![]() | 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 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | 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.
Information technology (=IT) is more general article than Computer science, Computing, Computer and Telecommunication.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nonverbal communication according to sociological research is more often used type of communication than speech, writting etc. It is also illogical to list Telecommunication ahead of it.
There are inconsistencies in the country list against the principles stated in the FAQ. Odd inclusions would be at least Taiwan (yes large GDP but not even always seen as a country, and small, and history is that of Big China), Israel (in current form new, tiny, GDP only 32nd or 33rd, like fellow innovators Singapore, Ireland and Denmark, the latter three not being here), and Columbia (29th on population only), when most of Africa is missed (at least consider adding Kenya, for example), as well as the Nordics, one of the largest European countries, Ukraine, birthplace of Rus culture, and the hyper-influential Greece. I will propose a swap of at least one more of these, but maybe the best thing would be to do a "from zero" check. 79.104.5.174 ( talk) 07:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
The FAQ was meant to summarize current consensus, but it was written a long time ago and consensus can change and evolve over time. We aren't bound by what the FAQ says. Rreagan007 ( talk) 01:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
In light of Charles Dickens immediate pass after getting 5 votes, i propose a rule change where when a vote is at its required amount it has to last a week, so editors that have commented in a discussion can get a chance to vote without it being instantly passed in the middle of a discussion, especially when it's controversial (such as having the same amount of writers as scientists) and especially when there's multiple opposes already.
Comment This discussion has been closed in way "after 15 days". I have suggestion to change guideline related with just 15 day (not 30). Discussion can not be closed after 15 days by the same person who voted in the last 10 days but did not voted earlier. Rreagan closed this discussion during the same edition when he did the vote (from 4-2 to 5-2, but not from 4-2 to 4-3 so it was dicide role). In this new proppesed guideline Rreagan would have to wait for 10 days (or 6 days to wait from 24 days after nomination to 30 days after nomination). Yes, I also closed discussion about "Trade union" when I did vote by weak support from 4-0 to 5-0, but it was at least well after 30 days and even if I would be oppose it still would be: 4-1 (I could keep it with 4-0 as no consus but it was really well after 30 days). Eventually we could ainclude guideline which would require that person who is going to close the discussion firstly should give rationale in discussion to courage other edotors for reaction (Some people did not voted because of most belived it even does not have any chance to pass when we have already English literature and English writer from the same era) or semething other, Idk... Dawid2009 ( talk)
While we're on the topic, I note that this discussion was not closed with the required number of !votes. Cobblet ( talk) 05:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I personally didn't vote yet out of wanting to be considerate and respectful and not out right dismissing a proposal which obviously went against everything this list had done recently (removing clutters of recentism in the arts, only to add to it in a worse way). Especially as i was waiting to see if Gizza had changed his mind from when we discussed writers and he called Dickens "second rank" [2], by opening the floodgates to Dickens, we open up to having no legitimate reason why writers the likes of Hugo or Twain are not on here. Now we have the same amount of writers as scientists now and 5 English writers in the last two centuries. This list moves very slow so it's fair for me to expect a discussion to continue, when the votes finalize obviously then i would've voted. Next time i am just going to have to ignore discussion and just vote, lesson learnt. But this addition calls into question the removal of Stravinsky, Chopin, Kurosawa, Hitchcock and Dali. Honestly with Dickens either Poe, Joyce or Hemingway have to go now. GuzzyG ( talk) 07:21, 11 May 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.
Not sure if it has been discussed before, but if we are going to list any countries, I think WP:ASB provides a strong argument that the ones listed should be the largest by population only, i.e., currently the 35 largest. While we are pretty close to that already, applying this standard to would lead to the following changes: Adding (in population order) Myanmar, Kenya, Algeria, Ukraine, Sudan and Uganda; removing (in alphabetical order): Australia, Canada, Israel, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan. No change to Eastern Europe representation, or in the number of former UK colonies. Australia (continent) could be added under the continents/is covered under Oceania.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Similar to Great lakes, the broader, encompassing topic is superior (see what I did there?).
Although the proposal makes sense, I'm reluctant to support it, partly because I don't think there's any academic or popular consensus over exactly which lakes constitute the African Great Lakes, although everyone agrees they'd include Lake Victoria, Tanganyika and Malawi. Also, Lake Victoria consistently gets more hits than the other lakes or the African Great Lakes. [3] In the case of the Laurentian Great Lakes, Great Lakes gets more hits than any of the individual lakes. [4] Cobblet ( talk) 20:22, 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.
Abu Nuwas is called as one of the greatest of all Arab writers. [5] [6] Abu Nuwas has been controversial figure, "but on the whole his verse is accepted as part of the heyday of the Abbasid tradition. Not to accept that is to ignore the quite stunning imagination of the poet and his unsurpassed mastery of Arabic. ... I think it is useful these days to show ... that in the glory days of the Abbasid caliphate Islamic society tolerated voices such as the libertine chants of Abu Nuwas and his cohort." [7]
The following discussion is closed. 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 questioning whether Kahlil Gibran should be in Level 3 Writers list next to Shakespeare and Tolstoy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.249.122 ( talk) 03:48, 14 June 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 neutral for now (I woud support swap one of these two for theim) so I made alternative nomination. Dawid2009 ( talk) 17:13, 29 May 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.
Almost completely redundant to Electromagnetism. And to Light, for that matter.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dementia is already covered by Mental disorders. Interstellarity ( talk) 11:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Just as a reminder, Dementia was added to the list when Alzheimer's disease was removed. Rreagan007 ( talk) 18:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I suggest a swap with old age. Cobblet ( talk) 18:53, 9 June 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.
When we have picked space race ahead of History of transport, Sexual revolution fits perfectly ahead of History of human sexuality. Adding history of human sexuality would be problematic for this level due to far too many overlap with Human sexuality. It was recently closed but it was closed as "no consensus", not as "failed". I think we still could consider that when we are under quota.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In my opinion we should ratonally going to remove more physical-geography objects from North America and add other geography objects from North America. We try add something beetwen North America and South America for ages. Carribean did not get attetion due to it is similar to Mediterranean Basin. Carribean Sea did not passed due to it is necesarry ahead of American Mediterranean Sea; so what is the best option if not Central America? If we are going to tairoling this list to readers of English-language, California require representative. Same Calaifornia has nearly 50% more population than Australia (not mention to fact than North America is older continent than Oceania so would suggesting that three countries from North America is not enough). It is also the most significant subdivistion on subdivisions by GDP over 100 billion US dollars 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.
Covered by Humour.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Two supercentral languages which are missed on this level. In my opinion every supercentral language should be listed among 1000 the most importsnt articles.
Another important language which maybe is vital on this level is also Hebrew language (in archives we can find failded nomination to swap Hebrew language with Portuguese language). Dawid2009 ( talk) 21:25, 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 quite overlap beetwen Deity and God. What do you think about swap Deity for Theism?
There is a lot of overlap between the two, as God is a subset of Deity. I would rather remove God than Deity however, since the article on God focuses on the monotheistic God, and would thus leave out the polytheistic gods of various religions. Rreagan007 ( talk) 00:59, 27 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.
Kicking this one around for a while and can't figure it out, so figured I'd ask for suggestions (or tell me to kick rocks). But half the article on Contemporary Philosophy is (appropriately) about Analytic Philosophy. And, as it notes, Analytic Philosophy is a dominant tradition currently in the academy, but not the only one. There is thus significant overlap between them, but also a problem of only listing Analytic Philosophy and not its alternatives. I first said: delete Analytic Philosophy because of overlap with Contemporary Philosophy which is a broader and more inclusive article. I then said: No, analytic philosophy is too important (and the better article of the two), let's delete Contemporary Philosophy, but then do we add Continental Philosophy? Not sure. I've now gone back and figured: Contemporary Philosophy covers 1. the professionalization of philosophy, 2. Analytic Philosophy, and 3. Continental approaches, so it is the more vital article because of scope (defined in terms of 'the encyclopedia is most improved if X article were a Featured article'). But interested to hear ideas, particularly anyone who thinks we should keep both. AbstractIllusions ( talk) 05:06, 28 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.
Per above discussion. The history of 20th century philosophy can be found from the article about Contemporary philosophy. It is said above that the half of that article is about analytic philosophy. For example German Wikipedias article seems to talk mainly about continental approaches. It is possible to write about both in one 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.
When philosophy is level 1 article and religion is level 2 I think it technically can fits om the level 3. It is one of 7 articles which are put as " basics" on the level 4 and it is parent article for eschatology (which I nominated above). Some time ago we did not add Folk religion due to this concept is "too academic" but I think theology is quite general.
The following discussion is closed. 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 related articles on the list ( psychology amd medicine on the level 2, philosopher and neurologist Sigmund Freud or mental disorder/ dementia on the lvel 3) and we are under quota, I think we could consider add at least one o these two. In archives we can find discussions where people suggested even specific examples like major depressive disorder or schizophrenia. Neurology and psychiatry often reolve around each other so I would probably support either of these two. What do you think?
Neuroscience is also significant part of cognitive science. Dawid2009 ( talk) 20:05, 11 June 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.
Popular culture was removed from Level 2 as redundant to entertainment (and culture, folklore, sport, film etc).
If popular culture is seen as as an umbrella term, I wonder why Handicraft was not listed for similar reason. This article discusses how the term has been used in cultural studies and other similar contexts. We have removed for example Prose and kept Novel and Short story. The list contains a large article called Entertainment, which talks about different forms of popular culture. Mass media is also related to entertainment. -- Thi ( talk) 15:49, 14 June 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.
High-importance article. Subject which the English Wikipedia should have featured-class article. It goes without saying that the subject is useful to know in everyday life.
Article about first aid probably would better fit to wikiversity (with video examples) than to Wikipedia. I would consider add security ahead of first aid. E-mail probably is liated ahead of online chatting due to authenticitation significance but there were suggestions that security is broader and more general topic than authentication. Dawid2009 ( talk) 17:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I think we should remove swap some Asian cities with African cities. The only African city listed is Cairo and Africa has more people than all but one of the continents. Any thoughts? Interstellarity ( talk) 20:57, 13 May 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 above discussion.
@ Cobblet: I previously crossed vote because of honrstly I assumed/though that both votes were posted by the same IP from Russia which recently were doing odd editions here. Now I see that clearly first vote was made by IP from Romania and second one by IP from Estonia. I should checked IP because of this project quite often is edited by IPs or new users. Thanks for note. Dawid2009 ( talk) 07:47, 26 July 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 isn't necessarily a formal proposal, I just searched through the archives real quickly though and didn't see any discussion on what the rationale was for having São Paulo as an article at this level over another Brazilian city. While Sao Paulo does have the highest population, both Rio and Brasilia both have arguments for why they could be in the list instead. Rio is arguably the more name-recognizable city, was the historical capital of Brazil under Portuguese rule, and is one of the most popular tourist cities in South America, with many iconic attractions like the Christ the Redeemer statue. The argument for Brasilia is the opposite: instead of cultural and historical importance, it has political importance, being the capital and diplomatic hub, and stands for the future development of the continent and as a testament to humanity that we were able to just build a city in the middle of the jungle. Just thought I'd throw that out there for discussion to hear what you guys think. Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 00:08, 14 May 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 Life at level 1 and Death at level 2, plus things like Birth control here at level 3. It seems reasonable to add a concept as foundational to biology as birth here. - Sdkb ( talk) 17:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I just want to note that the Pregnancy article we currently list at this level is on human pregnancy, not the more general articles on Pregnancy (mammals) or Pregnancy in fish. The article on Birth is the general article for animal birth, not specifically on human Childbirth. Rreagan007 ( talk) 16:12, 23 May 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.
Chinese folk religions is practiced by a vast population in China though hardly well organized, Its sheer size should not be ignored just because it is unlike institutionalized religions. Viztor ( talk) 13:59, 29 May 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.
At least one example of community should be listed at this level. I do not see how encyclopedia should describe definition of Nationalism before definition of Nation.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On this list of vital articles, Suicide is categorized in social issues. However, on List of articles every Wikipedia should have, it is categorized in Biology. How should it be categorized? Interstellarity T 🌟 14:42, 8 June 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.
Ocean currents are more general, worldwide phenomenon. For example Gulf Stream influences the climate of Europe and America.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Gauss and Euler are listed, as is the History of mathematics. Maybe third great mathematician from 18th and 19th century is not necessary.
I will not vote yet but in my sense Euler and Lalpace are maybe two weaker mathematicians. Alan Turing clearly should not be listed among mthematicians. Newton is much more known for fact that he is one of the greatest mathematicans of all time ( [8]). Dawid2009 ( talk) 05:57, 16 June 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.
Child, Adolescence and Adult are already 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.
Paleontology, study of fossils was added recently. Fossil itself is probably as popular concept.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
One of the most famous Americans of all time, but not as vital as George Washington from the same period. As an inventor he is not as vital as Edison, Tesla, Turing or other physics or mathematicians 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.
Mathematics section is now quite large. 0 and π are more famous mathematical constants in general culture.
I do not see why we should remove highly viewed article for something like History of physics. Personally I also think that either of 0 and π are more vital than Fibonacci number (which significance is important also for exaample in fractal geometry and natural philosophy) but it just me. Dawid2009 ( talk) 13:10, 24 July 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.
Covered by planet and Moon. Natural satellite technically does not belong to the level 3 when for example continent is level 3 article and solar systems are level 4. I do not see how Natural satellite can be more vital than Biome when we have already planet and Moon, solar system and so plenty planets. Natural satelite gets less hits than dwarf planet. It can be vital but obviously not when we have other articles like planet, moon, solar system, several other planets etc.. Dawid2009 ( talk) 12:18, 21 June 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.
See Global city. There is no reason not to. Viztor ( talk) 07:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Swap for Hong Kong would be fair IMO. Thoughts? J 947 's public account 21:32, 10 June 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.
Three other mountain ranges are listed. Ice age formed the Great Lakes and many other geographic features. The causes of ice ages are interesting topic, scientists are still working to understand them.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Several users were supporting addition of Satellite navigation and have agreed each other that it is more important topic in Navigation than GPS and Radar.
I closed previous discussion finally as passed because of J947 have said that he also would support removing GPS (even WP:SNOW he said) and we have also other situation when Reagan considered Carlwev's comment from other section. However if will be consenus that procedural process for remove GPS was wrong I am opened to make two new discussion: "swap GPS for Satellite Navigation" and second one: "remove Radar". I think we should discuss it again. There were various opinions but I closed this discussion littly too early. After these discussions I think that we should have at least one of these two articles: Satellite Navigation or GPS (IMO Satellite Navigation is better). Dawid2009 ( talk) 12:29, 16 June 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.
Basic concept in Physics. "Radiation comes in many forms and is all around us, all the time." [9]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Freud's psychological and clinical theories are now old-fashioned, but he has a place in the history of psychiatry.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Great mathematicians are brilliant minds, but History of mathematics is listed at this level and I am not sure that an example of female mathemetician is absolutely necessary at this level. Everybody knows Marie Curie, but Noether is lesser known figure.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not as widespread addiction as in the Mad Men era. Alcoholism is more important issue and we have voted against Dementia, which affects millions of people.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Louis Pasteur, Milk#Pasteurization and Cheese#Pasteurization mention pasteurization. Maybe article about pasteurization process is not necessary at this level.
There should be something on the list about food preservation. A swap wouldn't be a terrible idea. Cobblet ( talk) 21:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Food preservation is vital for human survival. High-importance article in Food and drink project, more general topic than pasteurization which is at least partly covered by other topics.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Poe is one of the many classics of English literature, which we have at this level. The list contains other short story writers such as James Joyce, whose Dubliners was very influential collection. "Like Charles Dickens, Twain achieved immense success with his first book, became his nation's most famous and best-loved author, and has remained a national treasure ever since – America's most archetypal writer. - Twain's writings have reportedly inspired more commentary than those of any other American author." [10] Hemingway said about his Nobel prize: "I cannot but regret that the award was never given to Mark Twain." Edgar Allan Poe can be seen as part of European literary tradition, whereas William Faulkner called Twain ‘the father of American literature’. History.com: "His ability to swiftly and convincingly create a variety of fictional characters rivals that of Charles Dickens. - Perhaps it is too much to claim, as some have, that Twain invented the American point of view in fiction, but that such a notion might be entertained indicates that his place in American literary culture is secure." [11]
The following discussion is closed. 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 the article says, Kenya is the world's 48th largest country with a population of more than 52 million people. Kenya is the 27th most populous country. Kenya's economy is the second-largest in eastern and central Africa.
According to the latest update of the UN Human Development Report, 3.818 billion people live in a country with high or very high human development, while 3.659 billion people live in a country with medium or low human development. We list 24 countries (including Singapore and Taiwan) with high or very high human development comprising 3.254 billion people, or 85% of the total people living in such countries. We list 12 countries with medium or low human development comprising 2.838 billion people, or 78% of the total people living in such countries. Based on that, we should add a few more countries in the latter category. Myanmar and Kenya would be a good start in that direction; Uganda, which is expected to have 50 million people by 2024, is also a possibility. Cobblet ( talk) 18:10, 27 July 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.
Not as global language as for example Spanish language.
If there was a language to remove, it should be Greek since the article is predominantly about Modern Greek, which isn't vital. It could be replaced with Ancient Greek. Also the area in which Bengali is spoken was part of the British Empire and still is part of the Commonwealth of Nations, so it is arguably more vital from an English-speaking perspective. Bengali also consistently gets more page views on enwiki than Portuguese over the past 4 years [13]. Not that I agree with Portuguese being removed. Gizza ( t)( c) 03:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
this RfC may be of interet to the members of this project. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:50, 24 July 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 list History of mathematics and I think it would be easier to read and write History of science with this article.
This would be last "History of" article, although personally I think that History of Christianity would be useful due to its coverage of different concepts and eras and the topics importance to English-speaking world. -- Thi ( talk) 12:35, 24 July 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 it would make sense to list more general article at this level. Pyramids can be found from different eras and continents.
Giza pyramid complex is not on level 4. Instead level 4 lists this and the Sphinx. Cobblet ( talk) 03:31, 25 August 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 culturally and historically important country in both Africa and in the Arab 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.
Party politics is important topic in political science. Political parties are essential to democratic systems. "Political parties perform an important task in government. They bring people together to achieve control of the government, develop policies favorable to their interests or the groups that support them, and organize and persuade voters to elect their candidates to office." (Cliffsnotes)
Hard to say whether this or election is a better choice and whether either is necessary when democracy is listed. And for balance, a non-democratic mechanism of obtaining and maintaining power should then be added too. Maybe something like propaganda. Gizza ( t)( c) 22:59, 31 July 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.
Even before their appearance on the Main Page these two articles averaged over 1 million views a year. --- Coffeeand crumbs 17:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Please stop casting aspersions at each other and focus on the vitality of the two candidates p b p 20:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC}, expanded 15:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@ GuzzyG: Given your track record on level 5, I'm surprised you're now the one accusing others of trying to right great wrongs. And as for their cultural notoriety, I'll reconsider my position when Gagarin and Armstrong get countries and galaxies named after them. Cobblet ( talk) 19:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
TLDR: since a paragraph might be too long
if you can't address my points and resort to further personal attacks then i rest my case. GuzzyG ( talk) 20:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC) Amundsen achieved plenty (South Pole, Northwest Passage) without Nobile's help. Nobile did nothing of note outside his one collaboration with Amundsen. The one thing of note Gagarin did was overseen by Korolev. Korolev was involved in plenty else (Sputnik 1, Laika, Luna 2, Luna 3, Tereshkova, Leonov) besides sending Gagarin to space. I don't see how this is a sensible comparison. Fame is relatively easy to quantify, at least if we ignore issues of data selection and interpretation. Accomplishments are not. (By the way, you asked me whether Gagarin or Amundsen had the greater peak, but your own graph does not show that Gagarin was more famous than Amundsen was in their respective lifetimes.) This is why I look to the opinions of people, particularly those who actually know a thing about the topic, rather than solely relying on big data. I don't believe everything on Quora, but if I listen to you, I think it's reasonable of me to listen to people there as well. What you will see there is not just a discussion over which astronauts are most famous, but also on whose accomplishments were "greater", which for me is more relevant to what this list is about. A more traditional and authoritative source refers to Amundsen as "one of the greatest figures in the field of polar exploration", and Korolev as "the guiding genius behind the Soviet spaceflight program." It does not say that Gagarin or Armstrong were "greater" than later astronauts or "guided" their work, just because they happened to be earlier. And that's my point. Armstrong may be a more famous astronaut than Aldrin, but IMO that doesn't make his accomplishments greater than Aldrin's, and for me his fame alone doesn't make him so much more vital than Aldrin that he should be included while Aldrin should be excluded. I am most definitely not an expert on English literature, so I don't know why you're asking me to explain the result of discussions I was frankly not qualified to participate in, and did not do so except to say that I didn't think we needed more writers (of any language or era). I do know that I understand the English of Dickens mostly fine, and Shakespeare moderately well, but have to read Chaucer in translation. That may not matter to you, but perhaps that's why the first English writer we list is Shakespeare and not Chaucer. Cobblet ( talk) 21:43, 30 July 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.
More influential for people than rodents. IMO parasites fit when we list Malaria or Infection.
Insect is already listed at this level. Perhaps you meant Mosquito. -- Thi ( talk) 14:10, 6 June 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.
Printing and Book are more vital topics. https://lithub.com/so-gutenberg-didnt-actually-invent-the-printing-press/ James Watt is not 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.
I think that only Charles Chaplin is really vital at this level as filmmaker, as film is not very old art form. Henry Ford represents influential businessmen. Animation is important topic.
Disney has been ranked in the top 100 the most influential people of 2nd millenium ahead of Chaplin ( [26], [27]) by " A & E's Biography" but it is not the only historical ranking where Disney is way ahead of Chaplin. Here Disney also is ahead of him (Disney is in top 500 meanwhile Chaplin is 795th). However both rankings are bit odd. First one pick Bill Gates ahead of Allan Turing; in second one person like Cortes is not even in the top 1000 most influential people of 2nd millenium but the book include sports people, entertaiments and even quite unrecongizable 18th chess player. Dawid2009 ( talk) 09:09, 3 September 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.
Proposing since my purely objective country selection proposal failed; Of countries in Eastern Europe, Ukraine has larger area, larger population, and larger largest city ( Kiev larger than Warsaw). Any other differences are purely subjective.
Ukrainian language has about 35 milion natove speakers. Polish language has + 45 milion native speakers and more understandable each other dialects. It also due to fact that Poland has far more long stabile history. However I would rather support having either of Ukraine and Poland or swap Poland for Eastern Europe. Dawid2009 ( talk) 05:20, 19 June 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.
Arguably evolution's most important "invention". (So far, that is . . .)
In my opinion it is more vital than History of agriculture and I would consider add animal behaviour to thi level too. Dawid2009 ( talk) 12:21, 15 August 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.
Historically important invention, but Beams are more important in modern architecture.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Good design increases sales and ideally makes products more ergonomical and ecological ( Sustainable design). Important topic in business and technology. Edit: Armour is part of Military history and in my opinion general article suits better for this level. Armours are nowadays used by professional, design is part of everyday life.
My view is that Handicraft is the other half of applied arts. I proposed the addition of Handicraft but it failed, as did some environment-related proposals. We live with furniture and eat and drink from tableware. These objects can be made by hand or by industrial process. I think that these objects are necessity, just as architecture which is listed. Many architects have been also designers, for example Alvar Aalto, who thought that "objects should be essential, beautiful, useful and democratically available to all". [31] -- Thi ( talk) 20:38, 8 September 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.
Cobblet convinced me that he is important figure, but I am not sure that both Heisenberg and Bohr are absolutely necessary at this level. I think that the People section needs trimming. I would rather add History of physics.
I am uncertain about this removal. p b p 22:18, 31 July 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 meta equivalent page also contains this religion, and it influenced Judaism substantially, thus it should be added as well.
Zoroaster is the better choice since he not only the founder of Zoroastrianism but influenced many other religions and philosophies. Gizza ( t)( c) 03:16, 31 July 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 propose the addition of Michael Jackson. The FAQ about vital articles says that "Individuals within the People section represent the pinnacles of their field". In this case, Michael Jackson really represents the Pop music pinnacle (and development), while for example Elvis Presley (who is already included as a vital article) doesn't represent the Rock music pinnacle at all. Expanding the field to Music (or Modern Music), the importance and influence of Michael Jackson is undoubtedly great and impossible to overlook (In addition, his influence on other artists goes beyond Pop music artists). To this day, more than 10 years have passed since his death and he has influenced the success and the way of making music of new artists (for example Bruno Mars) and is still really present; if we compare this to Elvis Presley, who died in 1977, in those posterior 10 years until 1987 he didn't have the remembrance and influence in the musical panorama that Michael still has.
Apart from that, he also greatly influenced in the development of music videos (since Thriller and also decades later with new techniques and innovations), and his legacy in Dance is widely known and timeless (e.g. The Moonwalk).
Finally, it should be added that Michael Jackson exceeded the limits of simply being an artist, a musician, as few have done. He was received as a head of state in several countries of the World, bestowed and even crowned in Africa. After his death there were dance tributes (flash mobs) in practically all the main cities of the World, and his death was even described as a trancendental event in the Internet's history due to its impact on search engines and social networks at that time, without forgetting that his funeral was more followed by TV than that of any head of state in the World ever.
In conclusion, I propose that Michael Jackson be included in Level 3. -- Salvabl ( talk) 09:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
how a great person michael was, what matters is the effect he had on civilisation. That's what we should be judging him on. Fifthly, about that same phrase,
i want everyone to know of how a great person michael wasis ill-warranted. If you think a place on this list will make people know
how a great person michael was, that is wrong. No one really reads this list, it's for editors to know which articles to develop. Those articles aren't meant to let people know how great a person was, but rather provide a neutral point of view. Sixthly, we don't aim to right great wrongs. What the media says is truth to us if we trust it as a reliable source.
slander, and that could be taken as a personal attack. Eighthly, and this is just a query—why, all of a sudden, did you decide to make your first edit Wikipedia in a very-hard-to-find backdraft of it? Cheers, — J 947 ( c), at 04:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I may support a swap with Elvis. On the one hand, MJ is more recent but by swapping MJ with Elvis you get one jazz, one rock and one pop representative of 20th century music. That to me is more balanced and reflective of modern music than one jazz and two rock. And in the world of rock, the Beatles are more influential than Elvis. I don't support a straight add because 20th century music doesn't need a net increase. Gizza ( t)( c) 22:02, 26 August 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 article is currently listed under the topic "Art", but as an influential work in economics, it seems like it should be classified under economics or social sciences or something. I'm not sure if there's another reason to put it under art, and I'm also not sure what needs to be changed other than the talk page banner to make a reclassification take effect. -- Beland ( talk) 21:39, 7 August 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.
Important type of
performing art (level 2) which involves
humour (also level 2oops, actually level 3; thanks Dawid). Seems at least as important as
Opera,
Comics, or
Epic poetry, all of which are listed at this level.
It was removed recently: Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_15#Remove_Comedy -- Thi ( talk) 18:59, 8 August 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.
What criteria makes a country a vital article? Population? Area? Population density? Economy? Influence? Interstellarity ( talk) 14:59, 21 August 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 countries are in general more vital than cities. Myanmar is the largest of the mainland Southeast Asian states with population of 54 million. Jakarta has population of 10 million (30 million in urban area). It was announced in 2019 that Jakarta will no longer be the capital of Indonesia.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Efficient health care system is also much discussed economical and political question.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Many ethical questions are political questions. (Philosopher Bernard Williams emphasized that often politics should come first, not ethics. [32]) Political philosophy is in my opinion more important addition to Philopsophy (or Society) than Free will or Existence, because general articles (metaphysics and onthology) are listed. The list contains ideology, which is discussed in political science. The inclusion of John Locke is example of political philosophys importance: his contributions to political theory are reflected in the United States Declaration of Independence.
The following discussion is closed. 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 project needs to consider adding some explanatory notes about how it works right at the top of the project page. I've often seen people quoting "vital article" as equivalent to something meaningful on Wikipedia, yet the project is something to which very few people contribute. What's really important is that people outside Wikipedia aren't misled by the projection that the community as a whole have sanctioned the selection of articles here. Indeed, the project has not many more pageviews per day than my own talkpage. In summary, while the articles may be considered "vital" by the handful of users working here, there inclusion/exclusion is not a reflection of community standards or consensus. This needs to be reflected front and centre to avoid misleading our readers. The Rambling Man ( Staying alive since 2005!) 18:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
( edit conflict)Looking at Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles, or even Wikipedia:Esperanza, there is some discussion of the mechanism. As time goes on, there is something to be said for expanding on the history of some of these processes so future editors can get a better understanding of the rationale behind them, not "reinvent the wheel" and maybe make them more pertinent or useful (or not). IIRC this list has attracted criticism as being highly subjective in the past. I was about to write that a lot fewer people know or care about this page than Good or Featured Articles or DYK but I actually have no idea if that is true. I recall looking at this page years ago but not really getting involved with it. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
The more I think about this (and other pages), the more I think a page with the foundation and timeline is a good idea. I have done this a bit at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Collaboration and Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Dinosaur collaboration (actually looking at them could be more) Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Hey Purplebackpack89, I can see you've devoted alot of time here and that's great. We're all trying to think things out here. Any discussion that questions status quo has the potential to be (unintentionally) confronting so please just bear that in mind. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay okay, let's try and keep this looking forward. @ Amakuru: I think you meant Wikipedia:The Core Contest? There is also a list at Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Articles that was actually begun by Black Kite (where did that list come from in the first place? I thought it was Danny....) Funnily enough people kept coming up with really big important articles that weren't on any list and when I tried to think about score-weighting, at least one person ((user|PresN}}?) objected to the inclusion of any vital or core list. I do think it is interesting how folks come up with these lists and I think everyone wants better coverage of broad material. PresN squarely related it to the number of wikipedias a page exists on IIRC. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The main thing that should be changed is we should remove the word "vital" from this project, obviously it's a loaded strict sounding term and lists like the level 5 list were meant for pop culture articles which are specifically non vital. People just can't get past "vital" so it should go. How i interpret these lists are articles which need improving from a wide variety of areas, the higher the list, the higher the importance. That's all. No need for such a big fuss. Stu Ungar being on the level 5 list under the word "vital" looks funny because poker players are not subject to mass media in a way association football players are or have academic type sources citing their non existent papers; but we have a Poker wikiproject and we should absolutely cover "important" articles from every wikiproject. Any other complaints seem like nitpicking over nothing. If someone cites the level 5 list to nominate someone like Doyle Brunson to recent deaths they're not wrong, he's the top poker player, whether you see poker as important is a subjective opinion; we as a encyclopedia should be neutral and he dominates his field, as a completely emotionless, dry, neutral encyclopedia, he's the top person in his field, transformative figure and thus should be listed (all though, yes, RD lists anyone with a sourced article now); he only does not make it if you consider the natural gut reaction of "poker players are not vital! they're just card players! they haven't cured cancer!". But the level 5 list would not be used for a blurb nomination and never should be, this level 3 list you're on, Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr are the only people alive and both would get a blurb; so again i do not see what the big fuss is. Seems like a mountain over a molehill to me and a unneeded bureaucratic measure. Look at the level 4 list and point out people that would not qualify for such a list, (other than actors/athletes; cause you know cultural context hasn't set in for them yet and it's impossible for the average person to think of contemporary figures as "icons"). Replace poker with any field and that's how the level 5 list (let's be honest the most controversial) was built; infact just remove that list, it's not a big deal; i'm the main person that's edited it and i support it's removal now; i've long abandoned it anyway and started on my own independent project/soon to be website. It was never meant to be people just adding anyone. But a accurate study of every kind of way to measure culture and a way to track EVERY FIELD. I just never thought people like Frank Neuhauser and Armi Kuusela being listed would cause such a backlash. It's lucky none of the 19th century dog fighters i found have wikis. (or many other comprehensive (yet, shocking!) fields i've found in my years of research into fame and "importance" in a wide variety of fields, no matter how small). If a encyclopedia at it's core can't be and isn't expected to be all encompassing than it should not be called a encyclopedia. If you think Doyle Brunson isn't as important to have a featured article on as Michel van der Aa based on the cultural prestige of one field compared to the other being a "common" persons field (where a mockery feeling takes over at just the sight of it), than yes these lists must be offensive; in that case i'd recommended the Britannica; that's what it's for. GuzzyG ( talk) 02:44, 10 September 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.
Okay I have created Wikipedia:Vital articles/Background. I will ping some early users so this can be fleshed out. I think it is important to preserve these details before too much longer. Anyone is free to add to it. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:56, 9 September 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.
Of all top 10 figures of The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History (2nd edition), only Cai Lun is not listed, which is illogical since his contribution to the world was more substantial than some of the figures currently listed, e.g. The Beatles.
This was also proposed last year. Cobblet ( talk) 09:20, 14 September 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.
If 0, the additive identity, is a vital article, shouldn't 1, the multiplicative identity, also be a vital article? Invalid OS ( talk) 15:00, 21 October 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.
David Hilbert was an important mathematician. currently, he's at level 4 - I think he deserves an upgrade. Fr.dror ( talk) 20:59, 25 October 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.
Art section is low proportionally to the level 2 bcause of we removed many articles related to architecture (for example we removed either of coloseum and arch but we did not replaced it with Roman architecture). Based on factt wecan list musical instrument and singing would consider addition of gardening and architectural engineering ( construction maybe is redundant to infrastructure, not sure thugh). Pyramida da Gizza was suggested to swap for pyramids but Taj Mahal never has beed suggested to swap for Temple. Thoughts? Dawid2009 ( talk) 22:29, 30 October 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 suggest to add security as wide and important topic. I do not understand why we need police on level 3 when we do not list Emergency medical services and Fire department even on the level 4. Either of jurisprudence and judiciary missed. Should not we also swap Cryptography and few weapons for completly other but important missed articles? Dawid2009 ( talk) 22:29, 30 October 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 Calvin was unique, Luther has been taken as the one historically responsible for the Protestant Reformation (regardless of his intent). Reformation is a topic which should be covered by: Luther and (moreover) Christianity, history of religion, Protestantism etc.. Listing Luther and reformation is too overlap because of it is like listing Marks & Marksism /Napoleon & Napoleonic Wars/Bahai Faith & New religious movement etc. (not mention fact we rejected/removed morality and humanitarianism as redundant to social equality or ethics). Even though Reformation was more influential than East West Schism and influenced Counerreformation (and later revitaliations of Protestantism by groups like Moravian brothers etc.) I am also strongly oppose to add history of Christianity because of IMO listing history of christianity ahead of Easter or Mary of Nazareth is nearly like listing History of Islam ahead of Mecca.
Fall of the Western Romar Empire had much more foundamental impact on history of Western World.
![]() | 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 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | 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.
Information technology (=IT) is more general article than Computer science, Computing, Computer and Telecommunication.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nonverbal communication according to sociological research is more often used type of communication than speech, writting etc. It is also illogical to list Telecommunication ahead of it.
There are inconsistencies in the country list against the principles stated in the FAQ. Odd inclusions would be at least Taiwan (yes large GDP but not even always seen as a country, and small, and history is that of Big China), Israel (in current form new, tiny, GDP only 32nd or 33rd, like fellow innovators Singapore, Ireland and Denmark, the latter three not being here), and Columbia (29th on population only), when most of Africa is missed (at least consider adding Kenya, for example), as well as the Nordics, one of the largest European countries, Ukraine, birthplace of Rus culture, and the hyper-influential Greece. I will propose a swap of at least one more of these, but maybe the best thing would be to do a "from zero" check. 79.104.5.174 ( talk) 07:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
The FAQ was meant to summarize current consensus, but it was written a long time ago and consensus can change and evolve over time. We aren't bound by what the FAQ says. Rreagan007 ( talk) 01:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
In light of Charles Dickens immediate pass after getting 5 votes, i propose a rule change where when a vote is at its required amount it has to last a week, so editors that have commented in a discussion can get a chance to vote without it being instantly passed in the middle of a discussion, especially when it's controversial (such as having the same amount of writers as scientists) and especially when there's multiple opposes already.
Comment This discussion has been closed in way "after 15 days". I have suggestion to change guideline related with just 15 day (not 30). Discussion can not be closed after 15 days by the same person who voted in the last 10 days but did not voted earlier. Rreagan closed this discussion during the same edition when he did the vote (from 4-2 to 5-2, but not from 4-2 to 4-3 so it was dicide role). In this new proppesed guideline Rreagan would have to wait for 10 days (or 6 days to wait from 24 days after nomination to 30 days after nomination). Yes, I also closed discussion about "Trade union" when I did vote by weak support from 4-0 to 5-0, but it was at least well after 30 days and even if I would be oppose it still would be: 4-1 (I could keep it with 4-0 as no consus but it was really well after 30 days). Eventually we could ainclude guideline which would require that person who is going to close the discussion firstly should give rationale in discussion to courage other edotors for reaction (Some people did not voted because of most belived it even does not have any chance to pass when we have already English literature and English writer from the same era) or semething other, Idk... Dawid2009 ( talk)
While we're on the topic, I note that this discussion was not closed with the required number of !votes. Cobblet ( talk) 05:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I personally didn't vote yet out of wanting to be considerate and respectful and not out right dismissing a proposal which obviously went against everything this list had done recently (removing clutters of recentism in the arts, only to add to it in a worse way). Especially as i was waiting to see if Gizza had changed his mind from when we discussed writers and he called Dickens "second rank" [2], by opening the floodgates to Dickens, we open up to having no legitimate reason why writers the likes of Hugo or Twain are not on here. Now we have the same amount of writers as scientists now and 5 English writers in the last two centuries. This list moves very slow so it's fair for me to expect a discussion to continue, when the votes finalize obviously then i would've voted. Next time i am just going to have to ignore discussion and just vote, lesson learnt. But this addition calls into question the removal of Stravinsky, Chopin, Kurosawa, Hitchcock and Dali. Honestly with Dickens either Poe, Joyce or Hemingway have to go now. GuzzyG ( talk) 07:21, 11 May 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.
Not sure if it has been discussed before, but if we are going to list any countries, I think WP:ASB provides a strong argument that the ones listed should be the largest by population only, i.e., currently the 35 largest. While we are pretty close to that already, applying this standard to would lead to the following changes: Adding (in population order) Myanmar, Kenya, Algeria, Ukraine, Sudan and Uganda; removing (in alphabetical order): Australia, Canada, Israel, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan. No change to Eastern Europe representation, or in the number of former UK colonies. Australia (continent) could be added under the continents/is covered under Oceania.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Similar to Great lakes, the broader, encompassing topic is superior (see what I did there?).
Although the proposal makes sense, I'm reluctant to support it, partly because I don't think there's any academic or popular consensus over exactly which lakes constitute the African Great Lakes, although everyone agrees they'd include Lake Victoria, Tanganyika and Malawi. Also, Lake Victoria consistently gets more hits than the other lakes or the African Great Lakes. [3] In the case of the Laurentian Great Lakes, Great Lakes gets more hits than any of the individual lakes. [4] Cobblet ( talk) 20:22, 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.
Abu Nuwas is called as one of the greatest of all Arab writers. [5] [6] Abu Nuwas has been controversial figure, "but on the whole his verse is accepted as part of the heyday of the Abbasid tradition. Not to accept that is to ignore the quite stunning imagination of the poet and his unsurpassed mastery of Arabic. ... I think it is useful these days to show ... that in the glory days of the Abbasid caliphate Islamic society tolerated voices such as the libertine chants of Abu Nuwas and his cohort." [7]
The following discussion is closed. 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 questioning whether Kahlil Gibran should be in Level 3 Writers list next to Shakespeare and Tolstoy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.249.122 ( talk) 03:48, 14 June 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 neutral for now (I woud support swap one of these two for theim) so I made alternative nomination. Dawid2009 ( talk) 17:13, 29 May 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.
Almost completely redundant to Electromagnetism. And to Light, for that matter.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dementia is already covered by Mental disorders. Interstellarity ( talk) 11:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Just as a reminder, Dementia was added to the list when Alzheimer's disease was removed. Rreagan007 ( talk) 18:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I suggest a swap with old age. Cobblet ( talk) 18:53, 9 June 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.
When we have picked space race ahead of History of transport, Sexual revolution fits perfectly ahead of History of human sexuality. Adding history of human sexuality would be problematic for this level due to far too many overlap with Human sexuality. It was recently closed but it was closed as "no consensus", not as "failed". I think we still could consider that when we are under quota.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In my opinion we should ratonally going to remove more physical-geography objects from North America and add other geography objects from North America. We try add something beetwen North America and South America for ages. Carribean did not get attetion due to it is similar to Mediterranean Basin. Carribean Sea did not passed due to it is necesarry ahead of American Mediterranean Sea; so what is the best option if not Central America? If we are going to tairoling this list to readers of English-language, California require representative. Same Calaifornia has nearly 50% more population than Australia (not mention to fact than North America is older continent than Oceania so would suggesting that three countries from North America is not enough). It is also the most significant subdivistion on subdivisions by GDP over 100 billion US dollars 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.
Covered by Humour.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Two supercentral languages which are missed on this level. In my opinion every supercentral language should be listed among 1000 the most importsnt articles.
Another important language which maybe is vital on this level is also Hebrew language (in archives we can find failded nomination to swap Hebrew language with Portuguese language). Dawid2009 ( talk) 21:25, 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 quite overlap beetwen Deity and God. What do you think about swap Deity for Theism?
There is a lot of overlap between the two, as God is a subset of Deity. I would rather remove God than Deity however, since the article on God focuses on the monotheistic God, and would thus leave out the polytheistic gods of various religions. Rreagan007 ( talk) 00:59, 27 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.
Kicking this one around for a while and can't figure it out, so figured I'd ask for suggestions (or tell me to kick rocks). But half the article on Contemporary Philosophy is (appropriately) about Analytic Philosophy. And, as it notes, Analytic Philosophy is a dominant tradition currently in the academy, but not the only one. There is thus significant overlap between them, but also a problem of only listing Analytic Philosophy and not its alternatives. I first said: delete Analytic Philosophy because of overlap with Contemporary Philosophy which is a broader and more inclusive article. I then said: No, analytic philosophy is too important (and the better article of the two), let's delete Contemporary Philosophy, but then do we add Continental Philosophy? Not sure. I've now gone back and figured: Contemporary Philosophy covers 1. the professionalization of philosophy, 2. Analytic Philosophy, and 3. Continental approaches, so it is the more vital article because of scope (defined in terms of 'the encyclopedia is most improved if X article were a Featured article'). But interested to hear ideas, particularly anyone who thinks we should keep both. AbstractIllusions ( talk) 05:06, 28 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.
Per above discussion. The history of 20th century philosophy can be found from the article about Contemporary philosophy. It is said above that the half of that article is about analytic philosophy. For example German Wikipedias article seems to talk mainly about continental approaches. It is possible to write about both in one 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.
When philosophy is level 1 article and religion is level 2 I think it technically can fits om the level 3. It is one of 7 articles which are put as " basics" on the level 4 and it is parent article for eschatology (which I nominated above). Some time ago we did not add Folk religion due to this concept is "too academic" but I think theology is quite general.
The following discussion is closed. 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 related articles on the list ( psychology amd medicine on the level 2, philosopher and neurologist Sigmund Freud or mental disorder/ dementia on the lvel 3) and we are under quota, I think we could consider add at least one o these two. In archives we can find discussions where people suggested even specific examples like major depressive disorder or schizophrenia. Neurology and psychiatry often reolve around each other so I would probably support either of these two. What do you think?
Neuroscience is also significant part of cognitive science. Dawid2009 ( talk) 20:05, 11 June 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.
Popular culture was removed from Level 2 as redundant to entertainment (and culture, folklore, sport, film etc).
If popular culture is seen as as an umbrella term, I wonder why Handicraft was not listed for similar reason. This article discusses how the term has been used in cultural studies and other similar contexts. We have removed for example Prose and kept Novel and Short story. The list contains a large article called Entertainment, which talks about different forms of popular culture. Mass media is also related to entertainment. -- Thi ( talk) 15:49, 14 June 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.
High-importance article. Subject which the English Wikipedia should have featured-class article. It goes without saying that the subject is useful to know in everyday life.
Article about first aid probably would better fit to wikiversity (with video examples) than to Wikipedia. I would consider add security ahead of first aid. E-mail probably is liated ahead of online chatting due to authenticitation significance but there were suggestions that security is broader and more general topic than authentication. Dawid2009 ( talk) 17:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I think we should remove swap some Asian cities with African cities. The only African city listed is Cairo and Africa has more people than all but one of the continents. Any thoughts? Interstellarity ( talk) 20:57, 13 May 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 above discussion.
@ Cobblet: I previously crossed vote because of honrstly I assumed/though that both votes were posted by the same IP from Russia which recently were doing odd editions here. Now I see that clearly first vote was made by IP from Romania and second one by IP from Estonia. I should checked IP because of this project quite often is edited by IPs or new users. Thanks for note. Dawid2009 ( talk) 07:47, 26 July 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 isn't necessarily a formal proposal, I just searched through the archives real quickly though and didn't see any discussion on what the rationale was for having São Paulo as an article at this level over another Brazilian city. While Sao Paulo does have the highest population, both Rio and Brasilia both have arguments for why they could be in the list instead. Rio is arguably the more name-recognizable city, was the historical capital of Brazil under Portuguese rule, and is one of the most popular tourist cities in South America, with many iconic attractions like the Christ the Redeemer statue. The argument for Brasilia is the opposite: instead of cultural and historical importance, it has political importance, being the capital and diplomatic hub, and stands for the future development of the continent and as a testament to humanity that we were able to just build a city in the middle of the jungle. Just thought I'd throw that out there for discussion to hear what you guys think. Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 00:08, 14 May 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 Life at level 1 and Death at level 2, plus things like Birth control here at level 3. It seems reasonable to add a concept as foundational to biology as birth here. - Sdkb ( talk) 17:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I just want to note that the Pregnancy article we currently list at this level is on human pregnancy, not the more general articles on Pregnancy (mammals) or Pregnancy in fish. The article on Birth is the general article for animal birth, not specifically on human Childbirth. Rreagan007 ( talk) 16:12, 23 May 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.
Chinese folk religions is practiced by a vast population in China though hardly well organized, Its sheer size should not be ignored just because it is unlike institutionalized religions. Viztor ( talk) 13:59, 29 May 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.
At least one example of community should be listed at this level. I do not see how encyclopedia should describe definition of Nationalism before definition of Nation.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On this list of vital articles, Suicide is categorized in social issues. However, on List of articles every Wikipedia should have, it is categorized in Biology. How should it be categorized? Interstellarity T 🌟 14:42, 8 June 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.
Ocean currents are more general, worldwide phenomenon. For example Gulf Stream influences the climate of Europe and America.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Gauss and Euler are listed, as is the History of mathematics. Maybe third great mathematician from 18th and 19th century is not necessary.
I will not vote yet but in my sense Euler and Lalpace are maybe two weaker mathematicians. Alan Turing clearly should not be listed among mthematicians. Newton is much more known for fact that he is one of the greatest mathematicans of all time ( [8]). Dawid2009 ( talk) 05:57, 16 June 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.
Child, Adolescence and Adult are already 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.
Paleontology, study of fossils was added recently. Fossil itself is probably as popular concept.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
One of the most famous Americans of all time, but not as vital as George Washington from the same period. As an inventor he is not as vital as Edison, Tesla, Turing or other physics or mathematicians 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.
Mathematics section is now quite large. 0 and π are more famous mathematical constants in general culture.
I do not see why we should remove highly viewed article for something like History of physics. Personally I also think that either of 0 and π are more vital than Fibonacci number (which significance is important also for exaample in fractal geometry and natural philosophy) but it just me. Dawid2009 ( talk) 13:10, 24 July 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.
Covered by planet and Moon. Natural satellite technically does not belong to the level 3 when for example continent is level 3 article and solar systems are level 4. I do not see how Natural satellite can be more vital than Biome when we have already planet and Moon, solar system and so plenty planets. Natural satelite gets less hits than dwarf planet. It can be vital but obviously not when we have other articles like planet, moon, solar system, several other planets etc.. Dawid2009 ( talk) 12:18, 21 June 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.
See Global city. There is no reason not to. Viztor ( talk) 07:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Swap for Hong Kong would be fair IMO. Thoughts? J 947 's public account 21:32, 10 June 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.
Three other mountain ranges are listed. Ice age formed the Great Lakes and many other geographic features. The causes of ice ages are interesting topic, scientists are still working to understand them.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Several users were supporting addition of Satellite navigation and have agreed each other that it is more important topic in Navigation than GPS and Radar.
I closed previous discussion finally as passed because of J947 have said that he also would support removing GPS (even WP:SNOW he said) and we have also other situation when Reagan considered Carlwev's comment from other section. However if will be consenus that procedural process for remove GPS was wrong I am opened to make two new discussion: "swap GPS for Satellite Navigation" and second one: "remove Radar". I think we should discuss it again. There were various opinions but I closed this discussion littly too early. After these discussions I think that we should have at least one of these two articles: Satellite Navigation or GPS (IMO Satellite Navigation is better). Dawid2009 ( talk) 12:29, 16 June 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.
Basic concept in Physics. "Radiation comes in many forms and is all around us, all the time." [9]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Freud's psychological and clinical theories are now old-fashioned, but he has a place in the history of psychiatry.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Great mathematicians are brilliant minds, but History of mathematics is listed at this level and I am not sure that an example of female mathemetician is absolutely necessary at this level. Everybody knows Marie Curie, but Noether is lesser known figure.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not as widespread addiction as in the Mad Men era. Alcoholism is more important issue and we have voted against Dementia, which affects millions of people.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Louis Pasteur, Milk#Pasteurization and Cheese#Pasteurization mention pasteurization. Maybe article about pasteurization process is not necessary at this level.
There should be something on the list about food preservation. A swap wouldn't be a terrible idea. Cobblet ( talk) 21:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Food preservation is vital for human survival. High-importance article in Food and drink project, more general topic than pasteurization which is at least partly covered by other topics.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Poe is one of the many classics of English literature, which we have at this level. The list contains other short story writers such as James Joyce, whose Dubliners was very influential collection. "Like Charles Dickens, Twain achieved immense success with his first book, became his nation's most famous and best-loved author, and has remained a national treasure ever since – America's most archetypal writer. - Twain's writings have reportedly inspired more commentary than those of any other American author." [10] Hemingway said about his Nobel prize: "I cannot but regret that the award was never given to Mark Twain." Edgar Allan Poe can be seen as part of European literary tradition, whereas William Faulkner called Twain ‘the father of American literature’. History.com: "His ability to swiftly and convincingly create a variety of fictional characters rivals that of Charles Dickens. - Perhaps it is too much to claim, as some have, that Twain invented the American point of view in fiction, but that such a notion might be entertained indicates that his place in American literary culture is secure." [11]
The following discussion is closed. 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 the article says, Kenya is the world's 48th largest country with a population of more than 52 million people. Kenya is the 27th most populous country. Kenya's economy is the second-largest in eastern and central Africa.
According to the latest update of the UN Human Development Report, 3.818 billion people live in a country with high or very high human development, while 3.659 billion people live in a country with medium or low human development. We list 24 countries (including Singapore and Taiwan) with high or very high human development comprising 3.254 billion people, or 85% of the total people living in such countries. We list 12 countries with medium or low human development comprising 2.838 billion people, or 78% of the total people living in such countries. Based on that, we should add a few more countries in the latter category. Myanmar and Kenya would be a good start in that direction; Uganda, which is expected to have 50 million people by 2024, is also a possibility. Cobblet ( talk) 18:10, 27 July 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.
Not as global language as for example Spanish language.
If there was a language to remove, it should be Greek since the article is predominantly about Modern Greek, which isn't vital. It could be replaced with Ancient Greek. Also the area in which Bengali is spoken was part of the British Empire and still is part of the Commonwealth of Nations, so it is arguably more vital from an English-speaking perspective. Bengali also consistently gets more page views on enwiki than Portuguese over the past 4 years [13]. Not that I agree with Portuguese being removed. Gizza ( t)( c) 03:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
this RfC may be of interet to the members of this project. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:50, 24 July 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 list History of mathematics and I think it would be easier to read and write History of science with this article.
This would be last "History of" article, although personally I think that History of Christianity would be useful due to its coverage of different concepts and eras and the topics importance to English-speaking world. -- Thi ( talk) 12:35, 24 July 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 it would make sense to list more general article at this level. Pyramids can be found from different eras and continents.
Giza pyramid complex is not on level 4. Instead level 4 lists this and the Sphinx. Cobblet ( talk) 03:31, 25 August 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 culturally and historically important country in both Africa and in the Arab 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.
Party politics is important topic in political science. Political parties are essential to democratic systems. "Political parties perform an important task in government. They bring people together to achieve control of the government, develop policies favorable to their interests or the groups that support them, and organize and persuade voters to elect their candidates to office." (Cliffsnotes)
Hard to say whether this or election is a better choice and whether either is necessary when democracy is listed. And for balance, a non-democratic mechanism of obtaining and maintaining power should then be added too. Maybe something like propaganda. Gizza ( t)( c) 22:59, 31 July 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.
Even before their appearance on the Main Page these two articles averaged over 1 million views a year. --- Coffeeand crumbs 17:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Please stop casting aspersions at each other and focus on the vitality of the two candidates p b p 20:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC}, expanded 15:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@ GuzzyG: Given your track record on level 5, I'm surprised you're now the one accusing others of trying to right great wrongs. And as for their cultural notoriety, I'll reconsider my position when Gagarin and Armstrong get countries and galaxies named after them. Cobblet ( talk) 19:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
TLDR: since a paragraph might be too long
if you can't address my points and resort to further personal attacks then i rest my case. GuzzyG ( talk) 20:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC) Amundsen achieved plenty (South Pole, Northwest Passage) without Nobile's help. Nobile did nothing of note outside his one collaboration with Amundsen. The one thing of note Gagarin did was overseen by Korolev. Korolev was involved in plenty else (Sputnik 1, Laika, Luna 2, Luna 3, Tereshkova, Leonov) besides sending Gagarin to space. I don't see how this is a sensible comparison. Fame is relatively easy to quantify, at least if we ignore issues of data selection and interpretation. Accomplishments are not. (By the way, you asked me whether Gagarin or Amundsen had the greater peak, but your own graph does not show that Gagarin was more famous than Amundsen was in their respective lifetimes.) This is why I look to the opinions of people, particularly those who actually know a thing about the topic, rather than solely relying on big data. I don't believe everything on Quora, but if I listen to you, I think it's reasonable of me to listen to people there as well. What you will see there is not just a discussion over which astronauts are most famous, but also on whose accomplishments were "greater", which for me is more relevant to what this list is about. A more traditional and authoritative source refers to Amundsen as "one of the greatest figures in the field of polar exploration", and Korolev as "the guiding genius behind the Soviet spaceflight program." It does not say that Gagarin or Armstrong were "greater" than later astronauts or "guided" their work, just because they happened to be earlier. And that's my point. Armstrong may be a more famous astronaut than Aldrin, but IMO that doesn't make his accomplishments greater than Aldrin's, and for me his fame alone doesn't make him so much more vital than Aldrin that he should be included while Aldrin should be excluded. I am most definitely not an expert on English literature, so I don't know why you're asking me to explain the result of discussions I was frankly not qualified to participate in, and did not do so except to say that I didn't think we needed more writers (of any language or era). I do know that I understand the English of Dickens mostly fine, and Shakespeare moderately well, but have to read Chaucer in translation. That may not matter to you, but perhaps that's why the first English writer we list is Shakespeare and not Chaucer. Cobblet ( talk) 21:43, 30 July 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.
More influential for people than rodents. IMO parasites fit when we list Malaria or Infection.
Insect is already listed at this level. Perhaps you meant Mosquito. -- Thi ( talk) 14:10, 6 June 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.
Printing and Book are more vital topics. https://lithub.com/so-gutenberg-didnt-actually-invent-the-printing-press/ James Watt is not 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.
I think that only Charles Chaplin is really vital at this level as filmmaker, as film is not very old art form. Henry Ford represents influential businessmen. Animation is important topic.
Disney has been ranked in the top 100 the most influential people of 2nd millenium ahead of Chaplin ( [26], [27]) by " A & E's Biography" but it is not the only historical ranking where Disney is way ahead of Chaplin. Here Disney also is ahead of him (Disney is in top 500 meanwhile Chaplin is 795th). However both rankings are bit odd. First one pick Bill Gates ahead of Allan Turing; in second one person like Cortes is not even in the top 1000 most influential people of 2nd millenium but the book include sports people, entertaiments and even quite unrecongizable 18th chess player. Dawid2009 ( talk) 09:09, 3 September 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.
Proposing since my purely objective country selection proposal failed; Of countries in Eastern Europe, Ukraine has larger area, larger population, and larger largest city ( Kiev larger than Warsaw). Any other differences are purely subjective.
Ukrainian language has about 35 milion natove speakers. Polish language has + 45 milion native speakers and more understandable each other dialects. It also due to fact that Poland has far more long stabile history. However I would rather support having either of Ukraine and Poland or swap Poland for Eastern Europe. Dawid2009 ( talk) 05:20, 19 June 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.
Arguably evolution's most important "invention". (So far, that is . . .)
In my opinion it is more vital than History of agriculture and I would consider add animal behaviour to thi level too. Dawid2009 ( talk) 12:21, 15 August 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.
Historically important invention, but Beams are more important in modern architecture.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Good design increases sales and ideally makes products more ergonomical and ecological ( Sustainable design). Important topic in business and technology. Edit: Armour is part of Military history and in my opinion general article suits better for this level. Armours are nowadays used by professional, design is part of everyday life.
My view is that Handicraft is the other half of applied arts. I proposed the addition of Handicraft but it failed, as did some environment-related proposals. We live with furniture and eat and drink from tableware. These objects can be made by hand or by industrial process. I think that these objects are necessity, just as architecture which is listed. Many architects have been also designers, for example Alvar Aalto, who thought that "objects should be essential, beautiful, useful and democratically available to all". [31] -- Thi ( talk) 20:38, 8 September 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.
Cobblet convinced me that he is important figure, but I am not sure that both Heisenberg and Bohr are absolutely necessary at this level. I think that the People section needs trimming. I would rather add History of physics.
I am uncertain about this removal. p b p 22:18, 31 July 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 meta equivalent page also contains this religion, and it influenced Judaism substantially, thus it should be added as well.
Zoroaster is the better choice since he not only the founder of Zoroastrianism but influenced many other religions and philosophies. Gizza ( t)( c) 03:16, 31 July 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 propose the addition of Michael Jackson. The FAQ about vital articles says that "Individuals within the People section represent the pinnacles of their field". In this case, Michael Jackson really represents the Pop music pinnacle (and development), while for example Elvis Presley (who is already included as a vital article) doesn't represent the Rock music pinnacle at all. Expanding the field to Music (or Modern Music), the importance and influence of Michael Jackson is undoubtedly great and impossible to overlook (In addition, his influence on other artists goes beyond Pop music artists). To this day, more than 10 years have passed since his death and he has influenced the success and the way of making music of new artists (for example Bruno Mars) and is still really present; if we compare this to Elvis Presley, who died in 1977, in those posterior 10 years until 1987 he didn't have the remembrance and influence in the musical panorama that Michael still has.
Apart from that, he also greatly influenced in the development of music videos (since Thriller and also decades later with new techniques and innovations), and his legacy in Dance is widely known and timeless (e.g. The Moonwalk).
Finally, it should be added that Michael Jackson exceeded the limits of simply being an artist, a musician, as few have done. He was received as a head of state in several countries of the World, bestowed and even crowned in Africa. After his death there were dance tributes (flash mobs) in practically all the main cities of the World, and his death was even described as a trancendental event in the Internet's history due to its impact on search engines and social networks at that time, without forgetting that his funeral was more followed by TV than that of any head of state in the World ever.
In conclusion, I propose that Michael Jackson be included in Level 3. -- Salvabl ( talk) 09:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
how a great person michael was, what matters is the effect he had on civilisation. That's what we should be judging him on. Fifthly, about that same phrase,
i want everyone to know of how a great person michael wasis ill-warranted. If you think a place on this list will make people know
how a great person michael was, that is wrong. No one really reads this list, it's for editors to know which articles to develop. Those articles aren't meant to let people know how great a person was, but rather provide a neutral point of view. Sixthly, we don't aim to right great wrongs. What the media says is truth to us if we trust it as a reliable source.
slander, and that could be taken as a personal attack. Eighthly, and this is just a query—why, all of a sudden, did you decide to make your first edit Wikipedia in a very-hard-to-find backdraft of it? Cheers, — J 947 ( c), at 04:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I may support a swap with Elvis. On the one hand, MJ is more recent but by swapping MJ with Elvis you get one jazz, one rock and one pop representative of 20th century music. That to me is more balanced and reflective of modern music than one jazz and two rock. And in the world of rock, the Beatles are more influential than Elvis. I don't support a straight add because 20th century music doesn't need a net increase. Gizza ( t)( c) 22:02, 26 August 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 article is currently listed under the topic "Art", but as an influential work in economics, it seems like it should be classified under economics or social sciences or something. I'm not sure if there's another reason to put it under art, and I'm also not sure what needs to be changed other than the talk page banner to make a reclassification take effect. -- Beland ( talk) 21:39, 7 August 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.
Important type of
performing art (level 2) which involves
humour (also level 2oops, actually level 3; thanks Dawid). Seems at least as important as
Opera,
Comics, or
Epic poetry, all of which are listed at this level.
It was removed recently: Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_15#Remove_Comedy -- Thi ( talk) 18:59, 8 August 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.
What criteria makes a country a vital article? Population? Area? Population density? Economy? Influence? Interstellarity ( talk) 14:59, 21 August 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 countries are in general more vital than cities. Myanmar is the largest of the mainland Southeast Asian states with population of 54 million. Jakarta has population of 10 million (30 million in urban area). It was announced in 2019 that Jakarta will no longer be the capital of Indonesia.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Efficient health care system is also much discussed economical and political question.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Many ethical questions are political questions. (Philosopher Bernard Williams emphasized that often politics should come first, not ethics. [32]) Political philosophy is in my opinion more important addition to Philopsophy (or Society) than Free will or Existence, because general articles (metaphysics and onthology) are listed. The list contains ideology, which is discussed in political science. The inclusion of John Locke is example of political philosophys importance: his contributions to political theory are reflected in the United States Declaration of Independence.
The following discussion is closed. 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 project needs to consider adding some explanatory notes about how it works right at the top of the project page. I've often seen people quoting "vital article" as equivalent to something meaningful on Wikipedia, yet the project is something to which very few people contribute. What's really important is that people outside Wikipedia aren't misled by the projection that the community as a whole have sanctioned the selection of articles here. Indeed, the project has not many more pageviews per day than my own talkpage. In summary, while the articles may be considered "vital" by the handful of users working here, there inclusion/exclusion is not a reflection of community standards or consensus. This needs to be reflected front and centre to avoid misleading our readers. The Rambling Man ( Staying alive since 2005!) 18:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
( edit conflict)Looking at Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles, or even Wikipedia:Esperanza, there is some discussion of the mechanism. As time goes on, there is something to be said for expanding on the history of some of these processes so future editors can get a better understanding of the rationale behind them, not "reinvent the wheel" and maybe make them more pertinent or useful (or not). IIRC this list has attracted criticism as being highly subjective in the past. I was about to write that a lot fewer people know or care about this page than Good or Featured Articles or DYK but I actually have no idea if that is true. I recall looking at this page years ago but not really getting involved with it. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
The more I think about this (and other pages), the more I think a page with the foundation and timeline is a good idea. I have done this a bit at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Collaboration and Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Dinosaur collaboration (actually looking at them could be more) Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Hey Purplebackpack89, I can see you've devoted alot of time here and that's great. We're all trying to think things out here. Any discussion that questions status quo has the potential to be (unintentionally) confronting so please just bear that in mind. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay okay, let's try and keep this looking forward. @ Amakuru: I think you meant Wikipedia:The Core Contest? There is also a list at Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Articles that was actually begun by Black Kite (where did that list come from in the first place? I thought it was Danny....) Funnily enough people kept coming up with really big important articles that weren't on any list and when I tried to think about score-weighting, at least one person ((user|PresN}}?) objected to the inclusion of any vital or core list. I do think it is interesting how folks come up with these lists and I think everyone wants better coverage of broad material. PresN squarely related it to the number of wikipedias a page exists on IIRC. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The main thing that should be changed is we should remove the word "vital" from this project, obviously it's a loaded strict sounding term and lists like the level 5 list were meant for pop culture articles which are specifically non vital. People just can't get past "vital" so it should go. How i interpret these lists are articles which need improving from a wide variety of areas, the higher the list, the higher the importance. That's all. No need for such a big fuss. Stu Ungar being on the level 5 list under the word "vital" looks funny because poker players are not subject to mass media in a way association football players are or have academic type sources citing their non existent papers; but we have a Poker wikiproject and we should absolutely cover "important" articles from every wikiproject. Any other complaints seem like nitpicking over nothing. If someone cites the level 5 list to nominate someone like Doyle Brunson to recent deaths they're not wrong, he's the top poker player, whether you see poker as important is a subjective opinion; we as a encyclopedia should be neutral and he dominates his field, as a completely emotionless, dry, neutral encyclopedia, he's the top person in his field, transformative figure and thus should be listed (all though, yes, RD lists anyone with a sourced article now); he only does not make it if you consider the natural gut reaction of "poker players are not vital! they're just card players! they haven't cured cancer!". But the level 5 list would not be used for a blurb nomination and never should be, this level 3 list you're on, Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr are the only people alive and both would get a blurb; so again i do not see what the big fuss is. Seems like a mountain over a molehill to me and a unneeded bureaucratic measure. Look at the level 4 list and point out people that would not qualify for such a list, (other than actors/athletes; cause you know cultural context hasn't set in for them yet and it's impossible for the average person to think of contemporary figures as "icons"). Replace poker with any field and that's how the level 5 list (let's be honest the most controversial) was built; infact just remove that list, it's not a big deal; i'm the main person that's edited it and i support it's removal now; i've long abandoned it anyway and started on my own independent project/soon to be website. It was never meant to be people just adding anyone. But a accurate study of every kind of way to measure culture and a way to track EVERY FIELD. I just never thought people like Frank Neuhauser and Armi Kuusela being listed would cause such a backlash. It's lucky none of the 19th century dog fighters i found have wikis. (or many other comprehensive (yet, shocking!) fields i've found in my years of research into fame and "importance" in a wide variety of fields, no matter how small). If a encyclopedia at it's core can't be and isn't expected to be all encompassing than it should not be called a encyclopedia. If you think Doyle Brunson isn't as important to have a featured article on as Michel van der Aa based on the cultural prestige of one field compared to the other being a "common" persons field (where a mockery feeling takes over at just the sight of it), than yes these lists must be offensive; in that case i'd recommended the Britannica; that's what it's for. GuzzyG ( talk) 02:44, 10 September 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.
Okay I have created Wikipedia:Vital articles/Background. I will ping some early users so this can be fleshed out. I think it is important to preserve these details before too much longer. Anyone is free to add to it. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:56, 9 September 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.
Of all top 10 figures of The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History (2nd edition), only Cai Lun is not listed, which is illogical since his contribution to the world was more substantial than some of the figures currently listed, e.g. The Beatles.
This was also proposed last year. Cobblet ( talk) 09:20, 14 September 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.
If 0, the additive identity, is a vital article, shouldn't 1, the multiplicative identity, also be a vital article? Invalid OS ( talk) 15:00, 21 October 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.
David Hilbert was an important mathematician. currently, he's at level 4 - I think he deserves an upgrade. Fr.dror ( talk) 20:59, 25 October 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.
Art section is low proportionally to the level 2 bcause of we removed many articles related to architecture (for example we removed either of coloseum and arch but we did not replaced it with Roman architecture). Based on factt wecan list musical instrument and singing would consider addition of gardening and architectural engineering ( construction maybe is redundant to infrastructure, not sure thugh). Pyramida da Gizza was suggested to swap for pyramids but Taj Mahal never has beed suggested to swap for Temple. Thoughts? Dawid2009 ( talk) 22:29, 30 October 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 suggest to add security as wide and important topic. I do not understand why we need police on level 3 when we do not list Emergency medical services and Fire department even on the level 4. Either of jurisprudence and judiciary missed. Should not we also swap Cryptography and few weapons for completly other but important missed articles? Dawid2009 ( talk) 22:29, 30 October 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 Calvin was unique, Luther has been taken as the one historically responsible for the Protestant Reformation (regardless of his intent). Reformation is a topic which should be covered by: Luther and (moreover) Christianity, history of religion, Protestantism etc.. Listing Luther and reformation is too overlap because of it is like listing Marks & Marksism /Napoleon & Napoleonic Wars/Bahai Faith & New religious movement etc. (not mention fact we rejected/removed morality and humanitarianism as redundant to social equality or ethics). Even though Reformation was more influential than East West Schism and influenced Counerreformation (and later revitaliations of Protestantism by groups like Moravian brothers etc.) I am also strongly oppose to add history of Christianity because of IMO listing history of christianity ahead of Easter or Mary of Nazareth is nearly like listing History of Islam ahead of Mecca.
Fall of the Western Romar Empire had much more foundamental impact on history of Western World.