Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 72

Archive 65

←

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Table of entertainers (Deciding who to keep and who to remove)

I have compiled a table of all entertainers and would like to evaluate their vitality for this list. If you think any person should be removed, please put a tally mark in the remove section. If we did a quick check of all people for level 4 annually, it would keep the vital article lists current. Interstellarity (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Bio	Keep	Remove	Neutral
Julie Andrews	xxx		x
Lauren Bacall	xx
Amitabh Bachchan	xx
Brigitte Bardot	xx
Ingrid Bergman	xxx
Sarah Bernhardt	xxx
Humphrey Bogart	xxx
Marlon Brando	xxx
James Cagney	xx		x
Jackie Chan	xx		x
Claudette Colbert	x		x
Sean Connery	xxx
Gary Cooper	x		x
Joan Crawford	xx		x
Bette Davis	xxx
Doris Day	xx		x
Robert De Niro	xxx
Alain Delon	x		x
Marlene Dietrich	xx
Clint Eastwood	xxx
Henry Fonda	xxx
Jean Gabin	x		x
Clark Gable	xxx
Greta Garbo	xxx
Judy Garland	xxx
John Gielgud	x		x
Lillian Gish	x		x
Cary Grant	xxx
Alec Guinness	xx		x
Tom Hanks	xx		x
Setsuko Hara	x		x
Rita Hayworth	x		x
Audrey Hepburn	xxxx
Katharine Hepburn	xxx
Grace Kelly	xxx
Klaus Kinski	x	x
Vivien Leigh	xx		x
Madhubala	x		x
Marcello Mastroianni	x		x
Toshiro Mifune	xx
Marilyn Monroe	xxxx
Jeanne Moreau	x	x
Jack Nicholson	xxx
Laurence Olivier	xxx
Peter O'Toole	xx		x
Gregory Peck	xx		x
Mary Pickford	x		x
Sidney Poitier	xxx
Rajinikanth	xx
Barbara Stanwyck	x		x
James Stewart	xxx
Meryl Streep	xxxx
Elizabeth Taylor	xxx
Shirley Temple	xx		x
Ellen Terry	x	x
Spencer Tracy	xxx
Rudolph Valentino	x		x
John Wayne	xxxx
Mae West	xx
George Balanchine	xxx
Mikhail Baryshnikov	xx		x
Margot Fonteyn	xx		x
Vaslav Nijinsky	xx
Rudolf Nureyev	xx		x
Anna Pavlova	xxxx
Marius Petipa	xx
Fred Astaire	xxx
Josephine Baker	xx
Isadora Duncan	xxx
Bob Fosse	x		x
Martha Graham	xxxx
Gene Kelly	xxx
Izumo no Okuni	x		x
Ginger Rogers	xx
Lucille Ball	xxxx
Carol Burnett	x		x
George Carlin	x		x
Bill Cosby	x	x	x
Louis de Funès	x	x
Laurel and Hardy	xx
Marx Brothers	xx
Monty Python	xxxx
Richard Pryor	x		x
Johnny Carson	x		x
Harry Houdini	xxxx
Marcel Marceau	x		x
Ed Sullivan	x	x	x
Oprah Winfrey	xx		x

Add Interactive art

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Perfection

Similar to Sublime, Level 5 seems sufficient for this concept.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 07:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support, not quite so important as an abstract. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Fallacy

Basic topic in critical thinking and argumentation. Important in studies and in general communication, especially on the internet.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
4. Support SadAttorney613 (talk)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Mandate of Heaven

Mandate of Heaven, is a concept of semi-religious nature and almost has the status of a hidden conventional constitution, was used as ground revolutions in most of the history of China, and widely accepted as justification for the dethrone of emperors and the rebels, comparable to the institutionalized religions' role in Europe and the Middle East. Emperors by convention answer to the heaven, and accordingly hosts rituals to demonstrate they are still favored by the mythical and all mighty universe.

Support

1. As nom. Lolitart (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Per nom; if we don't already list divine right of kings, I would list that too, but this seems an inch more vital. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Dimadick (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
4. Support C933103 (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

But wouldn't it make more sense to be listed under political?C933103 (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Add Baptism

Major Christian rite, of interest to general readers and more in depth readers. Hugely widespread among many forms of Christianity, and around for at least 2000 years and still relevant today. Religion and Philosophy have a few suggestions for removal already which could balance numbers, maybe.  Carlwev  09:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  09:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support I changed opinion as we have place for that, important sacrament, in Slavic languages "Baptism" is called as "Christ" as word to Christianity. We should also swap Shahada with other article to cover similar stuff in Islam's coverage. I hope few others nomination will pass to cover ballance beetwen Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic religions. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support. It is the most important Christian rite. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Neither particularly significant in contemporary culture, nor that influential in Christianity itself. Dimadick (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose I concur. --Thi (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Eucharist

Support

1. As nom. Because of the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church, Protestant denominations usually only acknowledge two: baptism and Eucharist, these two are more imperative than the other five.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
2. Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Indulgence

Support

1. As nom. This article is definitely vital at this level, since it is the sale of indulgences that caused Martin Luther to write the Ninety-five Theses, which is usually regarded the starting point of the Reformation.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. They are of some historical note, but not very important in the modern religious context. I don't think they're vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
2. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap: remove Avatar, add Incarnation

Avatar is important term in Hindusim but at this level I think this is also worth to explain range and importance of Deities in other cultures, including Islam and Christianity (see for example Incarnation (Christianity) and read first paragraph in the lead). We list many Avatars on this level: Buddha, Zoroaster, Krishna etc.. I would also prefer list many specific Deities for Hindusim and make this swap to make place for them.

Support

1. As nominator Dawid2009 (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support removal. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
3. Support removal --Thi (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Dhammapada

Old and influential Buddhist religious text. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Suppot

1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support suitable among 10,000 articles. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Another options can be also Tripitaka and Sutta Piṭaka Dawid2009 (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Swap: remove Rosicrucianism, add Alchemy

Alchemy was very influential current of esoteric thought and it influenced also modern science. Nowadays nearly everybody have heard about search for Philosopher's stone. Rosicrucianism was a 17 century idea based on anonymous manifestos, not actually a widespread movement.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support for reasons stated. Zelkia1101 (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Per above. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Alchemy is already listed. It is under science though. Grey area, but I guess it’s a science attempt, or incorrect science as opposed to religious belief, could discus it’s position in list, an argument could be made either side religion v science. I think I prefer science, but not given it much thought.  Carlwev  12:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Add Scientology

Support

1. The very reason the religion is so infamous is the reason it should be here. With a large list of controversies that have gotten somewhat into the mainstream media recently. As nom.--Vortex4020 (talk) 05:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Add Garuda

There is thematic connection beetwe Phoenix and Garuda but any objective oncyclopedia would list Garuda far ahead of Phoenix. Garuda appeared on few National coat of Arms, is cross culturally famous from South Asia, to Japan etc., unlike mere Phoenix. IMHO that Garuda should cover Phoenix, not another around way. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support [nom]
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per previous discussions and comments. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Phoenix is the vastly more famous concept--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
2. Oppose Phoenix was added. --Thi (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Persian mythology

Covered by Zoroastrianism and many other articles Dawid2009 (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. nom
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 11:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We already have too few articles on mythology. Dimadick (talk) 10:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Hindu Mythology

Covered by Hinduism excatly in the same way hat Jewish mythology is covered by Judaism at this level Dawid2009 (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. nom
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We already have too few articles on mythology. Dimadick (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Add dairy product

Support

1. As nom. I'm surprised that it is not listed (it was originally not listed at level 5, which surprised me even greater)!--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Dough

Support

1. As nom. The making of many foods requires it, so it is absolutely vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC) fixed a little 13:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Sports Club

It was mentioned as possible option on the level 2 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/2/Archive_1#Sport Dawid2009 (talk) 11:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. [nom]

Oppose

Discuss

Add National team

Vital just as sport club. We have separate article about Brazil national team on FIFA World Cup but not say about any player on fifa world cup. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. [nom]

Oppose

Discuss

Swap: Remove Arm wrestling, add Powerlifting

Arm wrestling as a serious sport (as opposed to something kids do) remains fairly niche, whereas Powerlifting is quite widespread (even more so than the listed Olympic weightlifting) and serves as a counterpart to the listed Bodybuilding.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Support - we've removed board games that have been more popular and influential than arm wrestling. Gizza (talk • voy) 23:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
4. The addition, since powerlifting has been a well-known sport on earth.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support addition. Sod25 (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
6. Support addition as important as bodybuilding, which is listed and is also a World Games sport. GuzzyG (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The removal, since a lot of males engage in arm wrestling in the world.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal per RekishiEJ. While not a top sport at an organized level, arm wrestling is an ancient yet enduring pastime that spans cultures (which is not well reflected in the wiki article currently). Sod25 (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal arm wrestling is a very common activity, moreso than the various cue sports listed. I don't see why it doesn't fit. GuzzyG (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose, I don't think the list should only include "serious sports".C933103 (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Sociocultural anthropology

Both Biological anthropology and Linguistic anthropology are already included, there is no reason to not also include Sociocultural anthropology, as it is another field within Anthropology, at the same level as Biological and Linguistic Anthropology. There could be an argument to include Cultural anthropology instead, but they link to each other and contain similar information. Jh55305 (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
2. As nom. --Jh55305 (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Tencent

Tencent is big company which owns WeChat and not only. Media in sinosphere are underrepresented. According to this chart race Tecent is company slightly bigger renuve than Meta platforms (previously Facebook.inc). Dawid2009 (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. [nom]
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. The list currently only have two media companies, Nintendo and Disney, both of which have worldwide impact. Tencent isn't quite there yet.C933103 (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
2. Oppose Currently not absolutely necessary to know at worldwide level. --Thi (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation

This organization is as well-known as the Arab League, yet unlike the latter it currently does not belong to the Level 4 list.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Support see it in the news all the time. Lolitart (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Nahuatl

An incredibly important language in the history of Mesoamerica and modern Mexico, spoken most notably by the Aztecs, and still widely studied by modern linguists and examined for its features.

Support

1. Support as nom Zelkia1101 (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Per nominator. I would also swap Navajo with Navajo language because of most Navajo people speak English noways and this is good to cover languages of indigeous people, IMHO Dawid2009 (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Gizza (talk • voy) 03:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Weekly Shōnen Jump

Like the other magazines that we have recently been removing, this just isn't vital at this level, especially for the English Wikipedia. It'll fit in better down at Level 5.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support. If Le Monde and Der Spiegel aren't at this level, neither is this. VIT5 is sufficient. czar 10:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Support not important enough to keep company with The New York Times Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose having 10 magazines (and one focused on manga) at this level feels right. I might support a proposal to remove all 10 magazines, but not just this one (which was recently added). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

   Even though it was added relatively recently, it was added at a time when we had more magazines listed at this level. But it's certainly less vital than the magazines we have recently removed or that we are currently in the process of removing, so it's completely appropriate to remove it at this time. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Der Spiegel

Since this is English Wikipedia German news magazine is probably not so important at this level. Level 5 has been created and even New Yorker, which is example of quality magazine in English language, is under removal.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Interstellarity (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support. Important periodicals but VIT5 is sufficient, per above. czar 10:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. A widely known magazine beyond German-speaking regions.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose, commonly used source even in English language material. C933103 (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Le Monde

Four other newspapers at this level are examples of journalism. I don't think that we need any French newspaper at this level.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Interstellarity (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Support. Not vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support. Important periodicals but VIT5 is sufficient, per above. czar 10:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. A widely known newspaper beyond Francophone regions.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap: Remove Scientific American, Add Podcast

Scientific American as a localized American publication have not attain global level notability, and its role as a popular science magazine is also overlapped with National Geographic. Thus is redundant and I think it can be removed, to make room for podcast, a form of media consumed by probably many million of people around the world.

Support

1. Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
2. Support removal Podcast is quite popular phenomenon, but I have no strong opinion about its status. --Thi (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
3. Support removal. Not vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The removal, since there have been non-English editions of Scientific American, meaning this magazine does attain global-level notability, and it is no doubt the oldest continuously published monthly magazine in the United States, it is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap: Remove The Washington Post, Add USA Today

Most circulated newspaper in the US. Interstellarity (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Swap: Add Human population planning, remove Human overpopulation

With most developed countries experiencing a population growth rate below replacement cycle, and even some developing countries are entering this region, I think "Human overpopulation" is less of an issue nowadays, and should probably be replaced with a more generic topic of "Human population planning".C933103 (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Human overpopulation is at least historically important topic. It has also influenced many works of fiction. --Thi (talk) 11:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
2. Human overpopulation is still an ongoing problem.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap: Add Cooperation, remove Caste system in India

Caste system in India seems overly specific for the nation when we already have caste representing the system at this level. The specific implementation should fit in Level 5 just fine. Meanwhile one of the most social relationship in society, cooperation, isn't listed in level 4, despite its antonym, competition, have been listed. Hence I think a swap as proposed should be made.C933103 (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
2. Support per proposal. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Both the general concept in anthropology and the most famous example are probably vital at this level. Indian caste system could be listed both in Religion or Society. Altruism is listed at this level. --Thi (talk) 11:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

   I would consider Altruism a philosophical concept? C933103 (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove census, add social bias

Census is the minor sector of social bias in the pratice. Vascu (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Add Deinonychus

One of the most important dinosaur genera to ever be discovered with its discovery leading to the dinosaur renaissance which completely altered the way dinosaurs are perceived from cold-blooded sluggish animals to warm-blooded active ones. One could say it is redundant to Velociraptor which is already listed but the two are important for different reasons with Velociraptor having greater importance from a cultural perspective due to Jurassic Park but Deinonychus is much more important from a scientific perspective and was the real inspiration behind the raptors in the movie. The redundancy argument also is irrelevant when we list both Diplodocus and Apatosaurus which are both members of the same family.

Support

1. Support as nom. -- Maykii (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 11:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
3. Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Germ theory of disease

Germ theory of disease is easily the most significant theory about transmission of disease. It is hard to believe the article isn't currently included in the list. C933103 (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza (talk • voy) 10:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove MS-DOS and Unix

These operating systems are not widely used anymore and therefore should be removed. Interstellarity (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Support MS-DOS is less vital than floppy disk, which was removed some time ago. Gizza (talk • voy) 04:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Both have been vital in the history of operating systems, besides, floppy disk should not be removed (in the past they have been all the rage), thus DaGizza's argument is invalid.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
2. Oppose Unix specifically: Unix very much is still widely used. For example, any computer with macOS, which is to say pretty much any Mac, uses a Unix system. Even if this were not the case, its historical importance is tremendous. 20:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Add Diesel fuel

Support

1. As nom. This article is not included, despite the fact that diesel has been frequently used by automobiles, ships and tractors, which surprised me.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. We don't need to list both the fuel and diesel engine at this level. I might support a swap with diesel engine. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Akashi Kaikyo Bridge and London Bridge

Akashi Kaikyo Bridge is not as famous and culturally relevant as Brooklyn Bridge and Golden Gate Bridge. Modern London Bridge is from 1971 and is not as easily recogizable as Tower Bridge.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support removing Akashi Kaikyo Bridge per nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Technology is the section most over quota and cuts have to be made. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Support removing Akashi Kaikyo Bridge Rreagan007 (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removing London Bridge Even if the current London Bridge dates only to 1971, "a" London Bridge has been around for about a millennium, and the 19th-century London Bridge still exists, albeit in Lake Havasu, Arizona. Plus there's always going to be that song.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose the subjective claim that "Akashi Kaikyo Bridge is not as famous and culturally relevant as Brooklyn Bridge".C933103 (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Petrol engine

We have diesel engine but not this article, which is illogical.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. We already list internal combustion engine and gasoline at this level. I think that's sufficient. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Rreagan007. Gizza (talk • voy) 11:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Two-stroke engine

We have Four-stroke engine but not this article, which is illogical.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I'd rather just remove Four-stroke engine at this level. The internal combustion engine article is sufficient to cover both types. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Rickshaw

A very obscure mode of transportation that nobody commonly knows. Plus the technology section needs to be reduced anyways.

Support

1. As nom. Vortex4020 (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose a ubiquitous form of transport in much of the world. Agree with J947. See also previous discussion. Gizza (talk • voy) 11:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

I definitely thought this was a commonly-known form of transportation, although that may just be from reading The Blue Lotus. Just my two cents. (Added here.) J947 † ^edits 10:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Add Octal and Hexadecimal

Support

1. As nom. Because they have been used frequently in computing, they are no doubt vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
2. Per nom; at the very least use hexadecimal, which is ubiquitous in computing. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose not as frequently used as decimal and binary. More suited to Level 5. Gizza (talk • voy) 05:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
   1. Really? Octal is still used in chmod (in most operating systems), and compact representation of binary data is now mostly hexadecimal.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Support Hexadecimal Oppose Octal per their frequency of usage. C933103 (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Add Factorization

Support

1. As nom.--Vortex4020 (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Replace Mary, Queen of Scots with James IV of Scotland

I think this list, and the list at level 5, tend to include queens and kings based on their impact on popular history rather than their real historical significance. Mary is a romantic figure whose real impact on the trend of history may not have been very great, we should demote her to level 5. Her grandfather should be promoted a level, as he is generally regarded as the most successful of the Stewart monarchs of Scotland, whose reign could arguably be seen as the high point of Scotland's existence as a separate country. PatGallacher (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Replace David Thompson (explorer) with Robert Falcon Scott

Thompson may deserve greater recognition than he has received, but he could still seem like a rather obscure figure. There is some controversy about Scott, but he remains an important figure who a lot of people have heard of. PatGallacher (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Article issues

There are comments at Talk:Richard Pryor#Quotes some editors may be interested in. -- Otr500 (talk) 11:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Swap: Remove The Washington Post, Add USA Today

Most circulated newspaper in the US. Interstellarity (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Replace Mary, Queen of Scots with James IV of Scotland

I think this list, and the list at level 5, tend to include queens and kings based on their impact on popular history rather than their real historical significance. Mary is a romantic figure whose real impact on the trend of history may not have been very great, we should demote her to level 5. Her grandfather should be promoted a level, as he is generally regarded as the most successful of the Stewart monarchs of Scotland, whose reign could arguably be seen as the high point of Scotland's existence as a separate country. PatGallacher (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Replace David Thompson (explorer) with Robert Falcon Scott

Thompson may deserve greater recognition than he has received, but he could still seem like a rather obscure figure. There is some controversy about Scott, but he remains an important figure who a lot of people have heard of. PatGallacher (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Article issues

There are comments at Talk:Richard Pryor#Quotes some editors may be interested in. -- Otr500 (talk) 11:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Swap: Remove The Washington Post, Add USA Today

Most circulated newspaper in the US. Interstellarity (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Add Peking University

Peking University's influence is on par with any Ivy League university in the US, and, within the last few decades at least, has been considered one of the best in the world. Tsinghua University is already level 4. In general, this page needs more representation from non-American universities, which make up over 1/3 of level 4 university articles. Normsupon (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Normsupon (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

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.

---

Remove John C. Calhoun

Not a president, probably not vital. Interstellarity (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

• Strong oppose One of the most influential figures of 19th century American politics. Loudest advocate for the Southern SLAVE POWER; provided the philosophical underpinnings for secession. Frequently ranked in the Top 50 of most important Americans, far ahead of many of the presidents who overlapped his political career. pbp 02:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

"Not a president" is a weak rationale. Are Warren G. Harding and Rutherford B. Hayes more vital than Ben Franklin and Alexander Hamilton? pbp 02:22, 16 June 2022 (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.

---

Remove Henry Clay

Not a president, probably not vital. Interstellarity (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

• Strong oppose One of the most influential figures of 19th century American politics. Responsible for several political compromises that delayed the American Civil War. Frequently ranked in the Top 50 of most important Americans, far ahead of many of the presidents who overlapped his political career. pbp 02:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

"Not a president" is a weak rationale. Are Warren G. Harding and Rutherford B. Hayes more vital than Ben Franklin and Alexander Hamilton? pbp 02:22, 16 June 2022 (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.

Replace Mary, Queen of Scots with James IV of Scotland

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think this list, and the list at level 5, tend to include queens and kings based on their impact on popular history rather than their real historical significance. Mary is a romantic figure whose real impact on the trend of history may not have been very great, we should demote her to level 5. Her grandfather should be promoted a level, as he is generally regarded as the most successful of the Stewart monarchs of Scotland, whose reign could arguably be seen as the high point of Scotland's existence as a separate country. PatGallacher (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.

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.

Article issues

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There are comments at Talk:Richard Pryor#Quotes some editors may be interested in. -- Otr500 (talk) 11:01, 2 July 2022 (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.

Add Mick Jagger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Suggested as he is credited with being the quintessential frontman (Billboard has openly asked "would we even have rock stars without Mick?") and for being a trailblazer in pop music that generations of musicians after him have followed. The article is due to be listed as a Featured Article in relatively short order. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
2. Support, highly influential in rock music. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
3. Support, per the viewership statistics pointed out by TheSandDoctor below, and the fact the "People" quota is 9 under -- we can just start voting to take out articles from "Everyday life", e.g. trousers. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
4. Support Dimadick (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. He is covered by Rolling Stones and his solo career is not important. We have removed many artists and bands cuch as Neil Young, Metallica and Nirvana. --Thi (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
2. Oppose per above Dawid2009 (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
3. Oppose  Carlwev  09:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Thi and Carlwev. Gizza (talk • voy) 00:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Carlwev's response to TheSandDoctor in discussion LightProof1995 (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

• If average viewership were to matter, Jagger has five times as many as The Doors, three times as many as Black Sabbath, more than David Bowie, The Beach Boys, The Beatles, John Lennon, Bob Dylan and every other article but Elvis Presley under both Rock and Singers. In the case of Singers, their daily averages combined would be under a third of Jagger's. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I know he's performed since the 60's but living people often have higher views especially if their personal lives are written about in papers like drug use or love lives. Other than Lennon we list no other band member in addition to their band, and Lennon has been discussed for removal several times. We would be suggesting he is the most important band member ever, and important enough to list in addition to his band. (other than Lennon) Also where are you getting the page views from When I checked David Bowie consistently gets over Double of Mick Jagger?. If page views matter, when I checked for as far back as the programme allows, since 2015, Mick Jagger has 20 million page views, is indeed higher than The Doors, Black Sabbath, and Bob Dylan. Around the same pageviews as Metallica 20M. But Lower than many listed and unlisted articles (some which were removed) such as Paul McCartney 30M, The Beatles 35M, Britney Spears 35M, Rihanna 38M. Less than half of Eminem 53M, David Bowie 48M, Lady Gaga 51M, and less than a quarter or Freddie Mercury 85M. see here also less than Elton John who was removed.  Carlwev  09:49, 4 September 2022 (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.

Add Ashikaga Takauji

Support

1. As nom. It is absurd that in the post-classical sub-section of "Politicians and leaders", there were not Japanese at all, despite the fact that a Chinese college-level world history textbook covers history of Japan more comprehensively than that of Korea, thus at least 3 Japanese post-classical politicians should be added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
3. Support One of the most important Japanese historical figures. Curbon7 (talk) 05:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

I agree Yoshinobu, Minamoto, and Ashikaga should be added. Could we propose a swap for two of the other East Asian leaders, and at least two other politicians, since we are over quota (for the list overall)? Since we're under-quota for People, I'm fine adding these three in, but I'd still like to take several out as well. LightProof1995 (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Add George Soros

The following discussion is closed. 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

1. As nom. Because this year he donated more money to candidates in the 2022 United States elections than any other person, and he is known as "The Man Who Broke the Bank of England", he is absolutely vital at this level. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Support. Hugely influential figure in global politics and economics. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
3. Support. The two greatest investors of the 20th century are undisputably Warren Buffett (already a Level 4), and George Soros. There is no third person. Soros's Black Wednesday, is probably the most famous event by an individual investor in financial history. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
4. Agree. 31.187.2.237 (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
5. Support. Buffett and Soros are easily the two greatest investors of the last hundred years. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. We shouldn't be adding living people to this list when we're over quota. I'm American and I've never even heard of this guy. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
2. VIT5 is sufficient. This is recentism. czar 20:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

I'm torn. On the one hand, I think he's for sure influential enough globally that he belongs here over certain Americans who are already there (e.g. Leland Stanford). On the other hand, I think this part of the list is a little oversized (also regarding the Americans in particular). OliveYouBean (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

We should take out Ted Turner, and probably David Sarnoff, who have become less important businessmen with the passing of time. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

References

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.