Revision as of 01:08, 21 April 2021

Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4 is a reader-facing page intended for viewing by non-editors. Please prioritize their needs when adjusting its design, and move editor-facing elements to other pages.

Vital Articles

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Vital Articles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of vital articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and work together to increase the quality of Misplaced Pages's essential articles.Vital ArticlesWikipedia:WikiProject Vital ArticlesTemplate:WikiProject Vital ArticlesVital Articles

People History and geography Society STEM

Introduction

The purpose of this discussion page is to select 10,000 topics for which Misplaced Pages should have high-quality articles. All Misplaced Pages editors are welcome to participate. Individual topics are proposed for addition or removal, followed by discussion and !voting. It is also possible to propose a swap of a new topic for a lower-priority topic already on the list.

All proposals must remain open for !voting for a minimum of 15 days, after which:

1. After 15 days it may be closed as PASSED if there are (a) 5 or more supports, AND (b) at least two-thirds are in support.
2. After 30 days it may be closed as FAILED if there are (a) 3 or more opposes, AND (b) it failed to earn two-thirds support.
3. After 30 days it may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal hasn't received any !votes for +30 days, regardless of tally.
4. After 60 days it may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal has (a) less than 5 supports, AND (b) less than two-thirds support.

Nominations should be left open beyond the minimum if they have a reasonable chance of passing. An informed discussion with more editor participation produces an improved and more stable final list, so be patient with the process.

When you are making a decision whether to add or remove a particular topic from the Vital Articles Level 4 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 other topics are considered vital in that area. We have linked the sublists at the top of each proposal area.

• 15 days ago: 10:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC) (Purge)
• 30 days ago: 10:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• 60 days ago: 10:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

If you are starting a discussion, please choose the matching section from the TOC:

People

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/People for the list of topics in this category.

Entertainers

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Entertainers for the list of topics in this category.

Visual artists

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Visual artists for the list of topics in this category.

Add Antoine Watteau

Currently only William Hogarth is listed from Rococo era. "Watteau was one of the most influential French painters of the early 18th century. He painted numerous scenes with Commedia dell'Arte characters and also invented a type of painting known as the Fête Galante - small cabinet pictures which explored the psychology of love, usually in a landscape setting." "Watteau’s artistic legacy pervades French art up to the emergence of Neoclassicism. ...virtually every artist working in eighteenth-century France, from François Le Moyne to François Boucher, to Jean Honoré Fragonard, owes a major debt to Watteau’s enigmatic fêtes galantes and elegant trois crayons drawings."

"While Rococo art is known for its frivolity, hedonism, and light-heartedness, Watteau's compositions were indebted to close observation of nature and life, which he initially rendered in countless drawings that later informed his paintings." "Watteau's mastery of color and texture, and his distinct visual language (effectively an iconography of the human heart) created images that captured both the finest and the most fallible aspects of humanity. His work truly connects the drama and excess of the late Baroque with the discrete humanism of the Enlightenment."

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
2. Support Watteau, Gustav Klimt, Egon Schiele, Mark Rothko, Jean-Michel Basquiat, Amedeo Modigliani are the super big ones i'd consider a miss; especially with weak ones listed like Max Ernst, Franz Marc and Gerhard Richter; although a bit more would not hurt as painting was a prime artform for ages and yet we list more athletes than painters; we need to build a strong back-end of painting too as we list so much modern painters. Watteau would be a good start; Anthony van Dyck (more important than Sargent), Andrei Rublev, Apelles, Fra Angelico, Giorgione, Tintoretto, Bartolomé Esteban Murillo, Claude Lorrain, Jean Fouquet, Jean-Honoré Fragonard and Andrea Mantegna would be mighty fine additions to re-balance our painting section to pre-modern figures. Our visual arts section is relatively bad and unfocused. John Everett Millais and William-Adolphe Bouguereau for two representatives of what used to be super popular art movements and Ben Enwonwu, Raja Ravi Varma, Albert Namatjira, Guan Daosheng, Reza Abbasi, Hon'ami Kōetsu, Shibata Zeshin, Utagawa Toyokuni and Gim Hongdo for international non-western picks. This is why i go on about 20th century actors/musicians/athletes need cutting so bad. There should be 50 actors/athletes each and i'm serious about that because of stuff like this; visual arts has been one of the most dominant forms of arts and yet we don't cover pre-modern stuff good, neither contemporary stuff either, but we cover alot of athletes/actors/pop musicians - which is bizarre cause they haven't lasted throughout history as some of these names. This is why i support Watteau and hope he can fix some of this balance. GuzzyG (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Influential artist. Dimadick (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Let's not even mention the sculptors we miss like Antonio Canova, Camille Claudel, Benvenuto Cellini, Jeff Koons, Alexander Calder, Bertel Thorvaldsen, Lorenzo Ghiberti, Barbara Hepworth, Lysippos, Praxiteles, and Donald Judd. Architects like Inigo Jones, André Le Nôtre, Henry Hobson Richardson, Balthasar Neumann, Eugène Viollet-le-Duc, Jørn Utzon, Suger, Apollodorus of Damascus, Claude Nicolas Ledoux, Vincenzo Scamozzi, Daniel Burnham, Francesco Borromini, Victor Horta, Michelozzo and Hippodamus of Miletus. Photographers like Nadar, Alfred Stieglitz, Robert Capa, Mathew Brady and Diane Arbus. Designers of various media and crafts figures like Bartolomeo Cristofori, Christian Dior, Cristóbal Balenciaga, Charles Frederick Worth, Saul Bass, Gary Gygax, Elsie de Wolfe, Charles and Ray Eames, Ralph H. Baer, Peter Carl Fabergé, Maria Martinez, William Morris. If we're covering contemporary active athletes; may aswell cover contemporary conceptual art (in which we have no reps, despite it being the dominant visual art form for decades) with artists like Yves Klein, Damien Hirst, Yayoi Kusama and Banksy are all important. Heck we're even mssing actually important comics/animation figures; Chuck Jones, Alan Moore, Thomas Nast, Richard F. Outcault, Honoré Daumier, Lotte Reiniger and Rodolphe Töpffer. GuzzyG (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Add Camille Claudel

The most influential female sculptor; we need more women artists.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Philburmc (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Support --Spaced about (talk) 12:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Underrated artist. Dimadick (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Auguste Rodin represents her era. Barbara Hepworth is similar to Henry Moore. Perhaps Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun has best chance. --Thi (talk) 11:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose She might be "the most influential female sculptor", but frankly this isn't saying a lot. Because of her unfortunate life, her career finished early, and her style went out of favour. She is very much a rediscovery of recent decades. Johnbod (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Neither famous nor notable enough to merit inclusion --Zelkia1101 (talk) 04:34, 20 April 2021‎ (UTC)

Discuss

She gets four times more page views than Auguste Rodin. --Spaced about (talk) 12:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

No she doesn't - he gets over twice as many as her! Johnbod (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Zelkia1101:, i mean that would be right if i nominated Elizabeth Zimmermann for knitting, but not Claudel. Let's bring out the stats. (the best thing we have to assume fame).

Every sculpter we list.

1. Michelangelo - 36,065,016 million pageviews - , 248,000 google book mentions
2. Auguste Rodin - 6,742,641 million pageviews - , 209,000 google book mentions
3. Donatello - 6,440,736 million pageviews - , 130,000 google book mentions
4. Gian Lorenzo Bernini - 6,012,658 million pageviews - , 66,300 google book mentions
5. Camille Claudel - 4,113,590 million pageviews , 50,900 google book mentions
6. Joseph Beuys - 3,479,738 million pageviews , 175,000 google book mentions
7. Alberto Giacometti 3,434,945 million pageviews , 111,000 google book mentions,
8. Phidias - 2,529,963 million pageviews , 143,000 google book mentions
9. Constantin Brâncuși - 2,374,671 million pageviews , 53,000 google book mentions,
10. Henry Moore - 1,902,088 million pageviews , 145,000 google book mentions

Now that the research is here, see how she fits into them and does not stand out? Her standing is equal among these lot. How is she not as famous yet has more views than most of the other sculptors we list. She is influential, but that's harder to show. But it's completely laughable to dismiss her fame when it's more than many other sculptors here and seems like more brought up out of thin air.

Funnily, google trends has her beating alot of the other sculptors in the US, France, Germany and Japan, four major countries lol. If she's not famous enough for this list, many of the other sculptors have to go.

Once again, "i don't know her" is not always accurate and the results speak for themselves. I would like you to go in on what "notable" is and why Claudel doesnt make it but these other sculptors do, because it's hard to understand otherwise. GuzzyG (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I know and have known who Camille Claudel is. I did not say that she was not influential or notable. I said she was not influential and notable enough. She is neither (1) extremely famous or notable for her work like Rodin or Donatello and (2) never particularly unique, innovative or influential in creating her art form, like Moore or Beuys. She is a diminutive to Rodin in nearly all aspects, and his biography covers her achievements well enough. What we need more on this list is social scientists, particularly economists like Henry George or Alfred Marshall, not another derivative sculptor. Adding her is silly. It would be the same energy as adding Frida Kahlo to level 3, when I don't think anybody could tell me with a straight face that Kahlo is as vital or significant as Raphael, whom we don't list. --Zelkia1101 (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2021‎ (UTC)

@Zelkia1101: I don't want to break your heart but Frida Kahlo is listed on the level 3 list. So yes, same energy, that's the point. :) GuzzyG (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: I know Kahlo is a level-3 article. I was merely lamenting the fact that adding Claudel to level 4 is similar to adding Kahlo to level 3. Both decisions were (in Kahlo's case) or would be (in Claudel's) taken solely for representation purposes rather than in recognition of their legacy or influence. Claudel fails in that we already have enough people to cover her. Kahlo's presence is especially egregious in that she masks the absence of more notable artists like Raphael or Caravaggio --Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2021‎ (UTC)

Here's a tip, public interest and prominence in culture mean more to me than anything. Claudel is one of the most prominent (and i backed that up but you skipped over the sculpters like Brancusi lol). It's the same with types like you, Claudel is redundant to Rodin, Barbara Hepworth is redundant to Henry Moore, Edmonia Lewis is just a diversity pick etc. It's no point. Notice it's never Raphael is redundant to da Vinci, Michelangelo and Rembrandt. Here's something that will make you mad, here's a quick set up of 10ish notable painters. . See that column next to the nationality? That's pageviews in all languages, Kahlo comes second to Da Vinci. The public find her more interesting than ANY OTHER PAINTER. (da Vinci gets alot of science boost). She completely beats Raphael. in google interest. Since the whole point of this exercise is to improve articles, yes the most visited one is important. That's life. The most important woman beats the third best men of a group. They're not always "redundant", any "diversity" pick is better than the same old. GuzzyG (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: This is a list of the most vital articles on Misplaced Pages, not the articles whose subjects are the most famous. I believe you yourself pointed this out some time ago to me when I suggested preserving Churchill for his cultural significance. Kahlo may be more widely looked up, but it is an irrefutable fact that Raphael or Caravaggio has had a much more profound impact on world art. Caravaggio, for instance, popularized Chiaroscuro and Tenebrism, and he is known as the preeminent baroque painter. Raphael had nearly peerless influence on iconic and religious art. Both of these artists are all over art, and have been so for centuries. Kahlo's influence is much more localized to her small genre, which is rather new. Raphael and Caravaggio represent supreme human achievement in the arts both in terms of memory and influence. Kahlo has no such distinction. She is merely a pop culture icon. While she and her work are important, it is a tragedy that she is included while Caravaggio and Raphael are not --Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2021‎ (UTC)

"supreme human", that's a zinger right there. Not most famous, extreme fame combined with being influential to half of the population (women) as a representative icon, which means more than any localized more niche importance to the field like founding a genre... it goes over borders like a art genre. but that's probably not a supreme human achievement to you right.. I'm just dying laughing at you calling other people redundant while arguing for the third and fourth best to be added, how don't you not see the flaw in all of this? Even moreso in painting, when van Gogh is exactly the same kind of pop icon, yet no issues there i suppose. I just wanted to show you stats, but i know more your reasoning now. All good, have a good day/night. :) GuzzyG (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

We are not in the business of curating "representative icons". This is a list for vital and essential people. Your comparison of Kahlo to van Gogh is entirely false. Van Gogh is a pop icon, but he is also the premier modern artist. His technique, style and contributions have been vastly more influential than Kahlo's. Kahlo has not had nearly the same influence on the visual arts as van Gogh. To compare the two is absolutely silly, and to suggest that Caravaggio and Raphael are second and third bests is ironic as you refuse to acknowledge that Kahlo has had middling influence in her profession when compared to them. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2021‎ (UTC)

I put the influence Kahlo has on women when they see/feel themselves in Kahlo and her involvement in upper echelon arts and believe it's possible for themselves over any influence someone like Rembrandt (and Raphael) have with the premier artists today like Damien Hirst or Banksy, i can see the madonna in the balloon girl, can you?. I know this is probably hard for you to get, but it means more than a simple achievement in popularizing a genre. (I hope you would give Tupac Shakur level 3 credit for popularizing and influencing hip-hop). Artemisia Gentileschi and Clara Schumann got added here to you know.... that's the normal standard. GuzzyG (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Writers

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Writers for the list of topics in this category.

Swap Ivan Cankar for Ivo Andrić

The more prominent writer from this area.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal Better at Level 5. --Thi (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
3. Support removal - Interstellarity (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Hyperbolick (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Swap W. H. Auden for Alfred, Lord Tennyson

No disrespect to Auden, but Tennyson is simply the more vital poet. In fact, when looking to see whether his inclusion had been proposed before, I found no such proposal, but a half dozen proposals for other poets being rejected on the argument that they, too, were behind Tennyson (sometimes among others, but Tennyson was the constant), who was missing from the list. Which is true, and I think for Auden being behind Tennyson, too. Incredibly long career of a sixty-one year stretch from his first published piece to his last, remaining to this day the longest-serving Poet Laureate of England, gave us innumerable remembered verses and phrases. "Nature, red in tooth and claw" is Tennyson. As is "'Tis better to have loved and lost / Than never to have loved at all" , and the common paraphrase, "Ours is not to reason why, / Ours is but to do and die".

Somewhat unfortunate that poets and novelists are mixed together in the list, but if not swapped for Auden, would put Tennyson ahead of Enid Blyton, Roald Dahl, and William Golding as well. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Hyperbolick (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support According to the article on him: "Tennyson was the first to be raised to a British peerage for his writing.". His Idylls of the King was "arguably the most famous Victorian adaptation of the legend of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table." He influenced the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, whose members lionized him as one of their "artistic heroes". His lifelong struggle with depression resulted in the "common thread of grief, melancholy, and loss" in his works, and his reinterpretation of older myths and legends. Among his detractors we are quoting W. H. Auden in saying "There was little about melancholia he didn't know; there was little else that he did." Yet I think that Tennyson had a much wider impact than Auden. On Auden's reputation, his article reports: "Auden's stature in modern literature has been contested. Probably the most common critical view from the 1930s onward ranked him as the last and least of the three major twentieth-century British and Irish poets—behind Yeats and Eliot—while a minority view, more prominent in recent years, ranks him as the highest of the three. Dimadick (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Tennyson was the poet of the Victorian Age. Arguably up there with Charles Dickens in his wide-reaching influence on the English language --Zelkia1101 (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2021‎ (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Journalists

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Journalists for the list of topics in this category.

Musicians and composers

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Musicians and composers for the list of topics in this category.

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

Swap Marian Anderson for Mahalia Jackson

Americans were not that influential in Opera and Anderson wouldn't be in the top 10 opera singers throughout history. But Jackson is the top Gospel singer; an area we do not cover.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Big fan as I am of Anderson, whose had an outstanding voice and whose career was affected by racism, I have to agree. Jackson was also notable for her role in the Civil Rights Movement. Neljack (talk) 07:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Support removal per above. --Thi (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
4. Support removal - Interstellarity (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
5. Support removal --Zelkia1101 (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2021‎ (UTC)

Oppose

1. Marian Anderson's Lincoln Memorial concert was very influential. pbp 17:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose addition Jackson is not nearly important enough to be deemed a level-4 biography. --Zelkia1101 (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2021‎ (UTC)

Discuss

Add William Byrd

He was one of great masters of English Renaissance music. He is often listed among the most important and interesting composers in history, the fourth B before Bach, Beethoven and Brahms. "Byrd's musical stature can hardly be overrated." (Britannica) He composed for keyboards and both secular and sacred vocal music. With Thomas Tallis he is the father of English church music.

"Byrd was the leading English composer of his generation, and together with his continental colleagues Giovanni Palestrina (c.1525-1594) and Orlando de Lassus (1532-1594), one of the acknowledged great masters of the late Renaissance. Byrd is considered by many the greatest English composer of any age, and indeed his substantial volume of high quality compositions in every genre of the time makes it easy to consider him the greatest composer of the Renaissance – his versatility and genius outshining those of Palestrina and Lassus in a self-evident way. English music of the period was amazingly rich, dominating the music of the continent in depth and variety, in a way that was not seen before or since. Also, Byrd's pre-eminent position at the beginning of music publication in England allowed him to leave a substantial printed legacy at the inception of many important musical forms. It would be impossible to over-estimate his subsequent influence on the music of England, the Low Countries, and Germany." (Classical.net)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Byrd was one of the major figures of the English Virginalist School. As a music teacher, he cultivated important students, such as Peter Philips, Thomas Tomkins, and Thomas Weelkes. While Byrd's musical heirs died out by the 1650s, and his works were considered outdated during the Stuart Restoration, there has been a revival of interest in him since the 20th century. We list several recordings of his music in the 21st century. Dimadick (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Directors, producers and screenwriters

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Directors, producers and screenwriters for the list of topics in this category.

Remove Wim Wenders

This list has way too many articles. This article is not necessary to be in this list. Interstellarity (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. Support nom. Interstellarity (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
2. Support Fritz Lang, Leni Riefenstahl, Klaus Kinski, Marlene Dietrich, and Werner Herzog are already listed and German cinema is fine with five representatives. F. W. Murnau is infinitely more important to the development of world cinema and Rainer Werner Fassbinder is a equal. They're just as worthy but we can't have three more Germans, so none would be better. We don't have directors from the whole continent of Africa like Ousmane Sembène or Youssef Chahine or countries with over 100 mil population like the Philippines Lino Brocka or Brazil Glauber Rocha, if we had to cover a global art film scene these would all be better picks than another German, we have to put it in perspective here. GuzzyG (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Riefenstahl and Kinski can go first. --Thi (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Ousmane Sembène

"one of the greatest authors of Africa and he has often been called the "father of African film"" from his article, the most influential and prominent African filmmaker and considering Nigerian film is the third largest in the world behind India and the US, we should have a representative.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Philburmc (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Businesspeople

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Businesspeople for the list of topics in this category.

Add Auguste Escoffier

We need a chef and he's regarded as the 20th centuries greatest. "one of the codifiers of French haute cuisine, but Escoffier's achievement was to simplify and modernize Carême's elaborate and ornate style. In particular, he codified the recipes for the five mother sauces. Referred to by the French press as roi des cuisiniers et cuisinier des rois ("king of chefs and chef of kings""

"Alongside the recipes he recorded and invented, another of Escoffier's contributions to cooking was to elevate it to the status of a respected profession by introducing organized discipline to his guests.

Escoffier published Le Guide Culinaire, which is still used as a major reference work, both in the form of a cookbook and a textbook on cooking. Escoffier's recipes, techniques and approaches to kitchen management remain highly influential today, and have been adopted by chefs and restaurants not only in France, but also throughout the world"

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
3. Support Dimadick (talk) 08:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
4. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose this person's biography is not nearly notable enough in order to merit inclusion. While I understand the desire to curate a diverse portfolio of people who worked in various fields, we do not need to add absolute unknowns to a list of articles that are absolutely central to the encyclopedia --Zelkia1101 (talk) 04:31, 20 April 2021‎ (UTC)
2. Oppose We need a chef - no we don't. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose I don't think that addition would be vital improvement to this level. --Thi (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

User Cobblet said: "I don't think there's any chef I'd consider vital. Within any culinary tradition I'd rather list characteristic ingredients, eating habits, cooking methods, and dishes, before individual chefs." French cuisine itself has been influential but high end French cooking is not as fashionable now as it used to be. Perhaps Gastronomy is better choice. However, Escoffier influenced kitchen management, codified mother sauces and is influential in his field. --Thi (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

"However, Escoffier influenced kitchen management, codified mother sauces and is influential in his field" this is why i nominated him, he has a massive influence on chefs and on restaurants/cooking in general. Chefs wouldn't be out of the place with one representation and he's the perfect one. Especially if we have one Mafia representative, something with less of a impact than restaurant culture. GuzzyG (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Zelkia1101: Don't condescend me, i have no "desire" for anything. I'm just a hard stats person, (here's my watchlist, but more than 10k makes it hard to load, so i only have that amount, but i have more in my excels) i do track data for tens of thousands of people as a 24/7 thing for my own project and including every field from as high as conquerers and religious founders - to what people would consider lowest, reality tv contestants and beauty pageant contestants (including 19th century/early 20th century dog fighters, not on wiki and i needed a ancestry sub for). 90% of my time is on this. I don't care for any figure personally or have any particular desire for any. I use data from many, many sources - from Wiki to google, to as small as paid subscription to NYT and newspapers.com. (for mentions), among many others i can't reveal. (would reveal methodology for my project). I also track many languages, especially ones with diff scripts like Russian, Japanese, Mandarin or Amharic etc. Here's a comparison of data in English of top figures from academic fields i put together before my nom of Vasari. . Notice he fits in with the rest? Hence the nom. You are just flat out wrong that Escoffier is unnotable and unworthy of placement here, you may not know of him, but that means nothing.

I don't know how to prove it without going into my stats, which is OR. But here's google trends with a bunch of entertainers we list , he gets searched the same amount as James Cagney lol. He may not get much in the US (where there's no big high culinary focus and where you're from), but notice the big three of France, Mexico and Japan he dominates all these entertainers? How does a chef nearly dead for a century beat out a actor in Star Wars and James Cagney? Notice he dominates countries with public reputations for food? You may not know him but 30k hits in google books (for comparison a normal actor listed here Peter O'Toole has 77k , taking into consideration the advantage actors have over 19th century chefs in tabloids this is decent. He has 2.6 million pageviews too , decent for a chef whos been dead for nearly a century and gets no push in the US. That beats many views of many people here. I don't know how to explain it other than you're wrong and it's no surprise as he's the most influential chef and restaurateur. Chefs (from Julia Child to Marie-Antoine Carême and the obvious G Ramsay, A Bourdain and J Oliver are the most undercovered field on wiki relating to their stats on this list. (aslo pro wrestlers and murderers are second and third, naturally i chose to nom a chef).

This is how i choose to nominate all my noms, of experienced research, not for a need or care of diversity. I do care about that for balance, but i would never force that on the level 4 list. Jerry Thomas (bartender) would be me forcing a service/restaurant figure on this list, even though if he had a bit of promotion he'd qualify. Notice i chose the person with stats to back them up? If he doesn't qualify all those promoted actors who don't have his worldwide attention that get less then him should be removed then too. I'd deserve condescension if i said Bugsy Siegel deserved listing because i liked the Flamingo in real life, don't lecture me out of some misguided notion i'm just adding anyone to give this list a diverse portfolio, when i'm doing this out of years of experience and can easily provide stats to counter everything you say. Please try to understand you may not recognise some figures but they can still be important. You tanked the Mahalia Jackson nom too and she had the stats aswell. These are all deserving and it IS better to cover different fields when they absolutely fit amongst the others here. If you tanked them because you thought i just wanted to be diverse, that would be incredibly disappointing, because as shown, they do fit. (i assume because you went against most of the women and the one Indian film but not the technically conventionally bland Euro artist like Antoine Watteau, which is admittedly odd) GuzzyG (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: No one condescended you. Calm down. Escoffier may be a famous chief in France but he is not vital nor influential enough to be listed as a level-4 vital article on the English-language version of this website. It may be more appropriate to nominate him in the French-language version, as his legacy is more salient and germane to that country. We do not need chefs on a list of the 2,000-some most vital articles on this website, and even if we did I'm not sure this guy is it --Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2021‎ (UTC)

@Zelkia1101: "calm down" is the definition of condescending, i actually love debates - so am calm already, but thanks for caring. :). that's changing the goal posts, it's not fame. he's the most influential chef (that is without a doubt) Le guide culinaire is still in print and used worldwide. That google trend link showed you his prominence in three countries on three continents. He beats other culture figures listed - so by your definition of influence, how is it justified to list the actors but not him, among many other figures? It seems you seem to have a problem with chefs, but irrespective of that, it's a major industry and deserves listing. He's not out of place with people like Estée Lauder (businesswoman) listed. (and no, she should not be removed. the Beauty industry is important too.). you called him a completely unnotable biography, which is completely false (worldwide). If we cover 60 actors and 98 athletes, some as minor as Colin Meads, than Escoffier is ok. Or is New Zealand more important than France? None of this makes any sense!!!!!!!!!! GuzzyG (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: I am confused why you think my opposition to Escoffier somehow translates to my support for the likes of Lauder or Meads being on this list. It's honestly baffling that they are on this list when we don't have Thomas Marshall, Henry George, Joseph Schumpeter, Benjamin Whorf, Harold Bloom or Stanley Milgram. Escoffier does not deserve to be on this list, and neither do Lauder or Meads. There are honestly quite a few people on the list of people whom I would like to strike or replace, but I haven't made those nominations since we are still under quota for people. I don't want to add more fluff at the expense of other more influential individuals who are still missing. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2021‎ (UTC)

Every single one of those could be added and still fit Escoffier, but alot are bad too and Whorf would absolutely not come before Roman Jakobson and Bloom holds no candle to Vasari or John Ruskin, we already list Edward Said. Nearly all my nominations recently are social scientists.... funny how you skipped over Al-Farabi.. since he's one of the most notable we're missing... mhm, could still fit Escoffier too though!. Can't just show off a bunch of academics (you could do the same with scientists, religious figures or politicians too) and try and act superior, you could do that with any entertainer or athlete. Escoffier is the top of his field, forget Whorf (in the top 15), we list Noam Chomsky, so yes - first best (in restaurants), beats top 15 in something we cover. That's how it should be. GuzzyG (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm perplexed by your assertion that Harold Bloom, arguably the preeminent literary critic of the 20th century (blows Said out of the water entirely), is not a peer of Vasari. I would be in favor of adding both, as both are vital and necessary. As for your comments about top 15s and top 1s or whatever, that doesn't really mean anything to me. Linguistics is a much more important field than connoisseurship. Benjamin Lee Whorf represents a field of linguistics that we do not cover, and it would be ignorant to merely lump him in with Chomsky whose theories, while influential, do not cover the breadth of the field as well as you think they do. There is simply no reason to add Escoffier to this list. He adds nothing significant to this project, especially when there are others who need representation. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2021‎ (UTC)

@力: Any reason in particular the restaurant industry/chefs don't deserve a rep when Escoffier here beats out some actors we list in interest worldwide? If he doesn't make the cut, should we not remove the actors since they have a bigger tabloid push than dead for a century chefs and yet get lower interest? Should we not cover a major field if it's top figure can hang with most figures listed? GuzzyG (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Add Elon Musk

Musk’s legacy is secure because of his contributions to space. Interstellarity (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support nom - Interstellarity
2. Support. Looking over the people we currently list in this section, I think Musk is at least on par with if not above a few of them in terms of vitality. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support a preeminent modern-day businessman with investments in disparate projects and fields. The diversity of his portfolio and his ambitions, as well as his mass popularity, merit his inclusion to this list --Zelkia1101 (talk) 04:31, 20 April 2021‎ (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose No more alive people under 50 atleast should be added here, athletes (whose career is normally over by then and you can tell) are the only semi acceptable exception in my opinion. Musk does not stand significantly above Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos or Sergey Brin/Larry Page. His rocket contributions are low in comparison to Robert H. Goddard and Konstantin Tsiolkovsky and his overall American space notoriety does not outdo Buzz Aldrin or John Glenn. His automobile contributions do not stand significantly above Gottlieb Daimler, Wilhelm Maybach, Ferruccio Lamborghini or Enzo Ferrari. His involvement with PayPal does not match up to Satoshi Nakamoto and Bitcoin. So he has competitors, equals and people above him in business, automobiles, finance, rockets and space - all his main areas. There's no harm in waiting a decade or two here and waiting to see if his legacy matches up to or surpasses some of these people - we need to have perspective here - even if things might seem heading a certain way. We can't have every big celebrity name today when we miss so many similar historical people whose legacy has already lasted. GuzzyG (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Notable option, but his legacy is not sure yet. --Thi (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Explorers

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Explorers for the list of topics in this category.

Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists for the list of topics in this category.

Add Harold Bloom

Harold Bloom was a preeminent figure in the field of literary criticism during his time. His work's legacy is the advancement of the Western Canon, a collection of novels and works that survive to this day in part due to Bloom's influence. Contemporary critics also regarded Bloom as one of the world's preeminent scholars of Shakespeare and Western literature in general. We don't have a stand-alone literary critic as a Level 4 article, and I think Bloom would be an excellent ambassador for the field. --Zelkia1101 (talk) 04:28, 28 February 2021‎ (UTC)

Support

1. Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelkia1101 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
2. Support An important figure of the 20th century, and a noted reactionary. Per the main article on him: "For many years, Bloom's writings have drawn polarized responses, even among established literary scholars. Bloom was called "probably the most celebrated literary critic in the United States" and "America's best-known man of letters". A New York Times article in 1994 said that many younger critics understand Bloom as an "outdated oddity," whereas a 1998 New York Times article called him "one of the most gifted of contemporary critics."" ... "In the early 21st century, Bloom often found himself at the center of literary controversy after criticizing popular writers such as Adrienne Rich, Maya Angelou, and David Foster Wallace. In the pages of The Paris Review, he criticized the populist-leaning poetry slam, saying: "It is the death of art." When Doris Lessing was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, he bemoaned the "pure political correctness" of the award to an author of "fourth-rate science fiction," although he conceded his appreciation of Lessing's earlier work." Dimadick (talk) 05:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Support -- a first-rate exemplar of the field. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Bloom was great advocate of classic literature as writer and public figure, but not central philosopher in aesthetics and literature. I think that influential art historians such as Giorgio Vasari, Johann Joachim Winckelmann and Jacob Burckhardt are more vital at this level. --Thi (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Giorgio Vasari should come first for art critics. GuzzyG (talk) 07:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The only issue is that it's not convincing he's more vital than Roland Barthes, Northrop Frye or William Hazlitt and i'm definitely not convinced a literary critic is automatically more vital than arts one like John Ruskin or even Giorgio Vasari; push comes to shove and i have to pick one - it'd be Vasari. GuzzyG (talk) 05:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Add Paul Krugman

A noticeable miss from this list. We need someone to represent post-Keynesian international trade theory and international economics, which none of the current economists represent. Krugman is likely one of the most recognized living economists, and his influence extends beyond his work in the field. He is also a prolific social commentator and critic. We could use a representative of the New Keynesians, and Krugman is seen in many ways to be Keynes's successor.

Support

1. Support as nom ---- Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support If nothing else, Krugman is one of the most vocal critics of several current economic theories because of their lack of "predictive power", and their overreliance on hypotheses which are consistently contradicted by empirical data. He has had an impact on the field. Dimadick (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. There's no way he's vital to list at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose From now on, i'm opposing most living people not named Xi Jinping or Mark Zuckerberg, he should not be one of the only living intellectuals on this list (he doesn't stand with Chomsky). Living people need time after they die for their legacy to settle in place. Once i clean up level 5 from it's mess eventually, there should be no place on this list for most living people, as their legacy isn't as clear as many others we miss. We should be extremely strict here regarding living people. GuzzyG (talk) 07:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Several other contemporary figures are at the same level of notability. --Thi (talk) 08:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Cesare Beccaria

"Widely considered one of the greatest thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment. He is well remembered for his treatise On Crimes and Punishments (1764), which condemned torture and the death penalty, and was a founding work in the field of penology and the Classical School of criminology. Beccaria is considered the father of modern criminal law and the father of criminal justice." "Beccaria’s book, Dei delitti e delle pene (1764), translated into English as On Crimes and Punishments (1767), significantly shaped the views of American revolutionaries and lawmakers."

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Several of Beccaria's then-innovative principles concerning punishment for crimes, have shaped centuries of legal thought: "Punishment has a preventive (deterrent), not a retributive, function.", "Punishment should be proportionate to the crime committed.", "A high probability of punishment, not its severity, would achieve a preventive effect.", "Procedures of criminal convictions should be public.", "Finally, in order to be effective, punishment should be prompt." We also mention Beccaria as one of the writers who influenced Jeremy Bentham in founding the modern version of Utilitarianism. Dimadick (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support excellently reasoned argument. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support We so under cover law compared to things like Psychology and others so support. GuzzyG (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Giorgio Vasari

Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects is one of the most important books of art history, pretty much considered the founding of it (and thus in the long term probably responsible for seeing artists as historical figures worthy of analysis and thus responsible for artists being celebs in the long term). Highly influential responsible for art history/criticism today. HIs work is labeled the "the first important book on art history" and "some of the Italian Renaissance's most influential writing on art". A bolder claim might be that he had a impact on Italian art being seen as highly as it is over many other countries. Either way, if Bloom is to be added then someone earlier should be too. We are lacking in intellectuals from this area compared to many 20th century entertainers and athletes and we are 14 under quota at the moment.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 07:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support. Transformative of art history. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Basic entry in any encyclopedia. Either Vasari or Lives of the Artists should be added. --Thi (talk) 08:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Dimadick (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Al-Farabi

His lede mentions "In Islamic philosophical tradition he was often called "the Second Teacher", following Aristotle who was known as "the First Teacher". He is credited with preserving the original Greek texts during the Middle Ages because of his commentaries and treatises, and influencing many prominent philosophers, such as Avicenna and Maimonides. Through his works, he became well-known in the West as well as the East. " While Britannica , has "one of the preeminent thinkers of medieval Islam. He was regarded in the medieval Islamic world as the greatest philosophical authority after Aristotle". Considering how little figures we have from the first millennium (and from Islam itself), i think Al-Farabi would be a good addition to balance this list.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support He was a pioneer in the fields of social psychology and music therapy. Theologically, he was an adherent of Neoplatonism. He is credited as one of of the scholars who "adapted neoplatonism to conform to the monotheistic constraints of Islam". Dimadick (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Josephus

One of the most important of the ancient historians, especially regarding Jewish history, will probably be permanently remembered/important to history because of his mention of Jesus, documented with it's own article, Josephus on Jesus. This would be a good add to spread out our coverage of intellectuals.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support His book The Jewish War is one of the main sources of the First Jewish–Roman War, and the only one of the available sources which was written by a veteran of the war. His Antiquities of the Jews is the best known source on Jewish history in classical antiquity. It also covers aspects of the history of the Hellenistic states, Parthia, Armenia, the Nabatean kingdom, and the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire. The popular medieval chronicle Josippon cited Josephus as its main source. Dimadick (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support key figure in the historiography of Jesus -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2021‎ (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Religious figures

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Religious figures for the list of topics in this category.

Politicians and leaders

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Politicians and leaders for the list of topics in this category.

Swap Al-Mustansir Billah for Abdallah al-Mahdi Billah

Mustansir's reign was an important period, but as a person and ruler he was not, as he was weak and a puppet of military strongmen. His vizier Badr al-Jamali was arguably much more important than him, as he saved the Fatimid Caliphate from collapse and established the model of government followed during the final century of the Fatimid Caliphate's existence. I propose therefore swapping with Abdallah al-Mahdi Billah, who was a truly pivotal figure himself: the final leader of the secret Isma'ili network, the cause of the Qarmatian schism, the first Fatimid caliph who presided over the crucial first decades of the Fatimid state, and one of the Isma'ili imams (with the sceptics arguing that he was also the real founder of Isma'ilism as a major Islamic sect, since his actual connection to the earlier imams is questionable to say the least).

Support

1. Support as nom. Constantine ✍ 13:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Support removal per nom. --Thi (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
4. Support removal - Interstellarity (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. Gizza (talk • voy) 08:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add D. S. Senanayake

The single driving force behind a independent Sri Lanka. He's considered their "Father of the Nation"; this area is underrepresentated on our list.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
4. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Mindon Min

We have so many Burmese politicians, (over 5), of a country of around 50 mil but only one modern Thailand figure for example - a country of around 70 mil. He has no discernible influence. GuzzyG (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
4. Support - Interstellarity (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Boris Godunov

I can't see any actual influence here, seems like the typical fluff average major country leader - his influence is certainly not enough to be on a top 2000 list. Having a play/opera named after you isn't enough if we don't list Richard II of England, Henry IV of England, Henry VI of England and especially Richard III of England - all of whom are subject to much more important plays. Here's some other leaders of monarchies, probably more influential than Boris; Herod the Great, Songtsen Gampo, Leonidas I, Kʼinich Janaabʼ Pakal, Charles VIII of France, Louis XII of France, Louis XIII of France, James II of England, Michael the Brave, Ibrahim Pasha of Egypt, John VI of Portugal, Wilhelmina of the Netherlands, George I of Greece, George VI, Möngke Khan, Baldwin I of Jerusalem Emperor Taizu of Jin, Emperor Xuanzong of Tang, Emperor Yang of Sui, Zhu Wen, Šuppiluliuma I, Tomyris, An Dương Vương, Himiko, Burebista, Sonni Ali, Iltutmish, David IV of Georgia, Queen Seondeok of Silla, Sang Nila Utama, Tribhuwana Wijayatunggadewi, Jayavarman II, Shashanka, Murad I, Harald Hardrada, Coloman, King of Hungary, Lapu-Lapu, Setthathirath, Ali Mughayat Syah and Taksin. I have two rules now; important is not vital and if you can compare the person with many others than they're not vital enough - people on this list should be incomparable with more than 10-20 other people in the same field. They're not vital otherwise

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
3. Support He's not Gud-enuv for this list. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I can found him from several biographical dictionaries, unlike some other names from Eastern European history which are listed here. He was effective ruler. Colonization of Siberia begun. The establishment of serfdom had a profound effect on Russian society. --Thi (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose I agree with Thi that Boris more often appears in written sources than other Eastern European figures. Dimadick (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap Mahathir Mohamad for Tunku Abdul Rahman

From Rahman's article " In 1963, he successfully incorporated the Federation of Malaya, British North Borneo (renamed Sabah), Sarawak, and Singapore into the state of Malaysia. However, tensions between the Malay and Chinese communities resulted in Singapore's expulsion in 1965" and "Tunku Abdul Rahman is widely regarded, even by his critics, as Malaysia's "founding father", the architect of Malayan independence and the formation of Malaysia. As such, he is often referred to as Bapa Kemerdekaan (Father of Independence) or Bapa Malaysia (Father of Malaysia)". He seems to have been head of Malaysia through all of it's most important moments and as a historical figure he is a better representative than a currently active politician. Mohamad may have did alot but Rahman is responsible for the foundation of his country. It'd be a improvement to this list.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
2. Support removal - Interstellarity (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Donald Trump

I realize this may be extremely controversial, but Trump's tenure has defined an era in American politics and changed it significantly for better or worse, and prior to that he was a prominent celebrity-businessman. He's one of the few individuals who has his own WikiProject, and while there's the question of recency bias I doubt his legacy will be easily removed/escaped (Trumpism is here to stay for the time being). The main issue I see with this is that we'd have three consecutive presidents (Bush II-Obama-Trump) on this list, but as said above I support removing George W. Bush. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
2. as per the nomination. I disagree that he is "a key figure in the rise of the far right in the United States", and even if he was that does not make him less vital. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Support. For better or for worse, Trump's presidency was unique in so many different ways that I think it vital to list his article at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
4. Support had a big impact on how he see politics/politians in the 21st century.  Spy-cicle💥  22:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Sadly influential pbp 19:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose While I think that Trump is a key figure in the rise of the far right in the United States, I am far from certain that he has had a global impact. What wars has he fought, what international organizations has he helped form, how has he impacted life in Europe or in Africa? 16:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)

   @Dimadick: He is influential in the opposite direction, withdrawing from such treaties as the Paris climate accord and the TPP and attempting to withdraw from the WHO. While most of his foreign policy has been/will be reversed by Biden, he is emblematic of the rise of such populist movements across the globe as Brexit, even if they, like those in the US, predate him. Even with those concerns, Trump's impact in the US, consistent with his "America First" policies, is sufficient to secure him on this list IMO. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

2. Oppose General article about far right (Radical right (United States)) is not at this level, Republican Party (United States) is. --Thi (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Will probably end up portrayed as the American Nero in history and thus ~could~ be one of the ones still in the minds of people in a couple of centuries (because of the intrigue), but his policies did not have high impact and he could go the route of Gerald Ford too. Either way - he has no hard legacy today that ties him to a time period or long term history (like Bush does with the war on terror or Obama with his symbolic victory) and thus shouldn't be on this list. Xi Jinping would have to be added first out of current world leaders, surely... GuzzyG (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
4. I agree with wait and see, and currently oppose the addition. I would have supported this 2 years ago, and will probably support this in 20 years, but am not so sure today. Right now I think we'd be better off adding Boris Johnson. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

• Wait and see. Ambivalent about this as things stand. Wait and see if influence carries on to the next election. Seems increasingly inevitable that 2024 will become a Trump–Biden rematch. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Remove Grigory Potemkin

Not particularly vital at this level, not incomparable figure among many historical leaders.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Not of vital importance to anyone but Catherine the Great, we list so many dynasty founders of other, more important regions to cover that we can lose this non-direct leader of Russia when we cover so many other Russian leaders. Martha Washington or Diana, Princess of Wales would even be better. We already list Marie Antoinette and Madame de Pompadour and that's enough for this area. GuzzyG (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Swap: remove Krum and Ivan Asen II, add Simeon I of Bulgaria

Three Bulgarian rulers from the same era is too much. "Simeon's successful campaigns... led Bulgaria to its greatest territorial expansion ever, making it the most powerful state in contemporary Eastern and Southeast Europe. His reign was also a period of unmatched cultural prosperity and enlightenment later deemed the Golden Age of Bulgarian culture." Krum was a ruler from the early stage of Bulgaria and Ivan Asen from the later era. "Ivan Asen's reign 'ended at a moment of complete disaster', during the Mongol invasion of Europe... The minority of Ivan Asen's successor gave rise to the formation of boyar factions and the neighboring powers quickly conquered the peripheral territories."

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Krum was an expansionist who doubled Bulgaria's territories.: "spreading from the middle Danube to the Dnieper and from Odrin to the Tatra Mountains." His victories over the Pannonian Avars is what drove the Avars to became clients of the Carolingian Empire. By 829, the Avar state had collapsed. His victories over the Byzantine Empire destabilized it, and caused the downfall of the short-lived Nikephorian dynasty. His centralization efforts and legislation are credited with stabilizing the First Bulgarian Empire: "Khan Krum implemented legal reforms and issued the first known written law code of Bulgaria that established equal rules for all peoples living within the country's boundaries, intending to reduce poverty and to strengthen the social ties in his vastly enlarged state." . Dimadick (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Leonidas I

He is one of the most famous Greeks of all time. He is often mentioned in history books and encyclopedias and his story is known from several works of fiction.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Leonidas was the most famous member of the Agiad dynasty. His refusal to surrender and his death in a last stand made him an inspirational figure. His phrase Molon labe (come and take ) in reference to his weapons is famous. It became a military motto in modern Greece and Cyprus, inspired a slogan of the Texas Revolution (translated as Come and take it), and is still used by gun-right advocates in their defence of the right to keep and bear arms. Dimadick (talk) 23:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Any ancient figure as known as him should probably go on this list considering our massive bias of 20th century entertainers and athletes over any BC/first millennium figure, so we can handle clumps here. We need more Egyptians too GuzzyG (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC).

Oppose

Discuss

Remove an English monarch

I think we try to remove some English monarchs. I think the weakest monarchs we have is Henry II of England and Henry V of England. I won't nominate any monarchs yet. I would like community input on which monarchs should be removed. Interstellarity (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I think all current English monarchs are vital. --Thi (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

We're 14 under quota in people, so we have no need to rush to remove people. The arguments to remove these two especially fall flat when we see in their articles ledes Henry II is credited with "Henry's legal changes are generally considered to have laid the basis for the English Common Law, while his intervention in Brittany, Wales, and Scotland shaped the development of their societies and governmental systems" and Henry V having "His military successes culminated in his famous victory at the Battle of Agincourt (1415) and saw him come close to conquering France.", both of which (English Common Law and Battle of Agincourt) are highly important for a English language encyclopedia to cover. It's only natural for a English language encyclopedia to have alot of English kings. Infact going further, i'd support Richard III of England being added too, because of his permanent place in pop culture so far (because of Shakespeare). I'm much more certain of Richard III's place in a millennium more than a Claudette Colbert or Michel Platini type. Since we're 14 under quota (with many of the pop culture topics like Colbert or Platini remaining), i don't see any reason to cut any figures from pre modern history. We need to be more diverse in our coverage of centuries and areas and politicians are the easiest bet here. Ignoring English leaders, this list should be filled with more leaders of centuries + areas/countries we miss than not, our removals should ONLY be mainly in balancing 20th century pop culture topics with topics like Ur-Nammu, Herod the Great, Songtsen Gampo, Kʼinich Janaabʼ Pakal, Romulus, Samori Ture, Khufu, Alara of Kush, Senusret I, Iry-Hor, Reza Shah, Jan van Riebeeck, Lachlan Macquarie, Seru Epenisa Cakobau, George Tupou I, Ismail Ibn Sharif, Osei Kofi Tutu I and Himiko, all of which stand against most of these actors and athletes. Thus one would think more cuts (if any) should only be in these areas than areas we already lack (pre-modern leaders). GuzzyG (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

English monarchs are more represented on our list than other kingdoms, but I'd expect that on the English Misplaced Pages list. Perhaps we could trim a few, but I'm also in no rush to do so when we're under quota in that section. Rreagan007 (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Henry II has had the largest legacy, as the de facto founder of the Common law system in England, and the one credited for popularizing the innovative standard of trial by jury. His Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland also introduced English military and political dominance in Ireland, and has had large effects on the overall history of the British Isles.

• • Henry V is seen as a towering military figure through his impressive victories in Hundred Years' War, and as a would-be empire builder that came closer than anyone else to unifying the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of France. His death at age 35, largely undid his life's work. Having one underage son and few other viable heirs, his death caused a power vacuum that would be one of the early steps towards the Wars of the Roses. Personally I view him as less vital than several other English monarchs.
    • • I would not be opposed to adding Richard III, despite his short reign of 2 years and death at age 32. He introduced the Council of the North as the regional body responsible for administrating Northern England, and his system was maintained unchanged until 1641. He introduced the Court of Requests, to hear cases from the poor who could not otherwise afford legal representation. He ended legal restrictions on the printing and sale of books, laying the ground for a more literate culture. His legal reforms included orders to translate existing laws from French to English. He was the topic of many history books of the Tudor period, and debate over his historical assessment has been ongoing for centuries.
    • English monarchs have had lasting historical reputations, and their impact should not be neglected. Dimadick (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Add Xi Jinping

Considering the impact Xi has made on Chinese politics, in previous discussions many users raised concerns about recentism there, but I think that no longer applies anymore since his ideas are in the Chinese constitution. Interstellarity (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support nom. - Interstellarity
2. Support China is predicted to be a superpower this century, as well some some predicting a Chinese Century. All signs point to Xi Jinping being the dominant Chinese 21st century politician, his thoughts are into the constitution and he has a big cult of personality in that we have a article on it. For this to be the case in one of the major powers with the biggest population, it means he has a big influence. The Belt and Road Initiative give's China and Xi massive international influence. All of this combined gets him onto the list imo and fits more with other major 21st century leaders we list like Vladimir Putin, Angela Merkel, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. Russia is not predicted to dominate this century and Putin is arguably below Xi in influence. There's no way he doesn't fit on this list and "recentism" concerns for him are irrelevant when we list currently still playing LeBron James. GuzzyG (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Dimadick (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support the most prominent leader since Mao and Deng. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support One of the world's most powerful statesman, and one who has had a profound influence on his country's politics and economy -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 04:43, 20 April 2021‎ (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Pope Francis

I also understand this has been discussed before six years ago. There were points there that it is too soon to add about his influence compared to Benedict XVI. I would put Francis above Benedict in this case. I also think recentism no longer applies since Francis has taken a liberal approach compared to previous popes. Interstellarity (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support nom. - Interstellarity

Oppose

1. Oppose He may be ahead of largely irrelevant Benedict XVI, but considering recent popes; i wouldn't put Francis past Pope Leo XIII, Pope Paul VI or Pope Pius XII. That's without considering the long, long history of popes. Jean Parisot de Valette would be much more interesting (and cover something we lack). We could cover religions we don't with Mani (prophet), we could cover American figures responsible for conservative evangelical Christianity like Oral Roberts or Jerry Falwell Sr., founders of other forms of Christianity like Richard Allen (bishop), George Fox, Charles Wesley, Menno Simons, or Sun Myung Moon, important figures in other forms like Michael I Cerularius, Joseph Franklin Rutherford, Brigham Young, or Emanuel Swedenborg, important saints of Christianity like Óscar Romero, John Henry Newman, Mary MacKillop, Thérèse of Lisieux, Thomas Becket and Father Damien, figures of new movements of Islam like Mirza Ghulam Ahmad or figures of Islam like Muhammad Abduh, Jamāl al-Dīn al-Afghānī, Abdul Basit 'Abd us-Samad, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Al-Ash'ari, more modern figures of Judaism - which we lack like - Menachem Mendel Schneerson, Shneur Zalman of Liadi, Samson Raphael Hirsch, Abraham Isaac Kook, more Buddhist figures like Jinul, Buddhadasa or Shunryū Suzuki, more Hindu figures like Swaminarayan which we lack, any of the main new religious movements leaders like Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Marie Laveau, Elijah Muhammad, Anton LaVey, L. Ron Hubbard or Gerald Gardner (Wiccan) or heck even one cult leader like Jim Jones. These are all dead figures, with their legacy secure in their area. Much, much better choices than the active pope with no legacy in religion yet. Religion isn't just 21st century popes, we should prioritize covering many angles of it going by century and movement/religion - as such, these would all be much better to fully cover religion than Francis. GuzzyG (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose While widely seen as more liberal than his predecessors and credited for appointing women in "positions that were only held by men in the past", Francis has not made any major changes yet. The Catholic Church had its last major reforms in the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). Dimadick (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Dimadick. My personal choice for an addition would be History of the papacy. --Thi (talk) 07:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Military leaders and theorists

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Military leaders and theorists for the list of topics in this category.

Swap: remove Totila, add Belisarius

Britannica describes Belisarius: "Byzantine general, the leading military figure in the age of the Byzantine emperor Justinian I. As one of the last important figures in the Roman military tradition, he led imperial armies against the Sāsānian empire (Persia), the Vandal kingdom of North Africa, the Ostrogothic regime of Italy, and the barbarian tribes encroaching upon Constantinople (Istanbul)." He is more well known than his enemy Totila.

"For Liddell Hart, Belisarius was also the consummate practitioner of the so-called 'indirect approach' and the 'master of the art of converting his weakness into strength; and the opponent’s strength into a weakness.' T.E. Lawrence, an avid reader of the ancient military classics, considered 'the Thracian genius' to be one of 'three really first-class Roman generals in history' (the other two being Scipio Africanus and Julius Caesar) and encouraged his friend, Robert Graves, to write the novel Count Belisarius. This piece of historically informed fiction retraces Belisarius’s military campaigns and was much admired by Winston Churchill, who is said to have often turned to it for guidance during the fraught early years of World War II."

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 08:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
2. Support Seems to be a much better nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
3. Support Per the main article: "He conquered the Vandal Kingdom of North Africa in the Vandalic War in nine months and conquered much of Italy during the Gothic War. He also defeated the Vandal armies in the battle of Ad Decimum and played an important role at Tricamarum, compelling the Vandal king, Gelimer, to surrender. During the Gothic War, he took Rome and then held out against great odds during the Siege of Rome." Due to Belisarius, we have the articles Byzantine Italy (c. 540-1071) and the Byzantine Papacy (537-752). Dimadick (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
4. Support removal, neutral on addition - Interstellarity (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Rebels, revolutionaries and activists

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Rebels, revolutionaries and activists for the list of topics in this category.

Scientists, inventors and mathematicians

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Scientists, inventors and mathematicians for the list of topics in this category.

Add Richard Arkwright

"He is credited as the driving force behind the development of the spinning frame, known as the water frame after it was adapted to use water power; and he patented a rotary carding engine to convert raw cotton to "cotton lap" prior to spinning. He was the first to develop factories housing both mechanised carding and spinning operations"

"His organizational skills earned him the accolade "father of the modern industrial factory system"

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strongly oppose more biography fluff while the major invention spinning jenny isn't even listed at any level. The spinning jenny is one of the inventions credited with starting the industrial revolution. --12:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

   Clarifying that that comment was by Spaced about. —J947 , at 20:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

James Hargreaves invented the spinning jenny, Richard Arkwright patented the spinning frame and Samuel Crompton combined them as the spinning mule. --Thi (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Add Robert H. Goddard

He's "credited with creating and building the world's first liquid-fueled rocket" and "Goddard's work as both theorist and engineer anticipated many of the developments that would make spaceflight possible. He has been called the man who ushered in the Space Age" and "his 1919 monograph A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes is considered one of the classic texts of 20th-century rocket science" and he has a NASA center named after him Goddard Space Flight Center. With him and Wernher von Braun, we would list both main rocket pioneers - considering space will probably be at the forefront of this century i don't see how it isn't vital to cover them both. Pioneering rockets is more of a secure legacy than either Alec Guinness or Michel Platini have, both of whom we list. Will still be significant aslong as spaceflight is.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support because of influence. --Thi (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Dimadick (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support as per above. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Sports figures

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Sports figures for the list of topics in this category.

History

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/History for the list of topics in this category.

General comments

Basics

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/History#Basics for the list of topics in this category.

History by continent and region

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/History#History by continent and region for the list of topics in this category.

History by country

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/History#History by country for the list of topics in this category.

Prehistory

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/History#Prehistory for the list of topics in this category.

Ancient history

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/History#Ancient history for the list of topics in this category.

Remove Delian League

Per previous nomination: "The Delian League is already covered in three other articles in the level-4 list (Classical Athens, Greco-Persian Wars, Peloponnesian War)."

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The Delian League (478-404 BC) was an association of hundred of Greek city-states under Athens' leadership, and a major player in both the Wars of the Delian League (477–449 BC) against the Achaemenid Empire, and the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC) against the Peloponnesian League. Much of the history of the Eastern Mediterranean in the 5th century BC makes no sense without it. Dimadick (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Post-classical history

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/History#Post-classical history for the list of topics in this category.

Early modern history

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/History#Early modern history for the list of topics in this category.

Modern history

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/History#Modern history for the list of topics in this category.

Historical cities

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/History#Historical cities for the list of topics in this category.

History of science and technology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/History#History of science and technology for the list of topics in this category.

History of other topics

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/History#History of other topics for the list of topics in this category.

Auxiliary sciences of history

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/History#Auxiliary sciences of history for the list of topics in this category.

Geography

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Geography for the list of topics in this category.

Basics

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Geography#Basics for the list of topics in this category.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Town square

Trying to get some unimportant articles removed because we are way over 10,000. Interstellarity (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

2. Support. Too much overlap with other articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Support town is all that's needed at this level -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
4. Support not essential. GuzzyG (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Physical geography

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Geography#Physical geography for the list of topics in this category.

add Mount Pelée

Second largest eruption of voulcan in history of world. Physical geographu is underrepresented. Perhaps voulcans and waterfalls are two fields the most underrepresented at this level.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Spaced about (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

I'm thinking about Pelée. On the VEI Pelée was a 4. Measured by death toll Pelée is third behind Tambora and Krakatoa. Off topic but.... Krakatoa and Tambora are measured VEI at 6 and 7. We list Krakatoa, I thought of suggesting Mount Tambora a while back, it is both the biggest volcano eruption in explosive power (only nuber 7) and death toll (70,000-250,000) in recorded history, and lead to Year Without a Summer. It is generally said Krakatoa is more famous due to world telecommunication having reached the point where the news made it around the world as a world news headline that was not the case for Tambora. I am also interested in Toba catastrophe theory, but it's not universally agreed upon.  Carlwev  15:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Carlwev: Yes, this is true. According to List of volcanic eruptions by death toll actually Pelee is 3rd, Krakatoa is 2nd and Tabora is 1st. The only reason why I missed Tabora is fact that source based on which I made nomination (whithout checking it) was not quite reliable (small ecncyclopedia which I have in my home mention Pelee after Krakatao, not sure why but nvm anyway). I could support Tambora because of IMHO 250 k deaths in such span for me is enough; I am also ambivalent about having overlap beetwen War on terror and September 11 attacks as I am not sure how events like September 11 attacks or 2020 Beirut explosion (also overlaped with COVID for economy of the country at all) should be compared toGreat Chinese Famine which was recently failed. I would also support foundamental to knowlage (mountain is level 3 article) topics like "moutain pass", "moutain peak", "triangulation", etc. because of having so plenty specific moutains ahead of those basic topics (without which we could not know what is e g Topographic prominence) is like having plenty specific cities ahead of city, town etc., or to use other comprasion: Robert Waldow ahead of "Human Height" (maybe apples and oranges but I only try provide my point). Tambora maybe is not comparable to Mount Everest which influenced Flag of Nepal but worth consideration to be included here if we have Vesuvius and others Dawid2009 (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Parks and preserves

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Geography#Parks and preserves for the list of topics in this category.

Countries

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Geography#Countries for the list of topics in this category.

Regions and country subdivisions

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Geography#Regions and country subdivisions for the list of topics in this category.

Cities

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Geography#Cities for the list of topics in this category.

Remove Adelaide

Trying to get some unimportant articles removed because we are way over 10,000. Interstellarity (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Interstellarity (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Support not necessary at this level -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Support not essential. GuzzyG (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. A major city in Australia, a major English-speaking country. There are less vital cities currently listed that could be removed first if we need to, but we're about at quota currently in this section so there's not a huge need to remove articles from this section. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose We're only 2 over quota in geography, and I doubt this is one of the two least vital. I'd rather get rid of New South Wales. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Per above. --Thi (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Arts

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Arts for the list of articles in this category.

Architecture

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Arts#Architecture for the list of articles in this category.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Arc de Triomphe

Support

1. As nom. I know that the list is full yet it should still be added despite the list already contains 3 French specific structures (Eiffel Tower, Notre-Dame de Paris & Palace of Versailles) since Arc de Triomphe is as famous as the other 3 thing I mentioned in this sentence.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
2. Support. It is the largest and probably most well known triumphal arch, so it should probably be listed here. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
3. Support A look at the article convinces me that the Arc should be Level 4. Jusdafax (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
4. Support France could use more representative structures in the list, due to its colorful architectural history. Dimadick (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
5. Support and I might also support triumphal arch. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Triumphal arch is the general article. My single-volume encylopedia lists triumphal arch, but not Arc de Triomphe. --Thi (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Postmodern architecture

Support

1. As nom. I'm surprised that it is not listed, despite being a very widely used architectural style.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Triumphal arch

These famous landmarks exist around the world.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Cultural venues

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Arts#Cultural venues for the list of articles in this category.

Literature

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Arts#Literature for the list of articles in this category.

Swap: remove The Call of the Wild, Add Vanity Fair (novel)

Jack London is listed in People, William Makepeace Thackeray is not. Thackeray's main work is Vanity Fair, which has been adapted many times for the film and television. "The rich movement and colour of this panorama of early 19th-century society make Vanity Fair Thackeray’s greatest achievement; the narrative skill, subtle characterization, and descriptive power make it one of the outstanding novels of its period." (Britannica) Becky Sharp has been considered one of the most vivid characters in English literature.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Support addition --Spaced about (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
3. Support addition   // Timothy :: talk  05:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal --Spaced about (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
2. Strongly Oppose Removal   // Timothy :: talk  05:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove A Season in Hell

Rimbaud is listed in authors. Duino Elegies represents poetic works from continental Europe.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza (talk • voy) 23:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
4. Support - Interstellarity (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Two Treatises of Government and An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

Pretty self-explanatory. The former is considered the preeminent text on democratic theory, and it profoundly influenced the American revolutionaries. The latter was one of the founding texts of the empiricist movement as well as one of the most well-known works of the Enlightenment. Locke is also one of the few level-3 writers or thinkers whose works do not appear on this list.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose at least without a swap. John Locke is well known in American academy for his contributions to US constitution but he is maybe not as central internationally. The number of non-fiction works at this level is perhaps too high, the section was created when there was no Level 5. --Thi (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Music

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Arts#Music for the list of topics in this category.

Swap: Remove Symphony No. 8 (Mahler), add Symphony No. 2 (Mahler)

Honestly, I was surprised to see Mahler's 8th on here. While it is notable for having a 1000 people, it is not by any means considered Mahler's greatest work, his 2nd symphony is (and an argument could be made for his 9th). If you look up online each of the symphonies, his 2nd has 1 million more results and appears on many lists of "greatest symphonies." Simply put, Mahler is most critically acclaimed for his 2nd and 9th symphonies, but his 2nd is better known, played more often and more representative of him as a composer. (Since, unlike the 9th, it has voices – Mahler is well known for his vocal writing and integration of it into his symphonies)

Support

1. Support as nom - Aza24 (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
2. Support removal Not in the same level than Beethovens's ninth etc. --Thi (talk) 08:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
4. Support The article for the 2nd also has the most pageviews out of Mahler's symphonies.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 20:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
5. Support removal. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add L'Orfeo

The bias for modern Operas/non-baroque is pretty clear and L'Orfeo's addition is desperately needed as it sums up a lot of Pre-Mozart Opera. L'Orfeo is the oldest Opera still in modern day repertoire (and the 3rd oldest opera – the first two being by Peri and are barely performed) and the most important work of Claudio Monteverdi, who is arguably the most important composers before Bach.

Support

1. Support as nom - Aza24 (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Lied

The most famous lied singer Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau is listed but not lied itself. Some of the most famous classical works are lieds, for example Schubert's Winterreise.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Chamber music

Basic concept in classical music.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Galant music

Galant style in music can be compared with Rococo style in art, both styles followed the Baroque era. Many important composers are from this era: François Couperin, Georg Philipp Telemann, Jean-Philippe Rameau, Domenico Scarlatti, Giovanni Battista Pergolesi and Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Both Galant and Rococo were reactions against Baroque's complexity, "characteristics that were valued in both genres were freshness, accessibility and charm." Dimadick (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Brandenburg Concertos

The list contains two other works by Johann Sebastian Bach.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza (talk • voy) 23:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
3. Support - Interstellarity (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Some of the greatest works by "one of the greatest composers of all time" to quote our own article on J.S. Bach. The Brandenburg Concertos proposed for removal are mentioned prominently in the second sentence in the lede of that same article. This nomination flies in the face of that, and I strongly oppose. Jusdafax (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove La mer (Debussy)

Trying to get some unimportant articles removed because we are way over 10,000. Interstellarity (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Performing arts

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Arts#Performing arts for the list of articles in this category.

Visual arts

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Arts#Visual arts for the list of topics in this category.

Add Composition (visual arts)

Important concept in art and photography. Similar to perspective (graphical) and symmetry, both of which are listed at this level, but not adequately covered by them. Sdkb (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Sdkb (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. --Spaced about (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Gizza (talk • voy) 23:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Girl with a Pearl Earring

With the removal of any of the paintings above, that leaves some room for what is undoubtably in the top 5 most recognizable pieces of western art. (The other 4 which are likely ones already in the list) Especially since Vermeer's The Art of Painting will likely be removed, this painting, along with The Night Watch, represents the Dutch golden age well.

Support

1. Support as nom Aza24 (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe

I don't think that this painting is necessary at this level. Many other paintings of similar importance can be found from Level 5.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
2. Support - Interstellarity (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Support, not so important a piece. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per nom Gizza (talk • voy) 23:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add The School of Athens

Raphael is one of the most famous painters of all time. The figures in this iconic painting are often used for example in book covers or illustrate texts about philosophy, history, science or mathematics. I think that it is vital to know.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Printmaking

Central topic in visual arts. Engraving is listed but it is only one technique of printmaking.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support It has had a long history as a medium. A number of significant artists, such as Albrecht Dürer and Hokusai, are primarily known for their prints. Dimadick (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Modern visual arts

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Arts#Modern visual arts for the list of topics in this category.

Add Sholay

So i understand we list The Apu Trilogy, but that's more of a artfilm, Sholay represents more of a mainstream side of the Indian film industry and is the quintessential example of mainstream Indian film and had major impact on the output of the industry, with this film inspiring more action based movies just like it. Mughal-e-Azam, Mother India, Awaara and Pyaasa are other contenders,

Here's what's written in it's legacy section

"Sholay has received many "Best Film" honours. It was declared the "Film of the Millennium" by BBC India in 1999. It topped the British Film Institute's "Top 10 Indian Films" of all time poll of 2002, and was voted the greatest Indian movie in a Sky Digital poll of one million British Indians in 2004. It was also included in Time Magazine's "Best of Bollywood" list in 2010, and in CNN-IBN's list of the "100 greatest Indian films of all time" in 2013.

Sholay inspired many films and pastiches, and spawned a genre of films, the "Curry Western", which is a play on the term Spaghetti Western. A more accurate label for the genre is the Dacoit Western, due to its roots in earlier Indian dacoit films such as Mother India (1957) and Gunga Jumna (1961). It was also an early and most definitive masala film, and a trend-setter for "multi-star" films. The film was a watershed for Bollywood's scriptwriters, who were not paid well before Sholay; after the film's success, its writing duo Salim-Javed became stars in their own right and script writing became a more respected profession. The BBC has described Sholay as the "Star Wars of Bollywood", comparing its impact on Bollywood to the impact that Star Wars (1977) later had on Hollywood, while comparing Gabbar Singh to Darth Vader. "

and

"holay has been labelled by Chopra as the gold standard in Indian cinema, and a reference point for audiences and trade analysts. Over the years, the film has reached a mythic stature in popular culture, and has been called the greatest Hindi film of all time. It belongs to only a small collection of films, including Kismet (1943), Mother India (1957), Mughal-e-Azam (1960) and Hum Aapke Hain Koun..! (1994), which are repeatedly watched throughout India, and are viewed as definitive Hindi films with cultural significance. The lasting effect of Sholay on Indian cinema was summarised by Anupama Chopra, when in 2004 she called it "no longer just a film, an event". In the 2000 book Sholay: The Making of a Classic, the noted director Shekhar Kapur stated "there has never been a more defining film on the Indian screen. Indian film history can be divided into Sholay BC and Sholay AD"

I think Indian cinema has been around for long enough and certainly big enough to have two representatives when we currently list 7 European films just in drama alone (and three musicals) and this would be the first to list.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
3. Support one archetype film from the world's biggest film industry is reasonable. The Apu Trilogy isn't technically Bollywood as per nom. Gizza 02:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
4. Support Betty Logan (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose It is (1) not important to an English-language encyclopedia and (2) does not appear to have had much of an influence outside of the country it was produced in --Zelkia1101 (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2021‎ (UTC)
2. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

@Zelkia1101:, you know India is the second highest in English speakers right? , how is covering the biggest, most revolutionary film in the biggest industry non vital for any proper film encyclopedia to cover? I know you speak about your own experience in the US, but going by this list, the other western we cover Stagecoach (1939 film) in google trends Stagecoach gets beat by the majority of the world in people's interest (and funnily enough EVEN in the US!!). Now how exactly do you measure influence? The vast majority of the world appears to have interest in this film to me! Why should we cover Stage Coach then? US bias? Why should we favour one of the two countries with over 100 million English speakers but not the other? Did Mirror (1975 film) have much public recognition in the US, or? GuzzyG (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Fictional characters

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Arts#Fictional characters for the list of articles in this category.

Philosophy and religion

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Philosophy and religion for the list of articles in this category.

Philosophy

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Philosophy and religion#Philosophy for the list of articles in this category.

Swap: Remove Parapsychology, Add Satanism

Trying to get some unimportant articles removed because we are way over 10,000. Interstellarity (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

2. Support addition. I'm surprised Satanism isn't already listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Satanism has been quite influential in arts and popular culture. --Thi (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
4. Support addition as per those above. Ambivalent about removing parapsychology, though. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Religion and spirituality

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Philosophy and religion#Religion and spirituality for the list of topics in this category.

Remove Astrological sign

This article doesn't seem as important as something like Astrology. Interstellarity (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Interstellarity (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Covered by Astrology. --Thi (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support. Astrology is enough at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Remove Iconoclasm

Very obscure topic. Not very important. Interstellarity (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Interstellarity (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Destruction of images and monuments has occurred in many different cultures throughout history. Byzantine Iconoclasm has its own article. --Thi (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose the term may be obscure but iconclastic beliefs and actions have been very common and significant throughout history. The destruction of Palmyra by ISIS and the Bamiyan Buddhist statues by Taliban are two recent istances of iconoclasm though it spans many cultures and religions. Gizza (talk • voy) 02:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Iconoclastic tendencies in both Christianity and Islam have driven their histories for tendencies, and were also at the heart of many political events. Dimadick (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose essentially on same reasoning as those above. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Abrahamic religions

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Philosophy and religion#Abrahamic religions for the list of topics in this category.

Specific religions

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Philosophy and religion#Specific religions for the list of topics in this category.

Western esotericism and New religious movements

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Philosophy and religion#Western esotericism and New religious movements for the list of topics in this category.

Mythology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Philosophy and religion#Mythology for the list of topics in this category.

Remove Chimera (mythology) and Garuda

We're still well over quota in the religion section so something has to go. Including the general article, we currently have 22 articles in the mythological creatures section and that's just too many. These are the two most obscure mythological creatures we currently list at this level. They would fit better down at level 5.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. way too over quota. GuzzyG (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support removing at this level. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Swap: remove Shangri-La, add Paradise

Shangri-La is not as famous concept as other listed mythological places. It is a fictional place described in the 1933 novel Lost Horizon by James Hilton and it is later used in popular culture. "Shangri-La is often used in a context similar to "Garden of Eden," to represent a paradise hidden from modern man." Paradise has longer history in art and literature. It is well-known religious concept used in many different cultures beginning from ancient Sumer.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support. Especially given nonmythogical roots. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Paradise is a key concept in depictions of the afterlife, and figures often in eschatology. Dimadick (talk) 09:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Paradise is the more general concept.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Completely non-notable thing vs a super notable concept. Easy. GuzzyG (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
6. Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Everyday life

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Everyday life for the list of topics in this category.

Clothing and fashion

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Everyday life#Clothing and fashion for the list of topics in this category.

Cooking, food and drink

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Everyday life#Cooking, food and drink for the list of topics in this category.

Family and kinship

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Everyday life#Family and kinship for the list of topics in this category.

Household items

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Everyday life#Household items for the list of topics in this category.

Sexuality and gender

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Everyday life#Sexuality for the list of topics in this category.

Remove Safe sex

Too much overlap with other articles we list at this level like Condom and Sex education.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Sports and recreation

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Everyday life#Sports and recreation for the list of topics in this category.

Add Esports

"By the late 2010s, it was estimated that the total audience of esports would grow to 454 million viewers, with revenue increasing to over US$1 billion.", probably the fastest growing sport worldwide, certainly of the 21st century, the 2018 League of Legends World Championship final was watched by 99.6 million people worldwide. Esports is also now a medal event at the 2022 Asian Games. It's alot more worldwide than semi niche sports like Bodybuilding and Muay Thai. I think we should list all major 21st century fields. This is also a parent topic article and one alot more important with more impact than Extreme sport, which we list. Also ESPN even includes a dedicated section for it on their site

Support

1. Support As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
4. Support per nom.  Spy-cicle💥  22:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Swap: remove Pong, add Video game industry

Pong as milestone is less vital than History of video games same. However Video Games have way too short history to we need article like History of video games. Video game industry is article which we need in Every Day Life section and could be replaced with Pong. Personally would keep pong on the same level what Magnavox Odyssey.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal per my previous nom. --Thi (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
4. Weak support per my comments in the above nomination. J947 , at 23:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
5. Support both now, having revisited the issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
6. Support removal. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
7. Support removal removing Pong has come up enough that I've re-considered my previous support for it. It's purely of historic importance, and is better suited for the level-5 list. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition the video game industry is less vital than at least 10-20 other industries not listed here. Health care, hospitality, petroleum, fashion, film, music, food, etc. all should be in first. Gizza 03:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Although I've only read the lead of pong, I clearly know that it's vital at this level, since it was the first commercially successful video game, and video game is included in WP:VA. And video game industry no doubt should not be added since the list is full, and there are some articles that are no doubt more vital than video game industry but not listed (e.g. food industry, music industry and floppy disk).--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC) altered a bit 16:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose addition per above. --Thi (talk) 10:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose, Pong is vital as a simple retro game. I'd prefer Entertainment industry over this specifi industry article.--Spaced about (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
5. Oppose Pong is vital, the other article isn't. (yet, give the industry time to settle in historically.). GuzzyG (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose addition the vital topic at this level is video games or possibly the history of video games, not the video game industry. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Pong has been proposed for removal twice, here and here. J947 , at 23:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I have given some thought to industry articles. I think we would benefit from discussion as to what industry articles to include in addition to their parent article. For example Music industry is only level 5, Film industry appears to not be listed in the project. Construction industry, tourism industry Transport industry and entertainment industry do not even exist as articles they are redirects. There must be many similar examples I'm not thinking of or mentioning as well. Aviation industry does not exist. Why video game industry before music or film industry? where is it appropriate to have industry article in addition to parent article? a lot of duplication could arise.... Going off topic, but similar issue was in my head as to when to include a people in addition to a country/region, and if to include specific mining article in addition to a resource, eg coal mining in addition to coal and mining.  Carlwev  15:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I support addition of vgi, but I am ambivalent on removal of pong. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Swap: remove Pinball, add Pub

Pinball is covered by Arcade Game. Some games which we list in everyday life are historically popular ALSO thank to pubs.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Support--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Support removal. --Thi (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Support Pubs are old and popular thing. Oppose addition Bar is listed. --Thi (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Sorry, I think pinball is rather famous as a game type, together with arcade game. It is a bit redundant perhaps given ag is already here, but I'd rather remove something else. As for adding pub, I am ok with it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
3. We already have Bar, arcade games are an important part of video game history. Would not be opposed to swapping pub with bar though.  Spy-cicle💥  21:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose addition. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Note: We already list Bar at this level, which has some overlap. - Sdkb (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Pub was proposed for removal twice, here and here. J947 , at 23:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Add Yoga as exercise

Practised by tens of millions of people worldwide, and commonly known simply as "Yoga", it's a major form of exercise. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
2. Support - a popular physical activity all around the world. More well known than Basque pelota. Gizza 11:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• Do we not already have the Yoga article here?  Spy-cicle💥  21:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's listed under the Religion section. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Stages of life

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Everyday life#Stages of life for the list of topics in this category.

Society and social sciences

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences for the list of topics in this category.

General

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#General for the list of topics in this category.

Anthropology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Anthropology for the list of topics in this category.

Business and economics

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Business and economics for the list of topics in this category.

Add Music industry

Another intresing article about industry. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Nom.
2. Major industries should be covered at VI4. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
3. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
4. Support - Article needs improvement but subject is vital. Jusdafax (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Foxconn

Even though it doesn't have widespread name recognition in the U.S., it's a larger company than most of the companies currently at level 4. From its article intro: "it is the world's largest contract electronics manufacturer and the fourth-largest information technology company by revenue. ... one of the largest employers worldwide. ... Foxconn factories manufactured an estimated 40% of all consumer electronics sold worldwide."

Support

1. Support as nom. - Sdkb (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 05:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Per above. Biggest in industry should be enough. Viztor (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

   Support Foxconn is a massive semiconductor and has a large effect on the US economy, and other companies as well. Bob Roberts 01:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC) This user has been indefinitely blocked. ―Susmuffin  20:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose; not much influence is asserted in the article, not a lot of coverage of that at all; I feel historical significance is needed for a company to be listed at VA4, which this is lacking in. Would just stand out among the companies listed. J947 , at 22:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Not vital for the English Misplaced Pages at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

There is currently 116 Top-importance company articles. Foxconn is one of those, but I am not sure if it stands out. --Thi (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Add Tencent

For residents in the Mainland China (probably in Greater China as well) this company is as vital as Alibaba, which is currently listed. Besides, it is the world's largest gaming company, one of the world's most valuable technology conglomerates, one of the world's largest social media companies, and one of the world's largest venture capital firms and investment corporations (taken from the lede).

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Both Tencent and Alibaba have about the same market value and cultural impact, so it doesn't make sense to list one but not the other. - Sdkb (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Not vital for the English Misplaced Pages at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Probably not vital for the English Misplaced Pages at this level. --Thi (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Other

1. Neutral; not much influence asserted in the article; I feel historical significance is needed for a company to be listed at VA4. Would just stand out among the companies listed, but it would be tough to not have this and have Alibaba Group. J947 , at 22:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Production (economics)

I believe that this is a huge omission and production actually belongs on a much higher level. It is what we do every day, a large part of the day. We work to produce something: a merchandise, a text, a service. We are in the process of producing something this very moment. Mankind has been engaged in production since its inception. Production is the kind of ubiquitous phenomenon that we are looking for for this list. Wether it be housework or crafts production, volunteer work or in an employment contract for subsistence - it's all production. Of interest also in politics. Lots of science available. --Spaced about (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Spaced about (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
2. Support per nom; very good find. Best to have the whole article title on the section header for clarity. J947 , at 22:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
3. Support Basic concept. It is in my printed encyclopedia. --Thi (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. We already list Productivity, which is how efficiently production occurs. I don't think we need to list both at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Rreagan007 and we're over quota. Gizza (talk • voy) 23:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

Culture

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Culture for the list of topics in this category.

Education

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Education for the list of topics in this category.

Add Skill

Learning is a level-3 article, so this should be level-4. Behavior and Preference also seem debatable, but I'm not going to nominate them at the moment.

Support

1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 19:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
2. Tentative support. It carries a wibbly-wobbly dictionary-like feel for it, but it definitely needs attention, and unlike businessperson I think it could be made a FA. Suppose it's the kind of thing which is either at VA2 or lingers in a dirty unknown corner that isn't even level 5. J947 , at 10:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Weak support Dawid2009 (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
4. Support It is a vital topic. There is enough material to create a featured article; it has several subarticles like soft skills, hard skills, labor skills. --11:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC) <-- this support vote was added by me yesterday, something went wrong with the signature. --Spaced about (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

   Five tildes gives the date only (02:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)); three gives the signature only (J947 , at ), and four gives the proper one: J947 , at 02:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

5. Support, and over Craft, for is that not just a thing made with a skill? Hyperbolick (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I think Craft would be a better choice to add. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Learning is at the level 3, because of knowledge is at the level 2. Preference is not listedd because of Hobby is at the level 5. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: what does preference have to do with hobby? wumbolo ^^^ 11:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Add library classification

Support

1. As nom. Since library is listed at level 3, it is natural to include it here, as the lv5 list contains some specific library classifications.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Librarians are diligent everywhere and classification systems will be used in all possible futures. --Thi (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
3. Support per above. --Spaced about (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Information science or Library science would be much better choices. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose in eye-to-eye agreement with Rreagan007. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Ethnology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Ethnology for the list of topics in this category.

International organizations

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#International organizations for the list of topics in this category.

Language

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Language for the list of topics in this category.

Law

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Law for the list of topics in this category.

Mass media

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Mass media for the list of topics in this category.

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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 Looney Tunes

We have way too many articles at this level. We should try to remove less important articles to make room for more important articles. Interstellarity (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Interstellarity (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Support In a compilation of the 10,000 most necessary articles on English Misplaced Pages, I don't think that Looney Tunes is one that we should list -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Probably not so vital nowadays. --Thi (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Influential film series. Per the main article: 4 of its films were inducted into National Film Registry, 5 of its films won the Academy Award for Best Short Subject (Cartoon), and 11 of its films were nominated for the same Award. Animation is already underrepresented in the Vital articles. Dimadick (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I think it's too culturally important to remove. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Remove The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radio series)

We have way too many articles at this level. We should try to remove less important articles to make room for more important articles. Interstellarity (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Interstellarity (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Support-- Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Radio drama and comic fiction should have a representation. --Thi (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Influential science fiction work, and I think that science fiction is underrepresented in the vital articles. Dimadick (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Remove Rolling Stone

We have way too many articles at this level. We should try to remove less important articles to make room for more important articles. Interstellarity (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Interstellarity (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Not as influential as it was in 1970s. Only some magazines are needed at this level. --Thi (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Support-- Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
4. Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Remove Mad (magazine)

We have way too many articles at this level. We should try to remove less important articles to make room for more important articles. Interstellarity (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Interstellarity (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Not as influential and vital to know now as it was in 1950s. --Thi (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Support - magazines are over-represented relative to other media currently. Gizza (talk • voy) 08:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
4. Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Remove Reader's Digest

We have way too many articles at this level. We should try to remove less important articles to make room for more important articles. Interstellarity (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Interstellarity (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Support In my opinion it was good magazine until the 1990s when it lost its focus. --Thi (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Remove Television in the United States

We have way too many articles at this level. We should try to remove less important articles to make room for more important articles. Interstellarity (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Interstellarity (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Support the consensus. --Thi (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Reality television and other articles have been added. --Thi (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
4. Support. I believe this was swapped in to replace some American shows but looking back the article doesn't seem vital at this level. Much of it discusses the uptake of televisions and then cable TV, etc. by American people. Wasn't a suitable replacement. Genres or something else would have been better choices to replace the removed shows. Gizza (talk • voy) 07:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Der Spiegel

Since this is English Misplaced Pages 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)

Oppose

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)

Oppose

Discuss

Museums

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Museums for the list of topics in this category.

Politics and government

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Politics and government for the list of topics in this category.

Remove Christian democracy

We have way too many articles at this level. We should try to remove less important articles to make room for more important articles. Interstellarity (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose for now. The weakest article is political ideologies is cosmopolitanism. There are no major political parties in any country of the world which identify as following cosmopolitanism (mostly theoretical) but there are Christian democratic parties. Gizza (talk • voy) 07:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Christian political parties have been influential in European politics. --Thi (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose The European People's Party group, the largest political group in the European Parliament, is Christian Democratic. The impact of the ideology is far-reaching. Dimadick (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The following discussion is closed. 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 Cosmopolitanism

Per user Gizza: "The weakest article is political ideologies is cosmopolitanism. There are no major political parties in any country of the world which identify as following cosmopolitanism (mostly theoretical)". --Thi (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Interstellarity (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per above. Gizza (talk • voy) 02:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support and I'm barely convinced this is an ideology at all; it seems to me like a fugue state meditation on the definition of the word wikt:cosmopolitan. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Psychology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Psychology for the list of topics in this category.

Society

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Society for the list of topics in this category.

Sociology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#Sociology for the list of topics in this category.

Add Interview

For the record, Interview is listed as a level 5 vital article, it might be worth considering moving it up here, it is rather common type of data gathering and used outside just research, too. And if added it should be moved to 'General' level section too. (At V5 it is listed under journalism, but it is of course used in other spheres of life, such as science or law enforcement, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as the nominator. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support important form of communication in several areas, jobs, journalism, research. Move to general - communication section onn society tab. --Spaced about (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
3. Support Important research-related topic. --Thi (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. An interview is just a type of conversation, and we don't list conversation at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

Why is this better than meeting, conversation or dialogue?  Carlwev  21:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

It isn't. Especially conversation is absolutely vital at level 4, and the others sound good, too. These are basic forms of communication, and the lack of these articles is just one example of why I think social sciences lack coverage. --Spaced about (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Bias is not listed at level 4 as well, which is very absurd, despite the fact that the level 4 list has exceeded the 10,000 limit. Maybe replacing confirmation bias with bias is a good way to address this problem.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

War and military

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences#War and military for the list of topics in this category.

Biology and health sciences

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences for the list of topics in this category.

Basics

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences#Basics for the list of topics in this category.

Add molecular genetics

Support

1. As nom. From the lede of the article "This is useful in the study of developmental biology and in understanding and treating genetic diseases." and two hot topics mentioned in it - gene therapy and Human Genome Project, it is no doubt vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Important topic in genetics. --Thi (talk) 08:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
3. Support The kind of recent topic that is here to stay. --Spaced about (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add molecular evolution

Since evolution is considered vital at level 2, it is better to include more subtopics of it. Because of molecular biology's high vitality, molecular evolution should be included.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Important topic in genetics. --Thi (talk) 08:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
3. Support --Spaced about (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Anatomy and morphology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences#Anatomy and morphology for the list of topics in this category.

Biochemistry and molecular biology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences#Biochemistry and molecular biology for the list of topics in this category.

Biological processes and physiology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences#Biological processes and physiology for the list of topics in this category.

Botany

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences#Botany for the list of topics in this category.

Cell biology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences#Cell biology for the list of topics in this category.

Ecology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences#Ecology for the list of topics in this category.

Zoology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences#Zoology for the list of topics in this category.

Organisms

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences#Organisms for the list of topics in this category.

Swap: Remove American bullfrog, Add Bald eagle

We currently only list Eagle and Golden eagle at this level. The bald eagle is a national symbol of the U.S. and is very recognized as a species across English-speaking North American. I think it is definitely a vital article for the English Misplaced Pages at this level. In contrast, we currently list the general article on frogs, along with 3 families of frogs (Hylidae, Leptodactylidae, and True frog) and 1 quasi-family (Toad). The American bullfrog is the only individual species of frog that we list, and I really don't see what's so special about this individual species that warrants listing at this level above all the other species of frogs.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Support addition per above. Gizza (talk • voy) 07:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal American bullfrog is notable for its human use and as significant invasive species. --Thi (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal per Thi. Gizza (talk • voy) 07:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal The bullfrog is an ever-expanding invasive species with a wide impact.

• "The bullfrog is native to eastern North America. Its natural range extends from the Atlantic Coast, north to Newfoundland, to as far west as Oklahoma and Kansas. It is not found on offshore islands near Cape Cod and is largely absent from Florida, Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Minnesota. It has been introduced into Nantucket island, Arizona, Utah, other parts of Colorado and Nebraska, Nevada, California, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii. In these states, it is considered to be an invasive species and concern exists that it may outcompete native species of amphibians and upset the ecological balance. It is very common on the West Coast, especially in California, where it is believed to pose a threat to the California red-legged frog, and is considered to be a factor in the decline of that vulnerable species. "
• "Other countries and regions into which the bullfrog has been introduced include the western provinces of Canada, Mexico, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France. It is also found in Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Venezuela, Colombia, China, South Korea and Japan. The reasons for introducing the bullfrog to these countries have included their intentional release, either to provide a source of food or as biological control agents, the escape of frogs from breeding establishments, and the escape or release of frogs kept as pets. Conservationists are concerned the bullfrog is relatively immune to the fungal infection chytridiomycosis and as it invades new territories, it may assist the spread of this lethal disease to more susceptible native species of frog." Dimadick (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Previous bald eagle nomination here. --Thi (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Toad, Add True toad

Toad is not a scientific taxon. If we are going to list this group of frogs, we should list the actual family, not a colloquial term.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Gizza (talk • voy) 02:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support, if it makes sense do it. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Health, medicine and disease

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences#Health, medicine and disease for the list of topics in this category.

Remove Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy

We have way too many articles at this level. We should try to remove less important articles to make room for more important articles. Interstellarity (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Nom. Interstellarity (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Support. This is a generalized class of infections, like Pathogenic bacteria or Viral disease, both of which are currently Level 5. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Support. Prion is listed at this level. --Thi (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Physical sciences

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Physical sciences for the list of topics in this category.

Swap: remove Astronomical object, add Gravitational acceleration

Astronomical object is just list. Gravitational acccleration is vital topic.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Support addition per nom. --Spaced about (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
3. Support addition per nom. --Thi (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal it's vital to know what floats around in space. --Spaced about (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal - It's an interesting if too-short article with a list attached. Needs work, but even so the overall topic is vital. Jusdafax (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Should I remove Astronomical object per WP:Bold as we do not list any list in that project? Dawid2009 (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Now I noted that while the article looks totlally like list, it is not list but article rated as article-class, not list class. Earlier I nominated it to level 3 and Cobblet suggested that can be not needed on the level 4 (here is excatly this discussion) Dawid2009 (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Basics

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Physical sciences#Basics for the list of topics in this category.

Remove Scientist

We have way too many articles at this level. We should try to remove less important articles to make room for more important articles. Interstellarity (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Nom. Interstellarity (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Support. This is more of a dictionary term than an encyclopedia article topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per above comments -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
4. Support the consensus. --Thi (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Measurement

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Physical sciences#Measurement for the list of topics in this category.

Astronomy

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Physical sciences#Astronomy for a complete list of articles in this topic.

Chemistry

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Physical sciences#Chemistry for the list of topics in this category.

Earth science

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Physical sciences#Earth science for the list of topics in this category.

Add mountain pass

Rated top-importance by WikiProject, extremely important for human navigation

Support

1. Support as nom. 155.98.131.6 (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
2. Support We need more topics about mountains as they are important in topography, geomorphology and for tourists. Mountain peak is another example of object which is important in topography and get top-importance rating by WikiProject. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. This just doesn't rise to the level of importance to make it at level 4. As I say below, it's less important than Mesa, and I'd be inclined to remove Mesa at this level also. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

• Comment my first thought on seeing this was "no way", but on looking at the other articles in this area, it might not actually be all that out of place. Perhaps it's a fine addition, or perhaps the section is bloated. I'll leave that to others to decide. {{u|Sdkb}}  19:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Taking a look at this section, I'd be more inclined to remove Mesa. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Physics

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Physical sciences#Physics for the list of topics in this category.

Technology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology for the list of topics in this category.

Agriculture

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Agriculture for the list of topics in this category.

Biotechnology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Biotechnology for the list of topics in this category.

Computing and information technology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Computing and information technology for the list of topics in this category.

Electronics

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Electronics for the list of articles in this category.

Engineering

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Engineering for the list of topics in this category.

Industry

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Industry for the list of topics in this category.

Infrastructure

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Infrastructure for the list of articles in this category.

Remove Flood control in the Netherlands

We have way too many articles at this level. We should try to remove less important articles to make room for more important articles. Interstellarity (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Nom. Interstellarity (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Support while important for the people living in the Netherlands, this is not level-4 material in my opinion, especially since we leave out a good bit as is -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Support. Not vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - the Zuiderzee Works and Delta Works are vital land reclamation engineering works, both of which are covered in this article. More vital than the Burj Khalifa for example. See the archive for further discussion. Gizza (talk • voy) 08:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Delta and Zuiderzee Works were chosen for the list of Seven Wonders of the Modern World. IJsselmeer is currently not listed at this level. --Thi (talk) 09:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Machinery and tools

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Machinery and tools for the list of topics in this category.

Remove Electric stove

We have way too many articles at this level. We should try to remove less important articles to make room for more important articles. Interstellarity (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Nom. Interstellarity (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Support. Not vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per above. --Thi (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Media and communication

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Media and communication for the list of topics in this category.

Remove Amateur radio

We have way too many articles at this level. We should try to remove less important articles to make room for more important articles. Interstellarity (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Nom. Interstellarity (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I think this is too important of a means of communication to not be included at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Medical technology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Medical technology for the list of topics in this category.

Military technology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Military technology for the list of topics in this category.

Remove Howitzer

We have way too many articles at this level. We should try to remove less important articles to make room for more important articles. Interstellarity (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Nom. Interstellarity (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Support. We already have enough articles on artillery at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per above. --Thi (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Navigation and timekeeping

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Navigation and timekeeping for the list of topics in this category.

Optical technology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Optical technology for the list of topics in this category.

Space

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Space for the list of topics in this category.

Textiles

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Textiles for the list of topics in this category.

Transportation

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology#Transportation for the list of topics in this category.

Cargo and Freight transport

Even though the vote totals support it, I'm not sure how many of us want to see both of these listed, rather than just one or the other. Should we have a discussion about which, if either, to remove? Sdkb (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that would be good. J947 , at 05:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Feminist, DaGizza, Dimadick, Presidentman, Carlwev, Ios2019, RekishiEJ, Rreagan007, Fritzmann2002, and PointsofNoReturn: Dawid2009 (talk) 05:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I support both. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Both. feminist (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Presidentman and Feminist: In a FA state, what differences would you imagine there would be between the two? Since cargo is by definition freight being transported, it seems it'd be difficult to discuss it separately from freight transport. Sdkb (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd say Freight transport would be the process of transporting the goods, while Cargo would be the goods that are being transported. It can make sense to merge the two articles into one that broadly covers the topic, in which case we can of course only keep the surviving article. But until that occurs, the two articles can coexist. feminist (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I definitely don't think we need both. I would like to see Cargo removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

For reference, the view stats for the two seem to be pretty much on par. {{u|Sdkb}}  21:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Add Sidewalk, Bicycle infrastructure, and Intersection (road)

I looked through the Road Transport subsection for this level and level 5 (where I made edits directly), and I noticed that there's a bit too much focus on vehicles as opposed to infrastructure. On a gut level, given that we include such more minor vehicles as Rickshaw, Van, Aerial tramway, and Chariot at this level, I think it makes sense to include equivalently important infrastructure as well. For context, we list Road, Bridge, and Infrastructure itself at level 3. Regarding my specific proposals:

• Sidewalk: They're used throughout the world by pedestrians in cities. We already list Trail (an unpaved road) here at level 4.
• Intersection (road): Every road in a place that's not extremely remote will have tons of intersections, which makes them an important part of road transport. Misplaced Pages has a more general article, Road junction, which covers both intersections and highway interchanges, but since highway interchanges are so much less common, I think it'd be best to leave the road junction/interchange articles for level 5. There are also some features of intersections that I think deserve to be at level 5 (e.g. Pedestrian crossing, traffic light), and listing intersections here will help justify room for them there.
• Bicycle infrastructure: This article covers bike lanes, bike paths, bike racks, and all the other infrastructure used by the many millions of people who travel by bicycle worldwide. For context, we list Bicycle at level 3.

- Sdkb (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support all three as nominator. Sdkb (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

   One other thing to note: in other areas of infrastructure, we currently list at level 4 pages like sanitary sewer (separate from also-listed sanitation and sewage treatment), water tower, and electric power distribution (separate from also-listed electric grid and electric power transmission). Are those really any more vital? Sdkb (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

2. Support per nom. I could imagine pedestrian crossing at level 4 as well. --Spaced about (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
3. Support for sidewalk, think that's structurally distinct from a footpath. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose all three Sidewalk. Can expand on my !vote if asked. J947 , at 04:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

   @J947: I'd be curious to hear your thoughts and discuss more if you are potentially open to persuasion, since this is a proposal I'd very much like to see passed. Everyday infrastructure tends to get taken for granted despite its importance, which has led to what I see as a very real imbalance with vehicles, which are more noticeable. I'd also argue that my suggestions are at least as vital as articles we already list here like Lock (water navigation). Sdkb (talk) 08:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

   I've kind of taken a break from Misplaced Pages but I'll respond to this. Footpath is broader than Sidewalk and probably deserves to be listed. On reflection I'm unsure on the latter two, cycling infrastructure being a bit dictionary-like and intersection being perhaps unimportant, however common it is. I don't think Lock should be listed, so I'd be happy with a swap of Lock for Footpath. J947 , at 03:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

   There's some complexity around pedestrian pathways given geographical language variation. Going by the article hatnotes, footpath is only for paths not next to a road, whereas sidewalk is only for those that are by a road. Footpath seems to overlap a lot with trail, which we list, so I'm not sure it's necessary at VA4. Sdkb (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

   Sorry, didn't read the footnote and thought it covered sidewalk. Still think sidewalk is covered by trail however. J947 , at 01:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

2. Oppose on the latter two. Weak oppose on Sidewalk, seems more like lv 5. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose now. Looks like they belong to Level 5, although cycling infrastructure projects are nowadays common topic in city planning discussions. --Thi (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose. We're over quota here and these are better at level 5. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Mathematics

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Mathematics for the list of topics in this category.

Basics

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Mathematics#Basics for the list of topics in this category.

Algebra

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Mathematics#Algebra for the list of topics in this category.

Calculus and analysis

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Mathematics#Calculus and analysis for the list of topics in this category.

Discrete mathematics

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Mathematics#Discrete mathematics for the list of topics in this category.

Add First-order logic

First-order logic or predicate logic is extension to propositional logic. It is top-importance article in philosophy and mathematics and also important to computer science.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
2. Support, if you've ever used quantifiers, then seen what people used to go through with syllogisms, you get it. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

   I'll be honest, I don't get it. But I'm not a mathematician. I was very close to closing this nom since it had been so long without any activity, but your vote has saved it. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

   I did see nobody had voted for a while, but since it wasn't closed yet, I figured maybe there was still some ambivalence. And yeah, I was joking a little, but for logic topics, I'd probably even rank this as more vital than Boolean algebra. That's listed under algebra here, which is fine since it straddles the two fields. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

3. Support -- essentially the most important order of logic. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

I will just note that we are currently at quota in the Math section, so ideally we would find a less worthy article to remove if this one is added. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Geometry

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Mathematics#Geometry for the list of topics in this category.

Probability and statistics

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Mathematics#Probability and statistics for the list of topics in this category.

Other

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Mathematics#Other for the list of topics in this category.

General discussions

Global proposals

Cutting the list down

Hello everyone,
I want to make it clear that I will not support any new additions until we are under quota. We managed to get a lot of articles off the list. I want to try as many articles removed as possible. We are 21 over quota. The philosophy and religion would be a good place to get articles removed, however, I am not familiar with many of the subjects listed there so it is hard to judge importance. I could potentially nominate some people to be removed, but I would like some input on what articles we should remove. Interstellarity (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Why would people need removing when we're 10 under quota in people? The only sections over quota is History by 6, Geography & arts by 2, Philosophy and religion by 11, Society and social sciences by 2, Biological and health sciences by 4 and Technology by 6. Removing people won't do anything to fix the quota. There's no reason to hold up nominations in areas under quota IMO. GuzzyG (talk) 07:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

References

1. Smith, Stan (2004). "Introduction". In Stan Smith (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to W. H. Auden. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–14. ISBN 978-0-521-82962-5.
2. Kermode, Frank (October 12, 2002). "Review: Genius by Harold Bloom". The Guardian. London.
3. Books, Used, New, and Out of Print Books - We Buy and Sell - Powell's. "Powell's Books - The World's Largest Independent Bookstore". www.powells.com. Retrieved March 27, 2018.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
4. Begley, Adam (September 24, 1994). "Review: Colossus Among Critics: Harold Bloom". The New York Times. New York.
5. Shapiro, James (November 1, 1998). "Soul of the Age". The New York Times. New York.
6. "Visionary Company". Boston Review. Archived from the original on September 25, 2015. Retrieved September 23, 2015.
7. "Miss Maya Angelou cannot write her way out of a paper bag!" Kenton Robinson, "Foe To Those Who Would Shape Literature To Their Own End Dissent in Bloom" Hartford Courant October 4, 1994 E.1
8. Koski, Lorna (April 26, 2011). "The Full Harold Bloom". Women's Wear Daily. Retrieved October 19, 2012.
9. "U.K.'s Lessing wins Nobel Prize in literature". msn.com. Associated Press. October 11, 2007. Retrieved March 27, 2018.
10. Bozhilov & Gyuzelev 1999, pp. 140–141 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBozhilovGyuzelev1999 (help)
11. Cite error: The named reference fine100 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
12. ^ McKercher, Liz; Gregoire, Denise R. (2011-09-14). "Lithobates catesbeianus (Shaw, 1802)". Nonindigenous Aquatic Species. U.S. Geological Survey. Retrieved 2013-01-20.
13. Hammerson, Geoffrey (2008). "Rana draytonii". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2008. Retrieved 2013-01-23.{{cite iucn}}: old-form url (help)
14. ^ Crayon, John J. (2009-12-03). "Lithobates catesbeianus (=Rana catesbeiana) (amphibian)". Global Invasive Species Database. Invasive Species Specialist Group. Retrieved 2013-01-20.
15. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2017-10-10. Retrieved 2017-01-29.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
16. ^ Lu, Christine; Sopory, Ambika (2010-08-23). "Rana catesbeiana". AmphibiaWeb. Archived from the original on 2016-05-10. Retrieved 2013-01-20.
17. Borzée, Amaël; Kosch, A. Tiffany; Kim, Miyeon; Jang, Yikweon (May 31, 2017). "Introduced bullfrogs are associated with increased Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis prevalence and reduced occurrence of Korean treefrogs". PLOS ONE. 12 (5): e0177860. Bibcode:2017PLoSO..1277860B. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0177860. PMC 5451047. PMID 28562628.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

• WikiProject Vital Articles pages