodox Church, there are no religious works from him. It is not correct take religious charlatan near other figures which are well known in christianity. -- Ibidem ( talk) 12:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters#Entertainers for the list of topics in this category.
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)
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters#Actors for the list of topics in this category.
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters#Actresses for the list of topics in this category.
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters#Directors, producers, showrunners and screenwriters for the list of topics in this category.
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters#Dance for the list of topics in this category.
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters#Comedians for the list of topics in this category.
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters#Television hosts and personalities for the list of topics in this category.
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters#Other entertainment and fields for the list of topics in this category.
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Artists, musicians, and composers#Visual artists for the list of topics in this category.
Add Emily Kame Kngwarreye to artists/painters
Oppose: Apparently hasn't even been recognized with any Australian national level award. (Do correct me if I am wrong, though). -- Arman ( Talk) 09:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Artists, musicians, and composers#Musicians and composers for the list of topics in this category.
Several well-known rappers aren't on here, yet some obscure ones are. If you want my opinion, wanting seventy notable rappers may be a bit too ambitious. Below are five proposed swaps, although more could be changed. GeographyAholic talk 02:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
I have completed the musicians section; all the fluff has been removed; compare the current state of the musicians section [2]] and compare it to what it was [3]. I've worked on the musicians non stop for two weeks; now im doing the artists section; than the entertainers, than sports than misc and so on. I am going through every single person and removing people that are fluff or in areas we already over represent cut and swap. Everything here is perfect except we could've used 5 more Opera singers and R&B placements; as we're light on vocal groups like The Flamingos. But there's just so many musicians in general; we have over 80 missing musicians in the rock hall of fame and the same amount of winning grammy winners. I would like people to specifically go over and criticize the musicians section harshly and where we could improve. I think this section should now require a vote for any swaps; since it's our one complete/stable section/no outright bad additions, what do you all think? I disagree on how i used to operate this list and my additions and completely changed in what i believe belongs on these lists.
Pinging everybody who's edited this area a bit. @ Dawid2009:, @ Purplebackpack89:, @ Thi:, @ Piotrus:, @ DaGizza:, @ J947: and @ Miraclepine:; what do you all think? Are there any areas or really important musicians we are missing in areas of music you know best? @ Neljack: you know alot about opera from what i've seen, is there anyone missing that jumps out of the 50 i've chosen? Pauline Viardot and Giovanni Matteo Mario seem to be the two biggest misses to me. Anyway i'm happy for any constructive criticism as this section is pretty much complete in my eyes and if we were the Britannica/a print book, our first section ready to publish, what do all of you think? GuzzyG ( talk) 00:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Writers and journalists#Writers for the list of topics in this category.
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Writers and journalists#Prose writers for the list of topics in this category.
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Writers and journalists#Poets for the list of topics in this category.
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Writers and journalists#Playwrights for the list of topics in this category.
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Writers and journalists#Journalists for the list of topics in this category.
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.
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)
/info/en/?search=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)
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Politicians and leaders for the list of topics in this category.
Considering the other full sets we have of various other types of political leaders, I've went ahead and added most of the remaining PMs from 1900 onwards, the exceptions being those in the 1890s who served very brief terms. Any objections? p b p 13:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
An * denotes still politicking in 1911. Source.
Germany, Austria, HRE Sophie, Countess of Bar; Bernard VII, Lord of Lippe; William IV, Princely count of Henneberg-Schleusingen; Albert Frederick, Duke of Prussia; Friedrich Günther, Prince of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt
You ask, "Why these countries?" I'm operating on the fact that Britannica 1911 disproportionately covered British, European, American and Commonwealth topics, and therefore, being absent as a politician from those countries would be a particular indictment. p b p 13:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Vincent van Gogh isn't covered either, should we remove him from the level 3 list? I mean if not being covered as a European is a disqualifier for level 5?, ignoring the fact that a "legacy" can be better documented after 100 years, or the fact women Martha Washington and indigenous leaders Te Kooti or figures from a country then without a established history like Australia who was only around 10 years old are going to be obviously missing and as such i don't think basing our modern list of a 100 year old source severely outdated with modern historiography is any improvement. GuzzyG ( talk) 13:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
So just to be clear; are we making it official that out of every country; Tuvalu in particular is the ONE official UN country that will not have a representative? Is there one super important senator we're missing? GuzzyG ( talk) 11:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
The now-stable level 4 list contains 509 politicians of which 320 (62.9%) are from before 1815 and 189 (37.1%) are from after 1815. By contrast, the level 5 list contains 2192 politicians, of which 934 (42.6%) are from before 1815 and 1258 (57.4%) are from after 1815. Or, to put it another way, post-1815 politicians have increased 6.66-fold between Lvs 4 and 5, while pre-1815 politicians have only increased 2.92-fold. Are we too post-1815-heavy? p b p 17:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Miscellaneous#Businesspeople for the list of topics in this category.
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Miscellaneous#Explorers for the list of topics in this category.
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Miscellaneous#Crime for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists#Philosophers for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists#Historians for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists#Social scientists for the list of topics in this category.
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Religious figures for the list of topics in this category.
p b p 00:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
-- Spaced about ( talk) 20:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
The Restoration movement is best presented by the article itself, we don't need representatives, and with a quota of only 500 religious figures we shouldn't add them for the sake of representing earlier centuries, because the recent overhang can be explained by the charismatic movement.
Charismatic movement, in my opinion, is a subsection of Protestantism for now, meaning in 2020. It might change in ten or twenty years. They are commonly perceived as Protestant. The opposite of charismatic is not "mainline". There is fundamental, mainline, evangelical, and charismatic, as I understand it, based on Internet research and experience. (I'm not an expert on Protestantism.) So, I would put only a subheading in Protestantism and nothing else.
Concerning room: William M. Branham is a controversial figure. I would take him off the list. The article, even though featured (recently), is misleading. He doesn't represent any denomination or movement within the Protestant church. We have no data on how large his followership still is, the article says (in the lead) they send out 2 million copies of material - that doesn't mean a thing. I have only limited trust in the rest of the article. He is widely considered a cult leader, portrayed as a prophet by his followers. Not a dangerous cult perhaps, but a cult, and that makes him not a good choice for a representative list of Protestant personalities. Sources that say he's a cult leader seem to have been ignored, maybe accidentally: Gomes, Alan W., Unmasking the Cults, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1995, page 26, confirms this view and is used in the lead in the corresponding German Wikipedia artcle, but not in the English article. The author, Alan Gomes, is affiliated with Biola University, so that's a reliable source. The English featured article names a piece by an author affiliated with Mercer University, also a reliable source, in the second sentence, to create the impression that there is a linear evolution from Branham to the charismatic movement, whose protagonists are not usually perceived as prophets. There are sources for that but I don't think that's the majority. This should be better reflected in the lead of the article. So, regardless of what our featured article says, I think Branham has no place on the list. -- Spaced about ( talk) 11:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I saw the article, I know it's a Christian college, but all the more they should know. If it were true that Branham is an early predecessor of the Charismatic movement, they would acknowledge that. He is not a Charismatic and he's highly criticized, so he's not a typical representative of Protestantism and should be removed.--18:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaced about ( talk • contribs)
Noting that "Abraham and other Old Testament figures are listed under Mythology and legend." under Judaism seems neither correct nor sensitive. Old Testament is a Christian term.-- Jetam2 ( talk) 01:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Military personnel, revolutionaries, and activists#Military personnel and theorists for the list of topics in this category.
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Military personnel, revolutionaries, and activists#Rebels, revolutionaries and activists for the list of topics in this category.
Not particularly notable PUA/provocateur Spacepine ( talk) 13:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Scientists, inventors, and mathematicians for the list of topics in this category.
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Sports figures for the list of topics in this category.
The Weightlifting section is missing some key weightlifting additions, and has sports figures that have never competed in weightlifting. Hamma085 ( talk) 14:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
One of four weightlifters with 3 Olympic gold medals, 5 time World Champion, 10 time European Champion, set over a dozen world records. He is one of the most decorated weightlifters of all time. Hamma085 ( talk) 14:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
One of four weightlifters with 3 Olympic gold medals, 3 time World Champion, 4 time European Champion. Hamma085 ( talk) 14:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
This is due to the fact that 3 of the most influential figures in Strongman and Powerlifting are in the weightlifting section ( Ed Coan, Bill Kazmaier, and Louis Cyr) when they have never competed in an international weightlifting tournament. Hamma085 ( talk) 14:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Hamma085: At the stage we are at on this level you can just add articles yourself, but before adding those you have to consider that we already have reached the prescribed quota of seven in weightlifting. You could propose a change in quota but what would be better is if you considered if these weightlifters are more vital that the ones on the list already. I have no opinion on the section split but if it happens the quota for weightlifting should probably reduce to four. J 947 's public account 01:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
IMO there are several important points:
My "Strength athletics" section shouldve never been renamed weightlifting. Crossfit is athletics. Handball goalkeepers are not vital. Ski jumping is a niche sport compared to figure skating. Martin Strel is just not one of the 20 most important swimmers. I disagree on the rest; as you can see on the music/arts section, i'm working on the fluff but it takes time. Sports and every other section will be done. GuzzyG ( talk) 00:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Guillermo Vilas is a former world No. 2 with 4 Grand Slam wins (some argue that he actually was No. 1 but it is not reflected yet in the official rankings). On the other hand, Maria Bueno is a former No. 1 (in 1959), with 7 singles Grand Slam wins (3 Wimbledons, 4 US Opens) and a calendar Grand Slam in doubles (in 1960, with 11 doubles Grand Slam wins in total). So her resume is a lot more impressive than Vilas's, and if there is a need for a South American player in this list she is a much more deserving candidate to fill this slot. -- Deinocheirus ( talk) 14:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Despite both winning a couple of Grand Slams in their careers, Li Na has never been a No. 1 while Naomi Osaka already reached the top position in the world rankings while most of her career is still ahead of her. There is no doubt that her record is more impressive. Yes, Li Na has been voted to the Hall of Fame by her fans, but is having fans a good enough reason to be included in the list of 50 most important players of all times? I don't think so, otherwise Kournikova should be included as well. -- Deinocheirus ( talk) 14:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Both Kim Clijsters and Bobby Riggs are former world No. 1s, both for pretty short periods of time (Clijsters for total of 20 weeks, Rigggs for incomplete 1 year in 1939). They have similar record in terms of Grand Slam wins (4 for Clijsters, 3 for Riggs), both are Hall of Fame inductees, both have additional achievements (Clijsters has been world No. 1 in doubles, while Riggs won the triple crown at 1939 Wimbledon - thus being a member of pretty exclusive club with just Budge and Sedgman, - and also has been world Pro No. 1 in 1946—1947). So no big difference in terms of achievements, but a huge difference in terms of high profile, although for all wrong reasons. Remember that Riggs was the moving force behind the historical Battle of the Sexes; yes, he was playing the role of a villain, but without him, where would be women's tennis now? Nobody knows but it would pretty sure be lagging behind its current status. There is an additional reason to prefer Riggs over Clijsters: her era (first decade of 2000s) is pretty well covered in the list (both Williams sisters, Hingis, Henin, Capriati, Sharapova are included) while his (1930s) not so much. We have Budge and Perry, and that's it - no Henri Cochet, no Gottfried von Cramm, no Grand Slam-almost-winner Jack Crawford. So a third name definitely wouldn't hurt. If not Riggs, then perhaps Crawford? -- Deinocheirus ( talk) 14:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Since just one slot is allocated to tennis, I would like to suggest a discussion. Currently this slot is occupied by Nick Bollettieri. He is no doubt successful coach but the fact that he has been nominated to the Hall of Fame several times before finally being inducted suggests that he is also a rather controversial figure. Wouldn't it be better to replace him with Harry Hopman who was by any standard no less successful (having worked with an entire generation of great Australian players in 1950s and 1960s), and not just inducted to the HoF but also had a rather popular competition ( Hopman Cup) named after him? Definitely a higher-profile professional. -- Deinocheirus ( talk) 15:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
The People/Sports page lacks structure. How should the entries be grouped?
Is anything misssing? Do we need to group Olympic disciplines separately? -- Spaced about ( talk) 09:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Completed
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Miscellaneous (minus the explorers, crime people, and businesspeople) and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists#Pseudoscience for the list of topics in this category.
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)
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)'
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)
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#Basics for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#Auxiliary sciences of history for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#History by continent and region for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#History by country for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#History by city for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#Historical cities and archaeological sites for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#History of science and technology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#History by topic for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#Prehistory for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#Ancient history for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#Post-classical history for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#Early modern history for the list of topics in this category.
All other sections are separated, and there isn't enough overlap between the two histories in this specific era to justify why they are together. ~ P*h3i (📨) 04:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#19th century for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#20th century for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#21st century for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Physical#Basics, Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Cities#Urban studies and planning and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Countries#General for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Physical for the list of topics in this category (most fall under this).
Mayon Volcano is known for its symmetrical cone, and also as the most active volcano in the Philippines. – Sanglahi86 ( talk) 17:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Recently a lot of articles of geography by location have been listed in physical geography section. I have been thinking that it is too much, because we don't list any in Level 4. So the margin of growth is great. I think we don't need to list as many geography by country articles as history by country articles in Level 5. What do you guys think? -- Makkool ( talk) 18:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
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)
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Countries#Countries for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Countries#Regions and country subdivisions for the list of topics in this category.
Based on Friedrich Günther, Prince of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt is going to be removed I suggest to swap Westmorland for Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt and also review this list. It is very odd that we do not list subdivision like Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes but subdivisions from Switzerland.
While I don't think political "leaders" from this small outposts are notable, the outposts themselves may be. p b p 22:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
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)
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Cities for the list of topics in this category (most fall under this).
suburb of Taipei. We already have two cities in the Taipei metropolitan area. Viztor ( talk) 05:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Scotland Cities - add Dundee
There are 7 cities in Scotland. By population size they are Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Dundee, Perth, Inverness and Stirling.
At present Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen are included in Vital_articles/Level/5/Geography/Cities#Scotland but Dundee is not.
I would suggest that Dundee should be included as it has more in common with the 3 other "Large cities" in Scotland than with the smaller cities of Perth, Inverness and Stirling.
Evidence: Dundee has ancient Royal Burgh status and has had City Status since 1889 whereas the other smaller Scottish cities are late 20th and early 21st century creations. Dundee is one of the four Scottish cities with a ceremonial Lord Provost (equivalent to English Lord Mayor). 23 of the 25 English cities with Lord Mayors are included in the Level 5 city list. List_of_lord_mayoralties_and_lord_provostships_in_the_United_Kingdom The Scottish Government's Urban Rural Classification distinguishes between Large Urban Areas and other Urban Areas with Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee being the four areas classed as Large Urban Areas. https://www2.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/About/Methodology/UrbanRuralClassification Andrewdpcotton ( talk) 13:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts for the list of articles in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts#Architecture for the list of articles in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts#Cultural venues for the list of articles in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts#Literature for the list of articles in this category.
The digital art section is over-quota, and it currently has 9 examples of web-comics listed. I am asking for your opinions on should we keep them on this list or not. We could remove them, or perhaps move them to another section with free alloted slots, like in the internet subsection of Society.
I suggest we remove all examples of individual webcomics and move the webcomics article to visual arts. None of the examples listed have had a wide and lasting cultural impact, expect maybe Pepe the Frog, which is an internet meme rather than a webcomic. Webcomics fits better at visual arts, because all webcomics are not digital art, but drawn with traditional tools and scanned for distribution. -- Makkool ( talk) 16:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Not sure where, but I think it is missing? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts#Music for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts#Performing arts for the list of articles in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts#Visual arts for the list of topics in this category.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think 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)
@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)
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 made the changes, including swap Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus with Yongle Encyclopedia. -- Thi ( talk) 17:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts#Modern visual arts for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts#Fictional characters for the list of articles in this category.
Right now, this section has few problems. One, is that it is overpopulated (177/150 articles), so should we increase its cap or start killing things? Second, sorry, Western folklore (44/40 articles) vs Eastern folklore (9/10 articles) is a clear systemic BIAS. Those should be equal in size. Seriously, right now this section seems to have one entry for Japan, China and India each. C'mon, people, Santa Claus's reindeer is hardly in the same league as Momotarō or the concept of Yōkai; each of those three countries probably should get 10 characters here. Thoughts? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Philosophy and religion for the list of articles in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Philosophy and religion#Philosophy for the list of articles in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Philosophy and religion#Religion and spirituality for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Philosophy and religion#Specific religions for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Philosophy and religion#Western esotericism and New religious movements for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Philosophy and religion#Mythology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life#Clothing and fashion for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life#Color for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life#Cooking, food and drink for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life#Sexuality for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life/Sports, games and recreation for the list of topics in this category.
What do you think about more "Sport in country" articles. We SUBJECIVELY list plenty of sport teams which are less vital than broader articles like Brazilian Football Confederation. Brazilian Football Confederation is nt more vital than broader article like Football in Brazil but the most vital IMO would be Sport in Brazil. Even if articles "Sport in" gets less hits we need to remember that these ones have more links and sontents, and according to guideline to featureed articles linked articles always have to be improved (everyone who have ever wrote featured article understand what I am talking about... and why if we correct article like "sport in", automatically we have more written thing than after improving article about team). Beyond that "sport in" should be compared to articles like Cinema of France, Italian cuisine, Music of the United States etc.. I do not think that sport and games should have separated category for now, because it can distract people from the list itself what could later resulting in extremally overrepresntation of games/entertaiment/sport. Dawid2009 ( talk) 16:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Quick link: Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Everyday_life/Sports,_games_and_recreation#Board_games_(46/50_articles). I am actually a big board and card game fan (and I've even published an academic article on this), so with this said, I am surprised that those sections get so many entries. I like this stuff a lot, but I think they could be trimmed to free up few spots for other stuff discussed above (whether science or folklore). The main issue I see, otherwise, is that there is a lot of super niche, historical stuff discussed that IMHO never was or is vital, things like Agon (game) or Alquerque - games that are historical trivia footnotes, never had much impact on their contemporary society and are forgotten now. And while modern board and card gaming is still a smaller industry/activity than video games, "Specific video games and series (99 articles)" raises an eybrow where modern board/card games get maybe ~10 entries. For what should be added, it's stuff from cross-comparing Spiel des Jahres and BoardGameGeek top game list ( [12]), which speaking as someone very familiar with this field will give one an idea of what board and card games have been actually significant in the last decade or two. Titles like Gloomhaven, Terraforming Mars, Twilight Imperium, Dominion (game), Pandemic (board game), or more classic Puerto Rico should certainly be on that list, replacing the obscure historical footnotes that never had a significant impact on the society that I mentioned above (this can be easily noted as most of those obscure old games don't have much in way of sections that discuss their significance or reception; they are ludology trivia and nothing but). I'll be bold and do a bunch of adjustments in the near future. I recognize there is always a bit of subjective bias as to titles to add (but then so is the selection of the 99 video games - probably too many anyway - done using subjective criteria, as far as I can tell). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm ambivalent to most of these adds or removals expect murder-mystery game, which I think is a good add. Also, if we're wanting to add more brand-name board games, Candy Land would be my first choice. p b p 00:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Agree that there are too many and/or the wrong variants of poker. Strip poker can be added. Wikipedia doesn't have an article on online versions of board and card games (sort of the "parent" to online poker, among other things), which is too bad, because that would be a good add. Concentration I'd keep but I'd drop some of the others. War I'd add. p b p 00:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
December 2019 (UTC) I support the suggested title removals and also the removal of some of the minor consoles. In addition, I'd remove the "daughter" articles like Final Fantasy V (daughter of Final Fantasy) and Call of Duty 4, with Mario Kart being the one possible exception. We need genre articles for tower defense. As for the recency thing, I think a video game should be 5 years old before being added to this list. p b p 00:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you @ Piotrus: for effort to put about 150+ new suggestion in that area. That’s important point and perfect ocassion to we discuss whole life/recrearion sections and to we later compare it to currently listed 1200 sport bios. My general thoughts:
In my opinion number of listed games looks weak in comprasion to traditions sections but not weak in comprasion to stuff bios whose we list among sportpeople. While I can say that e g missed wedding reception (wedding party redirect there) is more vital than for example musical chairs (popular on wedding parties but also as children’s game) or many other less important games, suggested to remove by Piotrus, on the other hand I am ambivalent about fast removal of so many games when we list (probably to many) dozen video games personalities: 20 Video game designers ( seven Esport players+ Sjokz among sport journalists and Narcissa Wright among entertaiments (BTW also speedrun and couple esport competition ahead of olympic/worl-cup sport articles in this section).
First of all the name: „traditional games” should be renamed (why chess can not be under traditional games, and why we can not list Gomoku next to Tic-tac-toe) or whatever?). I would suggest to split it onto „outdoor games”, and „other (as non video and non tabletop) games” or whatever, something not-complicated to we do not create our imaginate new clasification.
I am ambivalent about adding technical articles like tabletop game or ball game but in general I am weakly oppose addition of new board game types/mechanic-related articles: Hex map, sub-eurogame topics. As there are many few-viewed mentioned list of types of games whose abuse could be probleatic here. Guess game IMO is not very needed when we have already puzzle, riddle, maze, charade.
Removing Schnapsen as redundand to mariage seems be OK as long as we do not Blackball (pool) (subtopics of English billiards); but I also noted that I (maybe just mistaly) putted Mahjong as Trick-taking game ( also parent topic for mariage) at „traditional games” and if we do not list game like Madiao, probably we could remove Ruff and honourswith purly historical importance. We already habe whist and contract bridge on the level 4 (BTW I think it i salso good point to we find discuss where put trick-tking and how all names of the sections should be selected). Your suggestions about Poker-subtopics swaps and adding War sound reasonable to me. Eventually we can swap the war for another card game mentioned in children’s card game template. Karuta as representation of another Japanese game also is interesing addition when we list Jianzi and Kemari which already have something common with Cuju but I am definietly unsure about removal of the Kemari.
I think Calcio florentino is less vital than Cuju and Mesoamerican ball game. Potentially calcio could be sufficently covered by historical articles about soccer which are already listed in history section (mob football or history or soccer) but on the other hand I can not stat what I reasonably think about your suggestion because I have ambivalent thoughs when I see / or I am aware that we list cuple sport journalist who aruably are not more vital than game historians like the Murray. I like your comprasion "history of video games topics" to baby boomers . You have said that we list many video game histrical topics in comprasion to games but I would said that number of video games in general is big in comprasion to any historical entertaiment or any non-entertaiment topic listed in history section. On the other I think chess are actually easy enoug vital for this level when we are so highly under quota. I think that Hacky Sack(seems be more vital than strip poker which you just have suggested toadd) could be kept or swapped for freestyle football when we already list Streetball for basketball Dawid2009 ( talk) 19:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
honestlyand authentically there are no video game perosality on the level 5 who has more language versions than for example "niche" ski jumper like Adam Małysz so for now I actually find it with hardly arguable benefit of being a productive dispute to say that it is underrepresented especially if in the past even @ Purplebackpack89: suggested to keep 60 all video game non-bios topics among 50 000 all articles).I do not dispute that fields like youtubers/esports/game designers are interesig and growing dominated part of 21th century ( + strong top of representtive field if we are going to whatever represent from21th century) but on the other hand it is difficult to say whose among them are the most vital as every biography in that field can be out gone by other fellow biograpy from the same. I appreciate your big effort of creating this list and appreciate fact that you are probably the biget constributor but your stating about 30 video game people vs 30 magicians when just you earlier controlled theose two quotas by WP:bold littly is uncalled-for in light of tentive process (We need suggestions from a much larger pool of editors with expertise in a range of subjects, and a slower process to add articles with more long-term planning on how the list should be structured and organised). Personally I am afraid that numbers of sport-people and entartaiments on this level is currently exaggeration if we do not list all languages more vital than Dolly Pentreath who is already on the list. Beyond that for example, seriously/honestly Cricket have biographies with mind-importance statement by wikiproject... meanwhile William Wadé Harris (top-importanc christianity topic which also represent Africa) is not listed among religious figures. Either way I already opened new section about FAQ . if you have something interesing to say about fact that the FAQ inaccurate describe recentism on L, kept comment there (where I just pinged you), but please no longer reply here, under this subsection, because of here is hard discussion about games but not about thousand topics among whole 50 000 list. Cheers Dawid2009 ( talk) 21:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Althoug the FAQ refer about „anti-rcentism”, currently we have often discussions about fact that some fields (just like films or video games) need this rigoristic limit less than the others (just like literaturę, oral tradition etc.). Is someone interested to correct there? Another interesing thing i salso „tiloring to readers of the English Wikipedia” as it also is going to be more confused on lower (L4 and L5) levels and contradict to WP:Bias which whay active participitians have differ definitions about vitalness in that project. In the past @ Power~enwiki: tried start this discussion on Jimbo’s talk page here but it did not get tany attention. Maybe now on the level 5 (when talk on L5 is more than double times more viewed than talk on L3) we could hve any consensus here? I also echo discussion above where Calcio fiorentino and a lot of parent bvideo games are suggested to the removal meanwhile @ GuzzyG: defend Esport players. I am generally ambivalent as I only will wait for consensus among larer number of ditors but I would like to ping @ Headbomb: who added almost all video game topics on this level and @ Carlwev: who originally pointed in the past that we often miss parent topics on the level 5 (as Carlwev also speciffically were reffering to fact that we were listing for example Esport players before video games, meanwhile we now we again are going to cut video games back). Dawid2009 ( talk) 21:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the current list, I'd purge the following
That would remove 37 entries. A couple of those could be trimmed/replaced with the franchise entry. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I've added Harlem Globetrotters to three NBA teams. This team popularized the game more than any single NBA club. -- Deinocheirus ( talk) 02:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I strongly suggest replacing R.S.C. Anderlecht with AFC Ajax. The Dutch club won the Champions League and its predecessor 4 times (the Belgians never won it) while also adding an Intercontinental Cup and a couple of UEFA Super Cups. All Anderlecht has got is two Cup Winners' Cups (Ajax actually also has one) and one UEFA Cup (Ajax also has one). So I don't see any reason to keep Anderlecht on the list in place of a much more successful club. -- Deinocheirus ( talk) 02:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life#Stages of life for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences for the list of topics in this category.
I think we should add all entries from Template:Generations sidebar here. As far as I can tell neither is listed here, and those are big concepts ( Millennials, Baby boomers, etc.). That's 7 articles. And Generation should be level 4 vital at least, I guess I'll go to V4 talk page and propose adding it there. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
It appears we don't list white people or black people, and possibly a bunch of other ethnic groups. Where should they be added? Sdkb ( talk) 06:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion number of lanugages and tribes included to the level 5 (when language is level 1 article and tribe is level 4 article), could be veeeeeeeerrrrryyyyyy bigg. I would like point that we list Dolly Pentreath who is less notable than Cornish language. What do you guys think? Dawid2009 ( talk) 23:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Basics for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Anthropology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Business and economics for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Culture for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Education for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Ethnology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#International organizations for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Language for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Law for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Mass media for the list of topics in this category.
I just reverted an edit [27] which removed a dozen articles from Society and social sciences. Can we get a consensus on de-inclusion before articles are removed because of "bloat"? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Museums for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Politics and government for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Psychology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Society for the list of topics in this category.
Add Digital divide to society topics? Thoughts? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Sociology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#War and military for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology#Biology basics for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology#Anatomy and morphology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology#Biochemistry and molecular biology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology#Biological processes and physiology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology#Botany for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology#Cell biology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology#Ecology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology#Zoology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Animals for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Health for the list of topics in this category.
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)
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Basics and measurement#Science basics for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Basics and measurement#Measurement for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Astronomy for a complete list of articles in this topic.
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)
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Chemistry for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Earth science for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Physics for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Agriculture for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Biotechnology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Computing and information technology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Electronics for the list of articles in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Engineering for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Industry for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Infrastructure for the list of articles in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Machinery and tools for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Media and communication for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Medical technology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Military technology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Navigation and timekeeping for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Optical technology for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Space for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Textiles for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Transportation for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics#Basics for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics#Algebra for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics#Calculus and analysis for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics#Discrete mathematics for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics#Geometry for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics#Probability and statistics for the list of topics in this category.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics#Other for the list of topics in this category.
I believe that the YMCA is vital at this level, but in what section or subsection does it belong? p b p 18:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Purplebackpack89 and Dawid2009: I support having some notable NGOs at Level 5 vitals. The correct location is Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Society_and_social_sciences#Non-governmental_organizations_(60_articles). I'd also suggset adding World Wide Fund for Nature (better known as WWF), BRAC (organization), Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, World Vision and TED (conference). Sources for importance: [29], [30]. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
So a third of it is dominated by subcultures. Not sure if this is far inclusion. Might be worth splitting subcultures to their own section, including them under sociology is very arbitrary. In either way, I'd suggest:
Thoughts? Anyone feels we should vote on any of those? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I think we should add the following to Vital 5 (if not higher), but I am unsure what sections would be best, some kind of general section for sciences? (I will note that IMHO equivalent terms like Axiom, Paradigm, Hypothesis, Theory, Deductive reasoning are a V4 article in Philosophy; Experiment and Observation are V4 in Physics, Conjecture is V4 in Math, Academic journal is V4 in Society, Belief is V3 in Philosophy, Scientific method is V3 at Science). In V5 from the concepts I was reviewing I just found Academic publishing (V5 in Society). Some of what I propose below could go to Philosophy, but probably not all of it.The following are IMHO relevant concepts that should be V5. Some of those might warrant a discussion at V4 level.
Separately, I will also list the concept of Clinical trial, as rather important, through not to all branches of science. That one can probably be added to medicine or health section or such. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Add Star Trek. Not sure where to add as franchise as a whole is more significant than the work in any specific media. Show creator Gene Roddenberry is in under TV people, but media has far surpassed his involvement (compare, both George Lucas and Star Wars--specifically the franchise--included). Hyperbolick ( talk) 21:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I kind of agree with you. I have not been following the level five list as much as the others. At least at level 4 there is no "franchise" section at present, TV shows would be the best place, although technically wrong, same as best place for Star Wars is movies but again technically wrong also. We could discus having a "franchise" or cross media work or another name section, for things like Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Pokemon, Mario, James Bond and others. Perhaps near fictional characters. Characters are based on a single character but are still kind of franchises, like Superman, Batman, Tarzan, Harry Potter, James Bond etc, where as Star Trek Star Wars Pokemon are not about single fictional people. In short, we could discus having a "franchise" section to include articles I mentioned and more. Carl wev 19:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Seems nothing but support. What now? Hyperbolick ( talk) 21:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Seems inapt. UFOs may be much represented in fiction, but the term comes from real life. Sociological, maybe. Hyperbolick ( talk) 23:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
The cultural impact of this game is extremely significant and it should be at Vital 5, if not higher. Not sure which section of Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts would be appropriate. Thoughts? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
IMO both are less vital than many articles which we removed recently in arts by WP:Bold. Xkcd is famous in many laguages but is younger than Penny Arcade and not more influential than Hetalia: Axis Powers or Pepe the frog. Probably Webcomic and Internet meme are anough to cover such articles among 50 000 core topics.
I support removal of Munroe but I'd rather keep xkcd or remove Pepe the Frog. This is purely subjective, but I have heard of Penny Arcade, Hetalia and xkcd but of the two other topics. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Just updating that Munroe has now been removed, i did big cuts to increase our representation of non western arts. This is why votes like this in non complete sections are a waste of time, because i'm constantly changing things up. GuzzyG ( talk) 03:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
It's mostly agreed upon that lists of video games and fictional characters are in need of pruning. (Deciding a specific quota for video games is a separate issue from what I'm going to suggest, although it's needed for the final step.) However I think the existing methods to remove entries by consensus are inefficient when there are very many to remove. What I propose is a procedure in which each entry in a section to prune is assigned a priority score (calculated from the votes it gets) and only the entries with highest priority scores are kept.
First, every user posts a comment where they list A) the entries they wish to keep, and B) the entries they wish to remove. Not every single entry has to be voted on, only those the user has a strong opinion on. (It's acceptable - though not preferable - for an entry to receive no votes at all!) This stage goes on a while - let's say for a month or two or until enough people have voted.
Next, voting is closed and priority scores calculated. Something like the following formula is used: P=(K+2)/(K+R+4)*100, where K is the amount of keep votes and R remove votes an entry has gotten, and P is the priority score as a percentage of keep votes. The +2 and +4 essentially add dummy votes (2 keeps and 2 removes) so that an entry with only a few votes for one side does not instantly get a 100% or 0%. So what happens is that the default P is 50%, and the more votes it gets on one side or the other, the more it approaches 100% or 0%. Entries everybody thinks "obviously belong" on the list get a high P (in video games these would likely be Doom, Space Invaders and such), controversial ones or those with few votes get around 50%, and those that "obviously don't belong" get a low P.
Finally, entries are sorted by their P and only the highest ranked ones that fit within the quota are kept. The cutoff point for P isn't necessarily ~50%; if it's higher then the controversial or overlooked entries will not make it, if it's lower then they will.
Thoughts?-- LaukkuTheGreit ( Talk• Contribs) 13:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
If a section is 98-99% complete, shouldn't we tag it as "complete" and mandate any other additions to be discussed? p b p 19:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I re-worded a paragraph to reflect the reality that we have several completed sections where additions and removals should be discussed. p b p 22:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Old paragraph read:
This list is in the process of being created. Everyone is welcome to participate. If you see an article that you think should be included, then add it to the list. If you are unsure, then you can propose it on the talk page. Please do not remove articles which have some reasonable chance of staying here upon completion. If something was added which seems obviously not able to stand as one of the 50,000 then you can remove it, with discussion if contested, always assuming good faith. Mass deletes of articles should always be preceded by discussion. We should ideally wait until we are close to the quota in each section before engaging in serious debate over what should stay or go.
New one reads:
This list is in the process of being created. Everyone is welcome to participate. If you see an article that you think should be included in an incomplete section, then add it to the list. If you are unsure, then you can propose it on the talk page. Please do not remove articles which have some reasonable chance of staying here upon completion. If something was added which seems obviously not able to stand as one of the 50,000 then you can remove it, with discussion if contested, always assuming good faith. Mass deletes of articles should always be preceded by discussion. Additions AND removals to sections that are complete or nearly complete should be discussed. Sections that are at 98% or more of their capacity have been tagged as "complete" below.
Everybody OK with this change? p b p 22:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Just to show how distorted the socalled target number is: If we extrapolate the table from level 4 to this level it would look approximately like this:
List No. | Section | Level 4 | Level 5 (L4x5) | L5 proportionate to people |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | People | 2,000 | 10,000 | 15,000 |
2 | History | 675 | 3,350 | 5,025 |
3 | Geography | 1,200 | 6,000 | 9,000 |
4 | Arts | 670 | 3,350 | 5,025 |
5 | Philosophy and religion | 430 | 2,150 | 3,225 |
6 | Everyday life | 485 | 2,430 | 3,645 |
7 | Society and social sciences | 925 | 4,650 | 6,975 |
8 | Biological and health sciences | 1,475 | 7,350 | 11,025 |
8.1 | Health, medicine and disease | 275 | 1,330 | 1,995 |
9 | Physical sciences | 1,100 | 5,500 | 8,250 |
9.1 | Basics and measurement | 80 | 390 | 600 |
9.2 | Astronomy | 195 | 900 | 1,335 |
9.3 | Chemistry | 270 | 1,350 | 2,030 |
9.4 | Earth science | 260 | 1,300 | 1950 |
9.5 | Physics | 295 | 1,490 | 2,200 |
10 | Technology | 740 | 3,700 | 5,550 |
11 | Mathematics | 300 | 1,500 | 2,250 |
Total | 5,000 | 50,000 | 75,000 |
Article like History of video games should be listed in history section agaist articles like Generation X. Article like 1896 Athens or History of chess should be listed in history section against articles like history of ballet or History of the FIFA World Cup. Why we list all these historic articles in every day section? And why we list so plenty specialistics terminology to video games? Should we also list endless topics for terminologies related to chess gameplay or clasical music (including very few viewed pages just like altissimo) in art section? Dawid2009 ( talk) 20:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Support As nom Dawid2009 ( talk) 05:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
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)
As a heads up, there is a discussion on making VA a consensus-building discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4#Add Pocahontas. J 947 ( c), at 22:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)