![]() | 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | 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.
I proposed adding California a while back but then withdrew it almost immediately upon realizing that there isn't much room at this level for a straight addition, especially of something related to the United States. I noticed that the Grand Canyon was on the list; while it's certainly interesting and worthy of Level 4, it's not on the same level as the Amazon Rainforest or the Pyramids in terms of impact and significance. Canyon itself is at Level 4. As I said earlier, California is one of the world's Top 10 economies and the home of both Hollywood and Silicon Valley, being thereby the pop-cultural and technological capital of the world, serving as a good counterpoint to New York City on this list. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 01:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
IMO the single most vital missing geography article is now Southern Ocean, which was removed recently. I could support swapping the Grand Canyon for that. Cobblet ( talk) 02:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is the most famous list in the Western world (well, second-most famous), and has spawned countless imitations and allusions, as well as the proverbial " Eighth Wonder". This would beef up our architecture selection, which has a meager three entries. Note that this is about the list as a whole; the Great Pyramid is (and ought to be IMO) the only individual wonder on here. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 03:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's strange that even though we list several building materials (steel, wood, glass, plastic, textiles, plus masonry which covers brick and stone), we don't list the single most widely used manmade material in the world – so much so, that concrete production accounts for 5% of all humanity's carbon dioxide emissions. [2] And concrete is not just a modern material – the Romans also famously made extensive use of it.
The following discussion is closed. 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 wonder if there is good reason to have visual marker informing viewers what is the status of the article immediately next to its summary? I think this is a key information and helps bring attention to its relevance within a system... Zblace ( talk) 11:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This isn't my area of expertise, but aren't all problems in ontology problems of existence? Why do we need both? Cobblet ( talk) 01:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles § Most-viewed non-vital pages. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
02:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Maybe it's because I have a math background (though I don't claim to be a professional with a PhD), but I don't think I could !vote for or against individual math topics in a normal proposal. After reading over the recent ones though, I did have a few thoughts; maybe you all will be able to sift out something useful:
I don't know if there's any appetite for specific ideas like these, but even then, maybe you all can riff off them with better ones. It's just math as a whole might be tricky in ways the other categories aren't, and adding a bit more process could help with that. -- Zar2gar1 ( talk) 01:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
This is just a small related question, but would anyone be opposed to me reorganizing the math articles currently listed? I can work in small steps over time in case anyone dislikes a change. -- Zar2gar1 ( talk) 23:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Here's another one I think we could put at Level 4. Not only is the topic (at least as presented) pretty recent and ahistorical, but at least in its current form, it seems very practitioner-oriented. The topic is already discussed some under Market (economics) too.
Actually, I considered proposing a swap for Sales. After looking into it more though, we already have the Retail article, which (while technically more specific) already seems more developed.
We swapped advertising for marketing a while ago. This discussion is also relevant. Cobblet ( talk) 17:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
After thinking about current coverage and some good points about an alternative, I've changed my mind. Marketing should probably stay for the foreseeable future. Even if the current article doesn't always feel geared for a general audience, the topic is a good, central compromise for several topics. The market (economics) article is likely a better candidate for removal, and I'll open a separate proposal for that. -- Zar2gar1 ( talk) 02:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We try not to include people who died recently in the list since this list is guided towards anti-recentism. The most recent person to die that is on the list besides Mandela is Kurt Godel who died in 1978. The FAQ for this page doesn't describe the barriers between recentism and anti-recentism. I'm hoping that whatever the outcome is for this discussion, we can get a better clue of how distant in history people need to be to be included in the list.
I opposed his addition only because Shaka was also on the list back then. Mandela is clearly the better choice. Recentism is only an issue if it's unclear whether a person's legacy will be secure in the foreseeable future: the fear is adding people based on what we expect them to do in the future, as opposed to what they've already done. Mandela's legacy is about as secure as it gets. Cobblet ( talk) 22:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Discussions regarding the level 4 list belong on that talk page, not here. Cobblet ( talk) 01:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
He created two programming languages and Unix operating system which has influence on its descendants. Interstellarity ( talk) 23:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll note that while the legacy of Gates or Jobs may be secure, how their legacies ultimately stack up against people who showed up later like Zuckerberg or Bezos is not as clear. I'm aware that the latter two people are not on level 4, although their companies are. Cobblet ( talk) 02:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Seems like there's some interest in supplementing Hunting with the concept of gathering on the list so I'm spinning off this proposal. There are actually two options that jump out at me.
On the one hand, there is no specific article for gathering, but foraging includes gathering (and technically hunting). At least in its current form though, the foraging article is focused on animal behavior, not the human activity (unlike the hunting article). Another possibility is to add the article on hunter-gatherers, but I could see how that might be considered too specific to anthropology for Level 3.
I'm personally neutral on any outcome so I won't be voting; I just thought it wouldn't hurt to get the proposal down.
Zar2gar1 (
talk)
01:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
One thing that's always bothered me about the math list is that it's heavy on extremely elementary concepts at the expense of equally fundamental but somewhat more abstract concepts, and sometimes even entire fields based on these concepts. This is a case in point. Coordinate systems are obviously an important topic in geometry, but I think dimension ought to cover the idea of how one specifies geometric elements in space. We don't need this kind of overlap, much as we don't list number line in addition to number.
Linear algebra is a ubiquitous tool in modern mathematics, tying together algebra and geometry and having all sorts of applications in science and engineering, from general relativity to video game graphics and just about everything in between. Dot product, Cross product, Eigenvalues and eigenvectors, Rotation matrix and Matrix (mathematics) are all currently among the top 100 most-viewed math articles. This list needs to have some coverage of vector and matrix operations.
@ John M Wolfson: I don't understand your objection. The number of coordinates of any coordinate system, Cartesian or not, is equal to the number of dimensions in the space described by that coordinate system. Dimension#Spatial dimensions gives polar and spherical coordinates as examples of coordinate systems in two and three dimensions. We do not need two articles to explain the same idea. Cobblet ( talk) 07:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Thi mentioned the Meta list, and their Math section is about half the size as ours, so if we're going to add this, we should probably remove something. Combinatorics seems like a pretty weak article to list at this level. How about swapping out that article? Rreagan007 ( talk) 17:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Just noting the proposal is still open since we're at 4-0 for the removal of Coordinate system. -- Zar2gar1 ( talk) 01:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So I suspect this may get some push-back, but let's go for it. If you look through the main Economics article, it already discusses many (most?) of the main points in the specific micro- and macroeconomics articles. We also have Market (economics) and Supply and demand at this level, and even the Tax article discusses some of the relevant economic analysis.
How about putting these two sub-fields at Level 4? Not only are they relatively narrow and technical, but they retread a lot of ground we already cover with more focus.
Relevant previous discussion. Cobblet ( talk) 16:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Anyways, I could have been a bit more precise like in the other responses, but I don't think the whole business & econ category is particularly oversized. I would support adding more common, day-to-day topics if slots were freed-up elsewhere, though given the current weights, I prioritize math & maybe the arts more. For example, while thinking about this, I realized Accounting isn't listed at this level; I'm definitely about to propose we add that.
But as I mentioned above, none of the other social sciences are given slots for subdisciplines, or individual theoretical results for that matter. Indo-European languages (or at least the reconstructed family) may be the only exception, and I would also support making that just a header at this level. When you really drill into it, even the supply and demand concept is actually a theoretical thing. It's inferred from other intuitions & observations, it relies on assumptions (prices are effectively set auction-like in the short-run, or by natural selection in the long-run), and some very real phenomena are just defined away (e.g. when the market doesn't clear).
I'm definitely not saying we should drop that article, but I think it shows that the current list holds economics to a different standard, and theory is given more visibility & slots than the other social sciences (or actual business) without further questions. Frankly, I suspect it's due to a bias too, not by anyone in particular, but as a result of the way mainstream econ has been politically elevated so much in my lifetime. I think it's become habitual (I know I do it) sometimes to treat theoretical concerns in economics (including the micro / macro distinction) more like real things than we would for another social science. -- Zar2gar1 ( talk) 01:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We need non-English singers on the list and Piaf represents that. Interstellarity ( talk) 18:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@ John M Wolfson, Thi, and Crouch, Swale: If I changed Elvis to Louis Armstrong, would you vote differently or would it stay the same? Interstellarity ( talk) 20:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We're at 1001 articles, so something needs to go. A previous attempt to start a discussion got little attention. But it still seems to me that all ontological problems relate to existence in some way. We do not gain much by listing both existence and ontology under metaphysics. Since ontology gets significantly more page views, that's the article I suggest keeping.
The following discussion is closed. 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 last economics-section proposal for the day. While technically encompassing things like Equity (finance) too, the Finance article seems relatively narrow and abstract at the same time. However, outside of indirectly through Bank, we arguably don't have any article directly addressing lending & borrowing, interest, etc.
I'd like to propose replacing Finance with either Credit or Debt to bring in that coverage. Not only are these concepts still the foundation for the whole debt-instrument side of the financial world, but they have a long history, and they're present in one form or another in many people's lives. As for which one, I'm leaning towards Debt since people seem to refer to that side of the equation more in everyday life. However, I can also see the argument Credit is actually prior and must be extended for a debt to exist in the first place.
The one downside is that it seems like there's no single, clear entry-point for this topic right now. But even then, I'd consider that an issue with the current organization of the articles, not that the topic itself isn't central.
Page views of these three articles in comparison. Cobblet ( talk) 20:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Weirdly enough, I don't think anyone has proposed this before, but I actually expect this to be a less controversial one.
Accounting is a basic bodily function of any business or large organization, it's at least as old as cuneiform, modern double-entry bookkeeping is a major innovation of the Renaissance, and accounting identities are about as certain as economics can get.
What do you all think? -- Zar2gar1 ( talk) 02:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I can perhaps be convinced otherwise, but my gut instinct is that white-collar professions that fall squarely within the umbrella of business administration don't feel vital at this level. I'm not convinced that accounting is vital (picking it is tantamount to picking financial statement as a level 3 article: either one feels overly specific and technical to me), and I'm also not convinced that the currently listed management is vital: how is it more vital than the unlisted leadership, for example? Cobblet ( talk) 04:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We have Henry Ford and Thomas Edison up here, but those are more inventors rather than "pure" businessmen. Rockefeller is the richest man in (modern) history, with a peak real net worth double that of Bezos (at least for another decade), and founded the influential Rockefeller family (not to mention Standard Oil). Carnegie founded modern-day philanthropy with " The Gospel of Wealth" and his many libraries (not to mention, likewise, U.S. Steel). Morgan was influential in the development of the modern American economy, to the point where he's been dubbed "America's greatest banker", and helped found what eventually became JPMorgan Chase, the world's largest bank by market capitalization. Overall, I think one of these three is the best to flesh out our "Businesspeople" section. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 03:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Vital articles → Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3 – I think this page should be moved to this title because Level 3 is not the most important level in the levels of importance of an article. I think the title WP:Vital articles should have a description of the vital articles and be a directory of the 5 levels. Interstellarity ( talk) 19:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
—Relisting. BD2412 T 03:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
definitely the most active in terms of the talk page, that's not a feature, it's a bug—I hate the fact that broader-scope discussions are mixed in with all the debates about which articles to promote/demote, and I wish they'd all be moved to WT:WikiProject Vital Articles, to which the talk page of the new WP:Vital articles could redirect. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 07:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello! Sorry if this isn't the best place to do this - I was told to ask here by info-en@wikimedia.org. I was wondering if there is any compiled data (csv, excel, etc) of the vital articles that I could be sent (preferably level 5). Anything to do with the hierarchy would be wonderful. Please email me at dan@raymond.ch so I can get in touch with any of you! TheRauser ( talk) 20:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC) The Rauser
The following discussion is closed. 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 article would be a better candidate for this level because it goes deep into the life of a child. Interstellarity ( talk) 19:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Interestingly, separate articles don't exist for other stages of life for humans. One redirects to the other in the case of adult, adolescence, old age and infant. Gizza ( talk • voy) 00:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per discussion above. Interstellarity ( talk) 22:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Please take this irrelevant discussion elsewhere, or create a separate proposal. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 07:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Michael Jackson is the only other needed western musician, it's clear his fame is not receding, even under massive controversy (unlike Elvis, which does appear to be fading). He dominates every single thing. We need a woman though absolutely, removing Hildegard of Bingen was a mistake - no other woman in music is as important and Madonna wouldnt be added because MJ is more important and it'd be too English language focused if we added them both, Umm Kulthum is the better rep for women in popular music, she's the preeminent musician in the Arabic tradition - beating the men, Makeba is limited by Fela Kuti, Mangeshkar is alive (and Mohammed Rafi is a better pick for Filmi),. The true swap needed in music would be Richard Wagner for Ravi Shankar, Shankar is the best representative for non-western classical that'd fit on this list. It should be Tansen, but not enough information is available on him in English/mass western promotion of his name - so there's no familiarity. Shankar just fits better and Wagner is not the unanimous forth of western classical. (Wagners main conductor pushing Three Bs)... But Wagner has a Cult following, who feel strongly about his work [7] and pop out of nowhere with the need to defend western civilization, so would be a hard removal or swap with someone from India - despite that listing two opera composers (Mozart having just as many operas on the level 4 art list as Wagner) is a stretch. But India's population is bigger than Europe's and has a high percentage of English speakers meaning one form of it's classical should fit ( Carnatic music has a trilogy of greatness and one should not be placed higher than another). The only other reasonable addition is Fela Kuti or Bob Marley to represent black popular music, considering Elvis/The Beatles take Chuck Berry's spot and they by and large created it and deserve representation. The perfect representation of music history for this list in my opinion would be Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Armstrong, Umm Kulthum, Elvis, The Beatles, Michael Jackson, and Shankar. This would cover every major area of music represented in pop culture and be the perfect representation based on my research, but may be too much musicians for peoples liking, which i could agree with except music should have atleast as much as painting though imo - music has become more important now and arguably is more important to art history - although this is my opinion of the future - not based in anything. GuzzyG ( talk) 02:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Pax Romana was one of the most important events during Roman history and world history and I think it should be added as well. Interstellarity ( talk) 00:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm neutral on removal (we already have Mandela, for example), but I think
Roman Empire (currently at Level 4) would be a better candidate here; together with the
British and
Mongol empires already on here and the
Spanish Empire I proposed below, that could round out the empires. and we already have
Ancient Rome on here. –
John M Wolfson (
talk •
contribs)
00:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think this article should be swapped with an article that covers European colonialism in other parts of the world such as Asia and Oceania. Not sure which one, but if you can suggest one, that would be great.
Spanish Empire seems like a good choice for this level. Interstellarity ( talk) 00:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per our earlier discussion with Linear Algebra, the Math section here can stand to be trimmed. A sphere is a 3-dimensional circle, and most of its properties of interest are analogs of those of the circle (the only major exception I can find is sphere packing, which is analogous to the less-known circle packing and arguably tessellation), with the concept of 3-dimensional volume being adequately covered by polyhedron. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 01:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per our earlier discussion with Linear Algebra, the Math section can stand to be trimmed. Subtraction and Division are the respective inverses of Addition and Multiplication. Division is more interesting (it is not closed among the integers), while subtraction is notable mainly for negative numbers; however, removing only subtraction would lead to a conspicuous omission on the list. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 01:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm still sorting out what I think about how much we need to cover basic arithmetic. I'm not opposed to this proposal, but right now my inclination is to go even further and eliminate all the articles listed under Arithmetic, with the exception of Logarithm. That's what Britannica does: they have an article on logarithm and a brief one on root (of an equation), but all the elementary arithmetic operations including exponentiation and root extraction are covered only under arithmetic. Cobblet ( talk) 22:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I actually agree with Cobblet that we could go even further, cutting Addition, Multiplication, and even Exponentiation (given a section in the Arithmetic article). I'd need a bit more to be OK with tossing nth-root, but that's another discussion. My only reason for not offering support yet is that I would like to see at least a couple replacements proposed. Since we're discussing operations & inverses, how about adding Group (mathematics) and Field (mathematics) under Algebra? They may not be in the typical public-school curriculum (maybe they should), but the basics are pretty simple & they're practically everywhere in working mathematics nowadays. -- Zar2gar1 ( talk) 04:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm surprised no-one suggested this article. Hawking's work in physics was incredible. He developed theories on black holes and built on the theory of relatvity suggested by Einstein. Interstellarity ( talk) 16:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We don't have enough articles discussing Post-Soviet history. Space Race should be removed when we already have Cold War. Information Age went mostly in the 21st century. This addition might be recent, so if you are opposed to the addition, how many years should we wait before adding it. Interstellarity ( talk) 15:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The proposal to add research nearly passed, but there were some concerns with overlap with scientific method. I think adding University not only helps cover research but also adds to our coverage of education, where IMO we are a little light. This has also been proposed before, and some people preferred adding higher education instead. While that may seem like the broader topic within the field of education, focusing only on the educational function of universities neglects their role in producing research to drive a knowledge economy. Given the clear support for adding Information Age, I prefer specifically adding University.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We don't have much diversity of composers on this list. I don't think nominating any removals in this category of articles would pass. To fill this list, I will propose adding three composers on this list to include more diversity. Interstellarity ( talk) 15:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This addition would represent pop music since we don't have any pop icons on this list.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We should have more people from different cultures rather than a western-centered list for composers. This addition would represent the females and non-Western culture of composers.
@ John M Wolfson: Do you think we need women in music at this level? If so, what would your first choice be? I picked this particular figure because she is a woman and women can influence music just as much as men. Interstellarity ( talk) 17:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We should include non-western composers as well for this one to represent the diversity of this list.
Shankar was removed as a result of this discussion. Cobblet ( talk) 01:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Worth noting that all of these "English wikipedia" arguments fall flat when you consider that India has the second highest number of English language speakers by state [15]; (doubling the UK via this list); now adding in the fact that the British Raj was a thing; one would think India would be a very worthy contender for a placement as a massive country of English speakers. If one were to wager their life on whose music has casually reached more humans ears Shankar (backed by the Beatles in their prime, contributing to their artistic development/inspiration aka Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and in a country of a billion) or Elvis; one would have to bet on Shankar. "clearly more vital" is in the eye of the (tabloid) beholder; depending on if academics (who write arts history); would judge a seminal figure of a centuries long and still ongoing artistic tradition of Indian classical music less worthy than a tabloid image of decades long, now over (generally) Rock music (which he has no strong claim to other than fame - the male Marilyn Monroe - who has been denied here) - which seems like a massive reach - considering Chuck Berry is now getting the acknowledgement that he should've, Bob Dylan is getting all the academic attention and The Beatles beats him in everything and is listed. In a list that has made a strong point of placing people like Sergei Korolev over Yuri Gagarin or Neil Armstrong; one would think Elvis does not stand out in any category and is hardly a singular defining artist in his genre in the 20th century unlike Shankar, especially with Igor Stravinsky being removed and Arnold Schoenberg not being listed. Western music is well covered; but Indian music - of importance to the second most populous country of English speakers (who are unrepresented); would need covering the most; so unless you're looking at it from a fandom backed tabloid perspective; yes i would say Shankar would be a more vital add for the English encyclopedia at this point and considering there's a tie with his music to religious importance - i can't see how he can be compared to any pop music figure either. Countries like Canada, Republic of Ireland, Australia, New Zealand are dwarfed by English speakers by comparison in numbers and historical comparison, any less worth given to India is not rooted in numbers. (which is what matters)
Lata Mangeshkar is living so irrelevant for this list and has a few hurdles; mainly Kishore Kumar and Mohammed Rafi not being on the level 4 list and there's not that much of a gap as would be if one was on this list and the others on level 5. Plus Mangeshkar's music backs film; which places Indian cinema as more important (than the music backing it); which with Indian cinema means Satyajit Ray would come first; but he's from Bengal like Rabindranath Tagore and he's not Bollywood (Hindi speaking) and which Mangeshkar dominates - so than we'd have to go to Raj Kapoor but his films Awaara and Shree 420 are noted to be heavily inspired by Charlie Chaplin; which would make it too much overlap to list both. Madhubala would be a non-starter too. So if there's no strong candidates for Indian cinema without overlap (and with Hitchcock/Kurosawa being removed) than i don't see how Mangeshkar can fit easily. Shankar is the best fit for a example of Indian artist, someone like Mani Madhava Chakyar is more regional but not Shankar.
China, India, Japan, France, United Kingdom, United States, Russia, France, Germany, Italy, Iran are all specifically vital states (and their former states like Rome etc) with a centuries long importance of historical importance in both history and arts means they should be covered in both and should override any "English wikipedia" concerns anyway. Indian arts; Ravi Shanker; Persian arts Rumi (terrible removal) and Japanese history Emperor Meiji are the only areas we miss and all three would override any "English wikipedia" concerns; as any respectable encyclopedia would specifically focus on these countries and as we should. Arabic and Spanish as languages and Africa as a continent as well; but only African arts is not covered here and only Imhotep, Fela Kuti or Chinua Achebe has a shot (Nigeria also has more English speakers than the UK and Colonial Nigeria existed.. not out of place within a "English" wikipedia). These areas are so inherent to the world they would be covered by anyone and especially by a encyclopedia written today - they are fundamental aspects to the history of the world and any English encyclopedia should strive to have high quality written articles of each - anything less would not be adequate. GuzzyG ( talk) 10:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If Michael Jackson (and possibly Ravi Shankar or someone lese) is added, another musician should go. The Beatles (or Chuck Berry) can represent rock music. -- Thi ( talk) 17:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We already have Slavery at this level and Abolitionism can be covered by that article. The American Revolution paved the way for decolonization and influenced other countries to break away from European powers. Interstellarity ( talk) 00:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Related discussion:
Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/2#Swap:_Remove_War,_Add_Health
I am proposing that
Health being moved up to level 2 and
Mental health moved up to level 3. Epic poetry doesn't seem that important to be up on level 3. Mental health is just as important as physical health and that physical health is only half of the components that make up health.
Interstellarity (
talk)
22:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't necessarily oppose this, at least not yet, but I would like to lay out two counterpoints. For the removal: not only is the arts section pretty under-weighted, but epic poetry arguably has unique historical significance. It seems to be consolidated & preserved as a major part of many cultures' identity.
For the addition: I like the direction of the proposal, but setting aside philosophical debates, I wonder if mental health is the best choice. The medical view implicit in it is relatively recent, definitely not universal, and occasionally controversial. We also already have Mental disorder under the Health section, plus several topics under Psychology. However, while we do already have Happiness, I could support adding another holistic article like well-being or quality of life. -- Zar2gar1 ( talk) 04:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So this is a big one, but it supplements the above discussion about basic arithmetic. The Arithmetic article probably covers all 4 basic operations sufficiently, at least for VA level 3, but just removing them will leave the Math section much shorter. Plus there seems to be some interest in covering the more abstract ideas around them (e.g. inverses).
Adding Groups & Fields will still cover the arithmetic operations some from a more advanced, algebraic POV. The add will also help fill out the Algebra subsection with some abstract topics, plus these structures are almost everywhere in contemporary working mathematics. And even if they're not part of the typical public-school curriculum, the basics are actually quite accessible.
Just to follow up for anyone ambivalent about the additions, is shrinking the Math section your main concern? If so, would you support these additions if another proposal could cut 1 or 2 slots more? Recently, we have already cut Sphere, Subtraction, & Division (the last 2 are just waiting on this proposal before editing the list). I'd personally like to see Math upped by a few slots, but support cutting some specific articles in the short-run. -- Zar2gar1 ( talk) 00:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Trying to move this project back towards its intended purpose of improving high-importance pages, I'd like to give invites to two important level-3 articles that have been recently put up for quality reviews. First, there's a FAR of climate change, which is in fairly good shape but hasn't had a systematic outside review in over a decade. Second, there's a GAR of China; that page is in need of cleanup and may get delisted if there's not a coordinated effort to save it. Comments/work at either discussion would be appreciated, although particularly at China because that page doesn't have a community of watchers the same way Climate change does. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 02:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Rights is a more broad term than Human rights. Interstellarity ( talk) 16:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Rights may or may not be vital but if broadness equals vitality then there are other articles in the social issues section which should be taken out first. Liberty and privacy are both specific types of human rights. Arguably racism, sexism and justice are all subtopics of human rights too. Human rights is a broader term than nearly every article in that section. Gizza ( talk • voy) 11:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sadness is one of the most important emotions a person has. Humour seems sufficient for level 4. Interstellarity ( talk) 14:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Anxiety seems to be a very common emotion in some people. Parenting doesn't seem that important. Interstellarity ( talk) 14:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I have proposed that mental health be added above. As for Major depressive disorder, I think Mental disorder covers that topic sufficiently. Because of that, I don't think that should be added. Interstellarity ( talk) 01:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Now that children's literature has been added to level 4, I am able to propose this swap. I agree that children's literature is an important literary genre and educational topic, but I don't see why fairy tales should be considered more vital than other subgenres such as fables. Previous discussion here.
I'm not sure either way on this one. There probably is a more central literary topic than fairy tales, but I'm not sure I'd swap them out for children's literature. It's mainly because I've heard before that fairy tales weren't originally just morality tales or geared towards children, while the concept of distinct literature for children is sort of a recent thing historically. This is honestly one where I'd defer to someone with academic expertise on the topic. -- Zar2gar1 ( talk) 02:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pollution is an environmental issue covered by Environmentalism and Climate change. I think a better addition would be Homelessness which is an ongoing problem in the world. Interstellarity ( talk) 23:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a discussion on the metawiki page regarding a replacement for articles that every Wikipedia should have. See meta:Talk:List_of_articles_every_Wikipedia_should_have#Swap:_Remove_Edith_Piaf,_Add_Protestantism. Interstellarity ( talk) 00:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like community input on whether we should increase the levels to 8 instead of the current 5 levels. I think it gives greater depth on priorizing which articles are most important. For example, we could put the most important individuals in Level 4 and we could put the important, but not so important individuals at Level 5 and so on. Here is an idea of what I'm proposing:
I would like to know if the vital articles community would be willing to do this and if so we can propose which articles should go on each level. Interstellarity ( talk) 01:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
That said, I have wondered how scaling each level differently might work. Orders of 10 give nice, round totals, but seem too restrictive sometimes at the top levels (preventing basic partitions of a topic at Level 2, for example), whereas Level 5 still has thousands of open slots despite requiring no discussion to add. Maybe Level 1 should start at a slightly higher number, and the next levels scale less exponentially? I think there's also been occasional discussion about trying to partly-automate the rankings, whether through a score or a rough algorithm. That would make more sense to do in tandem with the lists as they are though. Just brainstorming. -- Zar2gar1 ( talk) 04:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm currently neutral on this idea in general, but if we ever did this I would suggest we name the levels the following:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Given in the above discussion that two editors support adding Chanel, I thought this would be a good time to nominate her. Fashion is a better addition because we don't cover much of it. However, we need to be careful not to nominate too many articles to add because we only have a limited number of slots on this page, so I picked Western esotericism to remove since there are more important articles on this level that are level 3.
Interstellarity (
talk)
16:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
We haven't even listed Fashion at this level, so this won't pass likely. I was answering your questions and brainstorming, i told you not to start additions of any i mentioned, because they are likely to fail. I don't think we should list a person before their field. I wouldn't classify her as a business person though (shes not under business on any other list) and Core biographies is arguably dead and has two baseball players on a 200 person world list, so not suitable to the strictness we have here. I would support many people to this level, that does not mean they can all fit and we have to be strategic about it. Fashion has to be added first (and even this has failed before). But Fashion is bigger than Animation and we list both it and Walt Disney - so it's not that much of a overlap. Fashion first though. GuzzyG ( talk) 21:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that meta's list of articles be merged into this list. The talk page for this list is more active than that of the meta list. They each have similar articles to each other. Although I understand that meta's list is geared towards all Wikipedias and this one is tailored towards English Wikipedia, I don't see a reason why each of these lists should be separate entries. Interstellarity ( talk) 21:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I see that Interstellarity has set up automatic archiving on this page after 90 days of inactivity. I'm not sure that's a good idea, as Vital Article nominations are routinely left open beyond 90 days with no activity. I think continuing to manually archive passed or failed nominations is probably the best way to go. Rreagan007 ( talk) 18:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Automatic archiving suits better for talk pages with one active discussion. It is not suitable for often viewed pages with many active topics. 90 days is for general pages in encyclopedia, not for project discussions. More space for new topics is needed. -- Thi ( talk) 18:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This briefly came up in another discussion, but I don't think we need the actual article for Social science at this level. It's largely an academic topic, plus it looks like every specific field in the article is also on the VA list.
I don't think it's that that crucial to the taxonomy either, but even if you want to keep the sub-header for grouping Anthropology & Sociology, it doesn't need to be linked & take one of the actual VA slots. -- Zar2gar1 ( talk) 19:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Science already has a subsection on the replication crisis. I share the concern that it's only recently that the various approaches to social science have been considered distinct branches; on the other hand, we do seem to cover just about every important branch within the social sciences. Cobblet ( talk) 22:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that Roald Amundsen be replaced with Neil Armstrong on this list. Currently, the Level 3 Vital articles list includes eight explorers, none of whom went to space. In fact, as far as I can tell, no person on this list went to space, a glaring omission in my view. As the first human being to step foot on the Moon, Armstrong is clearly one of the most significant explorers of all time. This is not to dismiss or diminish Amundsen's accomplishments, but between the two, Armstrong seems like the far more vital individual to include in a list of 1,000 vital topics. OnAcademyStreet ( talk) 05:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We don't really need both School and University listed at this level, especially since we also list Education. One should be removed, and since University was just added I think school should go.
The following discussion is closed. 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've had this one on my list but wanted to wait until the existing proposals ticked down some. There are a few reasons for this one:
The following discussion is closed. 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 last consolidation of the Geometry section. I really like the topic of Conic sections, but they're just one type of Curve. The general topic of Curves could also bring in additional perspective from other fields (like topology), which don't normally come up when discussing Conic sections.
I support adding curve at level 4. Unsure here but clearly an article that should exist among 10,000 in an encyclopedia. Gizza ( talk • voy) 22:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We already have European colonization of the Americas for the Americas and Scramble of Africa for Africa for colonialism. I think these two articles would give a bigger picture of colonization. Interstellarity ( talk) 12:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
While I somewhat agree with Cobblet and Thi, I think that Spanish Empire fits well with British Empire and Mongol Empire, given that it predated the former and was more influential in the long run than the latter. It's the reason why Spanish has the most native speakers of any Indo-European language, for example. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 22:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think the Religion section could be trimmed down a bit. I would like to see Shamanism removed first. The only emotions we have are Happiness, Anger, Fear, and Love, all of which I would not be in favor of removing. If we list emotions, we should cover emotions such as Sadness which I already nominated above. I would like to spark discussion on whether we should have emotions at this level, keep what we have, or add more. Interstellarity ( talk) 17:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is some talk above in the FDR discussion regarding removing Churchill. The only other English leader we have on this list is Elizabeth I. This could be a controversial nomination, but I would at least consider removing Churchill even if he is not removed. Interstellarity ( talk) 00:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
It's easy to get wrapped in a contemporary fame outlook and Churchill's fame is one of the biggest, which means noone will agree with this nom or give it some thought. (Like honestly believing Churchill has greater longterm importance than people like Charles Darwin and thus that being the weakest big 3 Allied leader (when we dont list one of the others) and someone more de Gaulle like than the other two is more impressive than Darwin's contribution to Evolution theory.) One would beg to wonder why Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, the more individually accomplished Churchill of the 19th century does not have quite the long lasting historical importance to make this list as one would've suspected if you were in the 1800s. As figures whose importance is strongly based in wars tend not to hold in massive importance as the centuries go on and as that wars memory fades, so does importance except the primary instigators of it ( Napoleon) and as Wellesley shows - not even the technical winners get to be the most important of the war. It's outright extreme to think that for centuries multiple people will hold onto enough longterm importance for this list for one event (Importance due to it being a World War or not, which conveniently enough we leave out the two main leaders of the non-Europe parts of the war anyway - by our coverage it's a Euro war). If history relegates people like William the Conqueror (Or Wellesley) to a level not of this list, it's hard to see how Churchill holds onto the importance required of this list. Contemporary fame or not, all evidence (Wellesley) says otherwise. As World War II still has contemporary importance - Churchill is a OK addition, but this "greatest Briton" is definitely over the top and in another century would be more Wellesley like than a George Washington or Julius Caesar. We can list heaps of Euro leaders like Charles Martel who stopped massive invasions that would've seriously changed the continent and they hold nothing long-term and are not on the list.
TLDR; He's a ok add for a contemporary list, but he's not a integral part of the list when we don't list Roosevelt, who had much more importance for the war effort. It is unfathomable why we have three Euro war leaders and not one that covers the main two combatants of the Pacific War. It's not clear to me why Stalin + Hitler for the Euro war and Roosevelt for the pacific war is a worse idea than Churchill. I don't care about fame but we should be proportionate. I don't think Churchill is any more important to a world view of history than Franklin D. Roosevelt and Emperor Meiji and both would be better adds to cover WWII than another person that covers the Euro side. British Empire covers Britain in WWII better. This may be the English Wiki but the United States and Japan's role in the war are more important to cover than Britain's when we already cover Hitler/Stalin and are under a strict limit. Imagine a textbook of the war that does not involve the main two pacific war participants. Without the war, per Historical rankings of prime ministers of the United Kingdom Clement Attlee is seen as just as worthy of a 20th century leader of Britain and we should not go by outright war mass fervor, as this always fades. If Yuri Gagarin is just a symbol and Sergei Korolev is true importance, than i don't see how Churchill isn't just a symbol of the war rather than Roosevelt who had many more hard accomplishments in his country and in the war and whose country actually remained a superpower and dominant power of the century. I strongly dispute this "greatest Briton" claim and it being automatically indicative of a place on this list or that a nomination like this is without any merit. GuzzyG ( talk) 04:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So this was the one last economics proposal on my list, and it originated from this proposal on Marketing.
If you link-hop from the earlier proposals Cobblet mentioned, the Market article has been swapped in & out a couple times already, so it arguably has a history of being borderline for this level.
More importantly though, I don't think it particularly adds much since other articles already provide good coverage from several angles:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There was some discussion about this earlier today so I thought it could warrant its own section. -- PaleoMatt ( talk) 20:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Taiwan may be central to a dispute with China but in general it is quite small compared to many countries currently not here at Level 3. Is Taiwan really worth being at Level 3 over countries like Algeria, Sudan, Malaysia, Ukraine, Netherlands, Peru etc.?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have recenly proposed some musicians to create a more diverse list, but proposals such as Umm Kulthum and Ravi Shankar have failed. While I am not against including people from different parts of the world, I think these two people don't quite make the cut for the influence needed for a level 3 article. Interstellarity ( talk) 21:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Greece probably doesn't have much influence today, but it has a long history spanning 4,000 years. It's probably the most influential country not listed in human history. I recognize that it doesn't have a big population and economy, but Greece is home to philosophers, mathematicans and more. Another country we list that has a small population is Israel and I think that is listed also because of its long history. Interstellarity ( talk) 15:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Previous discussion here. Cobblet ( talk) 17:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Given there is some discussion regarding adding Henry VIII, I think this is a good time to propose it's addition which I previously proposed less than a year ago. Interstellarity ( talk) 17:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the FAQ linked above, it states that all people in level 3 are dead. However, two members of The Beatles are still alive, maybe warranting that article for level 4 instead. I have no doubt that, at some point in history, it will be moved back up to level 3, but I'm just trying to stay consistent with the guidelines set above.
MLK Jr, however, has pretty firmly planted his place in history as one of (if not the most) important Civil Rights Activists in American (world?) history. At the time of writing, there are over 1000 streets in America named after him, 26 statues/memorials around the world (8 of which are international), multiple museums that prominently feature him, and he's the only American that was not a president to have a national holiday name after him. ChipotleHater ( talk) 06:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I get diversity is important with geography, but for East African purposes we already have these two countries, which border one another and neither of which IMO is as vital as the Netherlands, as well as Ethiopia. I'm slightly partial to removing Tanzania since Kenya is better known in Western culture, but I can see how Zanzibar swings this towards Kenya. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 01:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This list only includes only two presidents of the US: George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. I was wondering how many presidents we should have at this level. I would personally go no more than 3. We could add Franklin D. Roosevelt since he is considered to be one of the top 3 presidents. If one gets taken out, I would probably go with taking out Lincoln although I think he might be too important to remove. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this. Maybe we can use the discussion to talk about how many leaders from other countries we should have. For example, the UK has Elizabeth I and Winston Churchill. Interstellarity ( talk) 12:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are three Americans on this list Washington, Lincoln, and Franklin. I strongly feel that Washington and Lincoln should stay on the list. I think FDR would make a better choice for this list because he is considered along the lines of Washington and Lincoln, one of the country's greatest and most influential presidents. As mentioned above, arguments can be made for and against the removal and addition. Interstellarity ( talk) 17:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Discussion should be moved here before it overwhelms that sectiohn; but i agree with Reagan. Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin were the most powerful leaders of the Allies and WWII was not just Europe. FDR covers the Pacific War the best. Stalin and Hitler cover the Euro side and FDR covers both sides; the Commonwealth was involved in the Pacific, but not to the level of the US; for a balanced coverage of the war FDR covers it better than Churchill. Might be a bold claim; but i don't think Churchill is more important to English history than William the Conqueror or Geoffrey Chaucer either, who we both lack. I'd also support Emperor Meiji to cover Japan's rise, which would cover their role in WWII. The only issue is Teddy is far more known than FDR and Churchill is more known than both; but i think a bold swap of Churchill for FDR would be the best for our coverage of WWII. We also don't list a leader for the US in the 20th century, arguably at it's peak which seems odd. GuzzyG ( talk) 12:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
If we have to choose a medieval British writer for entry, I would choose Geoffrey of Monmouth over Chaucer. He He is the main source for British mythology and the Arthurian legend. I agree that Churchill is not the most important figure in British history. Dimadick ( talk) 17:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So even though I'd like to see the Math section beefed-up some overall, I do think some of the Geometry articles could be consolidated.
Since Area & Volume are pretty much analogous concepts, it seems like a waste to list both of them. Instead of just choosing one though, why not subsume them under the very basic concept of Size? We do something similar with Shape already.
Funny enough, that article's not even listed under Level 5, and at just a first glance, it's pretty good for a Start-rated article. It seems to do a pretty good job of hitting all the mathematical concepts, even if very briefly for now.
The person who wrote the article previously proposed adding it here. Cobblet ( talk) 00:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removing Churchill looks at least possible to pass, so we should have a replacement for English/British history. My main suggestion here is William the Conqueror, as he is the last person to date to successfully and hostilely invade and conquer England and begins English/British regnal numbering. I'd be fine with other additions such as Henry VIII, Chaucer (but not any other writers given that we already have a lot), English Civil War/Cromwell/one of the Charleses, or even (to a lesser extent if Churchill doesn't make the cut) Disraeli/Gladstone/one of the Pitts. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 22:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This one's pretty straight-forward. There was a clear consensus to keep Indo-European languages listed, but that means we have a specific instance of a concept introduced before the concept itself.
We have the slots free & this is one the basic objects of comparative linguistics.
The following discussion is closed. 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 could be a controversial nomination since this person is still living. People on the level 3 represent the pinnacles of their fields. For example, Alan Turing is the pinnacle of the computer field while Berners-Lee represents the Internet. At this point, I think it's clear when Berners-Lee's legacy is. If you oppose this nomination, would you support this nomination when Berners-Lee passes away? Interstellarity ( talk) 17:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This was proposed in 2019 however not much was said against the inclusion so I'd like to propose this again. The Netherlands may be a small country however we already have Israel at Level 3 which has a smaller population AND economy (I'd actually consider removing Israel at this level since I think Jerusalem is enough coverage but that's for another time) and Saudi Arabia with a smaller economy. The Netherlands certainly has a lot going for it despite being small, being the home of Europe's busiest seaport in Rotterdam, and the Hague is home to multiple intergovernmental organisations and the International Criminal Court, Amsterdam is also a popular tourist destination. Many influential artists (Rembrandt, Vermeer, van Gogh, Mondrian, Escher), philosophers (Erasmus, Spinoza, Descartes) and inventors (Huygens, Leeuwenhoek) have come from or did much of their work in the Netherlands and it has been a major player in world trade for centuries thanks in part to its past control of the East Indies. It is also important as an early modern democracy and being one of the most progressive countries in the world. Similar to some other former colonial empires, it also still holds overseas territories in the Caribbean. -- PaleoMatt ( talk) 01:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I definitely think that Theocracy should be removed because it doesn't seem to be that important in history. I think Oligarchy and Republic are good choices. Interstellarity ( talk) 14:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think behavior in all organisms is fundamentally more important than behavior in just humans. Interstellarity ( talk) 13:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Cobblet: Would you support moving Behavior up to at least level 4? Interstellarity ( talk) 15:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is another consolidation I think we could do of the Geometry section. My main reasoning for this is that since we avoid advanced topics at this level, there's no need to generalize beyond 2 or 3 dimensions yet:
The only downside I can see is that the Solid geometry article definitely isn't very far along. That doesn't take away from how central the topic is though.
Solid geometry is not on level 4. Three-dimensional space is though. If that is proposed as the addition instead, then I can support the proposal as a whole. Cobblet ( talk) 00:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Surprised this isn't here already being an important part of plant anatomy, arguably more so than flower which is already listed here. PaleoMatt ( talk) 01:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So I know some of you would like to add even more about Greece, so you may not like this. But in my recent proposal on Indo-European languages, there was discussion on how having both Greek alphabet and Greek language is probably redundant at this level.
My thinking is that the Greek language is still pretty influential through much of the world's vocabulary for science, technology, medicine, philosophy, etc. The Greek alphabet, however, is much more of a niche topic today; at least in the English-speaking world, outside of occasional references in Christianity and math shorthand, it seems to pretty much be a novelty (e.g. fraternity names, crossword puzzle clues).
Unlike listing both Latin and Latin script, the only living language that still uses the alphabet is Modern Greek; its other child alphabet, Cyrillic script, is also more widely-used. And if you want to look at it historically, it's technically just an adapted Phoenician script, so only a few aspects of it are uniquely Greek innovations.
Perhaps we should make this a swap with Phoenician alphabet, given its historical importance for modern writing systems. Rreagan007 ( talk) 05:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
( talk) 06:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Seems pretty obvious in my opinion. Mary is likely the most famous, most influential woman to have lived. She is a central figure in Christianity as well as in Islam, with both religions hailing her as the greatest woman to have ever lived. She is one of the most widely studied Biblical figures, and the subject of a broad swath of religious writing and dogma (e.g. Catholic Mariology). Mary is one of the most prominent subjects of art in the Western world (e.g. Madonna (art)). Since we could use more women on this list, I think that Mary is an obvious choice, especially since our French-language counterpart also lists her. -- Zelkia1101 ( talk) 18:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Of the twenty-eight men and women that we list as the world's most influential political leaders, only three of them ( George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Nelson Mandela) were leaders of democratic governments. I feel as though this is a significant underrepresentation of one form of government, especially given that democracy is the most popular system of governance today. We recently removed Winston Churchill from this list. I believe that this was a mistake; although Churchill was arguably a more minor player in the Second World War compared to Stalin or FDR, he is an extremely well-known democratic politician whose influence as a cultural icon and political symbol is pervasive through much of the Anglosphere. In the past four years, Churchill is only passed by Adolf Hitler as the most looked-up World War II leader. Churchill's pageviews also far surpass those of others on this list, such as Catherine the Great or William the Conqueror. However, since he was recently removed, I'm not going to lament his absence any longer.
An excellent addition to this list would be Franklin D. Roosevelt, who alongside leading the United States during the Second World War also orchestrated the establishment of much of the United States' welfare state. I would normally suggest swapping either Lenin or Stalin for FDR. We may also wish to add women leaders, such as Corazon Aquino or Margaret Thatcher. -- Zelkia1101 ( talk) 17:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the removal of Churchill was a mistake, and even more of a mistake was adding BOTH William the Conqueror and Henry VIII... but since this is so recent I'll leave that here. I do think FDR being added would be a good choice to add potentially to replace one of the English kings. I think there really is a current problem with the list of politicians we have in that many feel there is some (such as FDR) which really should be added but also none of the ones listed feel like they should be removed. We do have some which could be viewed as less important but they generally are women which need coverage on the list. -- PaleoMatt ( talk) 02:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
This is just how history turns out if we go by "dominance" and "impact". Democratic leaders have checks to their power and normally co-operate with other members of government while authoritarian governments are a single person. Washington is listed because of the war, same with Lincoln and Mandela more for his activism and status as national hero more than political policy as a president. This is what stops any modern scientist from likely being a contender as they work in teams or collab more often, taking away the singular dominance figure. Bringing up Churchill's pageviews compared to William the Conqueror is ludicrous. I've checked pageviews (and document them down) of every person on every level of this list (and many others listed on my personal 50k list); this is normal, contemporary figures always outdo old figures. You wouldn't say Churchill is more important than Jesus, despite having more page views? You wouldn't say Ted Bundy is at Churchill's level because he has 7 million [26] less pageviews [27], either - funnily enough having 9 million more in English, or Pablo Escobar with 60 million more. [28].
Lenin and Stalin are no-gos for removal for me. We barely have any 20th century thought leaders (only Freud, who is contentious and to some discredited) and Marxism–Leninism is one of the main ideologies of the 20th century. That's more of a hard/actual impact influence on global thought than either Churchill or FDR made and Stalin is the primary Allied figure in Europe in WWII. Thoughts and ideas last longer than any government policy and this is Lenin's primary influence, in thought. John Maynard Keynes, Simone de Beauvoir and Bertrand Russell would be the only other options, but they don't have as much name recognition with the general public and i would prefer Hugo Grotius or Pāṇini first. Either way, i can't agree to drop another 20th century thought leader when we have so little. It's just like Caesar/Augustus - sometimes these things happen. This is exactly like having both Ben Franklin and Washington. If Lenin goes than i don't see how Franklin stays.
Any concerns about William the Conqueror fall apart when considering he filled a multi century gap between Charlemagne and Genghis Khan and that means more than having multiple WWII leaders, as it's probably better to cover every period of history rather than one century. By my count we have 10 figures from the first millennium; Augustus, Charlemagne, Jesus, Paul the Apostle, Muhammad, Adi Shankara, Jabir ibn Hayyan, Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, Li Bai and Abu Nuwas. If Churchill was still here (and we added FDR), we'd have 4 figures for one war in one century, nearly half the people we cover for one whole millennium. Either way, that's a bad job. Churchill is the weakest so he was removed. It's that simple. More people from this kind of era (like Maimonides) should be added over more 20th century people, but removing one of the thought leaders is seemingly not the right choice either. It means we'd have more filmmakers than people involved with 20th century thought. We probably have to dissect this whole list - but it needs to be done in consideration of everything else - or it just creates a worser bias. GuzzyG ( talk) 03:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per the discussion above. Mendeleev is known solely for inventing the periodic table, which while vital to modern-day chemistry we already list on its own, and is in my opinion the weakest person on this list. In addition, we already list Antoine Lavoisier (and to a lesser extent Marie Curie) to represent the chemists and if we absolutely needed another we could put Linus Pauling.
FDR, on the other hand, can rightfully be considered one of this list's main snubs, akin to not having Michael Jackson until recently. Like MJ, he's probably going to keep being proposed and suggested until he's eventually added. While his WW2 involvement is not significantly more prominent than the removed Churchill, he founded the modern American welfare state with the New Deal and, having defined American politics for at least the next several decades if not up to this day, is considered one of the "Great Three" American presidents alongside the listed George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. The previous swap failed not so much because he's not important as much because Benjamin Franklin was too important to remove. Mendeleev, while certainly Level 4 material, is less important than either figure (especially on the English Wikipedia) and can go to make room for both. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 15:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the above discussion of Mendeleev, it was noted that there are only two chemists on this list: Lavoisier and Mendeleev. This is largely because unlike Physics or Biology, Chemistry doesn't have a whole lot of "great figures" that have shaped its history and are embedded into popular consciousness. I suggested removing Mendeleev as he's known only for inventing the periodic table and is conspicuously obscure outside of that achievement, a view I still hold.
Might I suggest we put Linus Pauling, either in his place or alongside him? While he might suffer from the same "obscurity" problem, his achievements are far more than an organized list of elements. Pauling is the only person other than Marie Curie to win Nobel Prizes in different subjects, and the only person to win multiple non-shared prizes, and multiple retrospectives have called him among the top 20 scientists of all time. Within Chemistry, Pauling "wrote the book" on the chemical bond and invented the concept of electronegativity, explaining why certain bonds are covalent and others ionic. He also introduced the concept of orbital hybridization, bridging the gap between quantum physics and the molecules that you and I know and interact with. His work, among other things, inspired Watson and Crick to work on finding the structure of DNA. If Lavoisier is the Newton of Chemistry, then Pauling should well be the Einstein.
I'm also taking this opportunity to propose, more for discussion than an expectation that it'll pass, Sir Ronald Fisher, a man who pioneered the modern synthesis and brought Darwinism back from the grave in the early 20th century. He is a towering figure in both statistics and biology, introducing such techniques as ANOVA that are still used to this day (I should know, I studied Biology in undergrad). He is given the sobriquet of "the greatest of Darwin's successors", which is not unreasonable given such contributions to Biology as the sexy son hypothesis. That said, he's not quite as "great" as Darwin or Pasteur, and I see him as a sort of edge case. While I think he's still stronger than Mendeleev, I can understand that if he's added he'll still be in the "weaker" half of the scientist/inventor list. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 13:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't really know if we should be suggesting additions without swaps right now as we are very close to 1,000 articles listed, especially biographies with how many are being suggested and some suggestions to lower the number of them at this level. -- PaleoMatt ( talk) 14:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We already cover the majority of organisms. The only category of organisms that we miss is all the eukaryotic organisms that are not animals, plants or fungi. I think if a swap is desired for this article, it should probably be with Algae since organisms like Paramecium are not considered algae, but they are considered protists. Interstellarity ( talk) 20:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mecca is probably the city that we have listed that is the weakest and I think is the most likely to be removed. Baghdad doesn't have as much significance today as it did historically, the reason I think this is a good city to add is because it was the capital of the Abbasid Caliphate and it was once the largest city in the world. Interstellarity ( talk) 13:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Another city that was once the largest city in the world that is not listed is Hangzhou, however, we already have two Chinese cities on the list ( Beijing and Hong Kong. I think the best possible addition to the list could be Shanghai. This would bring the total Chinese cities on the list to be 3, which I think is too much. I would support either a removal of Beijing or Hong Kong for Shanghai. I'm assuming Beijing is listed because of its historical significance while Hong Kong is more recent due to it being a financial hub of the world. Interstellarity ( talk) 13:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've withdrawn my two previous proposals (for the FDR/Mendeleev swap and Pauling/Fisher) in light of our nearing capacity (Pauling and Fisher aren't that essential with our squeeze) and because I think this proposal is better. If you oppose this, at least hear me out.
Human living standards have exploded since 1950, especially in the developing world, and other than the technology involved and possibly Information Age/ Decolonization, we don't really have an article on here to account for that. Borlaug made a lot of it possible in a most basic sense. An agronomist, he first worked in Mexico to improve its wheat yields until it became a net exporter of wheat. He then did the same for India and Pakistan until they too were self-sufficient and had food security. At the end of his career he attempted to extend his work to Africa. His work kicked off the Green Revolution, of which he is known as the "father". This all sounds rather tame and inconsequential until you note that Borlaug's work saved a billion people from starvation. Yes, a billion as in 109 human lives saved from starving. Noting that "you can't build a peaceful world on empty stomachs and human misery", he is one of only five people in history to win all three of the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the Congressional Gold Medal.
More importantly for this list, I think there's no one else quite like him who could go on this list, which means that at the margins we'll get more by adding Borlaug than we would by adding someone else. (Of course, I do think Borlaug is worthy of this level with his achievements in a vacuum, else I wouldn't be proposing him.) I think these marginal considerations allow Borlaug to beat out other such contenders as FDR (who I agree "should" be on here in a vacuum but whose niche is already filled to a degree by Washington and Lincoln) or most other scientists (I can't think of any major post-1950 scientists who are deceased except for Francis Crick, Stephen Hawking, and Carl Sagan, and of those only Sagan is unique enough IMO), and for me squeaks him in as a raw addition. He certainly beats out Jonas Salk in my book; while polio was (and unfortunately still is in Afghanistan and Pakistan) a menace, everyone needs to eat.
The main issue other than capacity I can see with adding Borlaug is that he might not be that well-known in Western culture. A general rule for this list is that if someone isn't learned about by students in their culture (in this case Western culture) by the end of secondary school, then he/she/etc. doesn't belong on here. Many of my own family members don't quite know who Borlaug is. That said, I remember learning about Borlaug in 6th grade (late primary school, for non-Americans), so I think the tide is turning. Once again, I can understand if this is at best an edge case, but please give this some serious and genuine consideration. If you oppose Borlaug based on capacity, would you support him if he were swapped with someone else? – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Should he really be listed ahead of the Green Revolution? Cobblet ( talk) 16:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think Poland is one of the weaker countries we have on this list since we already list Russia. I think listing one Eastern European country is enough considering Poland has been heavily influenced by Russia. Interstellarity ( talk) 23:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
One more math proposal for now. So there wasn't a consensus to add specific algebraic objects, but with several Geometry topics being consolidated, how about adding the field of Abstract algebra?
Like I mentioned in a different proposal, it may not be taught in public schools much (at least not yet), but it's everywhere in contemporary math and the basics are pretty accessible. Honestly, to leave it out would be a bit like leaving Theory of relativity out of the Physics section.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
One more proposal coming from the discussion on Indo-European languages. Multiple people expressed support for representing one or two more language families somehow, and there seemed to be interest in not over-weighting specific Indo-European languages as much.
Of the ones we currently list, I think Portuguese may have the fewest reasons to single it out for Level 3. We already have 3 other Romance languages (Latin, Spanish, & French), and the lion's share of its speakers are already represented by listing the country of Brazil.
Compared to the other ones I'd consider, Bengali has more speakers (in a previous British colony), Russian is one of the 6 UN languages and represents the Slavic branch alone, and German may represent fewer people but probably has a deeper history of interaction with English (via literature, science, trade, immigration, & history).
As for which language to add, Indonesian actually has several reasons to recommend it:
I don't see a need to remove any of the currently listed languages. But we are not providing a balanced overview of linguistic diversity when 10/13 of them are Indo-European languages, even though fewer than half the world's population speaks one of them as L1. Adding a couple more languages to represent other major language families such as Austronesian makes sense. I think Malay is a better choice than Indonesian though – compare how we list Hindustani rather than Hindi and Urdu. A previous nomination failed. Cobblet ( talk) 06:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is by far the dominant number-writing system (i.e., using 0-9 instead of Roman numerals), and I think should be listed in its own right as it crosses language/script barriers, being used in languages that use Latin, Cyrillic, Greek, East Asian scripts, and perhaps many others. Even if we end up removing Greek alphabet, I think this should go in the "Writing" section of "Society and social sciences". – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
It's currently listed under Mathematics on level 4 though. Cobblet ( talk) 18:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
In the opposing comments, replace Arabic numerals, Arabic, Number, and History of mathematics with Greek alphabet, Greek language, Alphabet, and Writing. Hmm... Cobblet ( talk) 18:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm somewhat surprised not to see John Milton on this list already. Milton is one of the forefathers of English poetry, and his epic poem Paradise Lost is considered by many critics to be the best English-language work ever penned. Beyond his influence as a poet, Milton was an avid republican during Cromwell's rule as well as a free speech advocate. Milton was celebrated by many prominent English-language poets, among them William Blake, and he is often considered an equal to, if not better than, William Shakespeare. Joyce, while important, does not stand as tall in the history of literature as Milton. -- Zelkia1101 ( talk) 03:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Common topic in popular science. Meteors (shooting stars) are among the most famous astronomical phenomenons. This concept is closely connected with Meteorite. Meteor or Meteorite is listed among main articles in my encyclopedias.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Important topic health and medicine, one of the main articles in those encyclopedias I have had access. Often used concept in everyday discourse (melatonine etc.). [45]
Carbohydrate, lipid and nucleic acid are more vital classes of biomolecules, although sugar and DNA are listed. Cobblet ( talk) 22:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Water is (rightfully) listed at Level 2, but that article is a general overview of its role on Earth and in the biosphere and human society. Water as a chemical ("oxidane", "hydrogen hydroxide", etc.) is covered by Properties of water, which provides a more detailed look on hydrogen bonding, its slight color, its polarity and consequent "universal solvency", and its extremely high heat capacity. This is at heart a list of the 1,000 articles that are most "urgent" to have on an encyclopedia; the general water article provides a good overview of "what water is", but the properties of water article more specifically lists its chemical importance, which we would be remiss to exclude if we're including carbon dioxide as water is by far the most studied chemical compound.
The best argument I can come up with against its addition is that the properties of water article could be seen as more an "appendix" to the main water article, which while somewhat reasonable I ultimately find unconvincing; as long as it can pass AfD and is not a redirect or disambiguation, it's fair game for this list IMO. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 00:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
We already have rain and snow (and steam engine), and I'd rather add ice or steam before the awkwardly titled properties of water. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
From the article lede of Rabindranath Tagore: "his "elegant prose and magical poetry" remain largely unknown outside Bengal". Sure he has a Nobel Prize, but so do over 100 other people, and we only have 21 writers on this list. Better suited to the level-4 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.
This article is a better choice to add than Meteoroid. Interstellarity ( talk) 22:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since it seems like Norman Borlaug won't pass, and since various people have mentioned that they would prefer adding the Green Revolution over him, I have decided to go ahead and nominate it here. See the above entry on Borlaug for information on why this event is vital.
I added wikilink above to Norman Borlaug nomination which is now in the archive. -- Thi ( talk) 11:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sulfur and phosphorus are two chemical elements common on Earth and in life. The strong interaction and weak interaction are only part of particle physics and are best discussed in this level as part of some other topic.
Lead would probably not be my choice for another metal. I might go with calcium: everyone understands its biochemical importance, and it's also hugely significant industrially – it's in concrete, lime, gypsum (e.g., drywall), and plaster for example. But twelve chemical elements is probably enough, and CHNOPS plus five metals and silicon would be a fairly representative mix. Cobblet ( talk) 16:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I nominated this as a swap because I thought other contributors would want to keep "Science" at a round quota of 200 articles. If people don't object, this can be split into two proposals, I feel Sulfur/Phosphorus clearly have consensus to be added once it hits 15 days. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think there is too much overlap between news and the production of news to warrant listing both 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.
German- and Russian-language literature both have two representative on this list ( Kafka/ Goethe and Dostoevsky/ Tolstoy respectively) while other languages only have one: French ( Voltaire), Chinese ( Li Bai), Japanese ( Murasaki Shibiku), Italian ( Dante Alighieri), MENA ( Abu Nuwas), Spanish ( Miguel de Cervantes), and Latin ( Virgil). Out of the four Tolstoy and Goethe are by far more vital and influential, so we can safely remove both Dostoevsky and Kafka, as we really only need one representative of these languages.
![]() | 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | 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.
I proposed adding California a while back but then withdrew it almost immediately upon realizing that there isn't much room at this level for a straight addition, especially of something related to the United States. I noticed that the Grand Canyon was on the list; while it's certainly interesting and worthy of Level 4, it's not on the same level as the Amazon Rainforest or the Pyramids in terms of impact and significance. Canyon itself is at Level 4. As I said earlier, California is one of the world's Top 10 economies and the home of both Hollywood and Silicon Valley, being thereby the pop-cultural and technological capital of the world, serving as a good counterpoint to New York City on this list. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 01:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
IMO the single most vital missing geography article is now Southern Ocean, which was removed recently. I could support swapping the Grand Canyon for that. Cobblet ( talk) 02:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is the most famous list in the Western world (well, second-most famous), and has spawned countless imitations and allusions, as well as the proverbial " Eighth Wonder". This would beef up our architecture selection, which has a meager three entries. Note that this is about the list as a whole; the Great Pyramid is (and ought to be IMO) the only individual wonder on here. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 03:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's strange that even though we list several building materials (steel, wood, glass, plastic, textiles, plus masonry which covers brick and stone), we don't list the single most widely used manmade material in the world – so much so, that concrete production accounts for 5% of all humanity's carbon dioxide emissions. [2] And concrete is not just a modern material – the Romans also famously made extensive use of it.
The following discussion is closed. 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 wonder if there is good reason to have visual marker informing viewers what is the status of the article immediately next to its summary? I think this is a key information and helps bring attention to its relevance within a system... Zblace ( talk) 11:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This isn't my area of expertise, but aren't all problems in ontology problems of existence? Why do we need both? Cobblet ( talk) 01:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles § Most-viewed non-vital pages. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
02:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Maybe it's because I have a math background (though I don't claim to be a professional with a PhD), but I don't think I could !vote for or against individual math topics in a normal proposal. After reading over the recent ones though, I did have a few thoughts; maybe you all will be able to sift out something useful:
I don't know if there's any appetite for specific ideas like these, but even then, maybe you all can riff off them with better ones. It's just math as a whole might be tricky in ways the other categories aren't, and adding a bit more process could help with that. -- Zar2gar1 ( talk) 01:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
This is just a small related question, but would anyone be opposed to me reorganizing the math articles currently listed? I can work in small steps over time in case anyone dislikes a change. -- Zar2gar1 ( talk) 23:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Here's another one I think we could put at Level 4. Not only is the topic (at least as presented) pretty recent and ahistorical, but at least in its current form, it seems very practitioner-oriented. The topic is already discussed some under Market (economics) too.
Actually, I considered proposing a swap for Sales. After looking into it more though, we already have the Retail article, which (while technically more specific) already seems more developed.
We swapped advertising for marketing a while ago. This discussion is also relevant. Cobblet ( talk) 17:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
After thinking about current coverage and some good points about an alternative, I've changed my mind. Marketing should probably stay for the foreseeable future. Even if the current article doesn't always feel geared for a general audience, the topic is a good, central compromise for several topics. The market (economics) article is likely a better candidate for removal, and I'll open a separate proposal for that. -- Zar2gar1 ( talk) 02:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We try not to include people who died recently in the list since this list is guided towards anti-recentism. The most recent person to die that is on the list besides Mandela is Kurt Godel who died in 1978. The FAQ for this page doesn't describe the barriers between recentism and anti-recentism. I'm hoping that whatever the outcome is for this discussion, we can get a better clue of how distant in history people need to be to be included in the list.
I opposed his addition only because Shaka was also on the list back then. Mandela is clearly the better choice. Recentism is only an issue if it's unclear whether a person's legacy will be secure in the foreseeable future: the fear is adding people based on what we expect them to do in the future, as opposed to what they've already done. Mandela's legacy is about as secure as it gets. Cobblet ( talk) 22:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Discussions regarding the level 4 list belong on that talk page, not here. Cobblet ( talk) 01:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
He created two programming languages and Unix operating system which has influence on its descendants. Interstellarity ( talk) 23:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll note that while the legacy of Gates or Jobs may be secure, how their legacies ultimately stack up against people who showed up later like Zuckerberg or Bezos is not as clear. I'm aware that the latter two people are not on level 4, although their companies are. Cobblet ( talk) 02:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Seems like there's some interest in supplementing Hunting with the concept of gathering on the list so I'm spinning off this proposal. There are actually two options that jump out at me.
On the one hand, there is no specific article for gathering, but foraging includes gathering (and technically hunting). At least in its current form though, the foraging article is focused on animal behavior, not the human activity (unlike the hunting article). Another possibility is to add the article on hunter-gatherers, but I could see how that might be considered too specific to anthropology for Level 3.
I'm personally neutral on any outcome so I won't be voting; I just thought it wouldn't hurt to get the proposal down.
Zar2gar1 (
talk)
01:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
One thing that's always bothered me about the math list is that it's heavy on extremely elementary concepts at the expense of equally fundamental but somewhat more abstract concepts, and sometimes even entire fields based on these concepts. This is a case in point. Coordinate systems are obviously an important topic in geometry, but I think dimension ought to cover the idea of how one specifies geometric elements in space. We don't need this kind of overlap, much as we don't list number line in addition to number.
Linear algebra is a ubiquitous tool in modern mathematics, tying together algebra and geometry and having all sorts of applications in science and engineering, from general relativity to video game graphics and just about everything in between. Dot product, Cross product, Eigenvalues and eigenvectors, Rotation matrix and Matrix (mathematics) are all currently among the top 100 most-viewed math articles. This list needs to have some coverage of vector and matrix operations.
@ John M Wolfson: I don't understand your objection. The number of coordinates of any coordinate system, Cartesian or not, is equal to the number of dimensions in the space described by that coordinate system. Dimension#Spatial dimensions gives polar and spherical coordinates as examples of coordinate systems in two and three dimensions. We do not need two articles to explain the same idea. Cobblet ( talk) 07:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Thi mentioned the Meta list, and their Math section is about half the size as ours, so if we're going to add this, we should probably remove something. Combinatorics seems like a pretty weak article to list at this level. How about swapping out that article? Rreagan007 ( talk) 17:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Just noting the proposal is still open since we're at 4-0 for the removal of Coordinate system. -- Zar2gar1 ( talk) 01:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So I suspect this may get some push-back, but let's go for it. If you look through the main Economics article, it already discusses many (most?) of the main points in the specific micro- and macroeconomics articles. We also have Market (economics) and Supply and demand at this level, and even the Tax article discusses some of the relevant economic analysis.
How about putting these two sub-fields at Level 4? Not only are they relatively narrow and technical, but they retread a lot of ground we already cover with more focus.
Relevant previous discussion. Cobblet ( talk) 16:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Anyways, I could have been a bit more precise like in the other responses, but I don't think the whole business & econ category is particularly oversized. I would support adding more common, day-to-day topics if slots were freed-up elsewhere, though given the current weights, I prioritize math & maybe the arts more. For example, while thinking about this, I realized Accounting isn't listed at this level; I'm definitely about to propose we add that.
But as I mentioned above, none of the other social sciences are given slots for subdisciplines, or individual theoretical results for that matter. Indo-European languages (or at least the reconstructed family) may be the only exception, and I would also support making that just a header at this level. When you really drill into it, even the supply and demand concept is actually a theoretical thing. It's inferred from other intuitions & observations, it relies on assumptions (prices are effectively set auction-like in the short-run, or by natural selection in the long-run), and some very real phenomena are just defined away (e.g. when the market doesn't clear).
I'm definitely not saying we should drop that article, but I think it shows that the current list holds economics to a different standard, and theory is given more visibility & slots than the other social sciences (or actual business) without further questions. Frankly, I suspect it's due to a bias too, not by anyone in particular, but as a result of the way mainstream econ has been politically elevated so much in my lifetime. I think it's become habitual (I know I do it) sometimes to treat theoretical concerns in economics (including the micro / macro distinction) more like real things than we would for another social science. -- Zar2gar1 ( talk) 01:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We need non-English singers on the list and Piaf represents that. Interstellarity ( talk) 18:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@ John M Wolfson, Thi, and Crouch, Swale: If I changed Elvis to Louis Armstrong, would you vote differently or would it stay the same? Interstellarity ( talk) 20:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We're at 1001 articles, so something needs to go. A previous attempt to start a discussion got little attention. But it still seems to me that all ontological problems relate to existence in some way. We do not gain much by listing both existence and ontology under metaphysics. Since ontology gets significantly more page views, that's the article I suggest keeping.
The following discussion is closed. 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 last economics-section proposal for the day. While technically encompassing things like Equity (finance) too, the Finance article seems relatively narrow and abstract at the same time. However, outside of indirectly through Bank, we arguably don't have any article directly addressing lending & borrowing, interest, etc.
I'd like to propose replacing Finance with either Credit or Debt to bring in that coverage. Not only are these concepts still the foundation for the whole debt-instrument side of the financial world, but they have a long history, and they're present in one form or another in many people's lives. As for which one, I'm leaning towards Debt since people seem to refer to that side of the equation more in everyday life. However, I can also see the argument Credit is actually prior and must be extended for a debt to exist in the first place.
The one downside is that it seems like there's no single, clear entry-point for this topic right now. But even then, I'd consider that an issue with the current organization of the articles, not that the topic itself isn't central.
Page views of these three articles in comparison. Cobblet ( talk) 20:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Weirdly enough, I don't think anyone has proposed this before, but I actually expect this to be a less controversial one.
Accounting is a basic bodily function of any business or large organization, it's at least as old as cuneiform, modern double-entry bookkeeping is a major innovation of the Renaissance, and accounting identities are about as certain as economics can get.
What do you all think? -- Zar2gar1 ( talk) 02:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I can perhaps be convinced otherwise, but my gut instinct is that white-collar professions that fall squarely within the umbrella of business administration don't feel vital at this level. I'm not convinced that accounting is vital (picking it is tantamount to picking financial statement as a level 3 article: either one feels overly specific and technical to me), and I'm also not convinced that the currently listed management is vital: how is it more vital than the unlisted leadership, for example? Cobblet ( talk) 04:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We have Henry Ford and Thomas Edison up here, but those are more inventors rather than "pure" businessmen. Rockefeller is the richest man in (modern) history, with a peak real net worth double that of Bezos (at least for another decade), and founded the influential Rockefeller family (not to mention Standard Oil). Carnegie founded modern-day philanthropy with " The Gospel of Wealth" and his many libraries (not to mention, likewise, U.S. Steel). Morgan was influential in the development of the modern American economy, to the point where he's been dubbed "America's greatest banker", and helped found what eventually became JPMorgan Chase, the world's largest bank by market capitalization. Overall, I think one of these three is the best to flesh out our "Businesspeople" section. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 03:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Vital articles → Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3 – I think this page should be moved to this title because Level 3 is not the most important level in the levels of importance of an article. I think the title WP:Vital articles should have a description of the vital articles and be a directory of the 5 levels. Interstellarity ( talk) 19:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
—Relisting. BD2412 T 03:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
definitely the most active in terms of the talk page, that's not a feature, it's a bug—I hate the fact that broader-scope discussions are mixed in with all the debates about which articles to promote/demote, and I wish they'd all be moved to WT:WikiProject Vital Articles, to which the talk page of the new WP:Vital articles could redirect. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 07:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello! Sorry if this isn't the best place to do this - I was told to ask here by info-en@wikimedia.org. I was wondering if there is any compiled data (csv, excel, etc) of the vital articles that I could be sent (preferably level 5). Anything to do with the hierarchy would be wonderful. Please email me at dan@raymond.ch so I can get in touch with any of you! TheRauser ( talk) 20:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC) The Rauser
The following discussion is closed. 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 article would be a better candidate for this level because it goes deep into the life of a child. Interstellarity ( talk) 19:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Interestingly, separate articles don't exist for other stages of life for humans. One redirects to the other in the case of adult, adolescence, old age and infant. Gizza ( talk • voy) 00:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per discussion above. Interstellarity ( talk) 22:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Please take this irrelevant discussion elsewhere, or create a separate proposal. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 07:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Michael Jackson is the only other needed western musician, it's clear his fame is not receding, even under massive controversy (unlike Elvis, which does appear to be fading). He dominates every single thing. We need a woman though absolutely, removing Hildegard of Bingen was a mistake - no other woman in music is as important and Madonna wouldnt be added because MJ is more important and it'd be too English language focused if we added them both, Umm Kulthum is the better rep for women in popular music, she's the preeminent musician in the Arabic tradition - beating the men, Makeba is limited by Fela Kuti, Mangeshkar is alive (and Mohammed Rafi is a better pick for Filmi),. The true swap needed in music would be Richard Wagner for Ravi Shankar, Shankar is the best representative for non-western classical that'd fit on this list. It should be Tansen, but not enough information is available on him in English/mass western promotion of his name - so there's no familiarity. Shankar just fits better and Wagner is not the unanimous forth of western classical. (Wagners main conductor pushing Three Bs)... But Wagner has a Cult following, who feel strongly about his work [7] and pop out of nowhere with the need to defend western civilization, so would be a hard removal or swap with someone from India - despite that listing two opera composers (Mozart having just as many operas on the level 4 art list as Wagner) is a stretch. But India's population is bigger than Europe's and has a high percentage of English speakers meaning one form of it's classical should fit ( Carnatic music has a trilogy of greatness and one should not be placed higher than another). The only other reasonable addition is Fela Kuti or Bob Marley to represent black popular music, considering Elvis/The Beatles take Chuck Berry's spot and they by and large created it and deserve representation. The perfect representation of music history for this list in my opinion would be Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Armstrong, Umm Kulthum, Elvis, The Beatles, Michael Jackson, and Shankar. This would cover every major area of music represented in pop culture and be the perfect representation based on my research, but may be too much musicians for peoples liking, which i could agree with except music should have atleast as much as painting though imo - music has become more important now and arguably is more important to art history - although this is my opinion of the future - not based in anything. GuzzyG ( talk) 02:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Pax Romana was one of the most important events during Roman history and world history and I think it should be added as well. Interstellarity ( talk) 00:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm neutral on removal (we already have Mandela, for example), but I think
Roman Empire (currently at Level 4) would be a better candidate here; together with the
British and
Mongol empires already on here and the
Spanish Empire I proposed below, that could round out the empires. and we already have
Ancient Rome on here. –
John M Wolfson (
talk •
contribs)
00:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think this article should be swapped with an article that covers European colonialism in other parts of the world such as Asia and Oceania. Not sure which one, but if you can suggest one, that would be great.
Spanish Empire seems like a good choice for this level. Interstellarity ( talk) 00:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per our earlier discussion with Linear Algebra, the Math section here can stand to be trimmed. A sphere is a 3-dimensional circle, and most of its properties of interest are analogs of those of the circle (the only major exception I can find is sphere packing, which is analogous to the less-known circle packing and arguably tessellation), with the concept of 3-dimensional volume being adequately covered by polyhedron. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 01:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per our earlier discussion with Linear Algebra, the Math section can stand to be trimmed. Subtraction and Division are the respective inverses of Addition and Multiplication. Division is more interesting (it is not closed among the integers), while subtraction is notable mainly for negative numbers; however, removing only subtraction would lead to a conspicuous omission on the list. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 01:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm still sorting out what I think about how much we need to cover basic arithmetic. I'm not opposed to this proposal, but right now my inclination is to go even further and eliminate all the articles listed under Arithmetic, with the exception of Logarithm. That's what Britannica does: they have an article on logarithm and a brief one on root (of an equation), but all the elementary arithmetic operations including exponentiation and root extraction are covered only under arithmetic. Cobblet ( talk) 22:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I actually agree with Cobblet that we could go even further, cutting Addition, Multiplication, and even Exponentiation (given a section in the Arithmetic article). I'd need a bit more to be OK with tossing nth-root, but that's another discussion. My only reason for not offering support yet is that I would like to see at least a couple replacements proposed. Since we're discussing operations & inverses, how about adding Group (mathematics) and Field (mathematics) under Algebra? They may not be in the typical public-school curriculum (maybe they should), but the basics are pretty simple & they're practically everywhere in working mathematics nowadays. -- Zar2gar1 ( talk) 04:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm surprised no-one suggested this article. Hawking's work in physics was incredible. He developed theories on black holes and built on the theory of relatvity suggested by Einstein. Interstellarity ( talk) 16:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We don't have enough articles discussing Post-Soviet history. Space Race should be removed when we already have Cold War. Information Age went mostly in the 21st century. This addition might be recent, so if you are opposed to the addition, how many years should we wait before adding it. Interstellarity ( talk) 15:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The proposal to add research nearly passed, but there were some concerns with overlap with scientific method. I think adding University not only helps cover research but also adds to our coverage of education, where IMO we are a little light. This has also been proposed before, and some people preferred adding higher education instead. While that may seem like the broader topic within the field of education, focusing only on the educational function of universities neglects their role in producing research to drive a knowledge economy. Given the clear support for adding Information Age, I prefer specifically adding University.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We don't have much diversity of composers on this list. I don't think nominating any removals in this category of articles would pass. To fill this list, I will propose adding three composers on this list to include more diversity. Interstellarity ( talk) 15:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This addition would represent pop music since we don't have any pop icons on this list.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We should have more people from different cultures rather than a western-centered list for composers. This addition would represent the females and non-Western culture of composers.
@ John M Wolfson: Do you think we need women in music at this level? If so, what would your first choice be? I picked this particular figure because she is a woman and women can influence music just as much as men. Interstellarity ( talk) 17:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We should include non-western composers as well for this one to represent the diversity of this list.
Shankar was removed as a result of this discussion. Cobblet ( talk) 01:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Worth noting that all of these "English wikipedia" arguments fall flat when you consider that India has the second highest number of English language speakers by state [15]; (doubling the UK via this list); now adding in the fact that the British Raj was a thing; one would think India would be a very worthy contender for a placement as a massive country of English speakers. If one were to wager their life on whose music has casually reached more humans ears Shankar (backed by the Beatles in their prime, contributing to their artistic development/inspiration aka Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and in a country of a billion) or Elvis; one would have to bet on Shankar. "clearly more vital" is in the eye of the (tabloid) beholder; depending on if academics (who write arts history); would judge a seminal figure of a centuries long and still ongoing artistic tradition of Indian classical music less worthy than a tabloid image of decades long, now over (generally) Rock music (which he has no strong claim to other than fame - the male Marilyn Monroe - who has been denied here) - which seems like a massive reach - considering Chuck Berry is now getting the acknowledgement that he should've, Bob Dylan is getting all the academic attention and The Beatles beats him in everything and is listed. In a list that has made a strong point of placing people like Sergei Korolev over Yuri Gagarin or Neil Armstrong; one would think Elvis does not stand out in any category and is hardly a singular defining artist in his genre in the 20th century unlike Shankar, especially with Igor Stravinsky being removed and Arnold Schoenberg not being listed. Western music is well covered; but Indian music - of importance to the second most populous country of English speakers (who are unrepresented); would need covering the most; so unless you're looking at it from a fandom backed tabloid perspective; yes i would say Shankar would be a more vital add for the English encyclopedia at this point and considering there's a tie with his music to religious importance - i can't see how he can be compared to any pop music figure either. Countries like Canada, Republic of Ireland, Australia, New Zealand are dwarfed by English speakers by comparison in numbers and historical comparison, any less worth given to India is not rooted in numbers. (which is what matters)
Lata Mangeshkar is living so irrelevant for this list and has a few hurdles; mainly Kishore Kumar and Mohammed Rafi not being on the level 4 list and there's not that much of a gap as would be if one was on this list and the others on level 5. Plus Mangeshkar's music backs film; which places Indian cinema as more important (than the music backing it); which with Indian cinema means Satyajit Ray would come first; but he's from Bengal like Rabindranath Tagore and he's not Bollywood (Hindi speaking) and which Mangeshkar dominates - so than we'd have to go to Raj Kapoor but his films Awaara and Shree 420 are noted to be heavily inspired by Charlie Chaplin; which would make it too much overlap to list both. Madhubala would be a non-starter too. So if there's no strong candidates for Indian cinema without overlap (and with Hitchcock/Kurosawa being removed) than i don't see how Mangeshkar can fit easily. Shankar is the best fit for a example of Indian artist, someone like Mani Madhava Chakyar is more regional but not Shankar.
China, India, Japan, France, United Kingdom, United States, Russia, France, Germany, Italy, Iran are all specifically vital states (and their former states like Rome etc) with a centuries long importance of historical importance in both history and arts means they should be covered in both and should override any "English wikipedia" concerns anyway. Indian arts; Ravi Shanker; Persian arts Rumi (terrible removal) and Japanese history Emperor Meiji are the only areas we miss and all three would override any "English wikipedia" concerns; as any respectable encyclopedia would specifically focus on these countries and as we should. Arabic and Spanish as languages and Africa as a continent as well; but only African arts is not covered here and only Imhotep, Fela Kuti or Chinua Achebe has a shot (Nigeria also has more English speakers than the UK and Colonial Nigeria existed.. not out of place within a "English" wikipedia). These areas are so inherent to the world they would be covered by anyone and especially by a encyclopedia written today - they are fundamental aspects to the history of the world and any English encyclopedia should strive to have high quality written articles of each - anything less would not be adequate. GuzzyG ( talk) 10:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If Michael Jackson (and possibly Ravi Shankar or someone lese) is added, another musician should go. The Beatles (or Chuck Berry) can represent rock music. -- Thi ( talk) 17:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We already have Slavery at this level and Abolitionism can be covered by that article. The American Revolution paved the way for decolonization and influenced other countries to break away from European powers. Interstellarity ( talk) 00:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Related discussion:
Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/2#Swap:_Remove_War,_Add_Health
I am proposing that
Health being moved up to level 2 and
Mental health moved up to level 3. Epic poetry doesn't seem that important to be up on level 3. Mental health is just as important as physical health and that physical health is only half of the components that make up health.
Interstellarity (
talk)
22:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't necessarily oppose this, at least not yet, but I would like to lay out two counterpoints. For the removal: not only is the arts section pretty under-weighted, but epic poetry arguably has unique historical significance. It seems to be consolidated & preserved as a major part of many cultures' identity.
For the addition: I like the direction of the proposal, but setting aside philosophical debates, I wonder if mental health is the best choice. The medical view implicit in it is relatively recent, definitely not universal, and occasionally controversial. We also already have Mental disorder under the Health section, plus several topics under Psychology. However, while we do already have Happiness, I could support adding another holistic article like well-being or quality of life. -- Zar2gar1 ( talk) 04:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So this is a big one, but it supplements the above discussion about basic arithmetic. The Arithmetic article probably covers all 4 basic operations sufficiently, at least for VA level 3, but just removing them will leave the Math section much shorter. Plus there seems to be some interest in covering the more abstract ideas around them (e.g. inverses).
Adding Groups & Fields will still cover the arithmetic operations some from a more advanced, algebraic POV. The add will also help fill out the Algebra subsection with some abstract topics, plus these structures are almost everywhere in contemporary working mathematics. And even if they're not part of the typical public-school curriculum, the basics are actually quite accessible.
Just to follow up for anyone ambivalent about the additions, is shrinking the Math section your main concern? If so, would you support these additions if another proposal could cut 1 or 2 slots more? Recently, we have already cut Sphere, Subtraction, & Division (the last 2 are just waiting on this proposal before editing the list). I'd personally like to see Math upped by a few slots, but support cutting some specific articles in the short-run. -- Zar2gar1 ( talk) 00:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Trying to move this project back towards its intended purpose of improving high-importance pages, I'd like to give invites to two important level-3 articles that have been recently put up for quality reviews. First, there's a FAR of climate change, which is in fairly good shape but hasn't had a systematic outside review in over a decade. Second, there's a GAR of China; that page is in need of cleanup and may get delisted if there's not a coordinated effort to save it. Comments/work at either discussion would be appreciated, although particularly at China because that page doesn't have a community of watchers the same way Climate change does. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 02:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Rights is a more broad term than Human rights. Interstellarity ( talk) 16:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Rights may or may not be vital but if broadness equals vitality then there are other articles in the social issues section which should be taken out first. Liberty and privacy are both specific types of human rights. Arguably racism, sexism and justice are all subtopics of human rights too. Human rights is a broader term than nearly every article in that section. Gizza ( talk • voy) 11:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sadness is one of the most important emotions a person has. Humour seems sufficient for level 4. Interstellarity ( talk) 14:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Anxiety seems to be a very common emotion in some people. Parenting doesn't seem that important. Interstellarity ( talk) 14:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I have proposed that mental health be added above. As for Major depressive disorder, I think Mental disorder covers that topic sufficiently. Because of that, I don't think that should be added. Interstellarity ( talk) 01:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Now that children's literature has been added to level 4, I am able to propose this swap. I agree that children's literature is an important literary genre and educational topic, but I don't see why fairy tales should be considered more vital than other subgenres such as fables. Previous discussion here.
I'm not sure either way on this one. There probably is a more central literary topic than fairy tales, but I'm not sure I'd swap them out for children's literature. It's mainly because I've heard before that fairy tales weren't originally just morality tales or geared towards children, while the concept of distinct literature for children is sort of a recent thing historically. This is honestly one where I'd defer to someone with academic expertise on the topic. -- Zar2gar1 ( talk) 02:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pollution is an environmental issue covered by Environmentalism and Climate change. I think a better addition would be Homelessness which is an ongoing problem in the world. Interstellarity ( talk) 23:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a discussion on the metawiki page regarding a replacement for articles that every Wikipedia should have. See meta:Talk:List_of_articles_every_Wikipedia_should_have#Swap:_Remove_Edith_Piaf,_Add_Protestantism. Interstellarity ( talk) 00:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like community input on whether we should increase the levels to 8 instead of the current 5 levels. I think it gives greater depth on priorizing which articles are most important. For example, we could put the most important individuals in Level 4 and we could put the important, but not so important individuals at Level 5 and so on. Here is an idea of what I'm proposing:
I would like to know if the vital articles community would be willing to do this and if so we can propose which articles should go on each level. Interstellarity ( talk) 01:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
That said, I have wondered how scaling each level differently might work. Orders of 10 give nice, round totals, but seem too restrictive sometimes at the top levels (preventing basic partitions of a topic at Level 2, for example), whereas Level 5 still has thousands of open slots despite requiring no discussion to add. Maybe Level 1 should start at a slightly higher number, and the next levels scale less exponentially? I think there's also been occasional discussion about trying to partly-automate the rankings, whether through a score or a rough algorithm. That would make more sense to do in tandem with the lists as they are though. Just brainstorming. -- Zar2gar1 ( talk) 04:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm currently neutral on this idea in general, but if we ever did this I would suggest we name the levels the following:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Given in the above discussion that two editors support adding Chanel, I thought this would be a good time to nominate her. Fashion is a better addition because we don't cover much of it. However, we need to be careful not to nominate too many articles to add because we only have a limited number of slots on this page, so I picked Western esotericism to remove since there are more important articles on this level that are level 3.
Interstellarity (
talk)
16:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
We haven't even listed Fashion at this level, so this won't pass likely. I was answering your questions and brainstorming, i told you not to start additions of any i mentioned, because they are likely to fail. I don't think we should list a person before their field. I wouldn't classify her as a business person though (shes not under business on any other list) and Core biographies is arguably dead and has two baseball players on a 200 person world list, so not suitable to the strictness we have here. I would support many people to this level, that does not mean they can all fit and we have to be strategic about it. Fashion has to be added first (and even this has failed before). But Fashion is bigger than Animation and we list both it and Walt Disney - so it's not that much of a overlap. Fashion first though. GuzzyG ( talk) 21:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that meta's list of articles be merged into this list. The talk page for this list is more active than that of the meta list. They each have similar articles to each other. Although I understand that meta's list is geared towards all Wikipedias and this one is tailored towards English Wikipedia, I don't see a reason why each of these lists should be separate entries. Interstellarity ( talk) 21:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I see that Interstellarity has set up automatic archiving on this page after 90 days of inactivity. I'm not sure that's a good idea, as Vital Article nominations are routinely left open beyond 90 days with no activity. I think continuing to manually archive passed or failed nominations is probably the best way to go. Rreagan007 ( talk) 18:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Automatic archiving suits better for talk pages with one active discussion. It is not suitable for often viewed pages with many active topics. 90 days is for general pages in encyclopedia, not for project discussions. More space for new topics is needed. -- Thi ( talk) 18:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This briefly came up in another discussion, but I don't think we need the actual article for Social science at this level. It's largely an academic topic, plus it looks like every specific field in the article is also on the VA list.
I don't think it's that that crucial to the taxonomy either, but even if you want to keep the sub-header for grouping Anthropology & Sociology, it doesn't need to be linked & take one of the actual VA slots. -- Zar2gar1 ( talk) 19:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Science already has a subsection on the replication crisis. I share the concern that it's only recently that the various approaches to social science have been considered distinct branches; on the other hand, we do seem to cover just about every important branch within the social sciences. Cobblet ( talk) 22:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that Roald Amundsen be replaced with Neil Armstrong on this list. Currently, the Level 3 Vital articles list includes eight explorers, none of whom went to space. In fact, as far as I can tell, no person on this list went to space, a glaring omission in my view. As the first human being to step foot on the Moon, Armstrong is clearly one of the most significant explorers of all time. This is not to dismiss or diminish Amundsen's accomplishments, but between the two, Armstrong seems like the far more vital individual to include in a list of 1,000 vital topics. OnAcademyStreet ( talk) 05:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We don't really need both School and University listed at this level, especially since we also list Education. One should be removed, and since University was just added I think school should go.
The following discussion is closed. 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've had this one on my list but wanted to wait until the existing proposals ticked down some. There are a few reasons for this one:
The following discussion is closed. 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 last consolidation of the Geometry section. I really like the topic of Conic sections, but they're just one type of Curve. The general topic of Curves could also bring in additional perspective from other fields (like topology), which don't normally come up when discussing Conic sections.
I support adding curve at level 4. Unsure here but clearly an article that should exist among 10,000 in an encyclopedia. Gizza ( talk • voy) 22:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We already have European colonization of the Americas for the Americas and Scramble of Africa for Africa for colonialism. I think these two articles would give a bigger picture of colonization. Interstellarity ( talk) 12:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
While I somewhat agree with Cobblet and Thi, I think that Spanish Empire fits well with British Empire and Mongol Empire, given that it predated the former and was more influential in the long run than the latter. It's the reason why Spanish has the most native speakers of any Indo-European language, for example. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 22:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think the Religion section could be trimmed down a bit. I would like to see Shamanism removed first. The only emotions we have are Happiness, Anger, Fear, and Love, all of which I would not be in favor of removing. If we list emotions, we should cover emotions such as Sadness which I already nominated above. I would like to spark discussion on whether we should have emotions at this level, keep what we have, or add more. Interstellarity ( talk) 17:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is some talk above in the FDR discussion regarding removing Churchill. The only other English leader we have on this list is Elizabeth I. This could be a controversial nomination, but I would at least consider removing Churchill even if he is not removed. Interstellarity ( talk) 00:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
It's easy to get wrapped in a contemporary fame outlook and Churchill's fame is one of the biggest, which means noone will agree with this nom or give it some thought. (Like honestly believing Churchill has greater longterm importance than people like Charles Darwin and thus that being the weakest big 3 Allied leader (when we dont list one of the others) and someone more de Gaulle like than the other two is more impressive than Darwin's contribution to Evolution theory.) One would beg to wonder why Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, the more individually accomplished Churchill of the 19th century does not have quite the long lasting historical importance to make this list as one would've suspected if you were in the 1800s. As figures whose importance is strongly based in wars tend not to hold in massive importance as the centuries go on and as that wars memory fades, so does importance except the primary instigators of it ( Napoleon) and as Wellesley shows - not even the technical winners get to be the most important of the war. It's outright extreme to think that for centuries multiple people will hold onto enough longterm importance for this list for one event (Importance due to it being a World War or not, which conveniently enough we leave out the two main leaders of the non-Europe parts of the war anyway - by our coverage it's a Euro war). If history relegates people like William the Conqueror (Or Wellesley) to a level not of this list, it's hard to see how Churchill holds onto the importance required of this list. Contemporary fame or not, all evidence (Wellesley) says otherwise. As World War II still has contemporary importance - Churchill is a OK addition, but this "greatest Briton" is definitely over the top and in another century would be more Wellesley like than a George Washington or Julius Caesar. We can list heaps of Euro leaders like Charles Martel who stopped massive invasions that would've seriously changed the continent and they hold nothing long-term and are not on the list.
TLDR; He's a ok add for a contemporary list, but he's not a integral part of the list when we don't list Roosevelt, who had much more importance for the war effort. It is unfathomable why we have three Euro war leaders and not one that covers the main two combatants of the Pacific War. It's not clear to me why Stalin + Hitler for the Euro war and Roosevelt for the pacific war is a worse idea than Churchill. I don't care about fame but we should be proportionate. I don't think Churchill is any more important to a world view of history than Franklin D. Roosevelt and Emperor Meiji and both would be better adds to cover WWII than another person that covers the Euro side. British Empire covers Britain in WWII better. This may be the English Wiki but the United States and Japan's role in the war are more important to cover than Britain's when we already cover Hitler/Stalin and are under a strict limit. Imagine a textbook of the war that does not involve the main two pacific war participants. Without the war, per Historical rankings of prime ministers of the United Kingdom Clement Attlee is seen as just as worthy of a 20th century leader of Britain and we should not go by outright war mass fervor, as this always fades. If Yuri Gagarin is just a symbol and Sergei Korolev is true importance, than i don't see how Churchill isn't just a symbol of the war rather than Roosevelt who had many more hard accomplishments in his country and in the war and whose country actually remained a superpower and dominant power of the century. I strongly dispute this "greatest Briton" claim and it being automatically indicative of a place on this list or that a nomination like this is without any merit. GuzzyG ( talk) 04:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So this was the one last economics proposal on my list, and it originated from this proposal on Marketing.
If you link-hop from the earlier proposals Cobblet mentioned, the Market article has been swapped in & out a couple times already, so it arguably has a history of being borderline for this level.
More importantly though, I don't think it particularly adds much since other articles already provide good coverage from several angles:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There was some discussion about this earlier today so I thought it could warrant its own section. -- PaleoMatt ( talk) 20:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Taiwan may be central to a dispute with China but in general it is quite small compared to many countries currently not here at Level 3. Is Taiwan really worth being at Level 3 over countries like Algeria, Sudan, Malaysia, Ukraine, Netherlands, Peru etc.?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have recenly proposed some musicians to create a more diverse list, but proposals such as Umm Kulthum and Ravi Shankar have failed. While I am not against including people from different parts of the world, I think these two people don't quite make the cut for the influence needed for a level 3 article. Interstellarity ( talk) 21:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Greece probably doesn't have much influence today, but it has a long history spanning 4,000 years. It's probably the most influential country not listed in human history. I recognize that it doesn't have a big population and economy, but Greece is home to philosophers, mathematicans and more. Another country we list that has a small population is Israel and I think that is listed also because of its long history. Interstellarity ( talk) 15:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Previous discussion here. Cobblet ( talk) 17:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Given there is some discussion regarding adding Henry VIII, I think this is a good time to propose it's addition which I previously proposed less than a year ago. Interstellarity ( talk) 17:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the FAQ linked above, it states that all people in level 3 are dead. However, two members of The Beatles are still alive, maybe warranting that article for level 4 instead. I have no doubt that, at some point in history, it will be moved back up to level 3, but I'm just trying to stay consistent with the guidelines set above.
MLK Jr, however, has pretty firmly planted his place in history as one of (if not the most) important Civil Rights Activists in American (world?) history. At the time of writing, there are over 1000 streets in America named after him, 26 statues/memorials around the world (8 of which are international), multiple museums that prominently feature him, and he's the only American that was not a president to have a national holiday name after him. ChipotleHater ( talk) 06:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I get diversity is important with geography, but for East African purposes we already have these two countries, which border one another and neither of which IMO is as vital as the Netherlands, as well as Ethiopia. I'm slightly partial to removing Tanzania since Kenya is better known in Western culture, but I can see how Zanzibar swings this towards Kenya. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 01:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This list only includes only two presidents of the US: George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. I was wondering how many presidents we should have at this level. I would personally go no more than 3. We could add Franklin D. Roosevelt since he is considered to be one of the top 3 presidents. If one gets taken out, I would probably go with taking out Lincoln although I think he might be too important to remove. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this. Maybe we can use the discussion to talk about how many leaders from other countries we should have. For example, the UK has Elizabeth I and Winston Churchill. Interstellarity ( talk) 12:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are three Americans on this list Washington, Lincoln, and Franklin. I strongly feel that Washington and Lincoln should stay on the list. I think FDR would make a better choice for this list because he is considered along the lines of Washington and Lincoln, one of the country's greatest and most influential presidents. As mentioned above, arguments can be made for and against the removal and addition. Interstellarity ( talk) 17:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Discussion should be moved here before it overwhelms that sectiohn; but i agree with Reagan. Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin were the most powerful leaders of the Allies and WWII was not just Europe. FDR covers the Pacific War the best. Stalin and Hitler cover the Euro side and FDR covers both sides; the Commonwealth was involved in the Pacific, but not to the level of the US; for a balanced coverage of the war FDR covers it better than Churchill. Might be a bold claim; but i don't think Churchill is more important to English history than William the Conqueror or Geoffrey Chaucer either, who we both lack. I'd also support Emperor Meiji to cover Japan's rise, which would cover their role in WWII. The only issue is Teddy is far more known than FDR and Churchill is more known than both; but i think a bold swap of Churchill for FDR would be the best for our coverage of WWII. We also don't list a leader for the US in the 20th century, arguably at it's peak which seems odd. GuzzyG ( talk) 12:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
If we have to choose a medieval British writer for entry, I would choose Geoffrey of Monmouth over Chaucer. He He is the main source for British mythology and the Arthurian legend. I agree that Churchill is not the most important figure in British history. Dimadick ( talk) 17:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So even though I'd like to see the Math section beefed-up some overall, I do think some of the Geometry articles could be consolidated.
Since Area & Volume are pretty much analogous concepts, it seems like a waste to list both of them. Instead of just choosing one though, why not subsume them under the very basic concept of Size? We do something similar with Shape already.
Funny enough, that article's not even listed under Level 5, and at just a first glance, it's pretty good for a Start-rated article. It seems to do a pretty good job of hitting all the mathematical concepts, even if very briefly for now.
The person who wrote the article previously proposed adding it here. Cobblet ( talk) 00:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removing Churchill looks at least possible to pass, so we should have a replacement for English/British history. My main suggestion here is William the Conqueror, as he is the last person to date to successfully and hostilely invade and conquer England and begins English/British regnal numbering. I'd be fine with other additions such as Henry VIII, Chaucer (but not any other writers given that we already have a lot), English Civil War/Cromwell/one of the Charleses, or even (to a lesser extent if Churchill doesn't make the cut) Disraeli/Gladstone/one of the Pitts. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 22:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This one's pretty straight-forward. There was a clear consensus to keep Indo-European languages listed, but that means we have a specific instance of a concept introduced before the concept itself.
We have the slots free & this is one the basic objects of comparative linguistics.
The following discussion is closed. 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 could be a controversial nomination since this person is still living. People on the level 3 represent the pinnacles of their fields. For example, Alan Turing is the pinnacle of the computer field while Berners-Lee represents the Internet. At this point, I think it's clear when Berners-Lee's legacy is. If you oppose this nomination, would you support this nomination when Berners-Lee passes away? Interstellarity ( talk) 17:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This was proposed in 2019 however not much was said against the inclusion so I'd like to propose this again. The Netherlands may be a small country however we already have Israel at Level 3 which has a smaller population AND economy (I'd actually consider removing Israel at this level since I think Jerusalem is enough coverage but that's for another time) and Saudi Arabia with a smaller economy. The Netherlands certainly has a lot going for it despite being small, being the home of Europe's busiest seaport in Rotterdam, and the Hague is home to multiple intergovernmental organisations and the International Criminal Court, Amsterdam is also a popular tourist destination. Many influential artists (Rembrandt, Vermeer, van Gogh, Mondrian, Escher), philosophers (Erasmus, Spinoza, Descartes) and inventors (Huygens, Leeuwenhoek) have come from or did much of their work in the Netherlands and it has been a major player in world trade for centuries thanks in part to its past control of the East Indies. It is also important as an early modern democracy and being one of the most progressive countries in the world. Similar to some other former colonial empires, it also still holds overseas territories in the Caribbean. -- PaleoMatt ( talk) 01:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I definitely think that Theocracy should be removed because it doesn't seem to be that important in history. I think Oligarchy and Republic are good choices. Interstellarity ( talk) 14:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think behavior in all organisms is fundamentally more important than behavior in just humans. Interstellarity ( talk) 13:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Cobblet: Would you support moving Behavior up to at least level 4? Interstellarity ( talk) 15:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is another consolidation I think we could do of the Geometry section. My main reasoning for this is that since we avoid advanced topics at this level, there's no need to generalize beyond 2 or 3 dimensions yet:
The only downside I can see is that the Solid geometry article definitely isn't very far along. That doesn't take away from how central the topic is though.
Solid geometry is not on level 4. Three-dimensional space is though. If that is proposed as the addition instead, then I can support the proposal as a whole. Cobblet ( talk) 00:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Surprised this isn't here already being an important part of plant anatomy, arguably more so than flower which is already listed here. PaleoMatt ( talk) 01:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So I know some of you would like to add even more about Greece, so you may not like this. But in my recent proposal on Indo-European languages, there was discussion on how having both Greek alphabet and Greek language is probably redundant at this level.
My thinking is that the Greek language is still pretty influential through much of the world's vocabulary for science, technology, medicine, philosophy, etc. The Greek alphabet, however, is much more of a niche topic today; at least in the English-speaking world, outside of occasional references in Christianity and math shorthand, it seems to pretty much be a novelty (e.g. fraternity names, crossword puzzle clues).
Unlike listing both Latin and Latin script, the only living language that still uses the alphabet is Modern Greek; its other child alphabet, Cyrillic script, is also more widely-used. And if you want to look at it historically, it's technically just an adapted Phoenician script, so only a few aspects of it are uniquely Greek innovations.
Perhaps we should make this a swap with Phoenician alphabet, given its historical importance for modern writing systems. Rreagan007 ( talk) 05:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
( talk) 06:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Seems pretty obvious in my opinion. Mary is likely the most famous, most influential woman to have lived. She is a central figure in Christianity as well as in Islam, with both religions hailing her as the greatest woman to have ever lived. She is one of the most widely studied Biblical figures, and the subject of a broad swath of religious writing and dogma (e.g. Catholic Mariology). Mary is one of the most prominent subjects of art in the Western world (e.g. Madonna (art)). Since we could use more women on this list, I think that Mary is an obvious choice, especially since our French-language counterpart also lists her. -- Zelkia1101 ( talk) 18:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Of the twenty-eight men and women that we list as the world's most influential political leaders, only three of them ( George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Nelson Mandela) were leaders of democratic governments. I feel as though this is a significant underrepresentation of one form of government, especially given that democracy is the most popular system of governance today. We recently removed Winston Churchill from this list. I believe that this was a mistake; although Churchill was arguably a more minor player in the Second World War compared to Stalin or FDR, he is an extremely well-known democratic politician whose influence as a cultural icon and political symbol is pervasive through much of the Anglosphere. In the past four years, Churchill is only passed by Adolf Hitler as the most looked-up World War II leader. Churchill's pageviews also far surpass those of others on this list, such as Catherine the Great or William the Conqueror. However, since he was recently removed, I'm not going to lament his absence any longer.
An excellent addition to this list would be Franklin D. Roosevelt, who alongside leading the United States during the Second World War also orchestrated the establishment of much of the United States' welfare state. I would normally suggest swapping either Lenin or Stalin for FDR. We may also wish to add women leaders, such as Corazon Aquino or Margaret Thatcher. -- Zelkia1101 ( talk) 17:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the removal of Churchill was a mistake, and even more of a mistake was adding BOTH William the Conqueror and Henry VIII... but since this is so recent I'll leave that here. I do think FDR being added would be a good choice to add potentially to replace one of the English kings. I think there really is a current problem with the list of politicians we have in that many feel there is some (such as FDR) which really should be added but also none of the ones listed feel like they should be removed. We do have some which could be viewed as less important but they generally are women which need coverage on the list. -- PaleoMatt ( talk) 02:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
This is just how history turns out if we go by "dominance" and "impact". Democratic leaders have checks to their power and normally co-operate with other members of government while authoritarian governments are a single person. Washington is listed because of the war, same with Lincoln and Mandela more for his activism and status as national hero more than political policy as a president. This is what stops any modern scientist from likely being a contender as they work in teams or collab more often, taking away the singular dominance figure. Bringing up Churchill's pageviews compared to William the Conqueror is ludicrous. I've checked pageviews (and document them down) of every person on every level of this list (and many others listed on my personal 50k list); this is normal, contemporary figures always outdo old figures. You wouldn't say Churchill is more important than Jesus, despite having more page views? You wouldn't say Ted Bundy is at Churchill's level because he has 7 million [26] less pageviews [27], either - funnily enough having 9 million more in English, or Pablo Escobar with 60 million more. [28].
Lenin and Stalin are no-gos for removal for me. We barely have any 20th century thought leaders (only Freud, who is contentious and to some discredited) and Marxism–Leninism is one of the main ideologies of the 20th century. That's more of a hard/actual impact influence on global thought than either Churchill or FDR made and Stalin is the primary Allied figure in Europe in WWII. Thoughts and ideas last longer than any government policy and this is Lenin's primary influence, in thought. John Maynard Keynes, Simone de Beauvoir and Bertrand Russell would be the only other options, but they don't have as much name recognition with the general public and i would prefer Hugo Grotius or Pāṇini first. Either way, i can't agree to drop another 20th century thought leader when we have so little. It's just like Caesar/Augustus - sometimes these things happen. This is exactly like having both Ben Franklin and Washington. If Lenin goes than i don't see how Franklin stays.
Any concerns about William the Conqueror fall apart when considering he filled a multi century gap between Charlemagne and Genghis Khan and that means more than having multiple WWII leaders, as it's probably better to cover every period of history rather than one century. By my count we have 10 figures from the first millennium; Augustus, Charlemagne, Jesus, Paul the Apostle, Muhammad, Adi Shankara, Jabir ibn Hayyan, Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, Li Bai and Abu Nuwas. If Churchill was still here (and we added FDR), we'd have 4 figures for one war in one century, nearly half the people we cover for one whole millennium. Either way, that's a bad job. Churchill is the weakest so he was removed. It's that simple. More people from this kind of era (like Maimonides) should be added over more 20th century people, but removing one of the thought leaders is seemingly not the right choice either. It means we'd have more filmmakers than people involved with 20th century thought. We probably have to dissect this whole list - but it needs to be done in consideration of everything else - or it just creates a worser bias. GuzzyG ( talk) 03:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per the discussion above. Mendeleev is known solely for inventing the periodic table, which while vital to modern-day chemistry we already list on its own, and is in my opinion the weakest person on this list. In addition, we already list Antoine Lavoisier (and to a lesser extent Marie Curie) to represent the chemists and if we absolutely needed another we could put Linus Pauling.
FDR, on the other hand, can rightfully be considered one of this list's main snubs, akin to not having Michael Jackson until recently. Like MJ, he's probably going to keep being proposed and suggested until he's eventually added. While his WW2 involvement is not significantly more prominent than the removed Churchill, he founded the modern American welfare state with the New Deal and, having defined American politics for at least the next several decades if not up to this day, is considered one of the "Great Three" American presidents alongside the listed George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. The previous swap failed not so much because he's not important as much because Benjamin Franklin was too important to remove. Mendeleev, while certainly Level 4 material, is less important than either figure (especially on the English Wikipedia) and can go to make room for both. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 15:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the above discussion of Mendeleev, it was noted that there are only two chemists on this list: Lavoisier and Mendeleev. This is largely because unlike Physics or Biology, Chemistry doesn't have a whole lot of "great figures" that have shaped its history and are embedded into popular consciousness. I suggested removing Mendeleev as he's known only for inventing the periodic table and is conspicuously obscure outside of that achievement, a view I still hold.
Might I suggest we put Linus Pauling, either in his place or alongside him? While he might suffer from the same "obscurity" problem, his achievements are far more than an organized list of elements. Pauling is the only person other than Marie Curie to win Nobel Prizes in different subjects, and the only person to win multiple non-shared prizes, and multiple retrospectives have called him among the top 20 scientists of all time. Within Chemistry, Pauling "wrote the book" on the chemical bond and invented the concept of electronegativity, explaining why certain bonds are covalent and others ionic. He also introduced the concept of orbital hybridization, bridging the gap between quantum physics and the molecules that you and I know and interact with. His work, among other things, inspired Watson and Crick to work on finding the structure of DNA. If Lavoisier is the Newton of Chemistry, then Pauling should well be the Einstein.
I'm also taking this opportunity to propose, more for discussion than an expectation that it'll pass, Sir Ronald Fisher, a man who pioneered the modern synthesis and brought Darwinism back from the grave in the early 20th century. He is a towering figure in both statistics and biology, introducing such techniques as ANOVA that are still used to this day (I should know, I studied Biology in undergrad). He is given the sobriquet of "the greatest of Darwin's successors", which is not unreasonable given such contributions to Biology as the sexy son hypothesis. That said, he's not quite as "great" as Darwin or Pasteur, and I see him as a sort of edge case. While I think he's still stronger than Mendeleev, I can understand that if he's added he'll still be in the "weaker" half of the scientist/inventor list. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 13:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't really know if we should be suggesting additions without swaps right now as we are very close to 1,000 articles listed, especially biographies with how many are being suggested and some suggestions to lower the number of them at this level. -- PaleoMatt ( talk) 14:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We already cover the majority of organisms. The only category of organisms that we miss is all the eukaryotic organisms that are not animals, plants or fungi. I think if a swap is desired for this article, it should probably be with Algae since organisms like Paramecium are not considered algae, but they are considered protists. Interstellarity ( talk) 20:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mecca is probably the city that we have listed that is the weakest and I think is the most likely to be removed. Baghdad doesn't have as much significance today as it did historically, the reason I think this is a good city to add is because it was the capital of the Abbasid Caliphate and it was once the largest city in the world. Interstellarity ( talk) 13:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Another city that was once the largest city in the world that is not listed is Hangzhou, however, we already have two Chinese cities on the list ( Beijing and Hong Kong. I think the best possible addition to the list could be Shanghai. This would bring the total Chinese cities on the list to be 3, which I think is too much. I would support either a removal of Beijing or Hong Kong for Shanghai. I'm assuming Beijing is listed because of its historical significance while Hong Kong is more recent due to it being a financial hub of the world. Interstellarity ( talk) 13:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've withdrawn my two previous proposals (for the FDR/Mendeleev swap and Pauling/Fisher) in light of our nearing capacity (Pauling and Fisher aren't that essential with our squeeze) and because I think this proposal is better. If you oppose this, at least hear me out.
Human living standards have exploded since 1950, especially in the developing world, and other than the technology involved and possibly Information Age/ Decolonization, we don't really have an article on here to account for that. Borlaug made a lot of it possible in a most basic sense. An agronomist, he first worked in Mexico to improve its wheat yields until it became a net exporter of wheat. He then did the same for India and Pakistan until they too were self-sufficient and had food security. At the end of his career he attempted to extend his work to Africa. His work kicked off the Green Revolution, of which he is known as the "father". This all sounds rather tame and inconsequential until you note that Borlaug's work saved a billion people from starvation. Yes, a billion as in 109 human lives saved from starving. Noting that "you can't build a peaceful world on empty stomachs and human misery", he is one of only five people in history to win all three of the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the Congressional Gold Medal.
More importantly for this list, I think there's no one else quite like him who could go on this list, which means that at the margins we'll get more by adding Borlaug than we would by adding someone else. (Of course, I do think Borlaug is worthy of this level with his achievements in a vacuum, else I wouldn't be proposing him.) I think these marginal considerations allow Borlaug to beat out other such contenders as FDR (who I agree "should" be on here in a vacuum but whose niche is already filled to a degree by Washington and Lincoln) or most other scientists (I can't think of any major post-1950 scientists who are deceased except for Francis Crick, Stephen Hawking, and Carl Sagan, and of those only Sagan is unique enough IMO), and for me squeaks him in as a raw addition. He certainly beats out Jonas Salk in my book; while polio was (and unfortunately still is in Afghanistan and Pakistan) a menace, everyone needs to eat.
The main issue other than capacity I can see with adding Borlaug is that he might not be that well-known in Western culture. A general rule for this list is that if someone isn't learned about by students in their culture (in this case Western culture) by the end of secondary school, then he/she/etc. doesn't belong on here. Many of my own family members don't quite know who Borlaug is. That said, I remember learning about Borlaug in 6th grade (late primary school, for non-Americans), so I think the tide is turning. Once again, I can understand if this is at best an edge case, but please give this some serious and genuine consideration. If you oppose Borlaug based on capacity, would you support him if he were swapped with someone else? – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Should he really be listed ahead of the Green Revolution? Cobblet ( talk) 16:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think Poland is one of the weaker countries we have on this list since we already list Russia. I think listing one Eastern European country is enough considering Poland has been heavily influenced by Russia. Interstellarity ( talk) 23:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
One more math proposal for now. So there wasn't a consensus to add specific algebraic objects, but with several Geometry topics being consolidated, how about adding the field of Abstract algebra?
Like I mentioned in a different proposal, it may not be taught in public schools much (at least not yet), but it's everywhere in contemporary math and the basics are pretty accessible. Honestly, to leave it out would be a bit like leaving Theory of relativity out of the Physics section.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
One more proposal coming from the discussion on Indo-European languages. Multiple people expressed support for representing one or two more language families somehow, and there seemed to be interest in not over-weighting specific Indo-European languages as much.
Of the ones we currently list, I think Portuguese may have the fewest reasons to single it out for Level 3. We already have 3 other Romance languages (Latin, Spanish, & French), and the lion's share of its speakers are already represented by listing the country of Brazil.
Compared to the other ones I'd consider, Bengali has more speakers (in a previous British colony), Russian is one of the 6 UN languages and represents the Slavic branch alone, and German may represent fewer people but probably has a deeper history of interaction with English (via literature, science, trade, immigration, & history).
As for which language to add, Indonesian actually has several reasons to recommend it:
I don't see a need to remove any of the currently listed languages. But we are not providing a balanced overview of linguistic diversity when 10/13 of them are Indo-European languages, even though fewer than half the world's population speaks one of them as L1. Adding a couple more languages to represent other major language families such as Austronesian makes sense. I think Malay is a better choice than Indonesian though – compare how we list Hindustani rather than Hindi and Urdu. A previous nomination failed. Cobblet ( talk) 06:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is by far the dominant number-writing system (i.e., using 0-9 instead of Roman numerals), and I think should be listed in its own right as it crosses language/script barriers, being used in languages that use Latin, Cyrillic, Greek, East Asian scripts, and perhaps many others. Even if we end up removing Greek alphabet, I think this should go in the "Writing" section of "Society and social sciences". – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
It's currently listed under Mathematics on level 4 though. Cobblet ( talk) 18:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
In the opposing comments, replace Arabic numerals, Arabic, Number, and History of mathematics with Greek alphabet, Greek language, Alphabet, and Writing. Hmm... Cobblet ( talk) 18:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm somewhat surprised not to see John Milton on this list already. Milton is one of the forefathers of English poetry, and his epic poem Paradise Lost is considered by many critics to be the best English-language work ever penned. Beyond his influence as a poet, Milton was an avid republican during Cromwell's rule as well as a free speech advocate. Milton was celebrated by many prominent English-language poets, among them William Blake, and he is often considered an equal to, if not better than, William Shakespeare. Joyce, while important, does not stand as tall in the history of literature as Milton. -- Zelkia1101 ( talk) 03:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Common topic in popular science. Meteors (shooting stars) are among the most famous astronomical phenomenons. This concept is closely connected with Meteorite. Meteor or Meteorite is listed among main articles in my encyclopedias.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Important topic health and medicine, one of the main articles in those encyclopedias I have had access. Often used concept in everyday discourse (melatonine etc.). [45]
Carbohydrate, lipid and nucleic acid are more vital classes of biomolecules, although sugar and DNA are listed. Cobblet ( talk) 22:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Water is (rightfully) listed at Level 2, but that article is a general overview of its role on Earth and in the biosphere and human society. Water as a chemical ("oxidane", "hydrogen hydroxide", etc.) is covered by Properties of water, which provides a more detailed look on hydrogen bonding, its slight color, its polarity and consequent "universal solvency", and its extremely high heat capacity. This is at heart a list of the 1,000 articles that are most "urgent" to have on an encyclopedia; the general water article provides a good overview of "what water is", but the properties of water article more specifically lists its chemical importance, which we would be remiss to exclude if we're including carbon dioxide as water is by far the most studied chemical compound.
The best argument I can come up with against its addition is that the properties of water article could be seen as more an "appendix" to the main water article, which while somewhat reasonable I ultimately find unconvincing; as long as it can pass AfD and is not a redirect or disambiguation, it's fair game for this list IMO. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 00:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
We already have rain and snow (and steam engine), and I'd rather add ice or steam before the awkwardly titled properties of water. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
From the article lede of Rabindranath Tagore: "his "elegant prose and magical poetry" remain largely unknown outside Bengal". Sure he has a Nobel Prize, but so do over 100 other people, and we only have 21 writers on this list. Better suited to the level-4 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.
This article is a better choice to add than Meteoroid. Interstellarity ( talk) 22:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since it seems like Norman Borlaug won't pass, and since various people have mentioned that they would prefer adding the Green Revolution over him, I have decided to go ahead and nominate it here. See the above entry on Borlaug for information on why this event is vital.
I added wikilink above to Norman Borlaug nomination which is now in the archive. -- Thi ( talk) 11:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sulfur and phosphorus are two chemical elements common on Earth and in life. The strong interaction and weak interaction are only part of particle physics and are best discussed in this level as part of some other topic.
Lead would probably not be my choice for another metal. I might go with calcium: everyone understands its biochemical importance, and it's also hugely significant industrially – it's in concrete, lime, gypsum (e.g., drywall), and plaster for example. But twelve chemical elements is probably enough, and CHNOPS plus five metals and silicon would be a fairly representative mix. Cobblet ( talk) 16:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I nominated this as a swap because I thought other contributors would want to keep "Science" at a round quota of 200 articles. If people don't object, this can be split into two proposals, I feel Sulfur/Phosphorus clearly have consensus to be added once it hits 15 days. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think there is too much overlap between news and the production of news to warrant listing both 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.
German- and Russian-language literature both have two representative on this list ( Kafka/ Goethe and Dostoevsky/ Tolstoy respectively) while other languages only have one: French ( Voltaire), Chinese ( Li Bai), Japanese ( Murasaki Shibiku), Italian ( Dante Alighieri), MENA ( Abu Nuwas), Spanish ( Miguel de Cervantes), and Latin ( Virgil). Out of the four Tolstoy and Goethe are by far more vital and influential, so we can safely remove both Dostoevsky and Kafka, as we really only need one representative of these languages.