→Remove News: Oppose |
→Swap: remove Great Barrier Reef, add Coral reef: No consensus |
||
Line 132: | Line 132: | ||
== Swap: remove [[Great Barrier Reef]], add [[Coral reef]] == |
== Swap: remove [[Great Barrier Reef]], add [[Coral reef]] == |
||
{{archive top|status=No consensus|result=3-3 not added (per bullet point 4 of the introduction) [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 21:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)}} |
|||
General article instead of exemplar is possibly better starting point for a reader of an encyclopedia. |
General article instead of exemplar is possibly better starting point for a reader of an encyclopedia. |
||
Line 145: | Line 145: | ||
;Discuss |
;Discuss |
||
{{archive bottom}} |
|||
== <s>Swap: remove [[Area]],</s> add [[Symmetry]] == |
== <s>Swap: remove [[Area]],</s> add [[Symmetry]] == |
Revision as of 21:05, 21 January 2020
Vital Articles | ||||
|
Introduction
|
The purpose of this discussion page is to select 1000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles. All Wikipedia editors are welcome to participate. Individual topics are proposed for addition or removal, followed by discussion and !voting. Since the list is currently full, it is recommended that a nomination of a new topic be accompanied by a proposal to remove a lower-priority topic already on the list.
All discussions will remain open for a minimum of 15 days.
- After 15 days any proposal may be closed as PASSED if a) at least five !votes have been cast in support, and b) at least two-thirds of the total !votes support the proposal.
- After 30 days any proposal may be closed as FAILED if it has a) earned at least 3 opposes, and b) failed to earn two-thirds support.
- After 30 days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal hasn't received any !votes for 30 or more days regardless of the !vote tally.
- After 60 days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if it has a) failed to earn at least 5 support !votes, and b) earned less than two-thirds support.
Nominations should generally be left open beyond the above-listed minimums if they have a reasonable chance of passing. Please be patient with our process. We believe that an informed discussion with more editors is likely to produce an improved and more stable final list. When proposing to add or remove a particular topic from the vital articles list, we strongly recommend that you review and compare the other topics in the same category in order to get a better sense of what is considered vital in that area.
- 15 days ago: 12:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC) ( )
- 30 days ago: 12:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- 60 days ago: 12:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
add Biome
More important than Great Barrier Reef in context of Biosphere
- Support
- As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Support Basic topic, not only in ecology but geography. More modern term than Life zone. Related to such concepts as Biogeographic realm, Geographical zone and Climate classification. --Thi (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Support, good find Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 09:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Support per nom GuzzyG (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose There is no scientific consensus I'm aware of on how best to sort out the hierarchy of intermediate biogeographic units between biogeographic realm at the top and habitat at the bottom. As far as I can tell, the only difference between a biome and an ecosystem, which we already list, is that biomes are bigger and contain multiple ecosystems, just like how states and provinces are usually bigger and contain multiple municipalities. It looks like two of the schemes listed under Biome#Classifications call their component units ecosystems. Cobblet (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose As I understand it, biome is the living part of an ecosystem. While ecosystem contains the non-living aspects (like geological formations), biome is used by biologists to classify and describe the interwoven system of living organisms in a habitat. At this level, we only need ecosystem. --Spaced about (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Discuss
It's surprising that biosphere is not Level 5 vital right now. It could even be Level 4 vital. Gizza (t)(c) 04:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- @DaGizza:I've added biosphere to Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Biological_and_health_sciences/Biology.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Swap: remove Great Lakes, add Ganges
Why North America has so plenty articles ahead of California and Central America when SA, Europe, Asia and Africa hev so few related to physical geography? I suggest to swap Great Lakes for Ganges (which is not less vital than Missisipi). Civilisational rivers generally are more important than lakes. There are a lot of civilisational Asian rivers with cultural significance but nowdays Ganges still is promient in cultural context.
- Support
- As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 06:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Support addition The list needs more rivers, the only South Asian physical geography article we currently have is Himalayas, and there are only a handful of rivers in the world whose cultural significance can match that of the Ganges. Cobblet (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Support addition rivers are indeed underrepresented. Gizza (t)(c) 21:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Support addition --Spaced about (talk) 11:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose removal. It's the largest freshwater lake system on the planet, situated between 2 predominately English-speaking countries. It's absolutely vital for the English Wikipedia at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose removal The removal of Lake Baikal was a mistake; this would be just as much of a mistake. Cobblet (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose removal the Great Lakes should be in before California. Gizza (t)(c) 21:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose removal per all of the above. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose removal Per Rreagan007. Suggest close. Jusdafax (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose removal --Spaced about (talk) 11:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Discuss
Great Lakes was previously nominated for removal here. J947 (c), at 21:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion craft and machine are maybe vital at least just as manufacturing and simple machine (wchich are already listed). Craft dye to historical aspects and machine due to fact we list robotics.
- Support
- As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Simple machine is not enough. I have proposed addition of Handicraft, but less general article Jewellery was added instead. --Thi (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Support per nom GuzzyG (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support even if it puts us over quota. The list is lacking business and economics topics (or "work" topics as someone put it somewhere on these pages). Swap in machine for simple machine. Craft should be on a much higher level. I guess it was missed because people think it is represented by trade - which has a double meaning as handicraft and as exchange of goods. -- Spaced about (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose per my comments in Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 10#Replace simple machine by machine, and the fact that there remains no consensus to add craft to level 4. Cobblet (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Discuss
Comprasion jewellery to handicraft is like comprasion clothing to sewing. IMO also craft is more vital than handicraft just like economy is more broad and vital than business. We list things like agriculture on level 3 but we also have film ahead of popular culture so craft should be added if we decide keep popular culture. Natural satelite also very is generic article and Mount Everest gets more than 50% more hits than Moon (Yes, Moon is very important article but Natural satelire is utterly redudant to planet, Moon, Earth and Solar System). Dawid2009 (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
There are many articles that cover similar ground as craft: handicraft, applied arts and decorative arts, for instance. My suggestion would be to add folk art, which again covers essentially the same subject; but as a component of folklore, it also clearly complements the already listed oral tradition and folk music. Cobblet (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@Thi, GuzzyG, and Cobblet: Craft is not level 4 yet and I slso started nomination there. Same with "birth" which was closed as failed on the level 3 Dawid2009 (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Courtesy link; now closed as no consensus. J947 (c), at 21:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Other discussions around Craft and Machine:
- At level two; addition of machine.
- At level three; addition of machine.
- At level four; removal of craft.
—J947 (c), at 21:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Swap: remove Great Barrier Reef, add Coral reef
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
General article instead of exemplar is possibly better starting point for a reader of an encyclopedia.
- Support
- Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support I agree that general topics are better than exemplars at this level. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support per nom GuzzyG (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Weak oppose To me it seems a little strange to list coral reef ahead of rainforest, although it could also be argued that since we list several terrestrial biomes already, listing a marine biome would make sense too. Also, among natural wonders I would value an exceptional hotspot of biodiversity like the Great Barrier Reef more highly than an exceptional stratigraphic column like the Grand Canyon. Cobblet (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose addition, biome has been proposed above and is a better choice than coral reef, which as Cobblet says shouldn't be in before rainforest. Neutral on removing GBR since consensus on whether we should have specific sites vs general (like this or the pyramid proposal) is still in a state of flux. Gizza (t)(c) 23:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The great barrier reef article should include a summary of a coral reef ecosystem. A 50000 word article specifically on coral reefs is too detailed for the average reader. With Great Barrier Reef, we can cover a major landmark and a prime example of an important type of ecosystem in one article. --Spaced about (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Discuss
Symmetry is in the meta's list and I think it is more interesting. There was a comment in meta that symmetry is quite general concept in geometry and important beyond mathematics, for example in visual arts.
- Support
- Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support addition Dawid2009 (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support ADDITION as an important gneral concept. RJFJR (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Addition.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose removal. Area is too important of a geometric concept. Rreagan007 (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't see why we would remove area but keep volume. To be fair, length or distance are not listed either, so there is also an inconsistency in the list as it currently stands. Cobblet (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose because of area's importance. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Removal basic concept. RJFJR (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Removal.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose removal – Area is more important than half the geometry concepts on this list. Even if we really do decide that we should be removing area we should remove volume as well, and that thought came to me before I looked at Cobblet's comment. Neutral on Symmetry's addition if length and distance aren't listed. J947 (c), at 01:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Discuss
Symmetry was added to level 4 here. J947 (c), at 21:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
RFC: Merging CoreBios into Vital Articles project?
An RfC on this topic has been started. It can be found here pbp 00:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Add Design
I think that Design is as vital as Architecture. In most general sense, architecture is design discipline, just as fashion design, product design, graphic design and so on. Design is part of everyday life and I see as kind of interface, a point of interaction between human, art and technology. The concept of design is a tool to talk about technology, for example what materials and features to choose as makers or customers. I think that concept is useful in educational sense. There are design critics just as there are architecture critics, art critics, and literature critics. Design#Philosophies_and_studies_of_design.
Applied arts is part of design. "The applied arts are all the arts that apply design and decoration to everyday and essentially practical objects in order to make them aesthetically pleasing." Design is more useful term at this level, because in modern world it deals not only with aesthetics (Ornament (art)) but also functionality. "Applied arts largely overlaps with decorative arts, and the modern making of applied art is usually called design."
- Support
- Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose In my opinion, "design" is just a fancier word for problem solving that people who call themselves "designers" use to describe what they do. Moreover, to suggest that "design" differs from applied arts/decorative arts in that it involves both form and function is to suggest that those who practiced the decorative arts before the word "design" came along failed to consider both form and function, which is simply ridiculous. I find concepts such as problem solving or creativity more meaningful. Cobblet (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Discuss
- Neutral. We only have three articles in the "architecture" section, two of which are examples of buildings, so I think we could use another one in this space. (compare to 8 articles for music or literature) I'm hesitant, though, because "design" is such a broad concept that I'm not sure it's focused enough to be a good fit for this level. Sdkb (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Remove Armour
I think that it is too specific topic at this level, similar to Artillery which was swapped for Military history. In my view there are more important technology articles such as Satellite navigation, which started as military application but is now widely used by civilians.
- Support
- Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- Support Too nany weapons in comprasion to food on this list. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose - if this is removed, the military section will become more imbalanced. There are 6 articles on offensive military technology (firearm, bow and arrow, knife, nuclear weapon, explosive and tank) while there are only 2 on defensive military technology (fortification and armour). Gizza (t)(c) 11:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Discuss
@Dawid2009: But as Gizza points out, armour is not a weapon. If anything it is a type of clothing (although it also includes things that are not clothing), and I don't think clothing is overrepresented. Cobblet (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Cobblet: For my it seems be about the sme vitalness level what sword which we already removed. Dawid2009 (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Armour was added in 2018 and proposed for removal in the same month as this nomination. J947 (c), at 21:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Merged article
Just a heads up that Animated cartoon has been merged into History of animation. Both are level 5 but I guess this frees up a slot? PC78 (talk) 04:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
WikiProject listings
FYI, JL-Bot can now be used to create listings of vital articles by WikiProject or task force. For an example, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Vital articles. PC78 (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
These articles are listed on some other vital article list (for eample Italian wiki has Savanna). It is good choice when we have so plenty countries.
- Support
- Another good alternatives related to animals are: pet (not less vital than cat or coe if we have meat and milk) and animal behaviour.Dawid2009 (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose No rationale for either proposal. Why savannas over any other type of ecosystem? Cobblet (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Savanna unless a good rationale is given; I see no reason why it should be listed over other ecosystems. No opinion on the addition of Habitat. J947 (c), at 22:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Discuss
I am also not wholly convinced we have too few countries. The biggest missed contry on this list by either of surface and population is Algeria. This country get worse Wikipedia's own statistics than Vatican City (although interesing fact is wthat we removed technical article Pope years ago). Moreover we also removed aticles like Baha'i Faith years ago for missed countries like Veitnam. Nowdays proposal for removing Baha'i Faith (currently not listed) probably would not be passed if take into fact that this religion historically has larger population than Dubai/New Zealand/Singapore etc. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Cobblet (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
- I try to suggest that physical eography (outside North America) is generally littly underrepresented and that maybe covering that area would be better choice than adding more countries as you pointed here. In the past also some religons topics have been removed for countries like Veitnam. Now we list more countries and cities, such as even small and young populated like Dubai or New Zealand have been nominated to inclusion. Dawid2009 (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Habitat was added to level 4 in 2018. J947 (c), at 22:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Add Chinese philosophy and Indian philosophy
Western philosophy is represented by Greek philosophy and we have also Western esotericism. In that case I do not see how Chinese philisophy and Indian philosophy can not be vital on this level (and I also remind that we even had nominations for other less important cultural things like Greek mythology or Ganges). Indian philosophy it is wide topic which cover e g Buddism and Hinduism etc. meanwhile Chinese philosophy cover Confutianism (Confucian civilization) and Taoism etc. (in the archives on the level 4 we can found relevant discussions about that topics). I belive we need these two wide topics if we can quite overlap /Socrates/Plato or Luther/Reformation etc. While I supprort tailoring towards to English-speaking world on this level I also do not understand why we list 6 English writers ahead of influential non indoeuropean languages or Eastern philosophies.
- Support
- Oppose
- Oppose: both are definitely important and are rightly included at level 4, but I think that Eastern philosophy is sufficient at this level for the English-language Wikipedia. Orser67 (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Eastern philosophy covers these at this level. --Thi (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Discuss
Previous discussions at Level 4: 1 2 3. The addition of Indian philosophy was proposed here in 2018. J947 (c), at 22:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Swap: remove Claude Monet, add Imhotep, Mary of Nazareth
Religious figures are underrepresente meanwhile artists are still overrepresented on this list. I explained it already in the setion just above: "remove Richard Wagner, add Folk art, Folk religion", especially at discussion. On that basics I think Monet easy can go. Monet also had not better impact in France than Chopin who.consensually got removed months ago. Category:Claude Monet is more poor than Category:Frédéric Chopin.
Imhotep gets the same GoogleNagrams what Monet despite fact he is an acient figure. He is vital not only as remarkable polymath and as medical figure but also as the first notable scientific. He wsa conisedered as deity for centuries (if not formilleniums). On that basic I belive can list him even if we have Hippocrates, Aviencca, History of medicine and we removed some examples of individual buildings.
Listing Remofrmation AND Luther apparently is systemis bias (IMO) but listing Frida Kahlo or Marie Curie ahead of Our Lady of Mexico, The Queen of Poland, The Our Lady of China etc.. (this list would be authentically endless..) is incompetent and typical example of imbroglio at diversity in that project. It is impossible to find how Her ultimate archetypical influence is not perfectly rampant nearly very worldwide. Missing Krishna (after removing important religious text which was added to cover just Krishna) also is not understandable because of we have here odd and unculmitative methotology where bios like Adi Shankara, Martin Luther, Thomas Aquinas etc. are more picked and favourised. Mary is definietly the one religious woman figure to have on this list (even if ALL women cover marginal fraction in Abrahamic Religion in religious texts) and I did not found how Mary is less vital than Jesus in Islam . She deserves priority for featured article. Her category has 64 lenguage versions and its views in various languages overweigh Category:Reformation and get comparable results to Category:Muhammad, if we properly take into fact fact Mary has many common names and redirects in various languages (which why, for example, Category:Mary, mother of Jesus is less viewed on the English Wikipedia than category about Mary on the Japanese Wikipedia ([1]/[[2]).
- Support
- Strong Support for all changes Dawid2009 (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- Strong support for adding Mary, Support for removing Monet. Mary constitutes a central figure in multiple branches of Christianity, is venerated as a saint and quasi-divine being, and would be the first and only female figure in the religion section. Religion, spirituality, and mythology are broadly two-gendered activities and the absence of any female figure is a bit mind-boggling. With respect to painting, we have seven painters (some with other skills) in the artistic figures section, six of them European, including both an impressionist and a post-impressionist (Van Gogh) from the 19th century. I think we can spare one of them.--Carwil (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Strong support for adding Mary, weak support for Imhotep, no opinion on removal of CM. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support addition of Mary, Swap Monet for Impressionism and Add Ancient egyptian religion instead of Imhotep. To stay neutral on quota, remove chemical scientist Antoine Lavoisier, because at this level his work is represented by the Periodic table of elements for which he laid the groundwork. -- Spaced about (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose Monet is too influential to a major branch of human activity throughout history (painting). Imhotep should be added as a representative of Ancient Egyptian culture. Marys titles are religious and don't have any hard impact on the world (unless you're saying she's more influential to China than Xi Jinping) and if she is vital for giving birth than Adam and Eve would be listed aswell. Marie Curie will forever be more important to history than Mary; she did more for history, too. GuzzyG (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above. If we list modern art topics, Monet or Impressionism are too vital topics to miss. --Thi (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose removal per GuzzyG. Sdkb (talk) 07:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose removal - He’s vital at Level 3, as I see it. Neutral on the proposed additions. Jusdafax (talk) 08:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Discuss
- Mary of Nazareth redirects to Mary, Mother of Jesus. Also, I find it strange that Mary the mother of Jesus is nominated for inclusion at this level at the same time Reformation is nominated for removal. Surely Mary is as redundant to Jesus as the Reformation is to Luther? pbp 19:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- I intentionally „suggested”/nominated Luther ahead of Reformation (and nominated „history of religion” for some ballance) given fact participants of the project are OK with number of „125?” people on this list meanwhile we do not list something like Roman Empire on the level 3 or Digital revolution on the level 4. Saying that Mary is redundant to another central figure in Christianity (regardless of gender) is undue at least as long as we stand "125+ biographies for the diversity reasons" in that project, in a way we include bios which arguably are much less vital than "rather average than top religious figures", for examples Saint Peter or John Paul II [3] – Here is also quote from last nomination removal of the Abraham „The significance of religious figures is derived from their followers” considering that all, I think Mary is strong candidate when we have so many man religious figures. You will never find other "woman biography" where "category from name of biography" get about the same number of language versions what combinetly go: Category:Abraham+Category:Krishna+Category:Great Wall of China and you will not find any "ancient biography" which has dedicated portals on the Wikipedias: d:Q20820647). Beyond that, FWIHW: article (C-class) on Mary is not similar to article on Jesus, they were never considered as two the same people just as Plato/Socrates (whose we list) and article on Protestantism include long dedicated subsection to "Reformation", meanwhile article on Jesus does not include dedicated section for Mary (and you probably could find more serious overlaps than Protestantism vs Reformation on this list, in non-religious articles). Dawid2009 (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- I also find interesing thing that articles like Trinity or Allah, generally in all language versions do not get the same google views in forgein languaes what specifically focussed articles like Krishna and Mary, see e g:[4]/[5]. Given discussion in the archives about Amazon Rainforest beetwen Cobblet and Rreagan007 (see [6]), my comment just above and and comprasions to other articles (for example History of literature vs literature or Protestantism vs Reformation), Mary does not any overlap with Jesus. I would like also to see opinion someone who till often write fetured articles where is overlap here and why? Dawid2009 (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- I intentionally „suggested”/nominated Luther ahead of Reformation (and nominated „history of religion” for some ballance) given fact participants of the project are OK with number of „125?” people on this list meanwhile we do not list something like Roman Empire on the level 3 or Digital revolution on the level 4. Saying that Mary is redundant to another central figure in Christianity (regardless of gender) is undue at least as long as we stand "125+ biographies for the diversity reasons" in that project, in a way we include bios which arguably are much less vital than "rather average than top religious figures", for examples Saint Peter or John Paul II [3] – Here is also quote from last nomination removal of the Abraham „The significance of religious figures is derived from their followers” considering that all, I think Mary is strong candidate when we have so many man religious figures. You will never find other "woman biography" where "category from name of biography" get about the same number of language versions what combinetly go: Category:Abraham+Category:Krishna+Category:Great Wall of China and you will not find any "ancient biography" which has dedicated portals on the Wikipedias: d:Q20820647). Beyond that, FWIHW: article (C-class) on Mary is not similar to article on Jesus, they were never considered as two the same people just as Plato/Socrates (whose we list) and article on Protestantism include long dedicated subsection to "Reformation", meanwhile article on Jesus does not include dedicated section for Mary (and you probably could find more serious overlaps than Protestantism vs Reformation on this list, in non-religious articles). Dawid2009 (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Mary, mother of Jesus was proposed at this level in 2018. Imhotep was proposed in 2017. Impressionism was also proposed in 2017. J947 (c), at 22:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
History of religion revolve around calendar or histography. It naturally fits on this level especially because of it is fr more vital than History of Middle East and we had in the past articles related to history of religion on the list, for example a East West Schism.
- Support
- Dawid2009 (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support per nom Salvabl (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose Spaced about (talk) 09:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose It is mainly an extension for the main article (Religion). Almost too general topic for this level. --Thi (talk) 09:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Discuss
Social sciences are subjects which are relatively easier to be replaced with articles "hitory of" than Natural sciences. We did not picked articles like History of physics or History of Biology ahead of scientifists like Heisenberg etc. because of really these types of articles do not give much more than something like history of science or History of education. Calling things like Big Bang as "recent thing" is confused meanwhile specific articles associated with social science/history are much easier to be covered in "history of" article. That is maybe why we swapped some filmmakers for "history of" but people like Aristotle, Pesteur, Galileo, Freud pritty fit as representation "history of biology", "history of physics" etc.. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I am surprised that article Social science is listed on the level 3 (while ago it was level 2), meanwhile Natural science even is not listed on the level 4. We lately added natural philosophy to the level 4 and we do not have article history of philosophy on the English Wikipedia. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Either of Rumi and Zoroaster are famous names for people who are interested in philosophy but Zoroaster IMO is more needed as we list only 9 religious figures and 20 writers. Generally I would rather pick Zoroaster ahead of Zorroastrianism. Especially due to fact that Zoroaster is often considered as one of the of the greatest religous leader (or the greatest) of all time meanwhile Zorroastrianism is often considered as historically important and influential but certainly not the most important religion.
Zorroastrianism thank to historiacl relationship with many other cultures often revolve around other important religions and even various native faiths (New religious movements). We can find really plenty what links here (for example Zorroatriansim is mentioned in the article Asian feminist theology) what show why actually. this relgion is important. Also, fact that it is often considered as the first monotheist religons stete this belief as something important for historians from perspective of sociocultural evolution. Beyond that wwn Wikipedia's statistic of this religion are incredible. Zoroastrianism is a page with +1300 paewatchers on English Wikipedia what can overweight Christmas (1156, Easter (1216) and even soccer soccer (1117 - trully global sport !). Zoroaster as biography gets also more pagewatchers than Yuri Gagarin (513 vs 402
Article about Zorroaster cover influence of Zorroaster/Zorroastrianism for scholars associated with Philosophy of history. Meanwhile detals included and described in article Zorroastrianism seems be more focussed on acedemic topics associated with religion/mythology/demonology etc. What do You think?
- Support
- Support As nom. But if we compare Zoroaster to Zorroastrianism we could also sompare Sufism to Rumi Dawid2009 (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support I tend to agree that as a founder of a once major religion (albeit now in decline) he should be ranked above Rumi. I disagree with User:Dawid2009: Rumi is not to Sufism as Zoroaster is to Zoroastrianism. But it may come down to a question of whether the criterion is current importance or historical importance, as I would guess that Rumi is more significant for more people now alive. Eteb3 (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support removal because other poets as Abu Nuwas are listed. --Thi (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support addition; either Zoroaster or Zoroastrianism belongs in level 3 because it was an historically important religion Orser67 (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose Persian literature is too important to not cover, we cover heaps of religious founders that actually have current impact on the world; so Persian literature comes first. This just makes the list more bias and less diverse in favor of English writers. Dickens, Dostoevsky and Hemingway are the only writers that should ever be removed, the rest should be set in stone. GuzzyG (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose addition In my view Zoroastrianism is in the same level as many other topics, which should also be added. --Thi (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Discuss
Add Social media
Vital aspect of communication in the contemporary world, with billions of users dedicating large amounts of attention to it. Has influenced politics, culture, and society worldwide. Would be a good complement to mass media, and seems about as important as broadcasting, telecommunication, etc., all of which are listed. Sdkb (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support
- Support as nom. Sdkb (talk)
- Support Influential in modern world, recently article digital media use and mental health just has been featured. I would also compare it with journalism, because of telecommunication is wide topic and more technical than sociological. Digital revolution is an article which we probably need on the level 4 in history section. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose Social media is an internet-based tool, often used to share journalism and news. I think that these basic articles about communication are enough at the moment. --Thi (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- Discuss
Concept of work (labor/labour) for Level 2
It's a little surprising that "work" (as in labour/labor) is nowhere to be found at the higher levels. Admittedly the state of the article is poor at present (and mixed up with disambiguation). However, work is central to studies in anthropology, sociology, history, economics, politics, law. Every single society in human history has incorporated regulations, social norms and cultural practices that are rooted in work. Work is central to the entirety of human history. It makes sense that agriculture and trade are level 2, but to sit alongside business, which is a recent concept (human history wise, the birth of the corporation is relatively recent, the idea that a street-vendor is a business person is even more recent, since just 30-40 years ago they would have been classified as an informal labourer). Industry also seems somewhat misplaced in level 2 (covered by technology and economics and a more recent historical phenomenon). My proposal would be to include work in Level 2. I'm less certain whether it should be work or labour, but would tend more towards work for the simple reason that it avoids US/UK English spelling issues. As a small addendum, for indicative purposes, an Ngram search comparing work with business and industry (and labour/labor) shows a far higher prevalence for work.--Goldsztajn (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
- From memory, job was a Level 2 article but then was removed. The rationale was that while it sounded like a vital concept in theory, in practice there wasn't much to write about it in an encyclopedia. Work may be vital though work and labour are disambiguation pages currently. Gizza (t)(c) 12:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
- "Work" is such a broad category that I share DaGizza's concern over how much there is to actually say about it. And the disambiguation is also a stumbling block; perhaps employment might be the best candidate? It's currently level 3, which seems mostly sufficient to me. Sdkb (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
- I would definitely be open to supporting something like labor/work, but I'm reluctant to support the addition of a disambiguation page. Also, I notice that we have employment at level 3 and job at level 4, which seems like an unnecessary overlap (between those two articles, and not with the proposed addition of labor/work) to me. Orser67 (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
- In my opinion craft covers everything what is not oeverlap beetwen job and employment and would be better chioce than work/labor. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Biology / Physical Sciences Split? Can we better align Levels 3 and 4?
Hi there! Noticed that in Vital Pages, Level 3 (this page!), Biology is lumped in with the Physical Sciences (chemistry, physics, etc). However, in the Level 4 page, Biology is lumped in with Biological/Health Sciences (including medicine, etc).
Willing to do the leg work here to move things around and make the classifications consistent amongst Levels if the community is okay with it.
However, before doing so, I was wondering what people's thoughts were regarding these potential changes: Should Biology be aligned with physical sciences as is on Level 3? Or should it be aligned with health sciences, as it is on Level 4?
Thank you all for being so awesome! --MatthewAwesome (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- That does seem strange. I don't have a strong opinion here, but I see four options:
- Keep status quo, where biology is in different categories at level 3 and level 4.
- Abolish "Health, medicine and disease" as a separate category at level 3, moving those articles into science.
- Move biology to the "Health, medicine and disease" at level 3 (possibly re-naming the category).
- Move biology to "physical sciences" at level 4 (possibly re-naming the category). Orser67 (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Add New Zealand
There is only one country in this list part of Oceania. I think this should be added to this list as well. Interstellarity (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Not bad, but I would prefer to add Papua New Guinea, or New Guinea. New Zealand has population of under 5 million, and human history only starts less than 800 years ago, one of the last large places discovered by humans. Papua New Guinea has been inhabited by humans for somewhere in the realm of 50,000 years or more, has 8 million people and is one of the most language and culture diverse places on the planet. Agriculture was independently developed there. Carlwev 18:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- This has been discussed previously. I still oppose adding New Zealand, per the comments of the opposing !votes in that discussion. Oceania is not underrepresented: there are four countries with populations larger than all of Oceania that are not on the list. Cobblet (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- I oppose per Cobblet. Sdkb (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per my comment here. If diversity is needed I would say something like Pacific Islands would be a better option, though I still wouldn't support it. However, it was merged earlier this year (I had previously proposed it at VA4 (here)). Happy Festivities! // J947 (c) 22:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Swap: remove Hatshepsut, add Nefertiti
Hatshepsut is the first important female politician; but Nefertiti had more of a impact when Egypt was more at it's peak; combine the fact that Nefertiti likely had more of a influence; combined with her being a big pop culture name but with influence unlike Cleopatra; i think Nefertiti is a better addition.
- Support
- Oppose
- Oppose Egyptologists consider Hatshepsut one of the most successful pharaohs. She acutally ruled as a pharaoh for a long period of time - Nefertiti probably not (views on that among Historians differ). --Spaced about (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Hatshepsut definitely the more significant figure in history. Acted in her own right, not the woman behind the scenes. Pop culture popularity definitely not the reason to list something as a vital article. Montanabw(talk) 16:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. --Thi (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Discuss
I agree on the big pop culture name, however Hatshepsut's political and historical influence is far greater. She actually ruled Egypt, built the great Mortuary Temple among others, sent an expedition to the Land of Punt, re-established lost trade routes and is generally regarded by Egyptologists as one of the most successful pharaohs, who left behind a prosperous country. Nefertiti was Akhenatons wife, who, according to some scholars might have briefly ruled Egypt. However, Amarna was abandoned anyway and the old Pantheon restored. All the best Wikirictor 20:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
We list 4 Greeks in a row in the "Philosophers and social scientists" section; not to mention all the other Ancient Greeks around the list; it wouldn't hurt to include Sima Qian and have 2 Chinese and three Greeks.
- Support
- Oppose
- Herodotus is the father of history. Sima Qian is not. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- We need at least one historian at this level pbp 14:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm neutral on adding Sima Qian, but I definitely oppose removing the individual often considered to be the "father of history" in the West. I would probably feel the opposite if this were the Chinese language Wikipedia, but Herodotus has had a much bigger impact on Western and English language scholarship than Sima Qian did. Orser67 (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Discuss
What exactly would you call Sima Qian, a actor? This is exactly what's wrong with this list; Herodotus may be the "father of history" to the west; but Qian is father of history to the East and Qians model of history lasted longer in his part of the world than Herodotus history lasted in the west. Atleast click on the article before straight away opposing. Records of the Grand Historian is just as important as Histories (Herodotus); except to a higher percentage of people considering the population differences between Europe/China. China's population was always MUCH bigger than Ancient Greece [7] GuzzyG (talk) 06:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Thought i'd post an excerpt from the Records of the Grand Historian article here; since articles don't get clicked; "The Records has been called a "foundational text in Chinese civilization".After Confucius and the First Emperor of Qin, "Sima Qian was one of the creators of Imperial China, not least because by providing definitive biographies, he virtually created the two earlier figures""; sound like a 129 level figure when we list Walt Disney and Animation and have a quota of 1000. Without Qian; the history of the east would be differentGuzzyG (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Swap: remove Werner Heisenberg, add Francis Bacon
When we have 4 physcists in a row; why not list Bacon instead; who is "credited with developing the scientific method" and dscribed as the "father of empiricism"; it wouldn't hurt to have more pre modern science and less 20th century figures.
- Support
- Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support as nom. All the best Wikirictor 20:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Swap: remove Charles Dickens, add William the Conqueror
We have a 400 year gap between Charlemagne and Genghis Khan in politicians and this would ease it; i don't have to go in detail about who has had and will continue to have had the more impact on the British isles. We need to de-modernise this list, artists are severely bloated. Modern UK wouldn't exist without William; it would Dickens. Without William; world history and trajectory is changed. Without Dickens; William Makepeace Thackeray would have taken his place. Why list a victorian before Queen Victoria? We already list a English novelist on this level; with this compact a list; we really need to be strict; there's way too many vital world leaders missing too list fo us too list two modern English novelists; if we needed two modern English writers we should list Byron or Keats or any romantic poet or Chaucer or John Milton; which would make our English writers coverage a playwright, poet and novelist - it's essential this list is spread out rather than clutter like two English novelists; no matter the fame of someone like Dickens.
- Support
- Oppose
- Oppose Better representative of British culture, literature and history from worldview perspective. --Thi (talk) 11:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Discuss
Swap: remove Fyodor Dostoevsky, add Rabindranath Tagore
We already list two Russian writers; which service less population than Tagore; who is not only known for both literature and visual art; the first "first non-European to win the Nobel Prize in Literature" and who has composed the Indian/Bangladesh national anthems. We don't list any artists from India. Either way Alexander Pushkin and Anton Chekhov are just as vital as Dostoevsky; Tolstoy is the central and only vital Russian writer at this level. On Pushkins lede it says "who is considered by many to be the greatest Russian poet and the founder of modern Russian literature." Why list two Russian novelists and not include a poet, especially if he's the founder of Russian literature? To be fair; we do the same with English literature by listing Dickens/Austen and not Geoffrey Chaucer but that's why i nominated Dickens for removal two; we really need to be very strict on this level. People like to cite "we should represent english speakers" to include people like Dickens; but there's more English speakers in India than the population in the UK [8]; which means Tagore should qualify under that same rule.
- Support
- Oppose
- Oppose Dostoevsky and Kafka are examples of writers whose influence is known all over the general culture. Dostoevsky is one of the symbols of world literature. --Thi (talk) 11:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Discuss
Swap: remove Richard Wagner, add Saladin
We list 4 German composers in a row; not to mention most of the modern artists being modern figures. Saladin is the "first sultan of Egypt and Syria and the founder of the Ayyubid dynasty" and "Saladin led the Muslim military campaign against the Crusader states in the Levant. At the height of his power, his sultanate included Egypt, Syria, Upper Mesopotamia, the Hejaz, Yemen and other parts of North Africa.". He's also the "he has often been described as being the most famous Kurd in history". Defeating the crusaders is more important to world history than changing Opera and should be more important to list than 4 German composers.
- Support
- Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support Wagner is rather popular, yet plays a minor role in the (international) cultural historical context. All the best Wikirictor 20:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support I'm not 100% convinced that Saladin is a better choice than a few other political leaders, but I certainly think he belongs here more than Wagner. Orser67 (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose Wagner is extremely important German composer. Picking him out seems a politically or ideologically motivated proposal. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think en-wiki should prefer key figures of Western civilization. Featured Article about Wagner compared to the B-class article about Saladin (already a level4 vital article) speaks to our readers' revealed preference. One should only read about Saladin they way one reads about Tamerlane: to be horrified by them. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- I have no view yet on this proposal, but the whole point of this project is to identify articles that ought to become featured, so using which articles are currently featured as a criterion for which articles ought to be made featured seems like a circular methodology. Sdkb (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- The article about Richard Wagner ought to be an FA, and it is; job done. Saladin is not so important in the Western world and so, isn't vital. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- I have no view yet on this proposal, but the whole point of this project is to identify articles that ought to become featured, so using which articles are currently featured as a criterion for which articles ought to be made featured seems like a circular methodology. Sdkb (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I would keep Bach, Mozart and Beethoven in list of 500 article. From wider list I would expect something more. Wagner is the most botable opera composer after Mozart. Other three musicians are all from 20th centyry. --Thi (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Discuss
Considering most 19/20th century century celebrity artists are up for removal; surely there's no ideological nomination and frankly a insulting snide little insinuation, that tends to show one's own ideological battle. All because the classical music editors regularly write featured articles, doesn't show reader interest, the fact that Saladin gets more pageviews than Wagner does [9] and [10]; the fact that only the votes supporting Eastern additions were the ones opposed; seems to show more of a idealogical basis than nothing. How important are you to "Western civilization" if you're a 19th century pop culture celebrity artist and you get beat in pageviews in English AND worldwide total by a 12th century sultan/military figure. GuzzyG (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Ok, just seen the edit summaries; to clarify i am Australian - white too; from a Bogan background; so the opposite of a Saladin fan's background; infact my grandpa quite likes the Ring and recommends a listen everytime i see him; so no - no ideological basis for any of these votes. I think the fact that you refer a opera creator to someone who defeated and pushed out the crusaders as someone who had more of a impact on "western civilization" says enough but you calling your support vote "Jingoism" and than mentioning Affirmative action despite the fact that the Crusades is a infinitely more vital event to the world than the Ring speaks for itself. Since you qualify Wagner by his pop culture popular status; because you know by impact on actual civilization he can't compare; when his pageviews don't even show him to be more popular than Saladin speaks for itself. But you continue that Western Jingoism, according to your own edit summaries. GuzzyG (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Swap: remove Ernest Hemingway, add Constantine the Great
Why list Hemingway when we list Twain? How many 20th century artists do we need? or even 20th century figures in total when we list so many world changing figures. Without Constantine; history would be different while Hemingway's place would be taken by John Steinbeck or F. Scott Fitzgerald. No serious encyclopedia would list Hemingway before Constantine. Hemingway isn't even listed in Wikimedias list [11]; which shows how much of an extreme American bias his listing is, two modern American novelists is absurd. I simply cannot describe Constantine's effect on the world. There's a 750 year gap in politicians between Augustus and Charlemagne; which this would fill; meanwhile we list 3 20th century writers and 2 modern American writers; we need to balance this list; there should be no nearly 800 year gap in politicians to list 2 American novelists.
- Support
- Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support removal Hemingway is not so vital when Mark Twain is listed. --Thi (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose addition Many proposed additions would better fit for list of 200 biographies. --Thi (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Discuss
Swap: remove Claude Monet, add Cicero
I know i supported Monet in the above vote; but i didn't know Impressionism wasn't listed. Monet founded a modern art movement; Here's some things listed on Cicero's lede
"is considered one of Rome's greatest orators and prose stylists"
"Petrarch's rediscovery of Cicero's letters is often credited for initiating the 14th-century Renaissance in public affairs, humanism, and classical Roman culture. According to Polish historian Tadeusz Zieliński, "the Renaissance was above all things a revival of Cicero, and only after him and through him of the rest of Classical antiquity." The peak of Cicero's authority and prestige came during the 18th-century Enlightenment, and his impact on leading Enlightenment thinkers and political theorists such as John Locke, David Hume, Montesquieu and Edmund Burke was substantial. His works rank among the most influential in European culture, and today still constitute one of the most important bodies of primary material for the writing and revision of Roman history, especially the last days of the Roman Republic."
"His influence on the Latin language was immense: it has been said that subsequent prose was either a reaction against or a return to his style, not only in Latin but in European languages up to the 19th century. Cicero introduced the Romans to the chief schools of Greek philosophy and created a Latin philosophical vocabulary"
all of that should add up to more worthy of a placement than another modern painter when we list Van Gogh/Picasso and Kahlo and we list no Roman intellectual.
- Support
- Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support tentatively, because this proposal would be better choice than some others. --Thi (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Swap: remove Paul the Apostle, add Ali
So this one might be the most controversial; but 3 list 3 christianity figures Jesus, Paul and Martin Luther; but only one islamic figure; i think listing two of each would be better. Paul spread Jesus's teachings; which makes it more closer to being having two people for the same thing. Ali is the central Shia figure; one of the two major denominations of Islam; i think Ali's achievements are more individal than Paul's. Also Paul is not listed on the Wikimedia worldwide list [12]. Ali would be a better add for religion than Madonna; which is being discussed above.
- Support
- Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support removal Thomas Aquinas and others are also Christian figures and maybe something needs to be cut. --Thi (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Ali achieved nothing except being murdered; that others created a sect matters not. Pauline Christianity exists because of St. Paul. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose addition without a swap with some other figure. --Thi (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Discuss
Jesus is an important figure in Islam as well. Judaism would also have to be taken into consideration. The two Jewish representatives listed, Moses and Abraham, are not specific to Judaism. Maimonides might have a case. --Spaced about (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- I've long offered support for Maimonides, i agree with him aswell, religion wouldn't be out of place at 10 reps; but Ali is important too as a politician in a span of over a hundred years of politics we're missing; it's a two bird one stone nomination; Paul doesn't represent that and it would not be a big loss losing his biography, but we'd gain with Ali. GuzzyG (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to keep Paul the Apostle, but I'd favor swapping in Ali for someone like Wagner or Monet. Orser67 (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Remove News
since we're one over quota; do we really need a subsection of journalism at this level? What makes this general topic vital?
- Support
- Oppose
- Oppose whether it's electronic, on paper, or word of mouth at the village well, news have been important for mankind throughout history. --Spaced about (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose we have better candidates for removal. Sdkb (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose clearly vital pbp 14:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Vital topic in modern life. Newspaper is historically influential institution, but it was removed because News is listed. Publishing is maybe not so important at this level. --Thi (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Discuss
- So have Containers but it's just too general a article. GuzzyG (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Clearly vital? Britannica doesn't have an article on it[13], maybe their mistake? A everyday service doesn't equal a vital encyclopedic article. GuzzyG (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Remove New religious movement
At this level, it's sufficient to cover the bigger established religions. New religious movement is not more important than Paganism which is not on L3. --Spaced about (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support
- Support as nom. --Spaced about (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose pbp 14:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I think it's a useful umbrella article for describing a wide range of movements, some of which are fairly popular. Looking at philosophy and religion, I'm not sure that Western esotericism is worth listing at this level. Orser67 (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Remove Cenk Uyghur
I don't seem to see him in any discussion and yet his talk page was modified to declare him vital to journalism. Despite being low rated on several other scales. Coming here rather than reverting on the off chance I missed something Slywriter (talk) 04:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
- He's listed at level 5, so discussion should take place here: Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5. Orser67 (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)