The following discussion is closed.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 discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose I just don't think Pärt is as important as other composers we have listed. Is he as innovative or influential as Glass, Stockhausen or Cage, to take some other post-WWII composers we have on the list? I think not. Performance numbers are not necessarily a good guide to vitality and may be ephemeral in the case of a contemporary composer. I think we've probably got about enough 20th-century composers to be frank, and if we were to add some Pärt wouldn't be where I'd start when people like Janacek aren't on the list.Neljack (talk)08:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
If he died tomorrow what's his vitality then or do we replace him with whoever is the next most performed living composer? (even though in todays musical landscape classical music has lost prominence?).GuzzyG (talk)11:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The current ordering of this list doesn't make much sense. This is because substance abuse is a manifestation of addiction (i.e., it should be a subordinate list entry, not a superordinate one). However, swapping those two doesn't work since substance dependence is an entirely distinct disorder from an addiction. Moreover, alcoholism constitutes both an addiction to and dependence upon ethanol. Drug addiction, substance dependence, and alcoholism all constitute general or specific forms of a substance use disorder though, so replacingSubstance abuse withSubstance use disorder in this list would resolve this relational issue.
Secondly, and most importantly, "substance abuse" isn't a medical term in current use (seeSubstance abuse#Medical definitions); however, a substance use disorder is an umbrella diagnostic classification for a range of current medical diagnoses in theDSM-5 (e.g., see the quoted portion of this review[1] and/or[1][2]). Consequently, it doesn't seem appropriate forsubstance abuse to be rated as a level 4 or even a level 5 a vital article; however, I think a level 4 rating forsubstance use disorder would be apt.Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)23:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I must say, what I think you are already partly saying. People can be addicted to things that are not substances, like gambling, videogames, sex, pornography, depending on your definition of substance. So addiction is not only a type of substance abuse (disorder). And also changing the subject, if cigarette and smoking are listed under substance abuse, it suggests we are saying those things are only used by addicts/abusers, compared to beer and wine and other alcoholes are not listed under alcoholism but would be if we followed that logic. But the "normal view may be it is not only alcoholics/addicts/abusers that drink beer and wine. Are we saying that only addicts/abusers are people that smoke cigarettes and other things? I don't have a perfect answer I'm only asking the question about how we order and list the topics, is it OK? It looks like it may need a look? but I'm not completely sure. Carlwev 14:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
In—dividuals who regularly smoke cigarettes aren't necessarily addicted to smoking tobacco. Tolerance-forming psychoactive drugs tend to induce a state of dependence over relatively short periods of repeated use though. Even so, the occurrence of withdrawal symptoms doesn't entail a substance use disorder unless those symptoms lead to clinically significant functional impairments or distress. This is sort of a moot point though because the article on smoking is about smoking arbitrary drugs, not just tobacco (e.g., crystal meth, crack cocaine, etc.).
In lieu of a more technical explanation of how large doses and/or the use of routes of administration that involve rapid drug absorption lead to pathological patterns of drug use, I'm just going to offer this analogy:smoking tobacco or other nicotine-containing products is to usingnicotine replacement therapy asbinge drinking/alcohol inhalation is tosocial drinking. The important distinction here ishow an addictive or dependence-forming drug is used, notif it's used. With that in mind, the inclusion of thesmoking andcigarette in this list seems reasonable.Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)22:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@LeadSongDog: There was a discussion a while back about this atTalk:Substance_dependence#Merge discussion. Nothing really came of it. I'm of the opinion that the substance abuse article could just be merged into a more relevant article, but a merge like that would require a RM discussion. For the moment, the issue that needs to be addressed first is correcting the "vital" rating of these two article.Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)01:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Section reflist
References
^Volkow ND, Koob GF, McLellan AT (January 2016). "Neurobiologic Advances from the Brain Disease Model of Addiction".N. Engl. J. Med.374 (4):363–371.doi:10.1056/NEJMra1511480.PMID26816013.Addiction: A term used to indicate the most severe, chronic stage of substance-use disorder, in which there is a substantial loss of self-control, as indicated by compulsive drug taking despite the desire to stop taking the drug. In the DSM-5, the term addiction is synonymous with the classification of severe substance-use disorder.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Kurt Cobain in my opinion is vital at this level. He has more pageviews than most compossers listed here, despite fact that he died 24 years ago. His article[5] on wikiquotes has 25 language versions.
Oppose certainly not before the band and nomination makes no sense some of the composers died centuries ago so obviously the person who died 26 years ago has more views. Hardly any of the listed composers are still alive.GuzzyG (talk)16:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose as per all the strong arguments around me. Cobain cannot become on a par with Lennon, with proposals around Lennon on this list almost becoming perennial. –J947(c), at07:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
We recently removed Nirvana, and I'd prefer adding Nirvana back instead of Kurt Cobain. The only individual musician we include that was part of a band isJohn Lennon, who is at least one rung higher than everyone else (and the Beatles are included separately). There have been suggestions to addFreddie Mercury too, although again I think Queen is sufficient.Gizza(t)(c)23:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think we need either Nirvana or Cobain. We have plenty of 20th century rockers and rock-derivatives.pbp16:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Kurt Cobain has 25 language versions on Wikiquotes. Every Rock perssonality on this list (outside John Lennon and Bob Dylan) has much fewer language versions than Kurt Cobain:[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12] and some of them still liveDawid2009 (talk)17:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Soccer, American football, Baseball and Basketball are four sports where coach/business person is enough popular and focused for inclusion here. Sepp Blatter amongeight president of FIFA is the most vital person because of he even has his category:own category. He is the only reasonable choice to include here among soccer bussiness personalities. Alex Ferguson will never be listed at this level because of he even is not the most important Scottish soccer personality (Kenny Daglish is more vital. It is not accident that existKenny Dalglish Soccer Manager orKenny Dalglish Soccer Match but not Ferguson Manager). If we are going to make diversity list in my opinion in my opinion one bussiness personality is better choice than one woman player. Generally Bussiness personalities/coaches always have more wikidata entires than woman soccer players on Wikipedia and often even if they were born in 19th century.Jules Rimet have 53 wikidta entires despite fact he was born in 19th centry,Vittorio Pozzo was born in 19th centoury too and he has 33 etc.
If we decide we need somebody to represent the business of soccer, this is not the guy. I'm not wholly sold on having a business of soccer but Rimet would be my choice.pbp16:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Rimet is better but there's no space for him so i would vote oppose for him too most likely. There's just too many more important historical figures, swap him with Eusebio i'd probably support.GuzzyG (talk)16:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Soccer, American football, Baseball and Basketball are four sports where coach/bussiness person is enaugh focussed for inclusion here. In my opinion Branch Rickey deserve to be swapped for one Baseball player. It is the only bussiness personality ratedd as top-importance article by relevant wikiproject. At this level we have poople who have worse importance scale.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Reasons above. This city is only part ofTricity, Poland and is less vital than some not listd Polish cities:Szczecin,Łódź. In my opinion if we have Chicago at the level 4 we should have not more than 4 Polish cities at the level 4.
Oppose "Gdańsk" is the new name of Danzig, part of a disputed region between Poland and the Weimar Republic. The dispute was one of the main causes fortWorld War II.Dimadick (talk)15:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Thi It is the same creature but Bogeyman unquestionably is very more vital, more general concept and more valuable for featured articleDawid2009 (talk)21:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I meant: "more valuable for featured article" because of If we correct this article, linked articles (mentioned in Bogeyman) will be correct too. And more creatures will be corrected.Dawid2009 (talk)15:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the same reasoning as the above swap proposal of DC Comics for AT&T, Marvel Comics is just a subsidiary of Disney, which is already listed. No need to list both at this level.
Support We have no film studios or other more vital entertainment companies, we list no literature publishers which are infinitely more historically important than comic publishersGuzzyG (talk)08:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Marvel Comics are more influencial than Star Wars. Currently we have superheroes at the level 4. Ffcitional characters from Sstar Wars even do not have separate article at German Wikipedia fpor "notability"Dawid2009 (talk)20:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We're over quota here. We already include the general article on theCaste system in India, which covers Dalit, so we really don't need to list this separately at this level.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose Widely used all over the world for centuries, if not millennia. I was thinking about suggesting ladder also to add. Construction and Architecture are in the vital 100 list, commonly known and used methods/materials should be in the vital 10'000 list. Carlwev 06:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Because it is the longest fixed link over water in the world, toppling the Jiaozhou Bay Bridge (which is also located in China), and the completion of it means that PRC now has quite advanced technology (though not as advanced as USA), it is vital at this level.
Oppose – We can't have every former longest bridge record holder, and if we just had this then recentism comes into play.J947(c), at23:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Weak support – I was about to oppose as the olden day equivalent ofluxury vehicle but that article doesn't make this level. Anyone want to propose it?J947(c), at23:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose He is far less important than many people who are not vital. Also, we are going to be at the limit for people in a month. ―SusmuffinTalk20:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Before we have a photojournalist we needphotojournalism, asMalerisch implied in the previous proposal of this. If anyone wants to take the initiative to start a discussion regarding that, that's fine with me.J947(c), at22:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
He won a Nobel prize but we don't list every Nobel winner and in the grand scheme of literature he is not that influential. We are at the limit of biographies nearly and we are still missing much more influential writers like Plautus who was the earliest Roman playwright whose works have survived in their entirety; we have so much Greek playwrights but hardly any Roman ones. The importance and vitality here are incomparable; especially when you consider the major influence Plautus had on Shakespeare who is obviously supremely vital to English literature of which Pinter is apart.
Support Harold Pinter is perhaps the least important listed writer. Meanwhile, Plautus was one of Rome's most influential playwrights. ―SusmuffinTalk15:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
The removal. Although I've only read the lede of the article on Harold Pinter, I clearly know that he is vital due to the fact that he is indeed one of the most influential modern British dramatists. and this is the English Wikipedia, meaning highly influential British figures (worldwide) should not be removed from the list.--RekishiEJ (talk)11:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Huxley is a big name; but he's vital for mainly one book of which we list the book itself; just like we don't have JK Rowling or Bram Stoker or Ian Fleming etc we should not have Huxley. Livius 's lede states him to be " to have been the originator of Latin literature. He is the earliest Roman poet whose name is known" which speaks for itself on vitality.GuzzyG (talk)09:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Support removal We don't need Huxley as well as Brave New World; his other works are not that important or well-known. But I'm not convinced that Livius Andronicus is vital just because he's the first known Roman author and on his merits he does not seem a sufficiently major writer.Neljack (talk)11:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose Can't support another western writer whose support votes credit him as a "imitator" of someone else on the list.GuzzyG (talk)16:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
Just because a poem was listed when the list had no control, doesn't mean automatically it's poet must aswell. especially our bias considering recency.Paul Verlaine is better regarded then Mallarme anyway at this style.GuzzyG (talk)11:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support Brazil has too many music representatives. Asian music is the area where we are missing the most in music. Swapping him withSelena is the better option.GuzzyG (talk)08:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I know she's relatively recent - but her influence to the Latin music market is HUGE; she's credited as bringing it into the mainstream of music. For such a important genre (Latin music) we only have one woman. We even have a standalone articleabout her influence. Without her the Latin pop market today would not be what it is. Her influence section on her article says more than i ever could. I know they're cult favorites on this list but she's more influential to worldwide music history thenJoan Baez,Joni Mitchell,Patsy Cline andDolly Parton who are listed.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As nom. He was a highly popular Indian nationalist in India, Nehru acknowledged that his popularity was leading to a new national awakening, and at one time his popularity rivaled even Mr. Gandhi's, meaning he is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk)13:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support Bannister who is very famous for breaking a somewhat arbitrary barrier but whose overall career does not place him in the same class as other runners on the list.Neljack (talk)21:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Support There's too much runners and not enough field athletes. Athletics should be spread out between them.GuzzyG (talk)16:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Currently we have two field hockey players at the level 4 and one futsal player at the level 5. It is not proportional because of futsal is more popular sport than field hockey despite fact futsal is not olympic sport. I agree that we do not need any futsal players at this level but I will never agree that number of field hockey players at the LEVEL 4 should be higher than number of futsal players at the LEVEL 5
Oppose We have one man and one woman for hockey. Given that in many places hockey is a more popular sport for women than men, I see no reason why Aymar should be removed. I don't think two athletes is unreasonable given international popularity of hockey, including in large countries such as India and Pakistan. Futsal is a popular sport but it does not get as much attention at the elite level.Neljack (talk)21:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Volleyball generally is more popular team sport than field hockey, popular among women and is not represented at this level. We have two field hockey players at the level 4 and five at the level 5 but only one futsal player at the level 5 and 7 volleyball + beach volleyball players at this level.Dawid2009 (talk)13:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bjorndalen was the most decorated winter sport figure at the time but he represents biathlon, and we do not list some similar sports related withCombined track and field events. We also do not listMagnus Carlsen who is more vital as Norwegian sport personality (and IMO still not enaugh vital at this level yet).
Mega Oppose most accomplished athlete in a category of sports with internationally recognized competition less notable then a top 10 chess player? No way. Also that's a lie, we do cover multi sports events withJackie Joyner-Kersee for heptathlon andJim Thorpe for decathlon.GuzzyG (talk)08:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose I am not sure if this proposal is still live, but as the person who successfully proposed Bjørndalen's addition to the list I will register my opposition. It is true that Bjørndalen has since been overtaken as the all-time Winter Olympic medal leader by his compatriotMarit Bjørgen (whom we also have on the list), but this does not change the fact that his achievements mark him as one of the greatest Olympians and unquestionably the greatest biathlete of all time.Neljack (talk)09:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
Magus Carlsen isthe strongest chess player of all time (although he is still not enaughvital at this level because fact that he is the strongest human in history of chess does not mean that he made more constribute to history/society than Fisher or Kasparov and chess does not need be favorised by recentism). When I told that we do not have other similar sports, I clearly have meant that we do not list sport events such likeHeptathlon,Pentathlon ormodern Pentathlon at the level 4 (in context of sports but not in context of people). Anyway I now also note that Ole Einar Bjørndalenis also still the most decoratedmale in history of winter olympics (There is more decorated female but there are none more decorated males in history of winter olympics so far). So Iwithdraw this nomination (I have not put two plus two here). But I still think that we should consider addition ofHeptathlon to every day life because of we have one representant of biathlon and we do not have important event. I also would be rather oppose making more diversity list for sport people from niche sports at the level 4 while we have only 2 chess players and only 2-3 moutainners.@Cobblet: is this reasonable to add Carlsen in next few years to this level? I do not think we need Carlsen at the moment (I think 2 chess players without Carlsen is enaugh) but he ismuch more known worldwide than Bjorndalen (and he has more pagewatchers(47) on NorwegianWiki), despite fact Bjorndalen is recently active in media such like Carlsen is recently active in media as well (see:[13]). BTW, why Judit Polgar get worse importance range (high) by wikiproject than players such like Philidor or Anderssen (top)?Dawid2009 (talk)16:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Because importance ratings aren't discussed, aren't products of consensus, and are therefore meaningless. Who are you removing if you add Carlsen? I'm not convinced we need three chess players. If we don't, then all you can do is swap Fischer with Carlsen. I personally might support that swap in a few years' time (I'd like at least to see him defend his world title once more), but I also value Fischer's achievements less highly than your average chess connoisseur.Cobblet (talk)17:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In my opinion this one for sure should not be controversial (even for people who would prefer keep 50 sports figures instead 100). William G. Morgan is inventor of Volleyball. He is currently more foccused/notable than all current/active notable volleyball players. He also would be representant of Badminton. Badminton and Volleyball are more popular sports than donen sports with representants at this level.
Oppose We're at the limit nearly and Morgan is not more vital thenPlautus orLivius Andronicus who are missing. Volleyball is not super important that it requires a representatives.Lin Dan is the proper badminton representive and considering hes one of Chinas most well known athletes he could make it but again. We're at capacity nearly.GuzzyG (talk)08:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
[14][15]. Volleyball has 50 wikidata versions with 20+ pageviews per day while Crickiet has 35 language versions with 20+ pageviews per day. I think we could make space forone Volleyball figure when we need more team sport.
Cricket is infinitely more prominent then volleyball. This is why you do not base everything on Wikipedia statistics for level 4. I did for level 5 yes, but this list is for extremely INFLUENTIAL people not level 5's more lenient pop culture list.GuzzyG (talk)17:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I see no reason why this region should be listed at Level 4 when its Northern Hemisphere counterpartSubarctic or other climatic regions likeSubtropics are not.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If you remove a city as hugely influential asStrasbourg, there's no way Austin even comes close to being on this list. But even with Strasbourg being kept on the list, and 29 American cities already on the list, I don't see that Austin belongs there. US cities should probably be reduced to 25 in fact.Headbomb {t ·c ·p ·b}17:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
As developed countries are generally more urbanized, it is natural for them to have more cities listed per capita. As the United States is the largest developed country in the world, it should naturally have a high number of cities listed.feminist (talk)06:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose – I regret my three-paragraph weak support of Sacramento. (I'll give anyone who's interested the link if they want) I'd say that Sacramento is marginally more important than Austin but neither would deserve VA4.J947(c), at03:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
OpposeNantes has been one of the most important European ports for centuries, while Belfast was insignificant prior to the 19th century.Dimadick (talk)15:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose – You could make a case for the UK getting one more, but not for Nantes and probably just a straight add looking at the quota. And maybe Belfast isn't the one.J947(c), at22:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
Both the UK and France have 8 cities each. Not sure about the over and under-representation claim.Gizza(t)(c)21:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I intentionally nominated Tooth fairt aheada ofEaster Bunny because of we should not list Easter Bunny ahead of Easster egg or foundamental articles such likeFertility rite/Fertlity cult or Ēostre. Tooth fairy is much older than Easater Bunny and has plenty figures/variants in various places in wolrd (for example in Asia).Dawid2009 (talk)07:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose I don't think we're so desperate for quota to remove X-Men, but could be convinced otherwise. I strongly oppose addingJoker (character); even listingBatman isn't certain at this level and there's not room for a rogue's gallery.power~enwiki (π,ν)02:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose An entire team with many popular characters, against a single character? The Joker is older by 23 years of publication history, but he does not have a comparable impact. "The conflict between mutants and normal humans is often compared to real-world conflicts experienced by minority groups inAmerica such asAfrican Americans,Jews, various religious (or "non-religious") groups such asMuslims andatheists,Communists, theLGBT community, thetransgender community, etc. ... Also on an individual level, a number of X-Men serve ametaphorical function as their powers illustrate points about the nature of the outsider."Dimadick (talk)20:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@Susmuffin: sections with fictional characters should be diversited in a way where: folkloric creatures need be historically important/influjencial and: fictional characters from popular cultujre need by much more global than local folkloric creatures and much more popular if they deserve for inslusion here (we do not list all countries at tjhe level 3 to keep space for other articles so we also should not list all folkloristic creatures at the level 5 to keep space for some other fictional characters). I do know Joker is enaugh vital at this level but it is for sure the most important supervillian. He probably was inspitarion to various other magican villiams characters. Magican often are villiams in arts such like wolf asBig Bad Wolf is villiam character. I could give very detalic example where Felonious Hexx is villiam.Dawid2009 (talk)21:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose per feminist and Susmuffin. Would be in the top 100,000 but not even convinced it is top 50,000 (all of its main games have more name recognition and vitality).Gizza(t)(c)23:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
@Thi:,@Wumbolo:. Monopoly is mentioned in first paragraph at this article but Hasbro is vital certainly not due to Mobopol,Dungeons & Dragons,My Little Pony. Hasbro is vital due to it has influence fortriaditional tabletop games.Yathzee (much more popular than monopoly onplayok.com) is patented by hasbro which and this game has been evoluated from acient dice games.Battleship is evoluoated from traditional paper-and-pencil traditional game to board game thank to Hasbro.Categories are evoluoated from traditional paper and pencil gameto board game thank to Hasbro.Stratego is modern board game which has been created based on acient gameJungle (board game) thank to Hasbro.Jenga is the most important game of mental and physical skills and is patented by Hasbro. In your opinions we should listed 50 games and toys at the level 5 instead Hasbro?Dawid2009 (talk)19:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Scrabble this is also prduct of Hasbro and is listed at the level4. This game is more popular on playok.com than Monopoly and even chess!. At the level 5 we have one Scrabble player on list and maybe we will have in future: Scrabble championship.Dawid2009 (talk)21:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose strongly – Recently I decided to go through VA2's archive and I found a discussion about just that, at a level with an 100x higher requirement than this. Basically... nope.J947(c), at23:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think that Smile deserve for inclusion to the level 4 because of we listEmoticon at the level 5 and smile is important thing in context of antrophology or everyday life.
Smile would probably be OK at level 5. There are many facial expressions and gestures.Facial expression would be the parent topic to this, it has crossed my mind before and has a chance at getting in.Body language is a decent suggestion too, they are both somewhat covered by nonverbal communication but I think the overlap here is acceptable, nonverbal communication is very wide. Carlwev 07:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose - it is indeed a broader topic given that it also applies to economic theory, but that also makes it less focused. Econometrics is thebread and butter of empirical economics and IMO is as important as, if not more important than, the parent topic in relation to its encyclopedic value.Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)04:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support. This list is supposed to be tailored to the English Wikipedia, so the article on Modern English is absolutely vital at this level.Rreagan007 (talk)06:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Support We have WAY too few languages at this level (representative balance beetween universitetes and languages is ridicouls).Dawid2009 (talk)13:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose. Javascript is very important for web development, and, at least in terms of what it is used for, is probably less like Java than Python is.Orser67 (talk)06:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Strongest possible oppose Absolutely not. Semiconductors are one of the main class of materials, it would make as much sense to remove that as it would to removemetal. However, I agree with Rreagan007 below that this should go into Science somewhere.Headbomb {t ·c ·p ·b}20:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I think the significance of semiconductors makes two articles at this level reasonable (there is one at L3).Gizza(t)(c)00:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Whether it it kept at this level or not, it should be moved out of the Technology section and into the Science/Physics section.Rreagan007 (talk)20:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not much long-term significance; probably less common these days than aluxury vehicle a much more historically significant and far predating topic not on this list. —J947(c), at23:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not much vitality in my opinion, though it's hard to judge for me living in the largest pickup truck market in the world. —J947(c), at01:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The fact that he is both memorialized as a heroic martyr and visionary, and vilified as a madman and a terrorist in America means he is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk)13:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@GuzzyG: What do you think about swap John Brown for Jack the Ripper. John Brown as Abolonist who is considered "American Hero" is fewer vital than criminals who are considered as "America outlaw heros" such like Jesse James, Billy The Kid (see above). It is the same category of personality but Jack the Ripper clearly is more influencial.Dawid2009 (talk)16:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A far more important peak than Kosciusko IMO and a deserving representative of New Zealand's numerous mountains, slightly more important thanMount Ruapehu. I feel like proposing a swap with Kosciusko which posits no challenge to mountaineers and isn't a volcano either (and wow, there was a road to a few metres from the summit until recent) and it's only claims to fame are the result of lack of competition (and stupid people who think that Oceania is only Australia). If you complain along the lines of "we've already got 5 Oceanian mountains" keep in mind that two mountains in that category are actually located in Asia and another might be in North America depending on your definition of sea-continental boundaries (wow).
Support Agree that Mount Cook is more vital than Kosciusko, which is not a very big or otherwise significant mountain - it really has nothing except the Australian record to recommend it.Neljack (talk)03:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm surprised this is passing, actually, despite me being nom. On reflectionSouthern Alps or an article for the North Island volcanic zone might edge out Mount Cook. The southern alps is included at L5, not Mount Cook, and Ruapehu runs roughly equal to it. I've re-marked down as neutral.J947(c), at03:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
The Southern Alps used to be on the list. It was removed around four and a half years ago (archive). I reluctantly supported it at the time though on reflection think that physical geography as a whole deserve more coverage than what it currently has. Not sure if Aoraki/Mount Cook or the Southern Alps are the better choice.Gizza(t)(c)21:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The Southern Alps would be the better choice in my opinion, forming the dividing barrier of the South Island politically and, of course, physically, also being a fault line and causing the infamous West Coast rain. Still hard to decide though.J947(c), at23:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support I am not sure whyThe Maxims of Ptahhotep was listed to begin with. Meanwhile, ancient Egyptian literature is an important field of study. ―SusmuffinTalk00:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
It's on the list because some scholars regard it as the oldest existing book; the swap is probably better though.GuzzyG (talk)10:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since winter sports often have their own multi-sport tournaments, such as the Winter Olympic Game (taken from the lede of the article on winter sport), it is no doubt vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk)06:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC) added a clause 12:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Weak support after a long time of thinking. One of the main goals of this list is for improvement of these articles. This could easily be expanded substantially, and being added to this list could further awareness of this embarrassingly tiny article. In this case IMO the precedent should be overruled.J947(c), at23:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I think that it is too general concept. Article aboutWinter sport (check this article) is pretty such likeWater sport - it could be list. All winter sports can be enaugh described is separate own featurerd articles (alpine skiing,snowboarding,ski jumping, etc. I would prefer consider add some organisation related with winter sport to cover something other (if we decide that listing sport organisations is worth at this level).Dawid2009 (talk)21:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I was about to pass this nomination, but then I noticed that this is currently categorized as a List-class article, and right now we have a convention of not having any List-class articles at Level 4. I think this warrants some further discussion. If this remains List-class, then I don't think it should be listed at level 4. However, if it is converted to a standard article and expanded, then I could see it being a Level 4 article.Rreagan007 (talk)18:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Been mentioned below under Anthropology, seems a fine suggestion. Definitely more important thanMeme. It could also be added under Language or Anthropology, but I decided here was the optimal place, due toNonverbal communication being here.J947(c), at03:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Some overlap with nonverbal communication, but I think it's important enough to list both, it's of interest to experts and general readers, and relevant to all people in all cultures to some degree. There are quite a few studies and books about the topic. Carlwev 20:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support just because Marvel's been removed. I'd prefer if this is closed as passed and then we can have a discussion about the merits of both. I'm neutral otherwise.J947(c), at03:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd support swapping this in for the comic book publishers (the main superheroes are already listed separately too).Gizza(t)(c)23:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose all 3 removals. Those currencies are the currencies of major countries. The pound sterling is important historically. The Renminbi and the Yen are the currencies of the 2nd and third largest economies, respectively. Any discussion of currencies requires knowing these three.PointsofNoReturn (talk)23:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose in regards to the long-serving pound sterling, as it has supported a large part of the British Empire and is featured in dozens of thousands of novels etc. I am not so sure with including a lot of currencies though, so I'll sayneutral for the other two, and as an extension the rupee too.J947(c), at23:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
This has always bugged me. I would say that theEconomy of Japan is more vital than theJapanese Yen. Same with other countries. The entire economy of a nation is more vital than the currency it uses. At the moment we only have three economies but six currencies.Gizza(t)(c)01:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We are currently over quota in this section. This article was added as a swap back when we removed the 13 transactinide elementshere. We have since removed a number of other synthetic elements from this level. I really don't think this article is needed, as we also list the article onSynthetic elements which covers all of the transactinide elements.
Oppose agree with Wumbolo. A big portion of the periodic table won't be covered at all if transactinide element is removed apart from the general periodic table and element articles (which are Level 3 anyway). The formation of new transactinide elements is important as it is predicted that eventually their half-lives will be longer and we will find theisland of stability.Gizza(t)(c)12:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Both vital concepts to physicists, but the latter is more well-known and is what is responsible for permanent magnets. With only room for one, I'd include the latter.216.234.200.180 (talk)20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Instead of another comics writer; here is a physician, in which we lack and whose lede says "He is also considered to be the greatest scientific naturalist of China" and whose work "remains as the premier reference work for herbal medicine". The major figure of Chinese medicine. I'm admittedly not good at writing these kinds of things but i think his article speaks for itself.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Battle of Grunwald is the biggestknight's battle in histry of world and is probably more vital than every other Polish battles listed at this level. This Battle is influencial for Polish art (for exampleBitwa pod Grunwaldem byJan Matejko,Krzyżacy byHenryk Sienkiewicz).
FYI, there are no other Polish battles listed at this level. By my count, there are only four in total.Gizza(t)(c)00:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Battle of Vienna,Polish–Muscovite War (1605–1618). We list two Poles-relatedd wars/battles. Battle of Grunwald is more famous/vital than Polish–Muscovite War and has comparable vitality to Battle of Vienna (Battle of Grunwald has more language versions, the articles get the same number of pagewatchers but Battle of Vienna get more pagewievs in English Wikipedia). Anyway what do you think about removing of Polish–Muscovite War (1605–1618)?Second Northern War andDeluge (history) (as part of Second Northern War) also seems be more vital than Second Northern War and are not listed.Dawid2009 (talk)06:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Uruk was a very important city of ancientSumer. I believe that it's prominence as an early city and its impact on the development of urbanization and writing makes it a good candidate for Level 4. As the article states: "In addition to being one of the first cities, Uruk was the main force of urbanization and state formation during the Uruk period, or 'Uruk expansion' (4000–3200 BC). This period of 800 years saw a shift from small, agricultural villages to a larger urban center with a full-time bureaucracy, military, and stratified society. Although other settlements coexisted with Uruk, they were generally about 10 hectares while Uruk was significantly larger and more complex. The Uruk period culture exported by Sumerian traders and colonists had an effect on all surrounding peoples, who gradually evolved their own comparable, competing economies and cultures."Orser67 (talk)16:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose I'm not sure that article can exist as a stand-alone article at all. Certainly not a top-10000 article, probably not even suitable for level-5.power~enwiki (π,ν)19:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The former is a cool state of matter, but has relatively limited utility due to the extreme conditions required for existence. The latter covers the concept more broadly, while also covering other important topics in the area.216.234.200.180 (talk)20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support swap as per nom. I believe that the voyager program is vital here with some article or another, and this should be it.J947(c), at03:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support Not sure why we should single out Sons and Lovers rather than Lady Chatterley's Lover (which surely had greatest cultural impact), Women in Love or The Rainbow.Neljack (talk)11:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Lawrence's depiction of gender roles deviated a lot from the standards of his era, and is still relevant: "Lawrence held seemingly contradictory views on feminism. The evidence of his written works, particularly his earlier novels, indicates a commitment to representing women as strong, independent and complex; he produced major works in which young, self-directing female characters were central. In his youth he supported extending the vote to women, and once wrote, “All women in their natures are like giantesses. They will break through everything and go on with their own lives.” "Dimadick (talk)14:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support – My philosophy here is generally band before album/writer before book/etc. And I think we can remove an English writer in another proposal to combat the bias. Honestly though it's an English book removed anyway so I don't see the need.J947(c), at05:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
BecauseE. M. Forster considered D. H. Lawrence to be "the greatest imaginative novelist of our generation",Sons and Lovers is only placed ninth on The Modern Library's list of the 100 best novels of the 20th century,A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man,Catch-22 andDarkness at Noon, which are regarded better by The Modern Library's editors are currently not listed, and WP:VA4 currently exceeds the quota, Lawrence should be added whileSons and Lovers be removed.--RekishiEJ (talk)13:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If we have the other twoTrinity of Carnatic music people, why not list the third as well, it helps us with pre modern coverage and to counter the western bias
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
One of the most important Eastern European directors after the war, known especially forAshes and Diamonds (1958). He is often compared to such directors as Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola and Roman Polanski.
Wajda and Polanski probably are more vital for English Wikipedia than for Polish Wikipedia if we compare them to other Polish. In Polish Wikipedia Wajda had less pageviews after his death thanZbigniew Wodecki after his death (see:[16]) and Zbigniew Wodecki even had not article on English Wikipedia before his death + he is less vital than some other modern Polish compossers. Anyway I am not sure we we need Wajda at this level. In Poland Wajda and Polanski historically are not nearly vital to Matejko or Kochanowski but I also do not think Matejko and Kochanowski are vital at the level 4.Dawid2009 (talk)22:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Delon is the more important modern french film actor of the two, been around longer and has had more influence. Delon is in more wikidata languages too.
The addition, since he is known as one of Europe's most prominent actors and screen sex symbols from the 1960s.--RekishiEJ (talk)12:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Weak support addition, neutral on removal – Both seem fairly vital, I'm not experienced in this particular area, but this is the result of my analysis.J947(c), at05:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Currently we have one player from USA woman national team and too many man soccer players from 60's who never won FIFA world cup. England man National soccer team is more vital than USA woman national team[17] and this teamhas won fifa world cup one time in history and just in 1966. This list has to be important for reeaders for English Wikipedia not for worldwide view. So it is insulting for anyone from United Kingtom when we include Eusebio, Mia Hamm, Lev Yashin above: Bobby Charlton, Bobby More (they won world cup in 1966 with England) and George Best (He played for North Irleand but he has been regarted asthe best sport personality of the century by BBC among people such like Mohhamad Ali, etc. and hestill has enaugh reputation). If we do not have any hockey goalkeepers at this level I really do not think that we need Lev Yashin here. Mia Hamm often is compared to Aby Wambach and Alex Morgan so she is not very greatest woman of all time. Eusebio at his best peak in my oinion was much better player than Michel Platini or Cristiano Ronaldo at their best peak but I would left Platini ahead Eusebio due to fact that he was long time UEFFA president and I would left Cristiano Ronaldo ahead Eusebio due to fact that he won 2016 UE with Portugal and Eusebio not.
Oppose removal of Mia Hamm: We should have at least one and probably 2-3 female soccer players. If we remove Mia Hamm, will we haveany women? FWIW, I would be somewhat OK with swapping Hamm for Wambach.pbp03:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose removal of Mia Hamm and Lev Yashin: We clearly have a Hockey goaltender and Soccer's more important anyway. No women and no goalkeepers is unacceptable. The only one we're missing who is important is pitcherCy Young, he is the ONLY important player missing out of any listed team sport. There should be hardly any more additions to team sports, because the listed ones are at capacity and the unlisted ones like Rugby League, Aussie Rules, Canadian Football, Lacrosse, Softball, Netball, Water Polo, Polo, Handball and Bandy etc are country/locale specific. If we NEED any more additions to team sports it should be Young (swapped for a baseball player listed on here ONLY) or a Water Polo/Team Handball addition because they're Olympic sports and we have so much American sports and hardly ANY Olympic sportspeople. This list is not like the level 5 list and has extremely strict conditions that no statistic can calculate.GuzzyG (talk)04:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
How is your point? It is insulting when English national team is not represented but we have represented USA woman national team (despite fact we even do not have any business personality) and we have TWO players from that era who never won World Cup. There are two solutions: 1cut more soccer players to say 9 (in that case we will have generally fewer soccer players and it will be not insulting for anyone, we do not need a lot of soccer players if we have 7 rock peersonalities on this list) 2add at least George Best and one sport personality to this level for at least 15 soccer players... Woman soccer tradition exist shorter time than Man soccer tradition, it is littly to early to have 2-3, 1 or 0 is currently reasonable.Dawid2009 (talk)06:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
0 would be unreasonable, and consider that, as the list is presently constructed, Hamm not only represents the USA women's team, but all other women's teams in now a 30+ year history.pbp13:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
60's is the only decade where we have more than one players and we have here 3 players, it is silly when we do not have English player fromgolden generation. Aanyway addition of English players would be difficult (Although Bobby Charlton has the best reputation in England, Bobby Moore has been regarted asUEFA Jubilee Awards and [BBC sports personality in 1966, George Bst has the best reputation in England but he had short time best peak and he never played on World Cup). I would prefer remove Michel Platini and Eusebio but in that case Sepp Blatter will not be include ahead Michel Patini.Dawid2009 (talk)21:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@PBP I have added alternative suggstion below but in that wayFIFA Women's World Cup should be added to the level 4. It is no way that we have one woman player before player from Premier League, when Premier League is listed at the level 4.Dawid2009 (talk)16:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Miyamoto Musashi was an accomplished duelist, writer, philosopher and artist. He fought over 60 duels and was victorious in all of them. In addition to this, he wroteThe Book of Five Rings, which is one of the most prominent texts on martial arts. It discusses his viewpoints on combat and philosophy. He also became one of Japan's most prominent artists. Furthermore, Japanese culture is permeated with depictions of Musashi and his legendary exploits.
I had a moment of brain freeze and forgot swordsmanship is a martial art; he fits in sports as does martial arts.GuzzyG (talk)11:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you. I just pointed that we also need historical recreational topics when we have comparable sport figures to acient athlets. Cynesca likely is not vital but chariot racing should be ahead of other acient sport figure (even if they are not representant chairot racing) because of we intentionally do not list soccer players or Ali at the level 3 ahead of other sports.Dawid2009 (talk)15:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
9 is too many Tennis players considering its history and popularity in comparison to other sports listed here. The men's game is more vital and important then the woman's game but we have 5 women and 4 men.; so i have chosen the less vital women's player taking time frame into consideration. It may seem like a hard choice but it's not when you consider that Tennis has to much, ideally Tennis should have 6 or 5 but i doubt we can get that low with consensus. We really need to include more Olympic sports into this list; it's the most important event; athletes likeLin Dan,Dezső Gyarmati,Jan-Ove Waldner,Greg Louganis,Reiner Klimke,Valentina Vezzali,Dick Fosbury andIvano Balić should have more importance then another bland Tennis player; in sports history the olympics will always come first before Tennis in any academic history of sport. I know Tennis is in the Olympics but Navratilova never won any gold in the Olympics so it does not count.
Strong oppose I find this proposal absolutely baffling - I would regard Navratilova as probably the most vital female tennis player. She is the most successful and consistent women's tennis player of the Open Era, holding the records for most singles and doubles titles and for most Grand Slam titles (man or woman - an incredible 59 titles all up). She faced tougher competition than any of the others, having to compete for years against an all-time great in Chris Evert and then later in her career having Graf and Seles to deal with. Graf never had to compete against an all-time great after Seles's stabbing (without which she surely wouldn't have won as many Grand Slam Titles). Williams has competed in a relatively weak era of women's tennis and has lacked Navratilova's consistency or record outside of Grand Slams. Court won the majority of her Grand Slam titles before the Open Era, when professionals were excluded from competing. She also dominated at the Australian Open because many top players didn't make the long journey there in those days. And of course there was less competition back in Lenglen's day. None of this is to deny that they are all among the greats of the game, but merely to emphasise that Navratilova's record - already remarkable on its face - is astonishing when you consider that she played in possibly the strongest-ever era of women's tennis. She was also important as a pioneering LGBT athlete. I urge reconsideration of this proposal. If a female tennis player is to go, it should be Lenglen, Court or even Graf if it has to be a recent player - not Navratilova, who I would suggest (and I am hardly alone in this) had the greatest career of them all.Neljack (talk)10:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support A company that developed Unix and the C programming language is no doubt vital at this level, even if they didn't purchase WarnerMedia.--RekishiEJ (talk)14:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Support World's largest telecommunications company, has a subsidary at this level... I could go on.J947(c), at10:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Support I don't really have to explain much, honestly. All of the reasons why I would support this addition are above.InvalidOS (talk)12:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support more common than some programming languages, possibly more common than Morse code, braille and maybe even sign language, used widely in several industries especially retail, it's design and the way it works are interesting, and there are several different types too which the article explains. Carlwev 09:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose disagree with the reasoning more than anything (the notion that more common than e.g. programming languages makes it more vital). Being common is not enough. There are a very few books about barcodes in any library you go. There are very few courses about barcodes. Code or identifier would be better options.Gizza(t)(c)00:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The way I personally interpret "tailored to the English language" to mean tailoring towards the language itself as opposed to people that happen to speak it. In any case, grammar is the most fundamental component of language (Level 3 vital) so English grammar is a suitable addition at this level. Definitely more vital thanThe Goon Show andPunch (magazine).
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn by nominator. I was thinking along the grounds of 'a big cat is' rather than 'the term big cat is'. Our article sides with the second.J947(c), at18:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose. This appears to be a slang term for the genusPanthera. If we are going to list a "big cat" article, it should be the article on the genus.Rreagan007 (talk)20:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm not going to fully withdraw yet because I think a discussion here aboutPanthera is warranted. I'm not quite sure we should include it but I'm leaning towards supporting a proposal for it. Thinking about it, big cat has little encyclopedic material and interest about it, whereas the genus does generate that.Rreagan007, what's your opinion about the possibility of Panthera?J947(c), at21:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
@J947: We currently list all of the individual species of the genus Panthera (lion,tiger,jaguar, andleopard) at this levelexcept forsnow leopard. I think it would be better if we add snow leopard at this level, since readers are more likely to be interested in reading about the individual species articles rather than the genus article.Rreagan007 (talk)21:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes I think so too. And looking at the quota, we're slightly below here so I think that's a good add. Plus, we don't really include many species that live in similar climates to thesnow leopard. Granted, there'sreindeer andred deer but to me it doesn't feel like they're on the same page.J947(c), at03:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We are well over quota. BeforeTreaty of Trianon population of Hungary was similar to population of Romania; so I highly doubt Romania deserves for better representation than Hungary. Also fact thatRomanian language is younger thanMoldavian language can be argument that maybe Romania does not require representation when we are WELL-OVER quota.
Support. As nom says we are well over quota here, and this is certainly the weakest "history of country" article, at least in the Europe section.Rreagan007 (talk)04:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Looking over the physics section, these articles about experiments don't seem vital enough to me to list at this level. There are more important physics articles that we could list than these. These aren't even the most important physics experiments we could be listing, though honestly I don't think we should be listing any individual experiments at this level.
I could support removal of Millikan (electric charge). Discovery of the electron, stepping stone to understanding the atom. Important to physics and chemistry, furthered understanding of electricity, but didn't change the world all that much (electrons were already long discovered). Michelson−Morley however, that killedaether theory/Galilean relativity and bolsteredEinsteinian relativity. That is pretty big. I could see that one go either way. But the Geiger−Marsden experiment? The discovery of the nucleus leading to the first semi-correct view of the atom? The very beginning of allnuclear science, and the very first modern particle collision experiment? That is HUGE. That one needs to stay.Headbomb {t ·c ·p ·b}14:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support Used world wide and in use for at least 10,000 years according to the article. Of interest to construction, architecture, warfare, transport and other areas. We list scaffolding crane and stairs, although ladders are quite simple, stairs are also simple, as are things like doors tables and spears, doesn't make them nonvital. Carlwev 17:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As nom. Since submachine guns, although being replaced by assault rifles to a certain extent nowadays, they were quite frequently used in WWII, and at present military special forces and police SWAT teams still use them for close quarters battle.--RekishiEJ (talk)11:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose. I don't think we need to list both machine guns and submachine guns at this level. A submachine gun is essentially a machine gun that fires pistol-caliber rounds rather than rifle-caliber rounds.Rreagan007 (talk)19:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per Gizza's comment the last time this was proposed. Honestly though, if it's failed twice before with no one other than you supporting, you're gonna have to get a better rationale.J947(c), at18:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Negative numbers are widely used in everyday life for many purposes, ranging from measuring temperature to finance. I believe that, with how important negative numbers are, they deserve to be listed here.InvalidOStalk02:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
