![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If we are going to list Comedy at this level, then we should also list drama. It used to be on the list, but was removed because of concerns that it overlapped too much with Theater and Tragedy. The article on tragedy has since been removed, and the articles on comedy and drama are both much broader in scope than just covering those subjects within theater.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Machu Picchu is an ancient architectural wonder and now a tourist attraction in Peru. Peru is a "a biodiverse country... home to several ancient cultures. Ranging from the Norte Chico civilization in the 32nd century BC, the oldest civilization in the Americas and one of the five cradles of civilization, to the Inca Empire, the largest state in pre-Columbian America, the territory now including Peru has one of the longest histories of civilization of any country, tracing its heritage back to the 4th millennia BCE." Modern Peru "is classified as an emerging market with a high level of human development... The country forms part of The Pacific Pumas, a political and economic grouping of countries along Latin America's Pacific coast that share common trends of positive growth, stable macroeconomic foundations, improved governance and an openness to global integration".
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ireland is the tenth most prosperous country in the world. Recently the Brexit has caused a boom in investment and jobs in Ireland as companies relocate from London. "The Irish diaspora, one of the world's largest and most dispersed, has contributed to the globalisation of Irish culture, producing many prominent figures in art, music, and science."
I suggest a more appropriate swap would be to add prehistoric art. Cobblet ( talk) 16:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
While Joan of Arc's military and cultural record is quite impressive, I don't think it is vital enough compared to the Mughal Emperor Akbar. Akbar is considered one of the greatest Indian emperors, enlarging the empire to cover most of the Indian subcontinent, tripling the size of the empire and establishing its superiority. The foundations of tolerance he constructed helped the multicultural empire unite and stay strong, and his reign helped establish the position of the Mughal Empire as one of the great Islamic empires of the time, along with the Ottomans and Safavid, and also ushered in the golden age in India that followed, exemplified by buildings like the Taj Mahal. — Spykryo ( talk) 16:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@ DaGizza: What do you think about swapping Kahlil Gibran for Saladin? Gibran is the least vital person listed but he's on for diversity reasons;considering we removed Kurosawa i think Gibran's time is up. Saladin is more historically important to that region and he covers up a gap in the politics section, while Gibran is bloated in writers. Abu Nuwas and Rabindranath Tagore are more vital writers to history and will last longer from this region too, so i don't see a place for Gibran unless we go by bestselling. GuzzyG ( talk) 06:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per below discussion, Neptune and Uranus potentially are not vital at this level. These two planets are the only planets in our solar system which have been discovered very much leter than Copernican Revolution and are long distance from Earth. When we are anthropocentric (for example we list Global warming ahead of Climate change or civilized continents ahead of Antarctica and Continent) we should not list Neptune and Uranus ahead of Equinox, Solstice, Eclipse, Astrology and History of astronomy. Also fact that we have already Planet and Solar system at this level makes Neptune and Uranus less vital than Mount Everest IMO. Pluto is not covered by Dwarf planet at this level. Dawid2009 ( talk) 08:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I weakly support removing Neptune and Uranus as they have little link to the Earth, and aren't as famous and vital as Jupiter, Saturn, and the large pieces of rocky road closer to the sun. I appreciate the nom's rationale, and my idea could be a small way to improve level-by-level stuff.J 947 ( c), at 04:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
When we have Galaxy and Star already on the list I do not support addition of other Glaxies and Stars to this list but adding History of astronomy instead something like Greek Astronomy (which is less vital than Greek Mythology IMO) and adding Observation (not as astronomic article) or Light-year is reasnable for discussion. Some time ago there were failed nomination to swap Global warming for Climate change but I would support addition of Meteorology. Dawid2009 ( talk) 08:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Maya civilization and Aztecs are listed.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Southeast Asia is a discrete region of Asia which has a unique history and culture. The three other major subregions of Asia all have their histories listed at level three (history of India is essentially the history of South Asia, and history of the Middle East covers Western Asia). Angkor Wat is an important monument, but it's not more vital than the history of the region it's a part of.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
With 70 million people by the most narrow definition, Central Asia would be the 20th-most populous country in the world (and the most populous non-Vital Article) if it were one country. It's also an underrepresented topic on the level 3 list: only one of the Level 3 vital articles ( Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi) covers an individual from Central Asia (though Genghis Khan did spend a lot of his career conquering Central Asia), and none of the geography articles are primarily about Central Asia (other than Caspian Sea, which also borders other regions). So by adding Central Asia, we can cover a largely unrepresented, fairly populous region with a single article. The Caspian Sea is an important body of water, but it's not more important than the region it borders, nor is it as vital as the other bodies of water on this list.
The following discussion is closed. 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 see Pre-Columbian era and Peru as more vital topics at this level.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Abraham is a mythological figure and Moses was seen as more vital topic at recent vote.
Going by the oppose votes, are we going to add Adam and Eve next? GuzzyG ( talk) 02:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Essential topic in Religion section.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mathematical optimization is an example of applied mathematics. I'm doubtful about its vitality at this level. Numerical analysis has more interwiki links and it is included in Meta's list.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is he really more vital than Max Planck, Ernest Rutherford or Enrico Fermi?
My response to Thi's question would be yes: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle has to be one of the most profound scientific developments in 20th-century science, with ramifications not just for science but also for philosophy and the nature of reality and observation. Planck and Rutherford never produced an insight that profound, and I also don't think their contributions to old quantum theory and old atomic theory are more notable than Heisenberg's development of matrix mechanics. I'd say Fermi is as famous for his personality as his contributions, and I'd rather compare him to Franklin (who's listed) and Feynman (who isn't) than to Heisenberg. Cobblet ( talk) 05:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is not eaugh vital at this level and it takes space for many other more important articles such like Travel, North Pole, South Pole, Exploration etc.
You're welcome to suggest adding exploration, but I don't mind the fact that we've chosen to list tourism and transport rather than the less focused concept of travel. Cobblet ( talk) 00:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
NOTE: Satellite navigation is now listed at Level 4. Rreagan007 ( talk) 21:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Social security and social policy are vital issues. Welfare has fewer interwikis and Social security and Social policy are not at Level 5, so this seems to be best alternative.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The list of composers has been shrinking. Verdi, Tchaikovsky, Debussy and Stravinsky are gone and only Chopin is left. He is not more vital than those other composers or Schubert or Brahms.
One thing i just thought of regarding this proposal, if it passes, our coverage of composers would be 4 Germans, (obvious debate with Mozart, but still); is that a reasonable thing, it probably doesn't seem that way to me. Also on our level 4 list romantic composers have similar numbers to rock musicians, on here we'd put rock over both romantic/modern classical composers. I think we've made a mistake; i was also a big advocate for Chopin's removal but to leave the classical musicians as from only one country does not seem right. GuzzyG ( talk) 22:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
If we go by that list Krystyna Skarbek should be in the level 4 list then..... Chopin should only be removed in a swap. Chaucer, Hugo, Tagore, Twain, Pushkin etc are all way more vital then Andersen. Pope John Paul is not in the top 5 most important Christian leaders. You fail to take in relativity into account, aka a pope may be more important then a composer historically but not for this list when we only list eight musicians and nine religious figures. It's irresponsible to compare a founder of physics to a fairytale writer. Also romanticism is way more vital then rock, in which we have two. We need this list to be spread out... we can't have a Beethoven to Armstrong jump in music... (and we'd have to remove Armstrong if we take out Wagner and Chopin). Culture/Art figures being compared to scientific figures is not fair to them. GuzzyG ( talk) 23:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Figures like Heisenberg, Dali, Chopin, Dostoevsky, Gibran, Kafka are the six weak links on this list. Dali especially as he isn't more important then Francisco Goya to Spanish art as is Dostoevsky not more important then Alexander Pushkin to Russian literature; so they're already at a loss. But they have to be swapped. Not removed. Religious figures at 9 is perfect, because after the 1500s they're just not universally that vital, same with explorers; that's why there's only 9 of each. GuzzyG ( talk) 00:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Modern explorers listed on the level 4 list, not on the level 3:
The only ones that make sense for the level 3 list are Gagarin/Armstrong or maybe Earhart to add a woman to the explorers section, everything else has no chance on this list, so when you advocate for more explorers yet dismiss space explorers, it seems silly. We do list
Sergei Korolev
[7],
Robert H. Goddard is superseded by
Wernher von Braun and i'd support Goddard anyway. How does my stance on fashion designers outranking models on the totem pole (one is dressed by the other) or my support for the current musicians number of 8 conflict with my support of removing fictional characters from the biography (real life people) section?
Now lets dissect that TIMEs list, (why do we have such a dependency on such one list, every time?), since you picked Zuckerberg of it...
Now all of whom i would support over Zuckerberg on the level 4 list, who comes third behind Jack Ma and Jeff Bezos anyway in vital internet businessmen missing on the level 4 list. These one off lists people or publications make are not gospel, they're just one part of assessing things.
Now "15th century" religious figures...
None of these are good enough for this list and Hus conflicts with Martin Luther.
Now i assume you meant 16th century as that's a bit more star studded and the ones you were meaning
Again all of these conflict with Luther. Cranmer does not go in before Henry VIII who is in conflict with his daughter.
Now let's analyze the other 16th century religious figures on the level 4 list.
Now out of these lot i only see Teresa of Ávila and Guru Nanak as fitting for this level, Teresa to have a woman and Guru because we do not have a Sikhism representative. The only other religious figure i can see/support is Maimonides
Religious figures that are unique drop off after the 1500s, the only unique and significant development is the New religious movements but people like Joseph Smith would be before that and countless saints before him, no one would seriously suggest adding Helena Blavatsky or Aleister Crowley to this list.
We need to stop saying blanket things like "15th century religious figures" are missing without completely analyzing such a list for what is missing, worse removing musicians and other people based on such reasons. GuzzyG ( talk) 00:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
No, I have not called myself an „advocate” and my comment about the quotas for the religious figures, explorers and musicians was also relevent to previous discussion (see the !votes above) where there was contigent that religious figures and explorers should have at least the same representation what musicians on the level 3, despite fact the quota for explorers and religious figures on the level 4 at the timie also was way lower than the quota for musicians at the time, few yers ago (If we would decide to remove Abraham and Moses without swap and later we decide to add more musicians, religion is underrepresented with comprasion to music, beause of religon’s significance is growing from the level 4 to level 3 However I have started this discussion In the section below what we should do with mythological creatures. Personally I do not know how is perfect solution). And I have never suggested to add more explorers or religous figures from last few centuries. I have written „older than XV wiek” so I clearly though just about the ‘’quotas ‘’for religious figures and explorers from whole "history of the Word" (not just about the XV century) and maybe some religious figures wchich were listed on the meta list version some years ago or some other relisious figures suggested by other users (Orser and Yarir). I did not suggested to add any more explorers from last centuries or explorers other than space explorers. My contigent about space explorers was related to fact that these ones are not vital jus like other explorers mentioned currently on the list and I am not sure they should be listed already. If we take into fact that space exploration was idea of space enginner and space exploration was not influential for anthropo-centric issues like trade or politics, these ones are way less vital than other explorers menitioned here and maybe little more comparable to moutaineers. John Paul this is page which was edited by 227 editiors In last Three years ([( [9]]) , and it is more often edited page (with better material for FA) than articles about :Bruce Lee, modern mathematicans (listed on the level 3) , all space explorers except Neil Armstrong. I will never suggest to add John Paul because I know that there are many more vital religious figures missek at this lkevel and I realise that enaugh increasing the quota for religion would make big overlap In representation of figures. However I do not see how adding few more religious whose are way more import ant than John Paul figures would be egregious and outrageous even if we decise make more diversity list In Fields. Currently the quotas for people on the level 4 are: 125 (Or more if we consider that some users suport to keep Abraham and Moses who are not listed at biography on the level 4) religious figures, 30 explorers ,and 44 mathematicians, meanwhile the quotas for people on the level 3 are: 9 religous figures, 8 explorers and 9 mathematicians (or 8 if we consider fact that Alan Turing is not listed among mathematicians on the level 4) on the level 4. My comments about Wright brothers, Clement Ader and some modern people was relevent to general discussion about all levels not Just the level 3 (other issues with similar topics just like history of aviation etc). and I suggested whose pe ople we maybe we could add to level4 before we decise that we need one sport person on the level 3, however this is not discussion for this talkpage (and BTW English wording „I Little doubt” was not rotund irony In that case how you maybe understood it. Honestly I was not going into this.). I am not necesarilly oppose to add one sport person or maybe even entertainment on this level if consensus will be that we need make very, very much diversity In Fields (Charlie Chaplin was listed here ahead of Socrates for years and we have handful of women In other Fields than politics on the whole lists so there are some objections (maybe fact that we changed this list in last years to point where is less divrsity for fields is not perfect idea, although I do not know how recentism should be represented here)). Like I Said above I agree with you that a lot of types of pe ople should get priority to be featured article. Sport people do not make so much constribue to society and are way less vital/influential than many other fields (represented on all levels) In acedemic range,for history, however I agree with you that this field is very integral part of society for thousands years and is recently very important. Good argument that sport is integraf part of socjety can be even fact that sports people sometimes are top i the country/regions. [In archives I have found discussion where Cobblet suggested to pick Franz Liszt ahead of Chopin]; since 2015 exist book about Puskas which describe him as „biography of the most famous Hungarin ([( [10]). Aother interesing thing is fact that we represent on this level Japanese art by Hokuais who is probably less popular In Japan han Miytamoto Musashi who was vital person In many Fields (also In Visual arts) but probably is more known thank to swordmanship. If consensus will If consensus will be that Sport need get pick in recentism/20th century, I Gould probably suport Bruce Lee ahead of Lumierre Bros because of it is the most vital sport person IMO (and BTW In my opinion maybe more vital than space explorers). I have started current chart in section Below Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4#current distribution#here, to talk about quotas etc. and I am opened to discussion again. I hav shared some my thoughts and I suggested that maybe Immothep would be good option as first . I belive we can discuss and honestly I also think it is not needed to we so much arguing; I hope we will be no longer conflicted. After thinkink about it more I think it is not really needed. I am opened o estabilish diversity for people in various fields/nations/history among 1000 articles. It is not first time when it is going to discussion (on this level or lower). 130~~ is most probably right number and maybe even good for innovations. Dawid2009 ( talk) 22:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Is there a reason we don't leave the archive status and results within each discussion on this page? Generally (see closed discussions at WP:AN or WP:AN/I) the {{ archive top}} template is placed under the header of the section being closed. This helps with archiving and such. Curious where local consensus was achieved to change this practice? Crazynas t 16:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Adding Caribbean Sea is something that several people have brought up before, and I think it makes sense. I think it's at least as vital as Mediterranean Sea and Caspian Sea, which are listed. As far as Arctic, we don't list its Southern Hemisphere counterpart Antarctic at this level, and it doesn't seem any more vital to me. I think it was probably originally added to the list to balance out the continent of Antarctica, but we have the Arctic Ocean for that. Our planet just happens to have a continent at one pole and an ocean at the other, so those are the articles that we should be listing here. Rreagan007 ( talk) 21:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Our planet just happens to have a continent at one pole and an ocean at the other, so those are the articles that we should be listing here.. Dawid2009 ( talk) 17:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate idea but I am not sure Caribbean Sea is better choice than Carribean when we have Grand Canyon/ Rocky Mountains/ Great Lakes ahead of California. The North America is the only contined which is better represented by physical geography than by political geography. We already list Lake Victoria and Great Lakes ahead of Tigris/ Euphrates despite fact even very "non-civilisational rivers" are more influencial than lakes. Carribean also would be neutral choice for American Mediterraean Sea when we list specific countries at this list. Dawid2009 ( talk) 17:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
He is the father of quantum physics.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Among articles related with Navigation, Radar is vital such like Time zone. IMO both should not be ahead of Geodesy and Cartography. Satelite navigation is one of the best Human's achivements of the 20th century but not Radar. We do not list at the level 4 a lot of other futurable human's achivements such like machine translation.
@ Thi: Can you please explain your !vote? Cobblet ( talk) 15:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am not sure Moon landing is needed at this level. I am not sure it is needed specifficaly when we have Space exploration already on the list and we do not list Astronautics or Sergei Korolev at this level. Based on fact we do not have Spacecraft and Exploration of Moon at the level 5 I think that Exploaration is not less vital than Space Exploration because of we list at the level 4 Antarctic Exploration, Northwest Passage etc. We also have 9 explorers already on this level. Actually people intentinallythere were several times on Moon since 60's so Moon landing should not be ahead of History of aviation. Dawid2009 ( talk) 22:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mahfouz was the most significant Arab novelist in the 20th century. He was awarded the 1988 Nobel Prize in literature and his works are popular across the world.
After removing some compossers and filmmakers whole section of writers is littly overrepresented because of:
What do you think about some moves? I think we can reach to consensus for 15 writers. I would also moved Alan Turing to scientists (per level 4) because of there are other more notable mathematicans than him. Dawid2009 ( talk) 17:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Also how is a fairytale writer more vital then missing people like Nefertiti, Imhotep, Alexander Graham Bell, Geoffrey Chaucer, Sarah Bernhardt, Hannibal, Martin Luther King Jr., Franklin D. Roosevelt, Wright brothers, Yuri Gagarin, Saladin, William the Conqueror, Ashoka, Cai Lun, Shaka, Pelé, Marilyn Monroe, Le Corbusier, Michael Jackson, Henrik Ibsen, Alfred Hitchcock, Akira Kurosawa, John D. Rockefeller, J. P. Morgan, Susan B. Anthony, and Andy Warhol, sometimes i do not follow your logic.. first you nominate two musicians like Debussy and Tchaikovsky but then say there's too many, then you suggest we cut down to 15 writers but say Anderson would be the next addition.. it doesn't make sense. Honestly it seems more like personal favoritism sometimes. The problem with such a list is mass market pop culture imagery of historical figures got really massive and worldwide in the 20th century, so most of the commonly known names are "recent" not to mention that only painting/sculpting and writing has legitimate historical figures, unlike music/film/sports which only has figures from the 20th century that are remembered. Honestly a tilt towards the 20th century isn't that bad considering all of that. I'm not so sure the fact that there's no entertainer or sports figure listed here is a good idea. [11] i am reminded of this chart that was done a while ago, a current version should be made today by someone who can (i have no technical ability, as you can probably tell by my bad writing/grammar). Then we can discuss what is done to the list from there, and we can discuss a final number for people and who would fit in a equal distribution of what we represent on the level 4 list. But my strong contention is that i know these people may not compare to the status of a George Washington or Albert Einstein i do think this list should fit one architect, entertainer and athlete, just to fit the leftout sections from level 4. But then again there's just too many missing people, so i don't know. Another reason those three should be represented here is that "performing arts"/"architecture"/"sport" are level 2 articles, which means they should probably be represented here. GuzzyG ( talk) 06:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Cobblet: @ DaGizza: How would you two feel about someone like Bruce Lee? Martial arts is listed here, so that's not a issue, he's a better replacement to Kurosawa as a Asian culture representative of the 20th century. He covers both our lack of actors/athletes, [12] he's the second ranked actor and first male one in this old MIT list. Swap him with Dali or someone, i think that's a good swap. Then maybe swap Dostoevsky for Ashoka, Ghalib for Saladin and Chopin for Le Corbusier and i think this list would be pretty much set in stone for people then. GuzzyG ( talk) 13:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dubai is one of the most multicultural cities in the world. It is home to the world’s tallest building. This is why it is vital. Mstrojny ( talk) 05:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Dubai is the most viewed non-English language city on the English Wikipedia so logically should be included here (even ahead of United Emirates). At this region it get comparable vitality to Iraq and Syria. However until add something from Europe or south-west Aasia we should first start nomination with Kazakchstan or Uzbekistan. Population of central Asia is WAY much larger than population of Oceania and we also list history of Oceania despite fact this region has shorter history. Dawid2009 ( talk) 20:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Vital topic.
I think puberty would be better since it covers the bodily and hormonal changes that happen to both girls and boys. Gizza ( t)( c) 09:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Another employment-related article is perhaps needed at this level. "Trade unions have had a huge political, social and economic impact." [13]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Basic topic, but possibly not at this level. Earth#Internal_structure gives basic information. Plate tectonics has more language versions.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Portuguese empire was the first global empire. "Portugal has left a profound cultural and architectural influence across the globe, a legacy of 300 million Portuguese speakers, and many Portuguese-based creoles." Modern Portugal ranks high in manys metrics of national performance.
The following discussion is closed. 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 economy of Netherlands has the thirteenth-highest per capita income globally and Rotterdam is Europe's largest port. Netherlands is known for its liberal policies and the country hosts many international organisations and courts, "many of which are centered in The Hague, which is consequently dubbed 'the world's legal capital'." Amsterdam is considered an alpha world city and draws over 4 million tourists annually. Many of the most famous painters in the world were Dutch: Rembrandt, Vermeer, van Gogh, Mondrian. Also many scientists and philosophers: Erasmus, Spinoza, Huygens, Leeuwenhoek.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We've been on a kick of adding animal articles to the list lately, and I think the main branch of aquatic mammals which includes whales and dolphins deserves to be included at this level.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Some time ago there were suggestions to remove sex to esape from everlap and get chance for other less vague and more specific articles. I would support remove sex to list transgender, sexual reproduction and sexual activity. Among articles related with every day life sports and other activities are better represented than human sexuality IMO.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sexual revolution is better choice than History of human sexuality because of specific article with many views should get higher priority for FA than general article which is more covered by human sexuality. This concept is historically extremally influencial and it fits when we list only economy-related articles for modern history. Among modern topics it is surely more vital than HIV (which is mentioned in article History of human sexuality), Video Games or Jazz.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
All senses are listed on the level 4 so sense belongs to the 3 level (just like solar system is listed at the level 2 when we list all planets on the level 3). Recently we added mistakly Intelligence ahead of sense. Intelligence is very vital but still way much less vital than sense.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
More general article. Sargon of Akkad represents Mesopotamian leaders.
Hammurabi is more vital than Sargon IMO. p b p 04:23, 13 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.
Hatshepsut represents Egyptian pharaohs. Ramesses II used art as a means of propaganda: he build monuments to himself and put his name on the monuments of others. Thutmosis III is often regarded as the greatest pharaoh and military leader.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Business cycle is more general article. The Great Depression is overrated because it became a national trauma in United States but left many other parts of the world quite unharmed. Also in the America most people just carried on. Second world war was much worse, but it was fought outside the American continent.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per argument at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4#Add Negative number. InvalidOS talk 14:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Support
Oppose
Discuss
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
When we have infection it can be potentially no longer needed. I would also consider addition of Parasitism and maybe even Mosquito.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This was nominated a few months ago, but since then we have removed the Colosseum, Parthenon, Machu Picchu, and Angkor Wat from the list. I fail to see how this is any more vital than any of those that have been removed. In fact, I'd say it is probably less vital than the others, as they are all significantly older.
Category | Level 3 | Level 4 |
---|---|---|
Total People | 130 (13% of total Level 3) | 2004 (20% of total Level 4) |
Artists | 9 (7%) | 122 (6%) |
Writers (includes Journalists) | 20 [1] (15%) | 271 (14%) |
Composers and Musicians | 7 (5%) | 156 (8%) |
Filmmakers | 2 (2%) | 59 (3%) |
Business people | 1 (1%) | 30 (1%) |
Explorers | 8 (6%) | 30 (1%) |
Inventors and Scientists | 21 (16%) | 204 (10%) |
Mathematicians | 9 [2](7%) | 44 (2%) |
Philosophers and Social Sciences | 17 (13%) | 156 (8%) |
Religious figures | 9 (7%) | 125(+) [3] (6%) |
Politicians and Leaders(inc. Military Leaders and Rebels) | 26 (20%) | 616 (30%) |
Entertainers and Sports Figures | 0 (0%) | 190 (9%) |
Some time ago ( [14]) there was suggestions to make general discussion distribution from the level 4 to the level 3 to determine which fields should growing proportionally each other and which ones get worse representation on the level 4 (or better on the level 3). I think it is also good ocasion to talk about diversity for nation or fields and what we should do with biographies whose are not listed in biography section on the level 4 (or other semi mythical whose are listed among people on the level 4). I am opened for new suggestions. DaGizza in section "remove Abraham" gave suggestion put them in other places. In archives at section to remove Moses we can also found contigent that God is technically is listed on the level 3 (along with Deity ahead of theism). The biggest section where we do not have people on the level 3 are: sport people, actors and architects. Personally I think the most vital person among these all fields would be Immothep (the man who was considered as god for many, many years) which maybybe could be added as first if we decide made more diversity in fields. Thoughts? Dawid2009 ( talk) 22:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
References
Is there any need to group the Indo-European languages by family as Rreagan007 has been doing? The list is short enough that I don't see how this helps the reader navigate the list. We have lists of cities and countries that are longer and nobody seems to feel the need to sort them by continent or some other way. Cobblet ( talk) 21:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
And now there's a dispute over the title of the category Henry Ford is in. I don't know why this was changed from "Businesspeople" which is the category name at the lower levels and here as well until User:Rreagan007 changed it in 2017. These titles should refer to the group of people represented by the chosen biographies, so they should be plural even if only one biography is chosen (for now). I also don't see why the title needs to allude to Ford's gender or any of his other personal attributes. "Businessman" makes no more sense as a title than "American businessperson" or "Antisemitic businessperson." Cobblet ( talk) 21:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
We have Confucius and Confucianism already on the list. Zoroastrianism has been removed while ago and this one has clearly more than doubly more pagewatchers on the English Wikipedia than Confucianism does. Do we really need either of Consucianism and Confucius among 1000 articles? Dawid2009 ( talk) 21:27, 24 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.
We have The arts at Level 1 and History of art at level 2. I think we should at least have art at level 3.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dalí was one of the many surrealists, but Surrealism itself is not listed. Picasso represents 20th century art. Dalí can be compared to such figures as Stravinsky and Debussy, who are not listed any more.
He needs to be gone but only as a swap for either Andy Warhol, Marilyn Monroe, Le Corbusier, Rabindranath Tagore or Bruce Lee. All of whom he is outdone by [15], Lee's a little bit under but compare the cultural context it fits. 20th century art is important and deserves the current amount of representatives, just not exactly who is on the list GuzzyG ( talk) 02:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Topic which was suggested several times. Some users have said it can be enaugh general article and maybe more vital than prayer and meditation which are already on the list. Articles about rituals, customs, calendar celebrations and folklore IMO generally are quite underrepresented on all levels. We lately started additions for this field (ritual has been added two years ago to the level 3). Based on fact folklore is level 2 article I would also consider to add Oral tradition or Tradition. At least some of these articles can fit when we list halloween or national athemn on the level 4.
The following discussion is closed. 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 is clear-cut: impact on the English language, broad and lasting cultural impact, extent of work, etc. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 03:30, 15 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.
Prehistoric art represents the first material evidence of abstract and symbolic thought by humans. Its significance transcends its obvious importance to historians and artists; it speaks directly to our identity as a species. I don't think Stonehenge is any more vital as a representative of prehistoric art than Göbekli Tepe or Saharan rock art or the Nazca lines or the caves of Lascaux or the bronzes of Sanxingdui, but we should definitely be covering the subject as a whole.
The following discussion is closed. 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 wall is a tourist attraction and it is not vital to encyclopedia at this level. I have two encyclopedias with 5000 main articles and the Great Wall of China is not among them. Other parts of Chinese culture are more important.
Clearly your encyclopedias lack expertise in Chinese culture. Do you have any yourself? Cobblet ( talk) 05:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recently we have removed Southern Ocean and Mount Everest. Physical geography is way underrepresented. This general topic can be valuable for 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.
Much more infludential industrialist and philanthropist. Without Rockefeller's oil, no cars would have run.
I think there is a strong argument that the most important measure of a businessperson's impact is how wealthy they became (Rockefeller was the first billionaire, - back when that was a sum so enormous as to be inconceivable = and bu some measures the richest American of all time) , and which Rockefeller multiplied by his cultural and philanthropic legacy ( Rockefeller Center, Rockefeller University, University of Chicago, UN Headquarters, Acadia National Park, many many other; collectively dwarfs Ford's Ford Foundation. Think historians now feel Ford's contribution to the assembly line was way overstated. Companies outgrowing from Standard Oil worth nearly $1 trillion today, compared with Ford Motor's $37 billion today. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 04:53, 16 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.
I'm surprised to see Rail transport higher up than Train. Aircraft is higher up than Air transport. Mstrojny ( talk) 21:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm personally not so surprised. Railway redirects to rail transport, which covers both rail infrastructure and train vehicles. Listing train instead of rail transport narrows our coverage of the subject. Compare road transport where we have both car and road (not to mention horse and bicycle). For water and air transport we only list ship and aircraft, but for those modes of transport don't rely on a purpose-built infrastructure network (we don't list port or airport, although we do list canal) in the same way that road and especially rail transport do. Cobblet ( talk) 22:25, 11 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.
I think that Gender equality is the most general topic. Gender equality and Racism are the most vital topics related to Discrimination. Women's suffrage is listed and I think it belongs to the History section.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We do not list reading but instead listing reading or information; I would support add information technology and Cognition on this level. Cognition is also basic thing among other concepts related to mind.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is mentioned as basic historical concept in outline of britannica. We do not list it among 1000 articles, Britannica covers it among several dozen
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Women's suffrage is mainly about historical developments. Women's rights is more general article. It discusses both historical and current issues. (In some language versions this theme is under Women's history.)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty, —that is all. / Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know." If truth & good and evil are listed, beauty is perhaps also worth consideration. Also human beauty has its effects on society.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Imagination clearly is more basic article. Dream better fit to the level 4 when we list nightmare at the level 5. I would also support add sense ahead of dream and and sensation to the level 4.
Hallucination is listed at level 4. wumbolo ^^^ 23:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A key figure in the scientific revolution, see Johannes_Kepler#Historical_and_cultural_legacy. He discovered three major laws of planetary motion. [20] "Kepler contributed more than Galileo to the development of modern science." [21] He was number 75 in the book The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History (1978).
Since this one list made by one person without any scholarly method is being used as a support vote let's go through who else is on this list but not on here.
Now for people rated lower then Kepler
So to vote based purely based off this list is a folly. There's much more to being vital then being on some list. There's too many scientists compared to everyone else and Ptolemy and Francis Bacon are more important then Kepler in my opinion. If being ranked 75 on this list is a automatic support vote then the people ranked as high as 7!! not on this list should be in before Kepler. GuzzyG ( talk) 19:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Few months ago we have added folklore on the level 2. Now it is time to add Oral tradition here. Oral tradition some time ago was listed among 100 the most basic articles and now is 10 000 but I think it should be listed on the level 3 ahead of traditions (just like Play (activity) ahead of Recreation) as subtopic for folklore. It is illogical to constain several specific religious works without it because of religious works were also building by Oral tradition; not just by writting/literature. Oral tradition is naturally influential for language which is level 1 article.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Major field of study, with a long history, that currently falls out through a gap btween Biology and Geology.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Tanakh, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Tanakh is listed on the L4 list, the discussion is whether the page should be located at Tanakh or at Hebrew Bible. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:07, 12 July 2018 (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.
Per below discussion, Neptune and Uranus potentially are not vital at this level. These two planets are the only planets in our solar system which have been discovered very much leter than Copernican Revolution and are long distance from Earth. When we are anthropocentric (for example we list Global warming ahead of Climate change or civilized continents ahead of Antarctica and Continent) we should not list Neptune and Uranus ahead of Equinox, Solstice, Eclipse, Astrology and History of astronomy. Also fact that we have already Planet and Solar system at this level makes Neptune and Uranus less vital than Mount Everest IMO. Pluto is not covered by Dwarf planet at this level. Dawid2009 ( talk) 08:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I weakly support removing Neptune and Uranus as they have little link to the Earth, and aren't as famous and vital as Jupiter, Saturn, and the large pieces of rocky road closer to the sun. I appreciate the nom's rationale, and my idea could be a small way to improve level-by-level stuff.J 947 ( c), at 04:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
When we have Galaxy and Star already on the list I do not support addition of other Glaxies and Stars to this list but adding History of astronomy instead something like Greek Astronomy (which is less vital than Greek Mythology IMO) and adding Observation (not as astronomic article) or Light-year is reasnable for discussion. Some time ago there were failed nomination to swap Global warming for Climate change but I would support addition of Meteorology. Dawid2009 ( talk) 08:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a strange list but as I understand was started by one person, so of course biases can creep in, and especially things linked to the USA and maybe the UK as the majority of editors come from there. However it is really odd that there is no Nordic country. I choose to nominate Sweden, as it is up there with Norway in impact in world affairs, and is more influential in industry and technology (high patent count, 25th largest GDP in the world, home to many innovators from Ericsson to IKEA and H&M), was one of the major sources of the Vikings (and so the roots of the Rus culture which formed the Russian Empire). Why, for example, are there two Chinas, one of which is a small island not even universally considered a country?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As I've stated above, Israel does not meet the criteria well, objectively, and I think far more appropriate, given the influence on religion and other areas, would be the article on the Jewish people. Equating Jewish people with Israel is simply inaccurate, and the story of the people is vastly more than that of a remote Israel, or the Jewish State. Israel would be a good fit for Level 4, with a lot of other interesting but not "Top 40" countries of the world.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is the world's largest island, by a huge margin. At this level we have the largest hot desert, rainforest, inland body of water, coral reef, longest river, and highest mountain range as exemplars, so having the largest island as an exemplar makes sense too.
@ Cobblet:: Except that since the Northern Hemisphere contains a large majority of the earth's land, any "bias" toward that hemisphere in treatment of landforms is not really a bias at all. Same goes for the earth's human population, economic activity, land animals, etc. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 16:36, 29 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.
Parent article for Planet and Natural satellite. For this level also representation of astronomical objects not listed here.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
General religious topic. Part of theology concerned with the final events of history, or the ultimate destiny of humanity. Eschatology was mentioned in archives at section Wikipedia talk:Vital_articles/Archive 13#Remove Zoroastrianism by @ Trovatore:. This article IMO is very difficult to be featured article but still quite vital as general topic.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We also list money at this level, and there is way too much overlap between the two to list both here.
The following discussion is closed. 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 Rolling Stones should be upgraded from class 4 to class 3. It is a vital article to the topic of music, arguably on the same scale as The Beatles, which is already a class 3 article. The two bands were historic rivals and the Stones are still very much a force in music today, still winning Grammys, touring, and releasing albums. -- TheSandDoctor Talk 04:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If we are going to list Comedy at this level, then we should also list drama. It used to be on the list, but was removed because of concerns that it overlapped too much with Theater and Tragedy. The article on tragedy has since been removed, and the articles on comedy and drama are both much broader in scope than just covering those subjects within theater.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Machu Picchu is an ancient architectural wonder and now a tourist attraction in Peru. Peru is a "a biodiverse country... home to several ancient cultures. Ranging from the Norte Chico civilization in the 32nd century BC, the oldest civilization in the Americas and one of the five cradles of civilization, to the Inca Empire, the largest state in pre-Columbian America, the territory now including Peru has one of the longest histories of civilization of any country, tracing its heritage back to the 4th millennia BCE." Modern Peru "is classified as an emerging market with a high level of human development... The country forms part of The Pacific Pumas, a political and economic grouping of countries along Latin America's Pacific coast that share common trends of positive growth, stable macroeconomic foundations, improved governance and an openness to global integration".
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ireland is the tenth most prosperous country in the world. Recently the Brexit has caused a boom in investment and jobs in Ireland as companies relocate from London. "The Irish diaspora, one of the world's largest and most dispersed, has contributed to the globalisation of Irish culture, producing many prominent figures in art, music, and science."
I suggest a more appropriate swap would be to add prehistoric art. Cobblet ( talk) 16:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
While Joan of Arc's military and cultural record is quite impressive, I don't think it is vital enough compared to the Mughal Emperor Akbar. Akbar is considered one of the greatest Indian emperors, enlarging the empire to cover most of the Indian subcontinent, tripling the size of the empire and establishing its superiority. The foundations of tolerance he constructed helped the multicultural empire unite and stay strong, and his reign helped establish the position of the Mughal Empire as one of the great Islamic empires of the time, along with the Ottomans and Safavid, and also ushered in the golden age in India that followed, exemplified by buildings like the Taj Mahal. — Spykryo ( talk) 16:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@ DaGizza: What do you think about swapping Kahlil Gibran for Saladin? Gibran is the least vital person listed but he's on for diversity reasons;considering we removed Kurosawa i think Gibran's time is up. Saladin is more historically important to that region and he covers up a gap in the politics section, while Gibran is bloated in writers. Abu Nuwas and Rabindranath Tagore are more vital writers to history and will last longer from this region too, so i don't see a place for Gibran unless we go by bestselling. GuzzyG ( talk) 06:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per below discussion, Neptune and Uranus potentially are not vital at this level. These two planets are the only planets in our solar system which have been discovered very much leter than Copernican Revolution and are long distance from Earth. When we are anthropocentric (for example we list Global warming ahead of Climate change or civilized continents ahead of Antarctica and Continent) we should not list Neptune and Uranus ahead of Equinox, Solstice, Eclipse, Astrology and History of astronomy. Also fact that we have already Planet and Solar system at this level makes Neptune and Uranus less vital than Mount Everest IMO. Pluto is not covered by Dwarf planet at this level. Dawid2009 ( talk) 08:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I weakly support removing Neptune and Uranus as they have little link to the Earth, and aren't as famous and vital as Jupiter, Saturn, and the large pieces of rocky road closer to the sun. I appreciate the nom's rationale, and my idea could be a small way to improve level-by-level stuff.J 947 ( c), at 04:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
When we have Galaxy and Star already on the list I do not support addition of other Glaxies and Stars to this list but adding History of astronomy instead something like Greek Astronomy (which is less vital than Greek Mythology IMO) and adding Observation (not as astronomic article) or Light-year is reasnable for discussion. Some time ago there were failed nomination to swap Global warming for Climate change but I would support addition of Meteorology. Dawid2009 ( talk) 08:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Maya civilization and Aztecs are listed.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Southeast Asia is a discrete region of Asia which has a unique history and culture. The three other major subregions of Asia all have their histories listed at level three (history of India is essentially the history of South Asia, and history of the Middle East covers Western Asia). Angkor Wat is an important monument, but it's not more vital than the history of the region it's a part of.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
With 70 million people by the most narrow definition, Central Asia would be the 20th-most populous country in the world (and the most populous non-Vital Article) if it were one country. It's also an underrepresented topic on the level 3 list: only one of the Level 3 vital articles ( Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi) covers an individual from Central Asia (though Genghis Khan did spend a lot of his career conquering Central Asia), and none of the geography articles are primarily about Central Asia (other than Caspian Sea, which also borders other regions). So by adding Central Asia, we can cover a largely unrepresented, fairly populous region with a single article. The Caspian Sea is an important body of water, but it's not more important than the region it borders, nor is it as vital as the other bodies of water on this list.
The following discussion is closed. 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 see Pre-Columbian era and Peru as more vital topics at this level.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Abraham is a mythological figure and Moses was seen as more vital topic at recent vote.
Going by the oppose votes, are we going to add Adam and Eve next? GuzzyG ( talk) 02:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Essential topic in Religion section.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mathematical optimization is an example of applied mathematics. I'm doubtful about its vitality at this level. Numerical analysis has more interwiki links and it is included in Meta's list.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is he really more vital than Max Planck, Ernest Rutherford or Enrico Fermi?
My response to Thi's question would be yes: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle has to be one of the most profound scientific developments in 20th-century science, with ramifications not just for science but also for philosophy and the nature of reality and observation. Planck and Rutherford never produced an insight that profound, and I also don't think their contributions to old quantum theory and old atomic theory are more notable than Heisenberg's development of matrix mechanics. I'd say Fermi is as famous for his personality as his contributions, and I'd rather compare him to Franklin (who's listed) and Feynman (who isn't) than to Heisenberg. Cobblet ( talk) 05:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is not eaugh vital at this level and it takes space for many other more important articles such like Travel, North Pole, South Pole, Exploration etc.
You're welcome to suggest adding exploration, but I don't mind the fact that we've chosen to list tourism and transport rather than the less focused concept of travel. Cobblet ( talk) 00:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
NOTE: Satellite navigation is now listed at Level 4. Rreagan007 ( talk) 21:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Social security and social policy are vital issues. Welfare has fewer interwikis and Social security and Social policy are not at Level 5, so this seems to be best alternative.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The list of composers has been shrinking. Verdi, Tchaikovsky, Debussy and Stravinsky are gone and only Chopin is left. He is not more vital than those other composers or Schubert or Brahms.
One thing i just thought of regarding this proposal, if it passes, our coverage of composers would be 4 Germans, (obvious debate with Mozart, but still); is that a reasonable thing, it probably doesn't seem that way to me. Also on our level 4 list romantic composers have similar numbers to rock musicians, on here we'd put rock over both romantic/modern classical composers. I think we've made a mistake; i was also a big advocate for Chopin's removal but to leave the classical musicians as from only one country does not seem right. GuzzyG ( talk) 22:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
If we go by that list Krystyna Skarbek should be in the level 4 list then..... Chopin should only be removed in a swap. Chaucer, Hugo, Tagore, Twain, Pushkin etc are all way more vital then Andersen. Pope John Paul is not in the top 5 most important Christian leaders. You fail to take in relativity into account, aka a pope may be more important then a composer historically but not for this list when we only list eight musicians and nine religious figures. It's irresponsible to compare a founder of physics to a fairytale writer. Also romanticism is way more vital then rock, in which we have two. We need this list to be spread out... we can't have a Beethoven to Armstrong jump in music... (and we'd have to remove Armstrong if we take out Wagner and Chopin). Culture/Art figures being compared to scientific figures is not fair to them. GuzzyG ( talk) 23:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Figures like Heisenberg, Dali, Chopin, Dostoevsky, Gibran, Kafka are the six weak links on this list. Dali especially as he isn't more important then Francisco Goya to Spanish art as is Dostoevsky not more important then Alexander Pushkin to Russian literature; so they're already at a loss. But they have to be swapped. Not removed. Religious figures at 9 is perfect, because after the 1500s they're just not universally that vital, same with explorers; that's why there's only 9 of each. GuzzyG ( talk) 00:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Modern explorers listed on the level 4 list, not on the level 3:
The only ones that make sense for the level 3 list are Gagarin/Armstrong or maybe Earhart to add a woman to the explorers section, everything else has no chance on this list, so when you advocate for more explorers yet dismiss space explorers, it seems silly. We do list
Sergei Korolev
[7],
Robert H. Goddard is superseded by
Wernher von Braun and i'd support Goddard anyway. How does my stance on fashion designers outranking models on the totem pole (one is dressed by the other) or my support for the current musicians number of 8 conflict with my support of removing fictional characters from the biography (real life people) section?
Now lets dissect that TIMEs list, (why do we have such a dependency on such one list, every time?), since you picked Zuckerberg of it...
Now all of whom i would support over Zuckerberg on the level 4 list, who comes third behind Jack Ma and Jeff Bezos anyway in vital internet businessmen missing on the level 4 list. These one off lists people or publications make are not gospel, they're just one part of assessing things.
Now "15th century" religious figures...
None of these are good enough for this list and Hus conflicts with Martin Luther.
Now i assume you meant 16th century as that's a bit more star studded and the ones you were meaning
Again all of these conflict with Luther. Cranmer does not go in before Henry VIII who is in conflict with his daughter.
Now let's analyze the other 16th century religious figures on the level 4 list.
Now out of these lot i only see Teresa of Ávila and Guru Nanak as fitting for this level, Teresa to have a woman and Guru because we do not have a Sikhism representative. The only other religious figure i can see/support is Maimonides
Religious figures that are unique drop off after the 1500s, the only unique and significant development is the New religious movements but people like Joseph Smith would be before that and countless saints before him, no one would seriously suggest adding Helena Blavatsky or Aleister Crowley to this list.
We need to stop saying blanket things like "15th century religious figures" are missing without completely analyzing such a list for what is missing, worse removing musicians and other people based on such reasons. GuzzyG ( talk) 00:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
No, I have not called myself an „advocate” and my comment about the quotas for the religious figures, explorers and musicians was also relevent to previous discussion (see the !votes above) where there was contigent that religious figures and explorers should have at least the same representation what musicians on the level 3, despite fact the quota for explorers and religious figures on the level 4 at the timie also was way lower than the quota for musicians at the time, few yers ago (If we would decide to remove Abraham and Moses without swap and later we decide to add more musicians, religion is underrepresented with comprasion to music, beause of religon’s significance is growing from the level 4 to level 3 However I have started this discussion In the section below what we should do with mythological creatures. Personally I do not know how is perfect solution). And I have never suggested to add more explorers or religous figures from last few centuries. I have written „older than XV wiek” so I clearly though just about the ‘’quotas ‘’for religious figures and explorers from whole "history of the Word" (not just about the XV century) and maybe some religious figures wchich were listed on the meta list version some years ago or some other relisious figures suggested by other users (Orser and Yarir). I did not suggested to add any more explorers from last centuries or explorers other than space explorers. My contigent about space explorers was related to fact that these ones are not vital jus like other explorers mentioned currently on the list and I am not sure they should be listed already. If we take into fact that space exploration was idea of space enginner and space exploration was not influential for anthropo-centric issues like trade or politics, these ones are way less vital than other explorers menitioned here and maybe little more comparable to moutaineers. John Paul this is page which was edited by 227 editiors In last Three years ([( [9]]) , and it is more often edited page (with better material for FA) than articles about :Bruce Lee, modern mathematicans (listed on the level 3) , all space explorers except Neil Armstrong. I will never suggest to add John Paul because I know that there are many more vital religious figures missek at this lkevel and I realise that enaugh increasing the quota for religion would make big overlap In representation of figures. However I do not see how adding few more religious whose are way more import ant than John Paul figures would be egregious and outrageous even if we decise make more diversity list In Fields. Currently the quotas for people on the level 4 are: 125 (Or more if we consider that some users suport to keep Abraham and Moses who are not listed at biography on the level 4) religious figures, 30 explorers ,and 44 mathematicians, meanwhile the quotas for people on the level 3 are: 9 religous figures, 8 explorers and 9 mathematicians (or 8 if we consider fact that Alan Turing is not listed among mathematicians on the level 4) on the level 4. My comments about Wright brothers, Clement Ader and some modern people was relevent to general discussion about all levels not Just the level 3 (other issues with similar topics just like history of aviation etc). and I suggested whose pe ople we maybe we could add to level4 before we decise that we need one sport person on the level 3, however this is not discussion for this talkpage (and BTW English wording „I Little doubt” was not rotund irony In that case how you maybe understood it. Honestly I was not going into this.). I am not necesarilly oppose to add one sport person or maybe even entertainment on this level if consensus will be that we need make very, very much diversity In Fields (Charlie Chaplin was listed here ahead of Socrates for years and we have handful of women In other Fields than politics on the whole lists so there are some objections (maybe fact that we changed this list in last years to point where is less divrsity for fields is not perfect idea, although I do not know how recentism should be represented here)). Like I Said above I agree with you that a lot of types of pe ople should get priority to be featured article. Sport people do not make so much constribue to society and are way less vital/influential than many other fields (represented on all levels) In acedemic range,for history, however I agree with you that this field is very integral part of society for thousands years and is recently very important. Good argument that sport is integraf part of socjety can be even fact that sports people sometimes are top i the country/regions. [In archives I have found discussion where Cobblet suggested to pick Franz Liszt ahead of Chopin]; since 2015 exist book about Puskas which describe him as „biography of the most famous Hungarin ([( [10]). Aother interesing thing is fact that we represent on this level Japanese art by Hokuais who is probably less popular In Japan han Miytamoto Musashi who was vital person In many Fields (also In Visual arts) but probably is more known thank to swordmanship. If consensus will If consensus will be that Sport need get pick in recentism/20th century, I Gould probably suport Bruce Lee ahead of Lumierre Bros because of it is the most vital sport person IMO (and BTW In my opinion maybe more vital than space explorers). I have started current chart in section Below Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4#current distribution#here, to talk about quotas etc. and I am opened to discussion again. I hav shared some my thoughts and I suggested that maybe Immothep would be good option as first . I belive we can discuss and honestly I also think it is not needed to we so much arguing; I hope we will be no longer conflicted. After thinkink about it more I think it is not really needed. I am opened o estabilish diversity for people in various fields/nations/history among 1000 articles. It is not first time when it is going to discussion (on this level or lower). 130~~ is most probably right number and maybe even good for innovations. Dawid2009 ( talk) 22:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Is there a reason we don't leave the archive status and results within each discussion on this page? Generally (see closed discussions at WP:AN or WP:AN/I) the {{ archive top}} template is placed under the header of the section being closed. This helps with archiving and such. Curious where local consensus was achieved to change this practice? Crazynas t 16:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Adding Caribbean Sea is something that several people have brought up before, and I think it makes sense. I think it's at least as vital as Mediterranean Sea and Caspian Sea, which are listed. As far as Arctic, we don't list its Southern Hemisphere counterpart Antarctic at this level, and it doesn't seem any more vital to me. I think it was probably originally added to the list to balance out the continent of Antarctica, but we have the Arctic Ocean for that. Our planet just happens to have a continent at one pole and an ocean at the other, so those are the articles that we should be listing here. Rreagan007 ( talk) 21:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Our planet just happens to have a continent at one pole and an ocean at the other, so those are the articles that we should be listing here.. Dawid2009 ( talk) 17:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate idea but I am not sure Caribbean Sea is better choice than Carribean when we have Grand Canyon/ Rocky Mountains/ Great Lakes ahead of California. The North America is the only contined which is better represented by physical geography than by political geography. We already list Lake Victoria and Great Lakes ahead of Tigris/ Euphrates despite fact even very "non-civilisational rivers" are more influencial than lakes. Carribean also would be neutral choice for American Mediterraean Sea when we list specific countries at this list. Dawid2009 ( talk) 17:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
He is the father of quantum physics.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Among articles related with Navigation, Radar is vital such like Time zone. IMO both should not be ahead of Geodesy and Cartography. Satelite navigation is one of the best Human's achivements of the 20th century but not Radar. We do not list at the level 4 a lot of other futurable human's achivements such like machine translation.
@ Thi: Can you please explain your !vote? Cobblet ( talk) 15:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am not sure Moon landing is needed at this level. I am not sure it is needed specifficaly when we have Space exploration already on the list and we do not list Astronautics or Sergei Korolev at this level. Based on fact we do not have Spacecraft and Exploration of Moon at the level 5 I think that Exploaration is not less vital than Space Exploration because of we list at the level 4 Antarctic Exploration, Northwest Passage etc. We also have 9 explorers already on this level. Actually people intentinallythere were several times on Moon since 60's so Moon landing should not be ahead of History of aviation. Dawid2009 ( talk) 22:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mahfouz was the most significant Arab novelist in the 20th century. He was awarded the 1988 Nobel Prize in literature and his works are popular across the world.
After removing some compossers and filmmakers whole section of writers is littly overrepresented because of:
What do you think about some moves? I think we can reach to consensus for 15 writers. I would also moved Alan Turing to scientists (per level 4) because of there are other more notable mathematicans than him. Dawid2009 ( talk) 17:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Also how is a fairytale writer more vital then missing people like Nefertiti, Imhotep, Alexander Graham Bell, Geoffrey Chaucer, Sarah Bernhardt, Hannibal, Martin Luther King Jr., Franklin D. Roosevelt, Wright brothers, Yuri Gagarin, Saladin, William the Conqueror, Ashoka, Cai Lun, Shaka, Pelé, Marilyn Monroe, Le Corbusier, Michael Jackson, Henrik Ibsen, Alfred Hitchcock, Akira Kurosawa, John D. Rockefeller, J. P. Morgan, Susan B. Anthony, and Andy Warhol, sometimes i do not follow your logic.. first you nominate two musicians like Debussy and Tchaikovsky but then say there's too many, then you suggest we cut down to 15 writers but say Anderson would be the next addition.. it doesn't make sense. Honestly it seems more like personal favoritism sometimes. The problem with such a list is mass market pop culture imagery of historical figures got really massive and worldwide in the 20th century, so most of the commonly known names are "recent" not to mention that only painting/sculpting and writing has legitimate historical figures, unlike music/film/sports which only has figures from the 20th century that are remembered. Honestly a tilt towards the 20th century isn't that bad considering all of that. I'm not so sure the fact that there's no entertainer or sports figure listed here is a good idea. [11] i am reminded of this chart that was done a while ago, a current version should be made today by someone who can (i have no technical ability, as you can probably tell by my bad writing/grammar). Then we can discuss what is done to the list from there, and we can discuss a final number for people and who would fit in a equal distribution of what we represent on the level 4 list. But my strong contention is that i know these people may not compare to the status of a George Washington or Albert Einstein i do think this list should fit one architect, entertainer and athlete, just to fit the leftout sections from level 4. But then again there's just too many missing people, so i don't know. Another reason those three should be represented here is that "performing arts"/"architecture"/"sport" are level 2 articles, which means they should probably be represented here. GuzzyG ( talk) 06:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Cobblet: @ DaGizza: How would you two feel about someone like Bruce Lee? Martial arts is listed here, so that's not a issue, he's a better replacement to Kurosawa as a Asian culture representative of the 20th century. He covers both our lack of actors/athletes, [12] he's the second ranked actor and first male one in this old MIT list. Swap him with Dali or someone, i think that's a good swap. Then maybe swap Dostoevsky for Ashoka, Ghalib for Saladin and Chopin for Le Corbusier and i think this list would be pretty much set in stone for people then. GuzzyG ( talk) 13:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dubai is one of the most multicultural cities in the world. It is home to the world’s tallest building. This is why it is vital. Mstrojny ( talk) 05:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Dubai is the most viewed non-English language city on the English Wikipedia so logically should be included here (even ahead of United Emirates). At this region it get comparable vitality to Iraq and Syria. However until add something from Europe or south-west Aasia we should first start nomination with Kazakchstan or Uzbekistan. Population of central Asia is WAY much larger than population of Oceania and we also list history of Oceania despite fact this region has shorter history. Dawid2009 ( talk) 20:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Vital topic.
I think puberty would be better since it covers the bodily and hormonal changes that happen to both girls and boys. Gizza ( t)( c) 09:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Another employment-related article is perhaps needed at this level. "Trade unions have had a huge political, social and economic impact." [13]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Basic topic, but possibly not at this level. Earth#Internal_structure gives basic information. Plate tectonics has more language versions.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Portuguese empire was the first global empire. "Portugal has left a profound cultural and architectural influence across the globe, a legacy of 300 million Portuguese speakers, and many Portuguese-based creoles." Modern Portugal ranks high in manys metrics of national performance.
The following discussion is closed. 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 economy of Netherlands has the thirteenth-highest per capita income globally and Rotterdam is Europe's largest port. Netherlands is known for its liberal policies and the country hosts many international organisations and courts, "many of which are centered in The Hague, which is consequently dubbed 'the world's legal capital'." Amsterdam is considered an alpha world city and draws over 4 million tourists annually. Many of the most famous painters in the world were Dutch: Rembrandt, Vermeer, van Gogh, Mondrian. Also many scientists and philosophers: Erasmus, Spinoza, Huygens, Leeuwenhoek.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We've been on a kick of adding animal articles to the list lately, and I think the main branch of aquatic mammals which includes whales and dolphins deserves to be included at this level.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Some time ago there were suggestions to remove sex to esape from everlap and get chance for other less vague and more specific articles. I would support remove sex to list transgender, sexual reproduction and sexual activity. Among articles related with every day life sports and other activities are better represented than human sexuality IMO.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sexual revolution is better choice than History of human sexuality because of specific article with many views should get higher priority for FA than general article which is more covered by human sexuality. This concept is historically extremally influencial and it fits when we list only economy-related articles for modern history. Among modern topics it is surely more vital than HIV (which is mentioned in article History of human sexuality), Video Games or Jazz.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
All senses are listed on the level 4 so sense belongs to the 3 level (just like solar system is listed at the level 2 when we list all planets on the level 3). Recently we added mistakly Intelligence ahead of sense. Intelligence is very vital but still way much less vital than sense.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
More general article. Sargon of Akkad represents Mesopotamian leaders.
Hammurabi is more vital than Sargon IMO. p b p 04:23, 13 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.
Hatshepsut represents Egyptian pharaohs. Ramesses II used art as a means of propaganda: he build monuments to himself and put his name on the monuments of others. Thutmosis III is often regarded as the greatest pharaoh and military leader.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Business cycle is more general article. The Great Depression is overrated because it became a national trauma in United States but left many other parts of the world quite unharmed. Also in the America most people just carried on. Second world war was much worse, but it was fought outside the American continent.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per argument at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4#Add Negative number. InvalidOS talk 14:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Support
Oppose
Discuss
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
When we have infection it can be potentially no longer needed. I would also consider addition of Parasitism and maybe even Mosquito.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This was nominated a few months ago, but since then we have removed the Colosseum, Parthenon, Machu Picchu, and Angkor Wat from the list. I fail to see how this is any more vital than any of those that have been removed. In fact, I'd say it is probably less vital than the others, as they are all significantly older.
Category | Level 3 | Level 4 |
---|---|---|
Total People | 130 (13% of total Level 3) | 2004 (20% of total Level 4) |
Artists | 9 (7%) | 122 (6%) |
Writers (includes Journalists) | 20 [1] (15%) | 271 (14%) |
Composers and Musicians | 7 (5%) | 156 (8%) |
Filmmakers | 2 (2%) | 59 (3%) |
Business people | 1 (1%) | 30 (1%) |
Explorers | 8 (6%) | 30 (1%) |
Inventors and Scientists | 21 (16%) | 204 (10%) |
Mathematicians | 9 [2](7%) | 44 (2%) |
Philosophers and Social Sciences | 17 (13%) | 156 (8%) |
Religious figures | 9 (7%) | 125(+) [3] (6%) |
Politicians and Leaders(inc. Military Leaders and Rebels) | 26 (20%) | 616 (30%) |
Entertainers and Sports Figures | 0 (0%) | 190 (9%) |
Some time ago ( [14]) there was suggestions to make general discussion distribution from the level 4 to the level 3 to determine which fields should growing proportionally each other and which ones get worse representation on the level 4 (or better on the level 3). I think it is also good ocasion to talk about diversity for nation or fields and what we should do with biographies whose are not listed in biography section on the level 4 (or other semi mythical whose are listed among people on the level 4). I am opened for new suggestions. DaGizza in section "remove Abraham" gave suggestion put them in other places. In archives at section to remove Moses we can also found contigent that God is technically is listed on the level 3 (along with Deity ahead of theism). The biggest section where we do not have people on the level 3 are: sport people, actors and architects. Personally I think the most vital person among these all fields would be Immothep (the man who was considered as god for many, many years) which maybybe could be added as first if we decide made more diversity in fields. Thoughts? Dawid2009 ( talk) 22:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
References
Is there any need to group the Indo-European languages by family as Rreagan007 has been doing? The list is short enough that I don't see how this helps the reader navigate the list. We have lists of cities and countries that are longer and nobody seems to feel the need to sort them by continent or some other way. Cobblet ( talk) 21:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
And now there's a dispute over the title of the category Henry Ford is in. I don't know why this was changed from "Businesspeople" which is the category name at the lower levels and here as well until User:Rreagan007 changed it in 2017. These titles should refer to the group of people represented by the chosen biographies, so they should be plural even if only one biography is chosen (for now). I also don't see why the title needs to allude to Ford's gender or any of his other personal attributes. "Businessman" makes no more sense as a title than "American businessperson" or "Antisemitic businessperson." Cobblet ( talk) 21:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
We have Confucius and Confucianism already on the list. Zoroastrianism has been removed while ago and this one has clearly more than doubly more pagewatchers on the English Wikipedia than Confucianism does. Do we really need either of Consucianism and Confucius among 1000 articles? Dawid2009 ( talk) 21:27, 24 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.
We have The arts at Level 1 and History of art at level 2. I think we should at least have art at level 3.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dalí was one of the many surrealists, but Surrealism itself is not listed. Picasso represents 20th century art. Dalí can be compared to such figures as Stravinsky and Debussy, who are not listed any more.
He needs to be gone but only as a swap for either Andy Warhol, Marilyn Monroe, Le Corbusier, Rabindranath Tagore or Bruce Lee. All of whom he is outdone by [15], Lee's a little bit under but compare the cultural context it fits. 20th century art is important and deserves the current amount of representatives, just not exactly who is on the list GuzzyG ( talk) 02:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Topic which was suggested several times. Some users have said it can be enaugh general article and maybe more vital than prayer and meditation which are already on the list. Articles about rituals, customs, calendar celebrations and folklore IMO generally are quite underrepresented on all levels. We lately started additions for this field (ritual has been added two years ago to the level 3). Based on fact folklore is level 2 article I would also consider to add Oral tradition or Tradition. At least some of these articles can fit when we list halloween or national athemn on the level 4.
The following discussion is closed. 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 is clear-cut: impact on the English language, broad and lasting cultural impact, extent of work, etc. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 03:30, 15 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.
Prehistoric art represents the first material evidence of abstract and symbolic thought by humans. Its significance transcends its obvious importance to historians and artists; it speaks directly to our identity as a species. I don't think Stonehenge is any more vital as a representative of prehistoric art than Göbekli Tepe or Saharan rock art or the Nazca lines or the caves of Lascaux or the bronzes of Sanxingdui, but we should definitely be covering the subject as a whole.
The following discussion is closed. 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 wall is a tourist attraction and it is not vital to encyclopedia at this level. I have two encyclopedias with 5000 main articles and the Great Wall of China is not among them. Other parts of Chinese culture are more important.
Clearly your encyclopedias lack expertise in Chinese culture. Do you have any yourself? Cobblet ( talk) 05:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recently we have removed Southern Ocean and Mount Everest. Physical geography is way underrepresented. This general topic can be valuable for 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.
Much more infludential industrialist and philanthropist. Without Rockefeller's oil, no cars would have run.
I think there is a strong argument that the most important measure of a businessperson's impact is how wealthy they became (Rockefeller was the first billionaire, - back when that was a sum so enormous as to be inconceivable = and bu some measures the richest American of all time) , and which Rockefeller multiplied by his cultural and philanthropic legacy ( Rockefeller Center, Rockefeller University, University of Chicago, UN Headquarters, Acadia National Park, many many other; collectively dwarfs Ford's Ford Foundation. Think historians now feel Ford's contribution to the assembly line was way overstated. Companies outgrowing from Standard Oil worth nearly $1 trillion today, compared with Ford Motor's $37 billion today. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 04:53, 16 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.
I'm surprised to see Rail transport higher up than Train. Aircraft is higher up than Air transport. Mstrojny ( talk) 21:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm personally not so surprised. Railway redirects to rail transport, which covers both rail infrastructure and train vehicles. Listing train instead of rail transport narrows our coverage of the subject. Compare road transport where we have both car and road (not to mention horse and bicycle). For water and air transport we only list ship and aircraft, but for those modes of transport don't rely on a purpose-built infrastructure network (we don't list port or airport, although we do list canal) in the same way that road and especially rail transport do. Cobblet ( talk) 22:25, 11 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.
I think that Gender equality is the most general topic. Gender equality and Racism are the most vital topics related to Discrimination. Women's suffrage is listed and I think it belongs to the History section.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We do not list reading but instead listing reading or information; I would support add information technology and Cognition on this level. Cognition is also basic thing among other concepts related to mind.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is mentioned as basic historical concept in outline of britannica. We do not list it among 1000 articles, Britannica covers it among several dozen
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Women's suffrage is mainly about historical developments. Women's rights is more general article. It discusses both historical and current issues. (In some language versions this theme is under Women's history.)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty, —that is all. / Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know." If truth & good and evil are listed, beauty is perhaps also worth consideration. Also human beauty has its effects on society.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Imagination clearly is more basic article. Dream better fit to the level 4 when we list nightmare at the level 5. I would also support add sense ahead of dream and and sensation to the level 4.
Hallucination is listed at level 4. wumbolo ^^^ 23:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A key figure in the scientific revolution, see Johannes_Kepler#Historical_and_cultural_legacy. He discovered three major laws of planetary motion. [20] "Kepler contributed more than Galileo to the development of modern science." [21] He was number 75 in the book The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History (1978).
Since this one list made by one person without any scholarly method is being used as a support vote let's go through who else is on this list but not on here.
Now for people rated lower then Kepler
So to vote based purely based off this list is a folly. There's much more to being vital then being on some list. There's too many scientists compared to everyone else and Ptolemy and Francis Bacon are more important then Kepler in my opinion. If being ranked 75 on this list is a automatic support vote then the people ranked as high as 7!! not on this list should be in before Kepler. GuzzyG ( talk) 19:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Few months ago we have added folklore on the level 2. Now it is time to add Oral tradition here. Oral tradition some time ago was listed among 100 the most basic articles and now is 10 000 but I think it should be listed on the level 3 ahead of traditions (just like Play (activity) ahead of Recreation) as subtopic for folklore. It is illogical to constain several specific religious works without it because of religious works were also building by Oral tradition; not just by writting/literature. Oral tradition is naturally influential for language which is level 1 article.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Major field of study, with a long history, that currently falls out through a gap btween Biology and Geology.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Tanakh, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Tanakh is listed on the L4 list, the discussion is whether the page should be located at Tanakh or at Hebrew Bible. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:07, 12 July 2018 (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.
Per below discussion, Neptune and Uranus potentially are not vital at this level. These two planets are the only planets in our solar system which have been discovered very much leter than Copernican Revolution and are long distance from Earth. When we are anthropocentric (for example we list Global warming ahead of Climate change or civilized continents ahead of Antarctica and Continent) we should not list Neptune and Uranus ahead of Equinox, Solstice, Eclipse, Astrology and History of astronomy. Also fact that we have already Planet and Solar system at this level makes Neptune and Uranus less vital than Mount Everest IMO. Pluto is not covered by Dwarf planet at this level. Dawid2009 ( talk) 08:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I weakly support removing Neptune and Uranus as they have little link to the Earth, and aren't as famous and vital as Jupiter, Saturn, and the large pieces of rocky road closer to the sun. I appreciate the nom's rationale, and my idea could be a small way to improve level-by-level stuff.J 947 ( c), at 04:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
When we have Galaxy and Star already on the list I do not support addition of other Glaxies and Stars to this list but adding History of astronomy instead something like Greek Astronomy (which is less vital than Greek Mythology IMO) and adding Observation (not as astronomic article) or Light-year is reasnable for discussion. Some time ago there were failed nomination to swap Global warming for Climate change but I would support addition of Meteorology. Dawid2009 ( talk) 08:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a strange list but as I understand was started by one person, so of course biases can creep in, and especially things linked to the USA and maybe the UK as the majority of editors come from there. However it is really odd that there is no Nordic country. I choose to nominate Sweden, as it is up there with Norway in impact in world affairs, and is more influential in industry and technology (high patent count, 25th largest GDP in the world, home to many innovators from Ericsson to IKEA and H&M), was one of the major sources of the Vikings (and so the roots of the Rus culture which formed the Russian Empire). Why, for example, are there two Chinas, one of which is a small island not even universally considered a country?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As I've stated above, Israel does not meet the criteria well, objectively, and I think far more appropriate, given the influence on religion and other areas, would be the article on the Jewish people. Equating Jewish people with Israel is simply inaccurate, and the story of the people is vastly more than that of a remote Israel, or the Jewish State. Israel would be a good fit for Level 4, with a lot of other interesting but not "Top 40" countries of the world.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is the world's largest island, by a huge margin. At this level we have the largest hot desert, rainforest, inland body of water, coral reef, longest river, and highest mountain range as exemplars, so having the largest island as an exemplar makes sense too.
@ Cobblet:: Except that since the Northern Hemisphere contains a large majority of the earth's land, any "bias" toward that hemisphere in treatment of landforms is not really a bias at all. Same goes for the earth's human population, economic activity, land animals, etc. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 16:36, 29 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.
Parent article for Planet and Natural satellite. For this level also representation of astronomical objects not listed here.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
General religious topic. Part of theology concerned with the final events of history, or the ultimate destiny of humanity. Eschatology was mentioned in archives at section Wikipedia talk:Vital_articles/Archive 13#Remove Zoroastrianism by @ Trovatore:. This article IMO is very difficult to be featured article but still quite vital as general topic.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We also list money at this level, and there is way too much overlap between the two to list both here.
The following discussion is closed. 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 Rolling Stones should be upgraded from class 4 to class 3. It is a vital article to the topic of music, arguably on the same scale as The Beatles, which is already a class 3 article. The two bands were historic rivals and the Stones are still very much a force in music today, still winning Grammys, touring, and releasing albums. -- TheSandDoctor Talk 04:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)