Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:51, 9 September 2018

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vital articles/Level/5 page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 2 months

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

Bot tagging of L5 articles

I have a bot (PowerBOT (talk · contribs)) which can tag L5 article talk pages with the {{Vital article}} template, as long as there is a consensus to do so. Is there consensus to tag all these pages? power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

As GuzzyG has done a large number of these, and Feminist is using AWB to do these, I'll assume there is consensus for this unless discussion suggests otherwise. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Good idea, but would a BRFA be needed? feminist (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I see a BRFA has already been approved, so there should be no concerns here. feminist (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I did a BRFA for the L4 list, but felt I needed some local consensus for the L5 list before making thousands of bot edits. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not mind at all. It would take some of the scrutiny of my back. Would it be possible to change the template to include a "Other" section for the people listed in Misc that are not jurist/law enforcement/criminals/businesspeople/explorers? GuzzyG (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Right, I need to request that an admin update that template based on the sandbox. I'll do that in an hour or two, once I'm done with some bot editing of other topics. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: I am in favor of it, but the categories I am working currently appear to be ignored for tagging so I am not sure they need it? The page Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Animals section does not appear to be included when it comes to the articles in its categories being tagged. But yes, definitely agreed for other categories I may work in.

Also, will the bot add and remove the tag in conjunction with the addition and removal of the article from the Vital Article category? dawnleelynn 03:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I think everybody has been working from the top of the list, and nobody has gotten to Animals yet for tagging. I'll try to do it this week. The bot can handle additions, removals, and level changes (moving from level 5 to level 4). power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Thank you for responding. Now that makes perfect sense. I am not in any hurry; I just wanted to understand the process. I am sure I will yet move some cattle and horses in and out of the horse breed, individual horse, and individual cattle categories a little while yet. I don't know what the deadline is for this stage of adding names to categories is though. I am very happy to help the project in any way I can, not just with the knowledge I have in the areas where I work in rodeo. I am part of the Equine and Agriculture WikiProjects. As time permits, I will see what other categories I am knowledgeable about that I can contribute to. I did contribute to some other areas already like football and golf. I was surprised to find Phil Mickelson wasn't in the golf category, for example. I watch almost all of the golf tournaments all season long, but I don't write about golf in WP. But I know there are other ways to get involved besides filling in categories, so think of me... dawnleelynn 22:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

BRFA Note

Hello all, a BRFA (Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/SSTbot 4) for tagging related to this discussion is currently in trials. See the trial run here. If you have any comments on the trial run prior to this going ahead, please leave them at the BRFA page. Pings to those that previously commented in this section: @Power~enwiki:, @GuzzyG:, @Dawnleelynn:. — xaosflux 14:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Horse trainers

As I discussed in an earlier post, montanabw and I are polling the horse wikiprojects for additional help in filling out the horse categories. I had an expert on steeplechase give me some information today, but they also asked me where are the horse trainers? All I could find was the Sports Figures section category, Equestrianism, which has 5 articles that are filled with 4 articles on jockeys and 1 on dressage. This section has a tightly controlled quota. But we might get 200 more according to the new proposed quota. Possibly could a couple spaces be made available for horse trainers? If we are going to have race horses, we should have at least a couple trainers, not just jockeys. See Bob Baffert for example, in the hall of fame, trained this year's Kentucky Derby and Preakness winner Justify, also 2015 Triple Crown winner American Pharoah. I don't know how this usually works when it is possible a role may have been overlooked. Just asking. Thanks! dawnleelynn 03:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I was planning on doing horse trainers before, i just did not have the expertise, but if the quota rises, we would for sure have room for about 5 trainers and maybe the project could come up with 3 more equestrian sports people and 2 more jockeys?. Sports business is missing alot of potential adds. Equestrianism has a long history so 15 articles, (10 in sports and 5 in sports business) is not alot to ask for. The only person not listed that i had in mind was Charlotte Dujardin. GuzzyG (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

That is good to hear. I am sure that the horseracing wikiproject would be happy to help and would definitely have their opinions on the trainers and jockeys, etc. I will post another message there soon, because it does take some time to elicit the feedback from everyone. I posted the first message May 3 and I'm just now getting a response as to who they all think is the greatest steeplechase horse; I've three confirm the same horse since yesterday, Arkle.

Arkle is OK with me. I defer to the collective wisdom of WPHR on that. Montanabw 20:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's the problem: "Horse trainers" is like "sports coaches" -- racehorse trainers are the tip of the iceberg, there are many other kinds of trainers and historically, the "dressage masters" are far more significant than racehorse trainers in the worldwide scheme of things. Plus we have jockeys, who are the athletes who take the most risks. For atheletes, jockeys are obvious picks for racing, but in horse land, rodeo is a totally different sport, as is "Olympic Equestrianism" (to say nothing of Polo) -- really, just as we have different categories for soccer, basketball, baseball, and American Football, horse sports or "equestrianism" really is multiple sports. My personal take is that we split off horse racing from equestrianism in general (except for the individual horses, perhaps. Racehorses are mostly the ones who get famous). Montanabw 20:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Vital articles on trainers and riders

I was thinking about the above, and not sure if this is for sports or something else, but I think that we do want to have separate categories for Rodeo athletes, jockeys and other equestrians. Also maybe split horse racing trainers from "riding masters" and other trainers/coachers/scholars of riding in general. So here are my thoughts, FWIW:

1. Rodeo I think we got. Dawnleelynn has a list of five highly notable individuals, no worries there. She's the go-to.
2. We should list 3-5 jockeys and 3-5 horse trainers, ask WPHR for nominations. Eddie Arcaro has to be on the list, though! Probably also a Brit (or Frankie Dettori, who is technically Italian) and if we want to add a woman, Julie Krone is probably our gal (the only woman to have one one of the triple crown classics, she won the Belmont)
3. I think that an Equestrianism section needs to be kept and needs to be mostly focused on the Olympics... almost everyone famous for pure riding ability outside of racing and rodeo rode on an Olympic team. I looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_Olympic_medalists_in_equestrian and related articles. and I think I figured out who the top 5 riders are there (though they have coaches, these folks also basically train their own). I'd probably pick one each from Jumping, Eventing and Dressage, and then 1-2 of the others. I'd pick Reiner Klimke and Charlotte Dujardin in Dressage, Mark Todd (equestrian) for Eventing, and for Jumping, hoo boy, so many choices, probably William Steinkraus (he also trained and wrote a books) and Hans Günter Winkler, who was like the golden boy of the golden age of jumping back in the 1950s.
4. For the backup, I'd say we gotta find a spot for Alois Podhajsky because though he only got a bronze in Olympic Dressage (it was 1936 Berlin and the German judges had issues with Austrians, among other things), he's like the most famous dressage guy in the world because he saved the Lipizzaners in WWII (technically, George Patton did, but it was because of Podhajsky's bringing the horses to his attention)
5. But in equestrianism, one probably needs to list historic trainers/writers like Kikkuli (the first horse trainer we know of in the historic record), Xenophon (sometimes called the father or horsemanship); François Robichon de La Guérinière, Antoine de Pluvinel, William Cavendish, 1st Duke of Newcastle (maybe one of those preceding three, if so pick Guérinière); François Baucher, and Federico Caprilli (definitely Caprilli at least, for the dawn of the modern age, he was the father of the modern forward seat). In modern times, maybe some of the more notable teachers like Nuno Oliveira (dressage), George H. Morris (jumping), Helen Crabtree (Saddle seat riding) and... man for western, maybe Ray Hunt (horse trainer) for having the most influence. (All but George Morris are dead now, so no drama there, and Morris is, well, unquestionably notable and unique... and like 80 years old. ) We could add Podhajsky in the trainer category instead of the riding category, I suppose; he also wrote a bunch of books, and he probably is more a trainer than a sports figure.

Or, feel free to ignore all of the above. But if these categories are created, those are people who should go into them. Montanabw 18:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

We have five athletes at the moment Eddie Arcaro, Reiner Klimke, Lester Piggott, Bill Shoemaker and Steve Cauthen. We should definitely have women so Krone is a definite, Dujardin would've been on if there was 6 but i did not know for sure. Given the long history of equestrianism i think we can fit them all in, the vote on raising the quota would have to pass first, however. Thanks for the recommendations, we really need more recommendations from in-house experts on the subjects here, my basic research doesn't compare to expertise, obviously.GuzzyG (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Guzzy, I still have some recommendations coming in at the two articles I posted in WikiProject Horseracing talk page. One message I posted for horses and one for horse sports people. montanabw knows this, so it's not a conflict or anything. I'm getting recommendations for race horses and steeplechase horses which montanabw and I can handle adding to the category. As far as the people go, she had not seen the list of five yet that was already in the equestrianism category. I have since sent it to her. Obviously, she has pointed out a few that you already had in the list, so that is good. We are just spending some time sorting since the quota hasn't been raised yet. We are not in a hurry. I am getting a larger response now over there now, and that's really great. I am no expert either, so I am happy we are getting response from the editors who actually work on these articles. The lead editor who brought Secretariat to FA status and wrote articles on Triple Crown horses has been very involved. Also, an editor from Britain has been getting involved, with the steeplechase recommendations as well as others, a sport that started over there. According to montanabw, he has authored or been involved in 1,000s of articles. Not to forget montanabw herself edits horse articles, her article on California Chrome is incredible. Also, we are still sorting through whether to add some more horse breeds. Thanks for your help here, it's great. dawnleelynn 23:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

GuzzyG, I think the feedback has stopped on my message in the WikiProject Horse racing. This is what I got there, it's pretty much all modern horse people.

• Tony McCoy 20-time champion jump jockey in Britain and rider of more 4,000 winners. ---Bcp67
• Bob Baffert possibility because he trained American Pharaoh and Justify, who just won TC, so now he has trained two TC winners, only the second trainer to win 2 TC races. --Myself and Jlvsclrk
• The other trainer to win 2 TC is "Sunny Jim" Fitzsimmons James E. Fitzsimmons ==Jlvsclrk
• John A. Nerud, a breeder --Jlvsclrk
• European side, Vincent O'Brien, for trainer and for role in the foundation of Coolmore Stud. Count him higher than any American trainer --Jlvsclrk
• Federico Tesio, only man to breed, own and train two undefeated champions that went on to become outstanding studs. Count him higher than any American trainer --Jlvsclrk
• As far as O'Brien and Teslo, great suggestions. O'Brien as a great jumps and flat trainer and instrumental in establishing the Northern Dancer bloodline in Europe. Racing Post readers voted him the most influential racing figure of the 20th century in a poll a few years back. Tesio for his breeding and influence on the bloodline, especially with Nearco. --Bcp67
• For other equestrian sports, I'd suggest Anky van Grunsven: hard to argue with three consecutive gold medals! --Jlvsclrk

Well, that's the feedback from the others. These editors all know each other and montanabw. She's reaching back further for some of these trainers; I know we can't add all of these. dawnleelynn 23:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• For dressage, far better —and less controversial—people than Anky (who faces animal abuse accusations due to her advocacy of Rollkur.) Alois Podhajsky, Reiner Klimke, Charlotte Dujardin, all the folks I mentioned above. I do think we need to know a) how many slots we get, and then b) if we can split the racing into a separate group (ditto rodeo) or if we have to include them with other equestrian sports. Montanabw 20:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

GuzzyG p.s. I think Tony McCoy is the only steeplechase jockey mentioned if we want to have a jockey from that venue. dawnleelynn 19:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC) I just had another editor who is very knowledgeable about Steeplechase agree that Tony McCoy is the best choice for a steeplechase jockey. He did mention another jockey, Ruby Walsh. "Ruby Walsh has more wins than any other jockey at the Cheltenham Festival. Tony McCoy is probably a better candidate as he is retired, and Ruby Walsh is still active (currently injured)." dawnleelynn 21:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

dawnleelynn Sorry for the late reply, i have had some tragedy recently and will step back abit from these lists and work on my own 50k bio project in my sandboxes for now (i'll return in a month or two, probably) , but i will deal with this tomorrow, just wanted to let you know i haven't been ignoring you. GuzzyG (talk) 05:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

GuzzyG Hey Guzzy, I am happy to hear from you, but oh so sorry about the circumstances. Thanks for letting me know about your absence. No worries. Come back when you are ready. But do know that your presence is missed, at least by me. Thanks for pinging me, take care. dawnleelynn 18:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Breaking the power-of-10 sequence

I realise that there are some good reasons to halve the number of articles (e.g. the level of importance becomes no longer high enough to call "vital", general unwieldiness), but I do find it slightly aesthetically displeasing that level 5 has 50,000 rather than 10 = 100,000 articles. Double sharp (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that eventually this list will contain 100,000 articles, just as the largest printed encyclopedias do. If we set the quota now to 100,000 it won't do any great harm. The subquotas prevent from listing e.g. 10,000 sportspeople. --Thi (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Thi: It's nice to see that someone agrees with me on this! Nonetheless, since this level-5 VA project has been going on for a few months now with the 50,000 figure being stable, I would like to hear what others think of the proposal for expansion to 100,000 before doing anything. Double sharp (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be 100,000, although I'm not as interested in this level as I am the smaller levels. 100,000 does seem the natural way to go to me. On another note... I would like to pay more attention to areas other than biographies, and I think there are many questionable articles, especially among the biographies that don't seem vital, and maybe biographies are too high a percentage of all articles and of our attention; although easiest to think about and make. Also should we as members of the project, actually pick one or more of the vital articles to actually try to improve to FA status, or at least as good as we can, and not just make lots of lists? I admit, I enjoy making the lists as much as the next person, but is it all we re going to do? Is it taking up much, if not all of our time spent on the project? If anyone is improving the articles as a result of them being listed here, I don't remember the actual improvement of these articles being discussed here much if at all.  Carlwev  11:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

There are large portions of the 50,000 list that haven't been filled up and are going to be relatively challenging to fill. I would like to see a complete and stable 50,000 list before we create a 100,000 list. pbp 14:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this. Until there is a demonstrated need for increasing to 100k articles, I don't see a point in raising it. If we start getting close to 50k and it becomes clear that isn't enough, then we can raise the quota. But doing so now seems premature to me. I remember when Level 5 was first proposed, there were people who were saying 50k was too many and it should be 25k or 30k. I think we can find 50k articles worthy of being called Vital Articles, but I'm not so sure yet that there are 100k articles worthy of that distinction. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I too think that the list should eventually be expanded to 100,000; it only seems logical. However, I think it's a good idea to wait until the current 50,000 is closer to being filled up. Ergo Sum 17:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Note that the size of the English Misplaced Pages is almost 5,7 million articles right now (6,937,312 articles exactly). 50 000 articles would cover a bit less than 0,88% of total Misplaced Pages articles and 100 000 would cover ~1,8%. Imagine almost every fiftieth article being listed as vital. (Now we only need to add levels up to 7 (10 million articles) and then create another new 4,3 million articles just to fill its quota! :P) --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

New section under criminals for war criminals

Currently Reinhard Heydrich and Adolf Eichmann, Nazi architects of the Holocaust, are listed under "law enforcement." This is misleading, as the Holocaust was accomplished extra-legally. I propose a new subsection under criminals for war criminals/criminals responsible for genocide, which would be appropriate for some Nazis including Heydrich and Eichmann, as well as modern leaders known mostly for crimes against humanity, such as Ratko Mladić. Mladic is currently listed under military leaders - he was thought to be a mediocre general and is best known as the person responsible for the Srebenica massacre and other war crimes. Catrìona (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea. I would prefer keeping all military personnel and political leaders under those respective sections. Getting into debates about who should or shouldn't be labeled a "war criminal" could get messy. Are William Tecumseh Sherman and Abraham Lincoln war criminals? They certainly did things that were extra-legal and unconstitutional to civilian populations that by modern standards would certainly be war crimes. Even things that the Allies did during WWII could be called war crimes (i.e. Bombing of Dresden in World War II, Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Internment of Japanese Americans). Should Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, and Dwight D. Eisenhower be labeled as war criminals? Rreagan007 (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I am also reticent. I'm worried we're over-categorizing, and, as Reagan noted, who's a war criminal and who isn't is very subjective. pbp 20:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

As I tried to say in the other thread, I think a conservative test is "Did they have any independent military significance other than committing crimes against humanity?" I would be wary of false equivalence between military leaders who committed (alleged) war crimes in the course of legitimate military operations (especially if the (alleged) crimes were beneficial to the military situation in any way), and those who run death camps or death squads to no military purpose. Probably the most egregious example is Franz Stangl, who never participated in a military operation or fired a bullet in anger, but nevertheless was convicted of the murder of 900,000 Jews in extermination camps. It would be misleading to classify such a person in the same category as military generals who conducted actual warfare.

A related but separate issue: Esterhazy would not be notable except for his role in the Dreyfus Affair. Why put him in a separate category than civilian spies just because he was in the military? It doesn't make sense to me. Similarly, military and civilian test pilots have much the same function and should be in the same category. If we listed Roland Beamont as a significant test pilot, he should be in the same category as Chuck Yeager and Eric Brown even though most of his significant test piloting was after he left the RAF.

Part of the issue is that, since the section is titled "Military leaders", I assumed that the people in the section should be significant for their role as military leaders—they made a significant contribution to the theory or practice of warfare or led crucial military operations. I still think that we should use that criteria for military leaders, and move those who are significant for other reasons into different categories. If that isn't the consensus view, than the section should be renamed "Military personnel." Catrìona (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you're taking things a little too literally, but I have gone ahead and moved that subsection to military personnel. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

References

1. which is not the same thing as war crimes

New section under criminals for terrorists

Move Osama bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others to "Criminals, terrorism." I think this is more accurate than rebels/revolutionaries, because the focus of their activity is large scale mass murder, ie terrorism, rather than working towards a change in the social order. Catrìona (talk) 02:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem with trying to make this type of distinction is the old saying that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Rreagan007 (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Nevertheless, there are some figures described on Misplaced Pages and in reliable sources as "terrorists", and others for whom that appellation would be WP:FRINGE. If they belong to an organisation classified by the UN as terrorist, or are themselves described by RS as terrorists, IMHO they should be classified as terrorists. Otherwise, we have a problem of deciding which are radicals and which are mass murderers. Catrìona (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The motive for the killing is what would separate a mass murderer from a radical. But yes, there are obviously some gray areas. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

"Modern" vs "21st century" politicians/leaders

Is there a specific reason as to why "21st century" politicians and leaders are classified differently from "Modern" ones? This distinction isn't made at level 4 or any other subsection of people. 21st century has only 89 articles so I don't see why it should be a separate section, especially since I would consider the 21st century to be "modern." - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• Agree. 21st century should be merged back into Modern. There's no point in a separate heading for the past 18 years. I'd have brought it up if you hadn't. pbp 03:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
• I made the change to parallel a similar change I made at the History sub-page, also splitting "Modern" into 19th and 20th century. Grouping modern-day figures with Napoleonic-era figures isn't terribly useful to readers or editors of the list. It's also much easier to enforce limits on the number of current figures with this level of separation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with you about grouping contemporary figures with Napoleonic-era figures. However, I feel that the more appropriate solution should be having 19th-century separate from "Modern", which should be consist of the 20th and 21st centuries. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I do intend to split Modern into 19th and 20th century; I'm back from vacation and will try to do so tomorrow. I don't see any benefit to debating a merge of 20th and 21st century until that's done. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Sounds good. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Concur with Power. 89 articles is plenty for a viable section, and systematic bias in these lists is a real concern. Catrìona (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

After doing the split, perhaps the correct time-frame split is 1815-1945 and 1946-current? The large number of leaders of countries that gained independence post-WWII will all be grouped together then. As almost every country was involved in WWII, there may be fewer edge cases to determine who were post-WWII political figures rather than post-1900. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I like that idea. Those dates certainly seem reasonable. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I can get behind that pbp 22:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I've started doing this (for Oceania), I'll continue in about 3 hours. Please ping quickly if you object. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Comics:

I question some of the additions to the comics section. Several were recently added that I feel probably shouldn't be on there. Any list is gonna be mildly arbitrary, but these lists should represent works that are the most impactful culturally. Sales and artistic influence are two criteria. List of best-selling manga

Monster, Ranma ½, Berserk have sold 20-55 million copies, which is notable, but other manga have sold way more. Keep in mind I love Berserk, but it's only a decently selling series with a cult following, so don't think like I'm bashing it.

Instead replace them with: One Piece Naruto, since they are 2 of the top 3 selling manga of all time. Not sure what else to add. Fist of the North Star and JoJo's Bizarre Adventure both sold less, around 100 million each, and have had long lasting cultural influence. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, removed three as suggested. Didn't add Naruto though yet because it seems to be already listed in level 5 society (as a TV show).--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah, these are big multi-media franchises so it's a little arbitrary to list them under the comic or the show. Which one was relatively bigger? Many of them have just one big article for the entire media franchise, and others have them split up.

Another one is Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind (manga). Great manga, and I'd even argue it's Miyazaki's best work. However, it's the film that is way more notable (and has its own article) and should be listed as vital. It was one of Ghibli's first big films and marks a watershed of Japanese animated history. The manga is a bit obscure in comparison.

Any of the really influential Japanese comics that sold over 100 million are fair game for this list. Examples I can think of are Fist of the North Star, and Jo Jo's Bizarre Adventure. Maybe Doraemon and Bleach (manga). Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Moved Nausicaä and added Jojo and North Star. Thanks for the input!--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Naruto is a big multi-media page for the entire series, so you can just remove it from Society and add it to art. It covers the manga and then the adaptions based on it as well. The television section should be for either pages that are just about the adaptions, or for series that started off as a tv-show first (like Neon Genesis Evangelion or Cowboy Bebop). Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I just have moved Naruto to mangas at arts. Naruto should staying in the same section what Astro Boy is staying. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Oceania and Caribbean political leaders

There seem to be far too many leaders of small island countries from Oceania and the Caribbean. I removed all 5 leaders for Grenada. Having 25 Australian PMs from the 20th century seems excessive, and many of the people from smaller countries (Kennedy Simmonds or Lucina da Costa Gomez-Matheeuws) are certainly not vital at this level. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Australia should have at most 20-25 total, and 15-20 for the rest of Oceania. We could probably due to lose a few from the Caribbean, but, by contrast, we're light in Central America. At some point, I think we should scope out quotas by region and time period. pbp 04:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I've missed out on alot of discussions because i am extraordinarily busy and will be for another week, but this step is a joke, on a list of our size every country should have one representative, and Australia's is almost certainly not excessive, we're 1000 under quota and you're removing people, just like the military section. But whatever, this and especially the level 4 list have went down-hill anyway, since most of these additions have been criticized and i have been the major contributor, i'll retire and make my own 50k list in my sandbox, for my pleasure and where i can actually list people from atleast every field that exists, split by sub-genre, regional diversity, race diversity and gender diversity and where people like Himmler are not listed as criminals (he should be one, but alas majority of the people in the "crimes against humanity" section will forever be categorized historically as military figures not criminals, also on what planet does an encyclopedia list Jesse James not as a rebel but a "terrorist"?). Maybe when i finish my list and compile the statistics in my excel sheet i will come back to these lists, with some suggestions. But if the idea is to have 100 politicians from one country and leave some with none no matter how small, then no i am out. There has to be atleast one person from every country listed on a 15k list and politicians are the safest bet. GuzzyG (talk) 05:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how having 5 people from Grenada is at all reasonable under any theory and expect consensus will agree with me, if you dispute those removals feel free to start a discussion to re-add the figures. I also disagree with the claim that every country needs a leader; would you support that every US state needs to have a governor/senator on this list? Every province of India or China? power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Grenada certainly doesn't need 5, but perhaps one might be fair. pbp 13:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I won't object to adding one back, and even two might be OK if there's a good argument as to why those two are the two most vital. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Military removals by Catrìona

First the military section is under quota by over a hundred, so there's absolutely no need for removals and the common courtesy is normally to start a vote. Removing the most successful fighter ace Erich Hartmann is probably the worst removal. But Roza Shanina, Audie Murphy, Alvin York, Paul Hausser, Günther Rall, Cathal Brugha, Eddie Rickenbacker and Fiorenzo Bava-Beccaris all deserve a vote. I am gonna stop contributing because i am sick of these cuts under quota and without a vote especially on such obvious keeps of Hartmann, Rickenbacker and Brugha. GuzzyG (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Also while we're at poor removals, why was Claudia Severa the earliest known literature of a Roman woman, removed? Does not matter how "significant" the literature was, it's still a historic milestone, we need ancient women writers. Let's not even get started on Al Jolson being removed who should be on the level 4 list. Mind blowing. People are just adding their favorites and ignoring the voting procedure for removal. GuzzyG (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

GuzzyG, I was acting based on power-enwiki's comment that "The list at this point is almost certainly additions by one or two editors; some will certainly be removed. I'd recommend WP:BOLD-ly making changes at this point; if there's disagreement we can discuss/vote here." First of all, I was also concerned about the overrepresentation of Nazi military leaders (even after I moved several of them to "crimes against humanity"). In addition, perhaps you and I have a different perspective on what makes a military person "significant." I don't think that fame or decorations should qualify anyone for inclusion; we should focus on military leaders who have made a significant contribution to theory or practice of warfare. In my opinion, those I removed don't meet that criteria, but if you disagree, by all means start a discussion. Catrìona (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not trying to say that all of those I removed are not significant, just that they should not be listed here. For instance, Murphy and York are probably significant as "pop culture icons" (socialites?) Murphy could easily be classified under "actors." But to suggest that he is a significant military leader, I respectfully disagree. Catrìona (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you're overthinking this. Military people should go under the military section if that is what they are best known for. Listing York under socialites and Yeager under inventors is just convoluted and confusing. And you really shouldn't be removing articles at this point. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with GuzzyG that some of the removals are ones I would've opposed. I in particular oppose the removal of Chuck Yeager, the pilot who broke the sound barrier. I would urge him to start discussions on those people. And I would encourage us to adopt some sort of quota by country and by time period for military leaders just as we have for sports figures. pbp 15:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeager was not removed. I listed him under inventors, because he did not contribute significantly to military operations, but was significant as a test pilot. This is parallel to Buzz Aldrin and other astronomers, who are listed under Explorers despite being in the military. Catrìona (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Chuck Yeager wasn't an inventor, he was a pilot. If he's not under military men, he should join Aldrin in explorers. pbp 17:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I would support an 'explorers' classification for Yeager and other test pilots. Pushing the envelope is a form of exploration. Catrìona (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

He was a military test pilot so I think the best place for him is under the military people section. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

This is why we shouldn't really be removing articles at this point. I agree that these shouldn't have been removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Should every country be represented in the politicians/leaders list?

@GuzzyG: believes every country should have representation on the politicians and leaders list, while @Catrìona: has made edits that suggest opposing such a position. Let’s try to nail down a hard-and-fast consensus on this issue. I’m offering a number of alternate proposals on required representation. pbp 17:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

All 195 countries should have representation

Support

1. Support Does not matter how old they are, there's only 195 and we have the space, an encylopedia with a 15k limit should have a person from every country to fully account for everyone. Someone like Hammer DeRoburt may not be vital to the world, but to his country he is very vital and that's what should matter. GuzzyG (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Support Every current world leader is vital. Certainly more than every U.S. state capital. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. If every country has someone who is vital, they will be included, if they don't, then they won't. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose many of the small Caribbean/Pacific island countries have no figures notable at this level. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
3. Sovereignty does not guarantee the significance of its politicians. feminist (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Discuss

Countries over 1 million should have representation

Per List of countries and dependencies by population, there are currently 156 countries that meet this criteria: 14 in N. America, 10 in S. America, 39 in Europe, 49 in Africa, 47 in Asia, and 3 in Oceania.

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose. 1 million is an arbitrary number. If every country has someone who is vital, they will be included, if they don't, then they won't. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose as an example, there's no need to include somebody from the post-1991 Republic of Macedonia just because it's a new country as-of then. The way this is phrased, it is unclear whether people from the region before the country was founded would count for "representation". power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
3. Arbitrary. feminist (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Discuss

Countries over 2 million should have representation

There are currently 146 countries that meet this criteria: 12 in N. America, 10 in S. America, 37 in Europe, 43 in Africa, 45 in Asia, and 3 in Oceania.

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose. 2 million is an arbitrary number. If every country has someone who is vital, they will be included, if they don't, then they won't. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose as an example, there's no need to include somebody from the post-1991 Republic of Macedonia just because it's a new country as-of then. The way this is phrased, it is unclear whether people from the region before the country was founded would count for "representation". power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
3. Arbitrary. feminist (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Discuss

Countries over 5 million should have representation

There are currently 119 countries that meet this criteria: 10 in N. America, 9 in S. America, 27 in Europe, 36 in Africa, 36 in Asia, and 2 in Oceania.

Support

1. pbp 17:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. 5 million is an arbitrary number. If every country has someone who is vital, they will be included, if they don't, then they won't. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Arbitrary. feminist (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Discuss

Countries over 10 million should have representation

There are currently 89 countries that meet this criteria: 6 in N. America, 8 in S. America, 16 in Europe, 31 in Africa, 27 in Asia, and 1 in Oceania.

Support

1. Support the best counter-example is the very new South Sudan, but I assume there is some figure in the Sudanese civil war to include. For most other countries of this size, this is trivially true. Mathematicaly, if we have 600 modern political leaders, countries with 1/600th of the world population might reasonably expect to have one entry. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. 10 million is an arbitrary number. If every country has someone who is vital, they will be included, if they don't, then they won't. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Arbitrary. feminist (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Discuss

No country should be guaranteed representation

Support

1. Support. If every country has someone who is vital, they will be included, if they don't, then they won't. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
2. There is no necessary correlation between the population of the country and the significance of its politicians. feminist (talk) 11:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

General discussion

• I’m not a particular fan of EVERY country being guaranteed representation. There are some that are only 50 years old or less, and some that have less people than the city of LA. pbp 17:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: I do not recall making any statement about whether all countries should have representation on the Vital Articles list. However, I tend to agree with your comment here. Catrìona (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've slightly reworded my comment pbp 17:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• No matter how small a country is if people think founding and leading a independent country to independence does not make you vital, then i am not going to bother with these lists as it's lost all credibility. hosting a television show can get you on the level 4 list but founding a independent nation of 10k people can't get you on a list of 2.3k politicians, yawn. The only reason you think they're not vital is because the articles are small because the media does not write about them because they wouldn't get money. You can romanticize George Washington because that's 300 million that'll eat it up but what's the point of doing that with a founder of only 10k? It's all perception, just like with other fields i have added that are inevitably gonna be removed to inflate the more publicized fields. What's the difference between Rugby and American Football? The level of coverage makes AF more vital seeming but we are an encyclopedia and shouldn't base ourselves of commercial interests and we should accurately be covering history. Funnily Britannica has these "non vital" island people and i assume others would too. People like Ed Sullivan fade and get replaced in history, founders of independent nations have much, much more lasting power. Eric Gairy is not going away any time soon and will outlast most of the pop culture figures on the level 4 list. GuzzyG (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This goes to a fundamental question of what makes an article vital enough to list on the English Misplaced Pages vital article lists. Is there a point in listing some leader from Nepal that almost no English speaker has ever heard about and will probably never care enough to even read the first sentence of their bio? I personally don't think so. But the Nepali Misplaced Pages should list lots of them on their vital articles lists. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @GuzzyG: I'm disappointed that you are considering quitting this project. I would urge you to start a discussion about Gairy and others who you feel should be added back. pbp 14:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Removing articles

I just happened to notice that military leaders section has gone from 631 articles when I last updated the counts a few weeks ago to 597 today. I haven't gone through to see which articles were removed, but I would just strongly encourage people not to remove articles until we are closer to the quotas in each section. Sometimes it's obvious that an article doesn't belong, but it can often be very difficult to judge exactly which articles should be removed until the list is closer to completion. If there is any doubt, please err on the side of inclusion for now. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, many of those articles were not removed, but moved mostly to criminals, for crimes against humanity, terrorism, or espionage. No one objected to my section above stating that I was going to move them, so I went ahead. I realize some of the moves may be controversial and I'm willing to discuss them, but if the significance of a subject is related to running a concentration camp, organizing rear area death squads, spying etc. rather than military operations, I listed them under criminals instead. The Miscellaneous section is also underpopulated. Catrìona (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense. Like I said I didn't go through the history to see which articles were removed (or moved). It just jumped out at me that there was such a large drop in the article count. I wasn't really aiming this comment at you but as a general comment to everyone when thinking about removing articles to err on the side of inclusion rather than removal at this stage. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Analysis of politicians and leaders thus far

I developed a chart to parse the Lv. 4 and Lv 5. Politician/leader bios by country. I have it by both current country and former country. Anybody who wants the chart, e-mail me. Examples of pairing of former civilizations and current pairings:

• Ancient Rome is current Italy
• The Mongol Khans are mostly…Mongolia
• Most pre-Habsburg Holy Roman Emperors are German (a few are under France, Italy or Czech Republic); Habsburg Holy Roman Emperors are under Austria
• Popes are listed under their country of birth

We are currently at 290% buildout from VA4: the VA5 politicians list is 2.9 times the size of the VA4. With VA4 currently at 510 politicians/leaders and the VA5 target 2,300, we’re shooting for 450% buildout. Here are some of my findings:

• N. America, which has 7.7% of the world’s population, has 232 articles (15.7% of the current list) and a 595% buildout vs. VA4
• S. America, which has 5.6% of the world’s population, has 38 articles (2.6% of the current list) and a 271% buildout vs. VA4
• Europe, which has 9.9% of the world’s population, has 654 articles (44.2% of the current list) and a 304% buildout vs. VA4
• Africa, which has 16.4% of the world’s population, has 97 articles (6.5% of the current list) and a 211% buildout vs. VA4
• Asia, which has 59% of the world’s population, has 394 articles (26.6% of the current list) and a 243% buildout vs. VA4
• Oceania, which has 0.6% of the world’s population, has 66 articles (4.5% of the current list) and a 6600% buildout vs. VA4
  • In sum, this means that most of the remaining work needs to be done in Africa and Asia. Oceania is built out, probably overbuilt. N. America is about right, with the U.S. built out, the Caribbean overbuilt, and the rest of N. America underbuilt. S. America and Europe can use more leaders, but don’t need as much work as Asia and Africa. Europe is right-sized for the list at 1400-1500; when the list is expanded to 2,300, it needs to be larger. France and the UK are built out for 2,300; most of the rest of Europe is not.
• Ancient has achieved 214% buildout, Post-classical 227% buildout, Early modern 268% buildout, and since 1815 achieved 376% buildout.
• Two countries have more than 100 figures at Lv. 5: the UK (164) and the USA (150, which includes Native Americans native to the U.S. and colonial American figures)
  • Five countries have between 50 and 100: France (93), China (88), Italy (74, which includes 22 Ancient Roman emperors, 22 Italian-born popes, 4 Holy Roman Emperors, and 14 from various Medieval and Renaissance Italian city-states), India (53), and Russia (51, some of which are from the USSR)
    • Those same seven countries are the only countries to have more than 20 Lv. 4 bios (UK-30, France-28, China, India, Italy-27 each, Russia-26, US-25)
  • Countries with between 25 and 50 articles include Germany (50, includes many HREs and Prussia), Turkey (40, includes Byzantine and Ottoman Empires), Australia (37), Iran (30, includes Persia and several Caliphates), Egypt (27) and Spain (27)
    • The smallest country by population with 25 or more articles is Australia at 24.9 million
• Excluding English-speaking countries, the top 10 are: France (93), China (88), Italy (74), Russia (51), Germany (50), Turkey (40), Iran (30), Egypt (27), Spain (27), and Poland (24). (Note: If we consider that, despite it being an official language, most Indians don’t speak English, India’s 53 would put it in the top 10)
• Excluding English-speaking countries and European countries, the top 10 are: China (88), Turkey (40), Iran (30), Egypt (27), Japan (21), South Korea (20), Mexico (19), Iraq (18), Haiti (13) and Saudi Arabia (12) (India would again make the top 10 if you don’t count it as an English-speaking country, as would South Africa with 12)
• The largest countries with fewer than 10 articles are: Pakistan (212 million, 8 articles), Brazil (209 million, 8 articles), Nigeria (193 million, 3), Bangladesh (164 million, 2) and Ethiopia (107 million, 9)
• Largest with 4 or less Nigeria (193 million, 3 articles), Bangladesh (164 million, 2), the Philippines (106 million, 4), DRC Congo (84 million, 2) and Thailand (69 million, 4 articles)
• There are 57 countries with 0 representatives, but they only represent about 5% of the world’s population
• Largest with no representation at all are Mozambique (28 million), Ivory Coast (24.5 million), Cameroon (23.7 million), Niger (21.4 million) and Burkina Faso (20.2 million)
• Countries with no representation and independence before 1945 include Andorra, Bhutan, Bosnia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Switzerland and Uruguay
• Countries with at least 5 VA5 leaders, and more leaders than millions of people include: Monaco (5 articles, pop-38,300), Ireland (13 articles, pop: 4.8 million), Austria (23 articles, pop: 8.8 million, most of whom are Habsburg Holy Roman Emperors), the UK (164 articles, pop. 66 million), New Zealand (10 articles, pop. 4.9 million), Jamaica (5 articles, pop. 2.7 million), Greece (17 articles, pop. 10.7 million), Mongolia (5 articles, pop. 3.2 million), Australia (37 articles, pop 25 million), France (93 articles, pop. 67 million), Hungary (12 articles, pop. 9.8 million), Italy (74 articles, pop. 60 million), Haiti (13 articles, pop. 11 million), Bulgaria (8 articles, pop. 7 million), Norway (6 articles, pop 5.3 million), Portugal (11 articles, pop. 10.2 million), Denmark (6 leaders, pop. 5.8 million) and Israel (9 articles, pop. 8.8 million)
  • Jamaica is the only one of these with no leaders before 1815
  • In addition to Jamaica, Austria, Australia, New Zealand, and Haiti have more leaders than millions of people despite not having any leaders before 1400
  • Make it only post-classical leaders (or later) and you also add Monaco, Ireland, Mongolia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Norway, Portugal and Denmark
• Countries with at least 5 post-1815 leaders, and more leaders than millions of people include: Ireland (10 leaders, pop: 4.8 million), New Zealand (9 leaders, pop. 4.9 million), Jamaica (5 articles, pop. 2.7 million), and Australia (34 leaders, pop 25 million). No non-English-speaking country holds this distinction.
• Representatives of 5049 countries made the VA5 list without making the VA4 list: Algeria, Antigua, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Brunei, Colombia, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Dominica, East Timor, Eritrea, Fiji, French Polynesia, Grenada, Iceland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Monaco, Montenegro, Namibia, Nauru, New Zealand, Oman, Palau, Panama, Puerto Rico, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Singapore, Somalia, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan and Vanuatu
• The following countries have at least two VA4 representatives, but have yet to achieve 300% build-out from VA4 (this means they either have not enough VA5 members, or too many VA4 members): Afghanistan, Albania, Armenia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Chile, Czech Republic (inc. fmr. Bohemia and Czechoslovakia), Egypt, Ethiopia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Iran (inc. Persian), Italy, Lithuania, Mali (inc. Songhai, Ancient Mali), Mongolia (inc. Mongol Horde), Myanmar/Burma, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Syria, Turkey (inc. Byzantine and Ottoman Empires), Ukraine, Uzbekistan.
• Australia, Cuba, Haiti, Ireland, Jamaica and New Zealand all have greater than 600% buildout from VA4

pbp 03:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the deep analysis pbp. This confirms most of the biases I suspected were on the list. Singapore definitely has one leader at VA4 though (Lee Kuan Yew). Gizza 02:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Good catch, I've corrected it. pbp 02:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The biggest surprises are Haiti being over-represented and Switzerland having no representatives at all, considering that Western Europe is usually well covered. Something else to note is that the historical populations of countries can be very different to modern times. In 1840, Ireland (the entire island) had 8 million people, more than its population in 2018. Relative to the rest of the world, Ireland was a bigger fish in a smaller ocean. At the time, England only had a population 2.5 times Ireland whereas now it is more than 11 times . Unfortunately we don't know the populations of many parts of the world in older times, especially precolonial native and indigenous people. Even reliable sources give big ranges with a host of assumptions. But it's something to keep in mind. Gizza 01:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@DaGizza: Due in part to some computer trouble, I'm doing an update/re-do of the list. I'm adding reign start, reign end and world population 1800. pbp 02:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Months and times of day

Where should articles like February and Afternoon be placed? feminist (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Aren't these more dictionary words.Nigej (talk) 07:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

They seem to be dispersed throughout to various areas... here’s times of day and I can’t seem to find listings for days of the week or months but there’s measurements of time. redsparta ••• talk to me 07:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh OK, so times of day are already listed. Thanks. feminist (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I placed months under Technology#Navigation and timekeeping. feminist (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

As a follow up, i was thinking about adding days of the week. I don’t recall seeing them anywhere, so I don’t think they are already included, but I’m not sure the best place for them. redsparta ••• talk to me 10:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and added them under Navigation and timekeeping. I think that's the best place for them. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Add Six Flags to Entertainment/Amusement Park vital article list.

Six Flags is an amusement park corporation based in the United States, with properties in the US, Canada, and Mexico. It is the largest amusement park company in the world, based on the number of properties owned, and is ranked seventh in terms of attendance. It competes with other vital articles such as Busch Gardens. Its global importance to the entertainment industry should be shown by making Six Flags a vital article. Thank you AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

You can add it yourself by editing the list directly. feminist (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88: Added. I find it extremely odd how it was not on the list previously... Zingarese talk · contribs 17:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Zingarese: Thank you very much. AmericanAir88 (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

50% done

In keeping with the tradition of posting milestones on the talk page, as of the current count we have crossed the 30k article total, and are 50% "done" in creating the Level 5 list. There's obviously still a lot to be done but we're making good progress. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Add importance indicator to every article

In addition to quality, an importance indicator could be added to every article. This would be helpful for identifying anomalies, either with its inclusion or importance. Seems like User:Bot0612 could be modified to do it automatically, like it does for quality. It would take the MAX of all project importances. Is quality done with MAX or MIN? It could use a square icon, in contrast to the circles/stars for quality. Largest square would be Top, followed by High, Mid, Low, Bottom, and NA as a dot. First letters are distinct, but would be confusing and hard to tell at a glance. Numbers wouldn't work with them being numbered in the outline already. Maybe one distinctive color that fades to white. Alternative would be to do stats of quality/importance, like any other WikiProject assessment page. This would help globally, but not as much by category. Is there a page that has this already? StrayBolt (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. The fact that the article is listed as a Vital Article is the only measure of importance we need here. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• We pretty much already do that with Template:Vital article. The level (1, 2, 3, 4, and now 5) at which something is listed indicates its vitality/importance to us. pbp 00:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a way to validate the two methods of selection. While they are not independent, I would expect a very high correlation between Vital and Top. If they are not both, then there is likely a problem somewhere and they shouldn't automatically (without thought) be made Vital nor Top. I think the number of unique Tops is still higher than the 50K allotted for Level-5, but I have selected a few non-Top (debatable). And some articles may not be in any project (that would be interesting too). The Vital template is used for maybe half now, but if the new bot to automatically add/remove that template gets running, we might loose another set of data. Perhaps the just non-Tops could be collected and an anomaly list is occasionally created. I was looking at the bot source code yesterday for the update count issue. StrayBolt (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Musicians from the English-speaking Caribbean

Musicians from the English-speaking Caribbean are at the moment underrepresented. Apart from Bob Marley who is L4 vital and Rihanna, there seems to be no expansion of music from the region, and therefore very limited coverage of reggae, calypso, ska, dancehall, etc. For instance Lord Kitchener and Toots and the Maytals are missing as is Sean Paul, who is more famous than some of the very recent pop stars on the list. Since the region has a distinct musical tradition, it may be better for the Anglo-Caribbean to have its own distinct subsection like Latin or Flamenco. Gizza 00:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

They got listed under "world music" and 16 is more then enough for Reggae offshoots. I squeezed in Kitchner and Toots but as of now there's no space for Sean Paul who is more pop-dancehall crossover famous more then a specialist like Vybz Kartel etc GuzzyG (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Some changes in Association football

------swap for----->

Lineker should be added because of he has much more page views per day than Giascigone. Giasscigone has been regarted by BBC Sports so he also should be staying but in my opinion we could swap Ian Rush and Tom Finney for Gary Lineker and Jimmy Greaves (for Greaves, see: List of English football first tier top scorers). I also suggest to swap Zannetti and eventually Batistuta for Passarella and Moreno. Zanetti has fewer page views than various older and younger players: Xavi, Iniesta, Rooney, Bergkamp, Raul, Figo, Rijkaard etc. so he clearly should be removed. For Moreno see: , for Passarella, see: List of players who have appeared in multiple FIFA World Cups - he won the same number of World Cups what Argentina has won. Meazza (Italy), Ferrari (Italy), Monzeglio (Italy) and Passarella (Argentina) are four players in history who are not Brazilian and who won World cup at least two times. Didier Deschamp should be added because after 2018 world cup he is very much vital French football players, he won World Cup for Frane in 1998 as captain and in 2018 as coach (only Beckenbauer did it before Deschamps, Mario Zagallo also did it but no as captain). Lucien Laurent is vital player but certainly not enaugh to staying in case when we do not have Leônidas, José Leandro Andrade and Bert Patenaude (players from 30's) on the list. Due to fact that we try add one player from each country/continent we should swap Jari Litmanen, Teofilo Cubillas, Stern John (see: ) for Simonen, Boniek and Sarossi (Laudrup, Schmeicel, Lewandowski, Willimowski and Puskas are o the list). Gianni Rivera should be addedd due to fact he has more achivements than Cruyff and George Best in the same era. Yaya Ture should be removed because he is not vital such like other Ivory Coast plyer, Didier Drogba (see: Golden Foot). In my opinion Carlos Valderama should be added (When he come watching 2018 World cup in Russia, we could see that he is important for Culumbian football fans etc., still more than Falcao and Rodriguez). Nilton Santos and Carlos Alberto in my opinion should be removed (from 1958-1962 Brazil squad we have Pele, Garrincha, Didi and it is enaugh). We do not need theese two Brazilian defenders, while we do not have players from FIFA World Cup All-Time Team . They also have worse results in various ranking than Rivaldo who also is not on the list, see: FIFA Player of the Century#Background#FIFA internet vote, etc.. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Even though i'd oppose nearly every suggestion here i specifically have to point out swapping Welsh Ian Rush out for MORE English players is a horrible idea. Remember this list is not built on just pageviews. GuzzyG (talk) 06:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

To be my honestly, I have suggested remove In Rush due to fact that we have 4 Welsh players (Bale, Giggs, Rush, Charles) and just one Scotch player (Daglish). It is possible that Denis Law orJimmy Johnstone would be better candidates to addition than Jimmy Greaves. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thinking about it more, I agree, we do not need Jari Litmanen (he has never played on world cup) and Calros Valderrama (Andrés_Escobar has more results in google and he is not listed) but I still specifically have point out 5 Brazilian players from 1958-1962 while we have one from Golden team. Based of football elo it seems to me better would be if we will have one player from golden team and three players from Brazil ~~1958-1962~~ squad. However I have quite new suggestions now: ---swap for---> @GuzzyG, @Cobblet, @Neljack, @RekishiEJ, @Pumpernikiel90, @Hurrygane, @Fenix down, @Messirulez What do you think? Dawid2009 (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Daniel Passarella won two times World Cup not only as one in history Argentinian and not Italian/Brazilian player but also in 1978 as captain (Mario Kempes listed here was not captain in 1978 and he also won't World Cup later in 1986). Didier Deschamps is vital for French because of France won World Cup two times only in case when Deschamps was their captain (in 1998) or Coach in 2018. Franz Beckenbauer when won world cup with Germany as captain it was not their first cup. I belive that Deschamps is more vital than other French on the list such like Lucien Laurent or Sean Garnier (Milene Domingues also has more pageviews on PTwiki than Sean Garnier on FRwiki). Leonidas and Jose Leandro Andrade are more vital than Lucien Laurent not only due to pageviews. Jose Leandro andrade token role in a documentary film : Promo - History Of Football The Beautiful Game so he is propably more known. Leonidas is more vital also because of before Pele for decades was considering as the best Brazil stricker of all time (he and Arthur Friedenreich). Javier Zanetti and Tom Finney have more google results than Daniel Passarella and Gary Lineker but it not necessarilly mean that they are more vital. In this logic we could say that Milene Domingues and Barbara Latorre are more vital than Homare Sawa Abby Wambach because of they have more google results. - In IFFHS voting Finney has worse result than Lawton who was playing in the same era what Finney and Lineker has better result than listed Gascoigne who was playing in the same what Lineker. We also have too many players from 1958-1962 Brazil squad, if we have one player from Golden team (exist article about Golden team so is vital) we should have three Brazil players from 1958-1962, not FOUR (Carlos Alberto is not from 1958-1962 Brazil squad, my mistake). @GuzzyG, what do you think about last one suggestion (in my above comment from 5th August)? Dawid2009 (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Move Academic journals under Education?

Pinging User:Headbomb, who added most of the academic journals. My view is that they don't really reach a large audience compared to most forms of mass media; in fact the Mass media article doesn't even contain the term "academic journal". Would "Education" be a better way to describe them? feminist (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The solution would be to expand mass media to discuss academic journals, rather than shift them to education. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that academic journals as a topic are closer to mass media than education? feminist (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm hardly suggesting it, that's flat out what they are. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Families/Dynasties/Houses

Do you think we should have them at this level? If so, how many and where? pbp 18:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps Imperial House of Japan? --Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

History of vs.

There are a number of entries on the History section of the list beneath the History by demographic group section under United States. The articles mostly take the form of "History of ". This seems to jump the gun since the articles of those listed groups aren't even on the Vital 5 list. Moreover, there are many large demographic groups that have played an important role in American history that don't have a "History of..." article, such as Italian Americans, German Americans, and Irish Americans. It only seems logical to replace the "History by demographic group" section with a "Demographic groups" section under Ethnic groups in Society and social sciences, if they are to be kept at all. Ergo Sum 01:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

We're still well under quota in the history section, so these article should not be removed at this time. You can add whatever articles you think merit inclusion. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Video game coverage

I find coverage under the "video games" section somewhat spotty. There are some high level articles ("history", "culture") but others seem a bit arbitrary or specific ("Retrogaming"? "Video game crash of 1983"? "Speedrun"??).

What level of detail within a topic is the maximum expected for "vital" articles? Also, if we include game genres, shouldn't we cover at least the most important or defining from the category? I miss some essential ones.

I don't know how the quota is to be fulfilled; I've included a few that seem relevant, and I could add the video game articles I think are more significative and still missing. Diego (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• The video games section needs work. I'm of the opinion that it's bloated. After all, we're talking less than half a century of history here. Also, there are some franchises that have multiple vital video game titles. With the possible exception of the Mario franchise, I think each franchise should be limited to one vital title. pbp 15:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I feel ~100 articles would be enough here, with 50 games/franchise and 50 non-games articles. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I'd go even lower: 60-70 pbp 16:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that most if not all franchises should be trimmed down to one article. As for Diego Moyas's edit summary, "Puzzle video game" is already included, and "Shoot 'em up" is a subgenre of "Shooter game" which is a subgenre of action "Action game", which is included.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I've given an expansion (and select removals) to the section to make sure we start with a strong basis, so that we trim fat, rather than miss out on the good stuff. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Was LucasArts adventure games removed for a specific reason? They were hugely influential on the genre. It's also rated high-importance on the video games project. See also this article. If you're against the article for some reason, then The Secret of Monkey Island (or the series article) at the very least should included.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 20:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Not particularly no. I just thought it weird to include a pseudofranchise spanning 1986-2000 rather than the actual franchises. I'd prefer the Monkey Island series personally.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Remove Land and water hemispheres

I have no issue with North, South, East and West hemispheres as Lv5, but the concept of Land and water hemispheres is a pretty obscure one in comparison and it's not appropriate to give this the same rank. --LukeSurl 16:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

We're still well under quota in the physical geography section, so I'm against removing this article at this time. Questionable articles should not be removed at this time. Only articles that will unquestionably not make the final cut should be removed right now. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Addition proposal Stamford Raffles

I propose we add Stamford Raffles, who is regarded having a vital impact in the formation of Singapore and the British Malaya as well as his other duties as a statesman. He could be added to Politicians and leaders section. --Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC) (please  mention me on reply; thanks!)

Do it. (Support) pbp 23:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done with this edit. --Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

New religious sites section?

I think it might be a good idea to create a new section under Religion and philosophy called Specific religious sites. Currently, there are a number of religious sites listed under Arts. However, for many of them, their significance is not necessarily artistic or architectural, but religious. Therefore, moving them into one centralized place would make it easier to keep track of them and to better categorize them. Ergo Sum 00:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Support makes sense. feminist (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Duplicates

• The Graduate is listed twice.
• Green bean is listed twice. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done with The Graduate. --Makkool (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Process?

Is there some kind summary of the process by which these decisions are being made? I've been seeing a lot of dubious taggings at article talk pages.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Copied from WT:WPMATH: "Level 5 is a recent expansion to vital articles. Right now it's basically a WP:BOLD wildwest. Once it's got its critical mass of articles, I suspect there'll be an actual process in place. If anything egregious is missing, add it, if something completely silly is added, remove it." Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Theatre of ancient Greece

Should Theatre of ancient Greece be listed under Arts or History? It's currently at both on this list, but on the Level 4 it's under Arts. Makkool (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

If an article is listed at Level 4, it should be in the same section in Level 5. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Non-vital articles on the list of vital articles

I came across a couple of articles on the vital article list that I don't think deserve to be there: Asatru Folk Assembly and its chief guru Stephen McNallen. How did these two articles get on the list? The Asatru Folk Assembly could probably have a general meeting of members at my kitchen table. Is McNallen one of the most important religious leaders of all time? Really? To my mind both those articles are of low importance, not even coming close to being "vital."

Now, admittedly Jesus wouldn't have merited a wikipedia article during his lifetime. So, if a couple of decades from now, the Asatru Folk Assembly rivals Methodism as a religion, okay, it should be a vital article. But now? No. Premature -- and highly unlikely that the organization will even exist in 20 years. We should avoid putting subjects likely to be ephemeral and transitory into the vital category.

So, can I take those articles off the "vital" list? Smallchief (talk) 10:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Smallchief:If you want to remove these articles from the list, then you should discuss it here first, since this list still contains only less than 40,000 articles, unlike the level 4 list, which now contains more than 10k ones.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

See also #Process? above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• The question isn't if he is vital out of religion in totality but if he is vital to modern paganism and it's offshoots of which their should be atleast 5-10 representatives on a list of 15,000 biographies, if you can come up with better, go ahead. I understand having someone recently listed as a hate group leader might be shocking but we list serial killers and genocide perpetrators, so removal would have to be based off of more then that. Find 5-10 better representatives of modern paganism and new religious movements and McNallen is gone. 22:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)GuzzyG (talk)
• What time period are calling "modern paganism and new religious movements?" If it's, say, since 1945, I wouldn't have more than 5, and probably less. Even on level 5, there aren't that many religions with more than 5. pbp
• I don't think this should be removed, at least for now. We're still well under quota in that section and Asatru Folk Assembly should arguably be included as it is one of the largest neo-pagan new religious movements. Once we get close to the quotas, we'll be better able to compare articles to each other to see which ones are most vital to list. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I won't pursue the matter any further. A wikipedia article on neo-pagan religion might deserve to be a level V Vital article, but declaring the obscure and insignificant Asaratu Folk Assembly article "vital" is an embarrassment to Misplaced Pages. An article about Asaratu? Fine. No objection. Vital? No. Low importance.
  • Maybe I'll get together a few friends and establish the Church of Whirled Peas dedicated to Legumination and demand that my religion gets 5 to 10 slots among Misplaced Pages's vital articles. Smallchief (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• • • Cornhole? Sport stacking? Seriously? Doug Weller talk 14:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

SSTbot adding Level 5 tags to talk pages of non-level 5 articles

See Talk:Shem. I don't know how many articles User:Feminist's bot has miss-tagged. @Power~enwiki:, you know about bots, what's happening here? @Andy Dingley and SMcCandlish: I saw your posts at Feminist's page. Frankly this whole thing seems a mess. It's additions that should be voted on, not removals. Doug Weller talk 14:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Feminist claims that the 'bot is just repeating what's on the page. Maybe not the wisest way to run a 'bot, when the source is so clearly distrusted, but the root problem is what's on the page, first and foremost. I know nothing of VA, but if this is how it works, then it's not worth wasting effort on it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Shem is indeed listed on Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/5/Philosophy and religion. What's wrong? Note that my bot account isn't automatic. feminist (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

If anything, adding bot tags notifies editors of a particular article that their article is listed as a VA, so that they can add/remove articles in their area of expertise. feminist (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Feminist and Andy Dingley: it's listed as a Level 4 article, not Level 5. Or rather Noah is and those under it shouldn't be level 5. Just as it tagged Elyon I'm concerned that you seem to have misunderstood the list. And how about Britannia? And again, Cornhole is Level 5, as is Lawn game, but Yahweh and Adam and Eve are Level 5 Level 4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

Basically, Level 1 = most important, Level 5 = least important. It's a common misconception, I know. feminist (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Doug Weller: I agree with you that there are some things, perhaps a lot of things, that we need to scrutinize about Lv 5, and I don't see why there being empty spaces on the list should stop us from such scrutiny. pbp 16:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Feminist (talk · contribs) Ok, I still don't understand why Shem is tagged L5 when it's evidently L4, or where to find Britannia. And IMHO it's very hard to make most of the L1 articles really good because they are so generalist. Doug Weller talk 16:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

As it looks like to me, Shem doesn't seem to be level 4, but Noah is level 4. Shem is level 5, but is, visually, displayed under Noah on that page because Shem is related to Noah, article-wise. Maybe the only problem here is that graphical presentation, but Shem seems to correctly appear as level 5 here. --Blemby (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The bot looks to be behaving correctly to me; Noah is on the level-4 list, and Shem is on the larger level-5 list. I don't have the time or energy to discuss inclusion guidelines in detail right now; at some point by the end of this year we will reach the point where "any challenged additions should be discussed on the talk page" but I don't know when or how yet. User:power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Power~wiki: I think I get it now. Sorry to be so slow. Doug Weller talk 15:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Surely all additions have to be agreed on the talk page? That's what Misplaced Pages:Vital articles says. Doug Weller talk 14:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: the reason why additions don't have to be discussed (for now) is because the list is still incomplete. I expect additions to require discussion as the L5 vital articles list gets close to completion. And yes, because the list is still under construction, it should not be taken as a finished product and inconsistencies are to be expected. feminist (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Expand computer scientists from Turing Award

I noticed too few people listed for the vast impact of computer technology, and many giants (20-30) could be added from list in "Turing Award" plus Ada language lead designer Jean Ichbiah (/ish-bee-ah/), with sources to show tech leadership, for the ultra-standard, verified compilers used in military and avionics software such as International Space Station. Also add Ward Cunningham, not just in a self-focus as creator of the first wiki, but for lead design of eXtreme Programming (XP) as a broad agile software development methodology (but also note worldwide impact of wikis). Among operating system giants, add Dave Cutler with software of DEC VAX/VMS (OpenVMS) of 1980s-1990s scientific computing (medical labs, nuclear, NASA) while later lead designer of Microsoft Windows NT. I can start adding those leaders to Level-5 "Computer scientists and programmers". Any other issues? -Wikid77 (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Wikid77: sure, go and add them. feminist (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Positive Thoughts

I have lots of ideas bouncing around my head, not sure where to place some of them, and I'm short of time, I thought I'd write them here so I wouldn't forget them and add them soon, others can add them if they wish... what do others think of them any how. Many are bodily functions. Rapid eye movement sleep, Vomiting, Yawn, Cough, Hiccup, Laughter, Crying, snoring, Flatulence, Urination, Defecation, sneeze, insomnia, sleep disorder, burping, erection, Erectile dysfunction, Ejaculation, county, thumb, toe, lip, Conjoined twins, Dwarfism

Also on my own talk page I kept a list of ideas I had over years so I wouldn't forget, of things which I thought originally could maybe candidates for the level 4 list, some of them where added when bought up by myself or coincidentally by others, or failed, or I never suggested them at all as I didn't want to flood the talk page or thought they were borderline for the level 4 list. Some of them might be lev 4 material, but many more may be lev 5 material, if anyone is interested that list is here. User_talk:Carlwev/Archive_2#Ideas_for_vital_articles_(10'000).  Carlwev  15:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I added a few from your lists. feminist (talk) 09:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Negative Thoughts

I am weary of the number and types of biographies being added. I am only one person and each is entitle to their views. It appears certain types of people are being listed to make the list varied, which I can understand, but I still think some areas are odd. I think some activities may need no one to represent the activity. I see a list of biographies added to represent an area/topic, but no one bothers to add the topic itself for which said people are notable for; and normally a topic should be listed before a person from said topic. Eg we are listing pimps (do we need this??), but we don't list pimping (Procuring (prostitution)). We list hackers of different types, like phreaking but we don't list hacking (hacker) itself nor any types of it like phreaking. We list Robert Wadlow but we don't list human height. We list videogame players who are the best at specific games that we don't list. We list Tuone Udaina, a stub, the last known speaker of the Dalmatian language. But we do not list Dalmatian language nor Dalmatia. We list Popcorn Sutton but not rum running nor prohibition nor Prohibition in the United States. We list Chang and Eng Bunker, but not conjoined twins. We list Jemmy Shaw but not Conformation show. We list Ishi the last known person of his culture, Yana people which we do not list. We list Collyer brothers but not what they were known for Compulsive hoarding. We list Ned Maddrell the last speaker of the Manx language but we don't list the Manx language. I could go on, we list fairly unknown unvital people of fairly known topics which themselves we do not list. Some of those people are OK in my eyes, but we should list their parent topic, some of those, I think the parent topic may be enough. At level 3 we list comics, jewelry football and photography but no people of those areas. At level 4 we list Scrabble, Surfing, Sailing, Skating, but no people from those areas. I think at level 5 perhaps some topics can be covered but maybe we don't need people listed. Perhaps list paintball, hoarding and pimping, but I'm not sure we need competitive eaters, 15 pimps/madams, medal of honor players, paintballers, hoarders, people famous for cutting off someones penis (yes we have this). Some topics might be notable enough to list themselves, just about, but might not need a record holder or known person in addition or instead of the topic. Others may have different thoughts, just sharing mine.  Carlwev  15:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Carlwev: I generally agree with you. Why don't you make some specific proposals and we can vote on them? pbp 16:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Majority of those topics should be listed, considering i built the whole biographies list atleast 60% myself and i have rarely added topics ofcourse there is a lag behind. Look if you disagree we should try to cover alot of different fields, fine. We will keep the list with the same old subjects and have 200 soccer players, instead of one of every sport (Yes, paintball etc has it's own WikiProject - aka it would be good to have a biography as a featured article; the point of this list) but i digress. Also if you think 15 people is too much for a field (sex work) which has been around since the dawn of time which covers 15k people, then i do not know what to say, if you look at alot of the 2000 biographies, especially in art alot of the figures patronized these establishments so it's only fair to list some representives; and yes procurers are more important then the workers - so we list madams and pimps; again ignoring there's a sex work WikiProject; which would only make this site better on the whole if every project was covered in the biography section. Now for crime, yes we list someone for genital mutilation but would you not consider domestic abuse one of the most common crimes? That's the representative; yeah it feels tabloidy but we're grown adults and the subjective fact is that's apart of crime and a full representation would include it. Now snarky comments and snark towards my HARD research into checking the statistics, pageviews and coverage online and having a excel sheet filled with each field for EVERY SINGLE one of my additions including people who are not listed so i know who is actually the top of their field is all fun and games; but let me know the direction of this list because i will not work on it if the philosophy of mine is different to everyone else. If every single addition you mock got made a featured article from this list it would separate us from every other encyclopedia in that we could say we truly cover everything. The subjects being tabloid rubbish is subjective but "tabloid" rubbish exists and it should be covered too; 15,000 is a high number and there's clearly space. Whatever, i might just have to work on my own project/site. GuzzyG (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

When enough people have concerns with your additions, you need to listen to them. Otherwise, you will need to work on your own project/site. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Fine. I retire. I will listen when people criticize anything other then the yawn of "oh my god sex work has some coverage, it's only been around since the dawn of time". Nitpicking over fields with a negative image is a bore. Look at nearly every proposed removal on the talk page 85% are controversial people. Good luck not including every WikiProject in a wikipedia improvement list. P. S. if my additions are so bad, you should remove them all...... not just the controversial fields with a bad pr problem.. Also before these get removed just think; remove the sports and where's it going 50 more soccer people? diverse. Remove the people listed here in the misc section and where is that going? 50 more businesspeople? Doesn't sound like an improvement to me. GuzzyG (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

A lot of your contributions are good, but not all of them. There's no way that Hubert Blaine Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorff, Sr. is "vital" at this level, regardless of what you say about diversity. And if you take every criticism as a personal attack, I won't try to stop you from retiring. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

If you get into record setting culture the 5 main ones for humans are; oldest person, heaviest person, tallest person, shortest person and longest name. I can see how Hubert may not be vital; but why not bring him up then? Surely you notice it's only the controversial fields i get heat for; it gets to the point where there's some certain morality thing that i am not going to bother to fight every single time so that is why i choose to retire. If you think people like Curtis LeMay on a list of this size were removed for any other reason then for being a bad person; then i do not know what to say. Personally the weakest section is the fandom section, i thought i would get heat for it - but i forgot noone thinks bad of it. At the end of the day this list covers too many people not to have seemingly unvital people on it - i'd rather it's spread out covering everything then bunched up in the same canonical type fields we list on the level 4 list. GuzzyG (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

1. Just as a point Robert Wadlow who is mocked for being on this list has 44 different articles in foreign languages on wikidata and his total page views are 6,885,965 . Those figures alone beat some people on the level 4 list and he's been dead for nearly 80 years; which makes it even more of an accomplishment; the readers have interest in this stuff and we serve the readers. Misplaced Pages would be an improvement for our readers if his article was featured. GuzzyG (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I tried to voice several concerns at once, I tried to be clear but perhaps I was not. Some people I think should not be on the list Michael Carroll (lottery winner), Hubert Blaine Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorff, Sr., John and Lorena Bobbitt among others. If you think they belong, that's fine we are adults, we can disagree and still both contribute and collaborate, that's the point of discussion and voting. I just try to think of articles other than biographies I suppose. Other biographies, I found it odd we listed a "representative" of a topic before the topic itself. I don't think Robert Wadlow is a bad article to list in fact, I just thought it odd to list a tall person before an article on height; or articles on individual hackers, before the article on hackers itself. Chang and Eng are quite notable, I just think Conjoined twins article is more notable. Yes I could add these myself soon and I may. I do not shy away from things that involve crime sex violence or other things that might be thought of as nasty rude or taboo, I added articles like circumcision, torture, Elizabeth Bathory, Guy Falkes, Nipple, Clitoris, anal sex, I supported the adding article female circumcision. Take John and Lorena Bobbitt for example, for crime Fritzl case and Harold Shipman or Sinn Fein or The IRA would be more notable in my view, from a genital point of view? whatever that means? Penis transplantation, or Genital modification and mutilation or labia or Glans penis would be more notable. (If I named myself or my child a 50,000 letter name, or cut someones penis off I would not expect to find myself top billing in any encyclopedia for those reasons, no one would be interested in the rest of my personal life or work.) I would list National Lottery (United Kingdom) before one of the winners who was famous for winning then losing millions of pounds on said lottery, only my personal opinion, you are free to disagree, Problem gambling would be another interesting addition. I know sex has been a big part of human culture, I wouldn't really mind listing articles about brothel, pimp, human trafficking, Zoophilia, necrophilia, Vibrator (sex toy), child sex abuse, pornographic movie, magazine, etc, erotica, internet porn, child porn. All are significant they have been relevant to human culture and people study and read about the topic, I think we do in fact lit a couple of them. Sports people, musicians, actors, scientists, artists, leaders, impact the world stage and people are interested in reading about them at the time and long after. Sex workers not so much, I know sex work is old, but many professions are thousands of years old, blacksmiths, basket weaving, different kinds of hunting and farming, carpenters, pottery mining, slavery, people have been cleaning for a long time, cleaning itself would be vital at this level, and not to put down cleaners but I might not list a cleaner here. I appreciate your and anyone else's work and views here, most have done more than I at level 5. I was only sharing my own opinion on how to improve the list, that is what this page is for, it is in no way an attack on a person here. In the past I have have ideas others liked, and ideas I thought were good but others disliked, but ideas were discussed and common ground was found; I'm sure everyone has had the same. I believe these pages should be built by us all sharing our views and finding consensus....Just a thing I would do, if I were adding a person famous for something say hacking, I would check if the article on the "activity" they were famous for is in or not first and add it if it's not, so long as I believed it was vital.  Carlwev  21:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• For the record, it's not the prostitutes that jump out at me. It the rat catcher and the Collyer brothers. While having a diversity of occupations is important, there are some occupations that are inherently more notable than others, and some occupations where virtually everyone isn't notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article, let alone an article on the VA5. pbp 00:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree generally with Carlwev and pbp. There are exceptions, but most of the time a biography is less vital than the parent topic (an encyclopedia would definitely have an article on hacking before a hacker). 15,000 out of 50,000 may be too high a target. We'll find out when we're closer to being full. Even if the 15K stays, my guess eventually the subtargets for academic areas like scientists will increase at the expense of people who are famous for being in the Guiness Book of World Records. Gizza 23:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

1. When there's one person who works on the biography section; did anyone stop to think when they've finished they WILL (or were now) going to add the parent topics too??? Why the impatience? GuzzyG (talk) 06:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion: explicit consensus for adding/removing Biographies

As that is the most complete part of the list, perhaps it's time to require consensus on the talk page for changes. "Bundled" nominations encouraged. I'd recommend more light-weight rules; perhaps 7-days and 3 votes minimum for any changes. I'd also like to have the discussions at Misplaced Pages talk:Vital articles/Level/5/People, though I know other people have expressed opposition to that idea in the past. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how "complete" it is. Take politicians and leaders, for example. It's about 2/3 complete, with that completeness not evenly spread: North America, Oceania and Europe are complete, perhaps overrepresented, while Asia and Africa are half-finished, if that. pbp 16:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm thinking about what you suggest. I would also suggest, as anyone has added anyone with no voting as of yet, an article that gets questioned, discussed and voted on, it should be a "Do we want this? Yes or No?" and the side with the most votes wins. (Not sure about 50-50s though, would either be a straight include or straight not). We should probably not have a preference for already included articles vs not included articles. If user:example added the eleventh best tiddlywinks player in Canada last week, I see no reason we should be forced to keep said article next week if voting starts and we get 45% of people wanting it kept vs 55% of people wanting it removed, especially when only one single user added it to start with. (Compare with the opposite, we could list the 50th best Scrabble player in the world as user:Example added them 2 weeks ago, but when someone suggests to add the worlds top Scrabble player with a vote that gets 5 yes vs 4 no, should probably get in, considering everything in as of now was 1 yes vs ? no.)  Carlwev  16:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

It's too early I suggest. Are 90% of 'Writers and journalists#Sports journalists, commentators and sports announcers' really Americans. Sections like this one with a crazy US bias need someone to go through them who has a bit of sense. Nigej (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I am skeptical that we need to go from zero sports commentators in Level 4 to forty sports commentators in Level 5. Blemby (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Because your definition is off, there are no WORLDWIDE INFLUENTIAL sports commentators so none on the level 4 list. But there's heaps of SUPER FAMOUS/POPULAR sports commentators which fit onto the level 5 list, WE list one MIME on the level 4 list but none extra on level 5 because there's one super influential one and then the rest are not. GuzzyG (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

There are a lot of non-vital, junk bios (and non-bios like cornhole) at the moment as everyone has alluded to but I would still wait until the remaining parts of biographies are finished before starting a formal voting process. Apart from removing the Guinness World Records 15-minute-of-fame bios. I think there's clear consensus from the above discussions to remove most of them. Gizza 23:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Junk bios? Well do better. Must suck that a junk bio whos been dead for 20 years does better then the ole so important nobel prize winning scientist! in our (FOREIGN AND ENGLISH) readers eyes. Which is who we're supposed to be improving our articles for; this isn't a purely academic factual ranking (like i am making for every bio now as my own project); this should be a WHICH ARTICLES BEING FEATURED WOULD HELP OUR READERS LIST. I get it though - bad stupid low culture should never be represented on a prestigious list like this. Dumb FIFTEEN MINUTES OF FAME (20 years after they're dead) junk bios will never be important. I just wonder how many people try to set Guinness world records (millions?) and would look to these people as vital in that area of pursuit. Same as how many competitive eaters, how many paintballers? It's all perception. What seems stupid to you because you've never heard of it actually means something to millions who do. If an encyclopedia should have 300 more scientists who our readers don't read over some mild fluff on which they do on a size of 15k then i want absolutely nothing to do with it and i regret i filled out this list. This is what i am saying - i am not just adding fluff - i go through the statistics and keep track of them FOR EVERY SINGLE BIO IN EVERY SINGLE FIELD (for example i have over 50 pre-internet dog fighters on which wikipedia has 0) in my excel sheet, as i am working on a system for a proper ranking in my own time. I guarantee, the reality television/esports/internet personalities get shuttled down too but they are the three UNIQUE things of this century and will be seen as that. You'd see Dan Bilzerian as fluff, but our readers see him as one of the most viewed biographies (and no most youtubers are in the 500k to 1mil range); so as the top non-celebrity instagram user he should absolutely be on this list. GuzzyG (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

1. The junk bios hold their own up against a Nobel scientist; in google scholar. People are treating the level 5 list like the level 4 list; here's how it should go level 3 list - supremely influential and a household name; level 4 list influential and based on accomplishment; level 5 list less on influence, supremely popular people like Britney Spears while also recognizing current culture, including a range of smaller things that still carry interest and mostly articles that catch our readers interest; it's impossible to make a 15k list based on the same requirements as the 4 list without it being completely laughable and unhelpful to our readers. GuzzyG (talk) 07:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Alternate proposal: Explicit consensus to add anybody from USA, UK, France, Australia and New Zealand

In most fields, the worthy people from these countries are already on the list, while people from the rest of the world are woefully underrepresented. pbp 19:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 19:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

This is the English Misplaced Pages, articles on this list should be tailored to the needs of English-language readers. Plus why should France be included in this grouping of countries, and not Canada, Ireland, India, etc.? feminist (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC) striking per PBP's explanation below. feminist (talk) 07:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

1. Oppose. This list is supposed to be tailored to the English language Misplaced Pages. If you want to build one that doesn't have that attribute, I suggest you propose starting a 50,000 list on Wikimedia similar to the 10,000 articles every Misplaced Pages should have list. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

As per my comment immediately below, it's very unclear what "tailored to the English language Misplaced Pages" actually means. Are we proposing (to rewrite slightly) "a systemic bias towards topics better known in the English speaking world". If so, I think we ought to honest about it and say so. eg "Sports commentators must be English speaking since this the English language Misplaced Pages." or "We're ignoring most of Korean culture since they don't speak English." Nigej (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually, yes I think we should have a discussion about this. That line about bias is buried in the FAQ section that most people will never see, but the fact that these lists are geared towards the English-language Misplaced Pages is prominently displayed on the main pages of the lists. I think that the English-language vital articles lists will have a certain level of bias towards the English-speaking world. If it didn't, then what would be the point of this list? We would be just duplicating the Wikimedia lists, and that would make no sense. If that's all we're doing here, then these lists should just be copied over from the lists of articles every Misplaced Pages should have and we should end this duplicative process (at least for Levels 1-4). Rreagan007 (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Rreagan007: a) This doesn't mean we can't add anyone from those five countries, b) The four English-speaking countries being constitute 30% or more of most biographical topics, which IMO is "tailored" enough pbp 16:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I think we certainly should have biography articles about people from non-English-speaking countries, to the extent they are more vital to the English-language Misplaced Pages than English speakers on the list. All articles within a section should be judged against each other for vitality. We shouldn't have quotas and set-asides for different nationalities. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

1. Interesting idea. WT:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions#How are articles selected? says that there is "a systemic bias towards topics better known in the Western world." but then says the lists should be "Tailored to the English-language Misplaced Pages". I find the two statements somewhat contradictory. If the lists are "Tailored to the English-language Misplaced Pages" then there must be "a systemic bias towards topics better known in the Western world" since the majority of English speakers are in the Western World. Personally I would regard the English-language Misplaced Pages as worldwide in some sense and would tend not to tailor it to English-language topics. For instance, must all sports commentators be English speaking? Nigej (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

At the present time, 30% or more of most of the biographical lists are from the five countries I've listed. This despite those countries amounting to less than 10% of the global population. pbp 23:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

1. @Feminist: The reason why it's these five countries is because, in my estimation, they are the five countries that are the most "built out" or "complete" on VA. For example, France has more vital politician articles than any country other than the US and UK. There are more VA5 articles abut Frenchmen than there are about East Indians despite India being as old or older a civilization, and a country that's more than 10 times as populous. India is most certainly NOT built out. I could see argue for adding Ireland to this list, but not Canada. Canada is not as built out as the most comparable countries (Australia, US, UK) are. Also, I'd like you to define what percentage denotes "tailor-made to the English Misplaced Pages". How much a percentage of politicians or writers or military leaders should countries where English is predominant (US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland) yet? How much should countries where English is spoken but not predominant (India, Pakistan, South Africa) get? pbp 13:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Finding duplicates

After the 10,000 (L4) free-for-all some years ago, there ended up being many duplicate articles (up to a hundred) and it took us a long time to find them all. The problem is going to be even bigger here. Ideally, a bot should find and tag them. While we could wait until the list is full, we don't know how accurate the numbers are until the duplicates are removed. Does anyone have the know-how to get a bot to do this? Gizza 00:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree we need a bot to find the duplicates. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

There are also probably many articles which have been removed, but still have a VA template remaining on the talk page. A bot might be able to detect and remove those too.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 15:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Articles being added without discussion

Although User:Feminist suggests above discussion is not necessary, that's not what the guidance says. WP:Vital articles says explicitly that "Articles should not be added or removed from this list without a consensus on the talk page." The faq states that "Since there is a hard limit on the number of articles at each level, articles are judged against each other within the same subject areas to determine which articles are more vital to list than others" which is what should happen on the talk page. Doug Weller talk 07:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

There is an implication here: WP:Vital_articles/Frequently_Asked_Questions#How_do_I_add_articles_to_the_list/remove_articles_from_WP:VITAL? that what you say only applies to levels 1 to 4 and "This section is missing information about level 5". Nigej (talk) 09:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:Vital articles only applies to Level 3. feminist (talk) 09:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: If there is an addition you find particularly objectionable, I urge you to start a discussion about it. pbp 15:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Feminist: so it does. Could this be much more confusing? Why just Level 3? On the other hand, User:Purplebackpack89, besides my quote above from the faq, the faq also states "To add or remove articles from Levels 1–4, please propose your article(s) under a new section on the talk page of the Level you think they should be added to or removed from." That suggests to me that the pages for Vital articles levels 1, 2, and 4 should have the same information Level 3 has. The system described seems to have been designed to avoid people just adding whatever their favorite articles are. Doug Weller talk 18:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

This isn't Lv 1, 2, 3 or 4 though. Those lists have a problem Lv 5 doesn't: they are full and Lv 5 is not. Until Lv 5 is full, my opinion is that we should have a BRD approach: anybody can add an article, but if another editor objects to the add, discuss it. pbp 19:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I just added Benjamin Lett to the Level 5 Revolutionaries pile. Someone may want to make sure I didn't ruin anything. Seemed a little too easy. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:25, August 28, 2018 (UTC)

I think this entire endeavour needs completely open exposure and analysis, particularly as some individuals are now attempting to use "vital article" as leverage at places like ITN. Watch this space, but don't be surprised if "vital articles" stops existing in its current form. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

VA3 survived deletion once, this will survive deletion as well. I, for one, am perfectly happy to explain the rationale for my additions. Sorry that we're messing with your personal fiefdom, BTW. pbp 02:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Not at all, it's fine. Nobody is taking this micro-project seriously, and until it is properly scrutinised and governed, that won't change. And no more running to my talk page to make false accusations PBP. I've already told you you're not welcome there. Deal with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

If I'm not welcome to comment on your talk page, you're not welcome to come barging in to my life every so often trying to make trouble for me. pbp 13:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. This is not "your life", this the Vital articles project. I was drawn here by some comments at ITN and Doug's invitation on my talkpage. That you happen to frequent here is simply unfortunate. But you must not post to my talkpage again, you're the one doing the harassing if you continue to do that. I've asked you in the past to stop doing it but you continued doing it, and made some false accusations at the same time. You need to stop that, or further action will be required. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

If Doug Weller, SMcCandlish and The Rambling Man all agree there's a problem, there's probably a problem. I can start an RFC. The possible options I'm considering are:

1. Do nothing.
2. Require discussion for biographies.
3. Require discussion for all articles.
4. Require a formal vote (as on L1-L4 lists) for all articles.

All of these may also need a "grace period" for people to remove articles without bureaucracy; there seems to be consensus that there are some articles that should be removed from this list/project.

I'm not sure where to get "completely open exposure"; I'm not sure that posting it on any of WP:CENT, WP:VPPR, or WP:AN is appropriate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• "This is a currently incomplete list of 50,000 subjects for which Misplaced Pages should ultimately have featured-class articles" - ultimately being around the year 2718 on current form! Really, it isn't worth the community's time arguing about what belongs in the 50,000, higher levels are bad enough. I doubt Level 5 would be missed if just abolished, but at least if we know they are added by anyone who feels like it there is little excuse for taking them seriously. Johnbod (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• I am a frequent editor of the Level 4 list, and I would probably not miss Level 5. I feel that it is simply too large to be properly maintained. If Level 5 is to survive, then it must have a defined voting process. A large portion of the people and things on this list were added by the same few users, without any kind of discussion. Of course, if the additions were all discussed, then this portion of the Vital Articles project would never be completed. This Sisyphean task serves no purpose, and should be brought to an end. ―Susmuffin  00:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Could you link me to the diffs where Doug and McCandlish said we have a problem? I have a pretty good idea why TRM's here... pbp 01:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm here because Doug left a note on my page relating to this micro-project. Any more false accusations? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Just go away and bully somebody else, please. I don't want your bullying here. And I don't want you bullying me and treating me like I'm some vandal. That stops NOW. pbp 15:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: See my posts above in this thread. Doug Weller talk 15:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Packer, you came to my talkpage to harass me after I asked you not to, you made a mistake with some false accusations, and you tried to cover it up. Stop doing that, you are not entitled to interact with me on my talkpage, you already know that, continuing to do so is bullying and harassment. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• I have made a proposal for criteria for challenging articles currently on this page. It can be found Misplaced Pages talk:Vital articles/Level/5#Formal Proposal for Challenging Additions pbp 15:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I also won't miss really the Level 5 list. All of the Level 5 lists I've seen (this one and the ones on people's user sub-pages) have been deficient. And I can only talk about the areas I'm familiar with (nobody is an expert on everything of course). The other areas beyond my familiarity are probably just as bad. And as the vital list grows, the more redundant it becomes to the WikiProject importance tags on talk pages. For the L5 list to have been better, it needed additions and suggestions from a much larger pool of editors with expertise in a range of subjects, and a slower process to add articles with more long-term planning on how the list should be structured and organised (which may be too late to fix). Gizza 23:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I've come to the conclusion that discussion for each Level 5 article would be unworkable, and that perhaps Level 5 itself is not a sensible goal. I agree with User:DaGizza, User:Susmuffin and User:Johnbod. Doug Weller talk 15:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Every section outside biology and maths, is at leat 75% done, and every undersection outside chemistry, and undersections from biology is done at least 60%. Currently this page have 39 watchers. Voting would be more reasonable if every section is at least 75 % done and if the lak page have at least 100 watchers (and more later). @Gizza which may be too late to fix - We never will know it is possible if we do not constantly analyze this list. I think that delte VA page without any anazyle would be not reasonable and foolish. In my opinion we should listed on new the metapage all articles from the list which have fewer than 10 what links here to have better view on current situation. Publishing VA5 talk page on HelpDesk also would be reasonable (currently numberer watchers of VA L5 is much fewer than number watchers of VA L4. We could attract more watchers on help desk for VA L5). @And as the vital list grows, the more redundant it becomes to the WikiProject importance tags on talk pages. - In my opinion we could also use for vital articles suggestbot (in future). Suggestbot could random for user the most interesing articles among 50 000 vital(among compedium). So we can look for any solutions. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Biographical adds, swaps, removals

Swap: Remove Phil Heath, add Charles Atlas

When I think influential bodybuilders, I think of Charles Atlas. Of the three modern male bodybuilders (Heath, Ronnie Coleman, Lee Haney), Heath has the fewest titles, and also has fewer pageviews than Coleman. pbp 15:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 15:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
2. Surely we should have Charles Atlas first and then think who else we might include. Many of the lists seem to lack historical perspective. Nigej (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

1. Before you mouth off and say my additions lack historical perspective; maybe check the "health & fitness" sub-section under miscellaneous. Gizza removed him from bodybuilders so i re-added him there as he's more known for his exercise program then professional bodybuilding. Offensive when i go out of my way to achieve historical perspective; its not my fault bodybuilding has only been around 100 years. Early era is covered by Sandow; Arnold/Ferrigno got moved to actors and they cover the Pumping Iron era; Coleman is regarded as the best but Haney ties him and Heath represents the Generation Iron era. I'm pretty sure Reeves/Hargitay are under actors too. GuzzyG (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

   I've got no idea who wrote the lists and indeed it doesn't matter. I'm just expressing a view, which is that, in the sports areas, there are generally too many contemporary figures (and indeed too many Americans). The issue also highlights again the problem of people being in more than one category. I've had this problem before - essentially it means that it's difficult to comment on a specific area unless one is au-fait with the entire list of 50,000. Nigej (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, the reason I didn't catch that this was in health and fitness was because whomever added it to heath and fitness failed to add the VA template to the article. pbp 19:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Absence of agriculture articles from vital articles list

Maybe I haven't found them, but there seems to be a near total absence of articles dealing with agriculture in the broad sense on the vital articles list. Agriculture is a Level 2 article. There is virtually nothing on the Level 3, 4, and 5 lists dealing directly with agriculture. May I suggest adding a number of articles including Agriculture in the Roman Empire, Agriculture in the Middle Ages, Incan agriculture, Peasant, etc? (Not coincidentally, I've contributed to some of those articles, and will probably do more in the future.)

During the last 10,000 years the vast majority of the human race has depended upon agriculture for a livelihood -- and about 60 percent still do. More coverage seems desirable.Smallchief (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Check out Misplaced Pages:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Agriculture. I agree with you that forms needs to be greatly expanded. pbp 15:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Sorry. But I think several articles about the history of agriculture should also be added. Smallchief (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Peasant is listed at Level 4. I have added the three other articles you mentioned. feminist (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

A person of action! Thanks.Smallchief (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Just so you know, the breeds of animals used in agriculture are in the animals section while cultivars of plants and other crops are generally in the edible plants section. So agriculture is mainly spread over three sections (tech, animals and plants) though there are some other related articles in history, social sciences and possibly other areas. Gizza 06:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Formal Proposal for Challenging Additions

Any article currently on this list may be challenged. The discussion is open to the following rules:

1. Any discussion must run at least two weeks before being closed
2. Any discussion must have at least five total votes before being closed
3. Any article with at least 55% support for inclusion will be retained
4. Any article with at least 55% opposition for inclusion will be removed

Support

1. pbp 15:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
2. feminist (talk) 07:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
3. I don't have a problem with the proposal -- although what happens if somebody gets 51% support or opposition? Smallchief (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

   The discussion is kept open until support or opposition reaches at least 55%. feminist (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

   Yes. That. pbp 14:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

4. --Thi (talk) 07:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Where were quotas consensually agreed?

I'm curious because I see that sports figures in American football (played at a high level in ... one country) has a quota of 40 while sports figures in rugby union (played at a high level in at least a dozen countries) has a quota of 15. I also note that American football has a quota of 25 for "business people/referees etc" while Association football (a truly global sport) has a quota of 30. Could someone direct me to the relevant discussions where consensus was agreed upon for these figures? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_1#Proposal_for_new_sports_quotas. pbp 15:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, so the quotas are still very much up for debate then. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, but it's worth noting that the linked proposal up above is a result of wrestling with the issue at VA4 and VA5 for quite awhile in a number of different proposals. VA4 is well-discussed and stable at this point, and most VA5 quotas are a 4-6fold increase from VA4. pbp 16:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

It would be interesting to have a split of the number of sports figures by country. Should each country have a quota (covering all 1200 sports figures)? Should each century or decade have a quota? Nigej (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow, do you mean a breakdown of the number of countries in which certain sports are played? I'm bemused although not surprised to see that American football has a higher quota than golf or cycling (which are global sports) yet mildly shocked to see figure skating (a really niche sport) with a quota the same as boxing, both codes of rugby combined, and ten more than swimming!! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The tricky thing about golf and cycling is that, while they are played in many countries, they aren't the predominant sport in any one country. Golf has the additional problem of being played primarily by elites. pbp 16:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

When we check Vital page (translated by bot) on ZHwiki. The biggest section with red links (among sport business people) is section with American Football's sport buisiness people. Propably we have too many American's Football business people. Anyway it seems to me we have too few chess and tabletop players. In my opinion we should have on the list the same number of tabletop players and cue sport players. I would prefer if number of Go is the same what number of eSport players. Also it seems to me we could have vital chess players such like François-André Danican Philidor or Arpad Elo (if we have Chess tournament and League of Legends World Championship on the list). It is only my suggestion with good faith, not critism. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm simply saying that the USA (for instance) could have a quota of say 200 out of the 1200, Australia 50, Korea 20, or whatever. Why decide quota numbers based on the sports?

I'm still trying to understand how figure skating (packed with elitist individuals) should have the same quota as both codes of rugby combined (played around the world by millions) and boxing. Figure skating should be down from 30 to say 10. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Reduce American football businesspeople quota to 15

Support

1. pbp 18:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
2. support, but it seems to me that 5 might be better. The whole section shows the current obsession with Americans. Nigej (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
3. Support and it possibly can be reduced further in the future. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
4. Support and I agree that 15 seems too many to me.Smallchief (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
5. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
6. Support even 15 is a little high for non-players representing a sport played in one country but this is an improvement. Gizza 22:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
7. Support reduce to five. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

1. Obsession with Americans yet the whole list was made by a non-american diversity advocate...... ok. Compared to other sports gridiron coaches are arguably as vital as players (there's a reason the only coach we list on level 4 is Lombardi) but whatever, we'll throw caution to the wind for MORE SOCCER, YEAH! Also it's relatively easier to pick 40 vital gridiron players then go dumpster diving for 40 cyclists (and then they'll be road cyclists and you lot will shut down the smaller sections of cycling like track/mountain biking/bmx) and golf.... It's not a surprise British people are clashing with American choices while ignoring the fact that the US nearly quadruples the population of the UK so obviously there should be more coverage but whatever. 50 vital Korean athletes? as someone who built this list via pure statistics of wikipedia views/edits/different language articles, not a chance in the world. Not surprising golf/cycling advocates pop up to argue how global they are and they need more but noone mentions if we go purely by that metric that table tennis and badminton should have 20 each, too - it's only fair right?? GuzzyG (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions for what to do with the 10 spaces that open up if Quota reduction passes

1. Let's be honest all the space will go to association football or whatever sport the new batch of people on this list like. Something like 20 more for golf (for diversity!) while removing the 1 of each coverage of the smaller sports or lowering the quota of them just to add to golf! or association football! in the name of diversity!GuzzyG (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

   The "sports business-people, coaches, and referees" has a quota of 150. American Football 25, Baseball 15, Basketball 25, Ice Hockey 13 seem way out of proportion to Athletics (Track and Field) 0, Cricket 1, Golf 3, Tennis 1. Maybe this reflects views/etc but the question is whether we should be having a popularity contest. eg there's a million dollar golf event in Korea, the Korean winner probably doesn't even have an article. Does that mean the man is unknown or is it that there's a huge bias in the English wikipedia towards US/UK sportspeople, since the event gets little or no coverage in the US/UK. Maybe he doesn't have an article in the Korean wikipedia either but that may be because of the status of wikipedia there. Nigej (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

   It's not just views, i track wikipedia, britannica, google scholar and worldcat results. It's not my fault gridiron is a playbook heavy sport where the coach is also a main focus; where as golf is primarily player focused. Winning one tournament does not make you vital and if you have no article you're nowhere near vital - bias or not. Also with sports like Athletics, Cricket, Golf or Tennis you'd be hard pressed to find that the coach is a household name unlike Gridiron; it's a sport i don't watch but this will remove people that our viewers actually read because of a problem that is not as bad as it seems at face value. GuzzyG (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• There probably should be 5 more track or Olympics businesspeople. pbp 21:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Before we answer that; why is the only sport with a businessperson on the level 4 list the one specifically slated for a quota cut to reduce it on par with ones not on that list. Everyone cried foul when we did not increase exactly everything based on the level 4 list but then when it comes to this it's the opposite, either add an olympics and association football businessperson on the level 4 list (i support that) or don't but this list shouldn't be uneven because of that. It's odd to act like something covered on the level 4 list should have the same quotas as without. It's just a undeniable fact that out of all of the major sports, the coach is a primary figure more so in gridiron then any other team or individual sport. GuzzyG (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think Football should be the only one with businesspeople/coaches on Lv 4. And I'm not sure it is...James Naismith wasn't a competitor of basketball. He formulated it, and coached it without renown, but he isn't notable for playing it. And it's not like we're deleting football entirely from the business and coaching of sport. Assuming the number of coaches and businesspeople remains constant, American football would still be left with 10% of the total coaches and businesspeople. pbp 23:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I actually agree mostly on all of this, i'm just making a point; it's high time we added some coaches/music producers (people behind the scenes) on the level 4 list. I've started a nomination on the founder of the Olympics, let's see how that does first. Bill Bowerman absolutely should be on this list, i forgot him; although i don't think many other track coaches would specifically make the bar. GuzzyG (talk) 02:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

We long time had three figure skating and two swimmers on LV4 list. What do you think about remove one figure skating again or add Johnny Weissmuller and Duke Kahanamoku instead swap Mark Spitz for Johnny Weissmuller? I also suggest to Go has the same number players on level5 what eSport. The go is sport which was playing not for ceuntries but for millenniums and it is still more popular than eSposrts. I also suggest to add Philidor and Arpad Elo. Philidor is first very good not Italian chess player who partly revolutionised chess theory in 18th century, he also has much more internal links than Ruy Lopez has, the player who is currently listed. Arpad Elo is important person in sport history. He is inventor of Elo rating system which is commonly used in varoius sports, for example in chess on swiss-system tournaments. It is also using among online video players rivalry, among team sports team rivarly, etc.. Thank to this invention we objectively can compare various players/teams from diffrent eras in various sport. BTW If we have Chess tournament and League of Legends World Championship in entertaiment, we also could have Elo rating system (but not as part of chess). Dawid2009 (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Another thing we may need more of is more representatives of multi-sport organizations like the IOC, AAU and AAA. pbp 18:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

What name of category for IOC, AAU and AAA do you suggest? Dawid2009 (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Interwiki requirement?

Is there any interest in establishing a minimum number of interwiki links required to be included on this list? pbp 18:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion better option would be if bot lists articles with fewest what links here on the new metapage Dawid2009 (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it would be good to have a list of articles with the fewest links but not necessarily a minimum number. In theory, there is no reason why there can't even be redlinks here. Especially in areas which Misplaced Pages is weak in like anthropology. There were a few articles while being proposed on the Level 4 page that were red at the time. Gizza 22:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Mountains

I suggest to swap three chinese mountains: Mount Heng (Hunan), Mount Heng (Shanxi), Mount Song --------swap for-------->Jengish Chokusu, Namcha Barwa and Namcha Barwa. In my opinion we should include mountains from List of peaks by prominence if it is possible. Anyway we have very few mountains. Mountains such like Monte Rosa, Gangkhar Puensum, Gerlachovský štít (not listed) have much more page views than cities such like: Barnaul, Esch-sur-Alzette, Babruysk wchich are currently listed. Is someone interested in addition of mountains? Dawid2009 (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes mountains have more significance than what the Level 5 list as it currently is suggests. For now, physical geography is very much under quota (still a 1000 more articles to go) so swaps may not be necessary. Another very weak area at the moment is waterfalls. We only have four. IMO four is too few on a list of 10,000 let alone 50,000. When I get time, I will try to boost these areas. Gizza 22:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that List of peaks by prominence is great metric for geographical diversity at mountains. So moutains with best topographic prominence could be added. Dawid2009 (talk) 04:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Why is there no main page for Vital articles?

Or have I missed one? WP:Vital articles is only for Level 3 and the talk page is only to discuss Level 3. Is it just me or isn't this a bit odd? Posting here as there seems to be more discussion here than anywhere else. Doug Weller talk 15:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Vital Articles Dawid2009 (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Because one isn't really necessary. The Level 3 page acts as sort of the de facto main page. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Actors quota

So, Americans occupy more than 50% of the current "quota" for actors (214 out of 393), while Asian actors (from, e.g. Bollywood, that multi-billion dollar industry which makes three times more movies per year than Hollywood) have secured a paltry 34. I would have thought it be more reasonable to see Hollywood down to 150 and Asia up to 100 on that basis alone. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no agreed-upon distribution for actors by nationality at this level. Do you want to propose one? pbp 15:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I just did. I'd be interested in more views before jumping in straight to one of what looks like about three hundred open proposals around here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm generally against any type of quota system based on nationality. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Personal computers, as influencial as home consoles

I've expanded section Technology#Computer hardware with home computers from the 80's. In Europe, these were as important as video game consoles or more; it would be unbalanced to include relatively secondary consoles like the Game Gear or Dreamcast in the list and not having these enormously influential computing devices.

I've included the most popular in Europe. There may be some more missing, like the Atari ST and Amiga. Diego (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Wait, do the section titles numbers get updated by some bot, or one has to keep track of the articles one adds? Diego (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Diego Moya:, the BBC Master was extremely influential in UK education although you wouldn't know it from the article. However the article on its predecessor, the BBC Micro, deals with that and mentions the Master, so if only one can be added, it should be that one. The Acorn Archimedes was particularly significant because of the legacy of its architecture (I won't go into details here, I'm sure you'll read the article). Doug Weller talk 14:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Sports removals

Remove Séan Garnier

Won something called the Red Bull Street Style World Finals (currently a red link). power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• weak support French Sean Garnier could have more pageviews if article was good. To be my honestly it was my suggestion but thinking about vital article list more I am not sure he should be listed. If we have street basketball players players maybe we could have one street soccer player who is really more popular in social media than various great football players and other sport figures (for example French David Belle) but in my opinion if we have in paragrah: "vital articles" better will be if we removal him. We do not know how he will vital for next 10, 15 years. Better option would be add other famous young soccer players such like Alex Morgan or James Rodriguez. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't know if you can put two and two together or it may be how my brain works but instead of the snarky nomination comment maybe you could infer from his wins that maybe he's the most important freestyle footballer (disclaimer: i only added this because Dawid suggested it). GuzzyG (talk) 08:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove Lucien Laurent

The main claim of notability appears to be scoring the first goal in the 1930 World Cup, which is far too trivial to justify inclusion here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Currently we try add soccer players from each country/continent and from each decade/era (per: Misplaced Pages talk:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions ). This list evidentary has players from various countries, from various eras. Generally in my opinion we could swap . and Nilton Santos for: , (sometimes even former player from New Zeland has better pageviews than English soccer player who won world cup in 1966 ) but not always. Anyway players from Europe and South America generally are much more vital. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Or that when we cover this amount of footballers it's a historic milestone (i didn't add him). GuzzyG (talk) 08:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove Earl Manigault

Simply not important enough; article includes details like He once reverse dunked 36 times in a row to win a $60 bet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose best streetballer, it's good to spread out. GuzzyG (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove William Heffelfinger

Just the answer to a trivia question for being paid to play football in 1892. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Why do you diminish everything? If you nominate something don't half-ass it, it shows your intention (just to diminish the person, to hope others do not notice; most likely you just do not know enough about the subject yet act like you do). First person to be paid to play football, highly important to American football history GuzzyG (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove Steph Cook

Won the 2000 Olympics for women's modern pentathlon. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose it's good to have a man/woman from each athletic olympic event; she's the best pick. GuzzyG (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove Andrey Moiseyev

A stub about a modern pentathlete of no particular prominence. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose greatest modern pentathlete in history (or Lars Hall,but he has less name recognition) modern pentathlon as a Olympic event absolutely needs a rep. "no particular prominence".... nice try. GuzzyG (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove John Brzenk

We don't need any arm-wrestlers at this level. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose For the purpose of this list a sportsman who has dominated his sport for 30+ years fits, this isn't some couch potato, no matter how small the endeavor; he'd only be replaced by yet another amateur/pro wrestler; he's not holding up some important scientist. GuzzyG (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove Walker Evans (racing driver)

I don't see why this race car driver is supposed to be vital at this level. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Greatest off road racer, unlike the level 4 list this list should have more then just Formula 1 drivers. GuzzyG (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove Masami Hirosaka

We don't need any remote-control-car drivers at this level. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Add your opinions about small sports to section where we are wondering what we should do with space 10 if we remove American Football coaches. Anyway we should be carefully if we do a lot of global changes. Some winter sports have wrong separate titles of their sections (snowboarding do not deserve for separate section if cross-country skiing is in the same section what ski alpin). In my opinion we also should have section for Tabletop games. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose A dominant sports person. Good to not have the typical UK/American drivers. What's the harm; replace him with yet another Formula 1/NASCAR; that helps how? GuzzyG (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

American football removals

Larry Kehres, John Gagliardi and Eddie Robinson

We currently have three “small college” college football coaches (i.e. those that participate at Division I-AA, II or III). With the impending quota drop to 15 for football coaches, officials and owners, I reckon we should only have one of these guys. pbp 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Retain Kehres, drop other two

Retain Gagliardi, drop other two

Retain Robinson, drop other two

1. pbp 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
2. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Drop all three

Discussion

Remove Art Modell

Not among the most influential of NFL owners. With the impending quota drop 15 for football coaches, officials and owners, we gotta make cuts somewhere. pbp 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Hated in Cleveland; but the Cleveland Browns themselves aren't listed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove George Preston Marshall

Not among the most influential of NFL owners. With the impending quota drop 15 for football coaches, officials and owners, we gotta make cuts somewhere. pbp 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
2. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza 02:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Tom Landry

With the impending quota drop 15 for football coaches, officials and owners, we gotta make cuts somewhere. We’re probably gonna be left with only 4-5 NFL coaches, and if it’s that few, he doesn’t make the cut pbp 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Neutral here; unsure we'll have to cut this one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove Don Shula

With the impending quota drop 15 for football coaches, officials and owners, we gotta make cuts somewhere. We’re probably gonna be left with only 4-5 NFL coaches, and if it’s that few, he doesn’t make the cut pbp 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
2. The perfect season isn't enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Jim Foster (American football)

With the impending quota drop 15 for football coaches, officials and owners, the commissioner of a minor league doesn’t make the cut. pbp 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
2. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Roger Goodell

He’s not Pete Rozelle. With the impending quota drop 15 for football coaches, officials and owners, we gotta make cuts somewhere. pbp 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
2. He's currently a thing, but not yet historically important enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per Power "he's currently a thing" which is what this list was meant to cover (highly important pop culture people that lack the history for the level 4 list (ex: Justin Bieber) GuzzyG (talk) 07:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Bear Bryant

To get down to 15, we probably need to cut one more college football coach. He has fewer wins than Bowden or Paterno, and doesn’t have the mythology of Rockne pbp 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'd rather get rid of Bowden or Paterno than Bryant. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Miscellaneous people removals

Remove Alexander Nix

A person affiliated with Cambridge Analytica; not important enough for this level. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment Definitely not in the news and not vital.Just a fan. GuzzyG (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove Elizabeth Holmes

Far too soon for a person known for the Theranos debacle. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment Underrepresented field/woman. With a business list of the current quota and the meant to be focus on modern culture - she fits. GuzzyG (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove Simmias (explorer)

Mentioned once by Diodorus Siculus. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment Yes, let's get rid of all the ancient explorers because the article sucks. GuzzyG (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove Graham Hughes

Visited every country without flying; utterly trivial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Gizza 02:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment Utterly trivial to you but in the quite massive travel community he's regarded as a vital figure, again fan, though. GuzzyG (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove Jessica Watson

Sailed around the world at the age of 16; more suited for the Guinness Book of World Records than this list. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment Again woman explorer in a exploration field not covered. Again i may be a massive fan though. GuzzyG (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove Anna Loginova

Article is primarily sourced to the Daily Mail and other gossip columns; no claim of importance for this level. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment Clearly as a representative of three things, bodyguard/woman (barely any in the law enforcement list)/russian. Again, i might just be a massive fan though. GuzzyG (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove aXXo

An anonymous person who is one of many people to upload illegal DVD rips. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

1. support Too many temporariness Dawid2009 (talk) 06:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

CommentI mean you can say it's tabloid trash; but you don't have to blatantly lie, arguably online piracy is one of the most committed crimes and this "one of many" people quoted from the article at one point had "33.5% of all movie downloads were aXXo torrents" which is pretty significant in that world and not "just another online pirate" but whatever use whatever dismissive language for things you personally disagree with but atleast give the actual reason for them being on it other then someone just added them for no reason. GuzzyG (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove Hubert Blaine Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorff, Sr.

A man with a very silly name and no other importance. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

There are several fewer vital people on the list in this category. If we remove Wolfe+585 as first without general disscussion about miscellaneus it can reach to haos. You currently are nominating Blaine Wolfe+585 but omnissed Michael Carroll (lottery winner) and Jack Black (rat catcher). I agree that Wolfe+584 is not vital but we do encyclopedia for readers and people who are famous by guiness also often are more famous thanan various sciencefists. For example Mateusz Mach is inventor of first messenger for deaf and is not popular like to current guiness record people, although he did it in 2015. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I intentionally skipped the rat-catcher; that and several others (Kylie Jenner) will likely be removed but require more effort than I'm willing to put in right now to make an argument for removal. The lottery winner was an oversight, adding that now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment Not like the Guinness World Records book isn't in multiple languages and the best selling copyrighted book of all time. GuzzyG (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove Michael Carroll (lottery winner)

A person who won the lottery in the UK and was in the tabloids. Purely of interest as gossip fodder. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment Actually you'll find there's a massive lottery community who pays attention to winners. But i could just be a big ole fanboy, adding my darn favorite. GuzzyG (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Endemic issue

Until this "forum" is opened up then this kind of thing is pretty much hopeless. To determine who should be considered "vital" to Misplaced Pages needs more than a handful of editors at this tiny project which gets fewer pageviews than my user talk page. Right now all these hundreds of "proposals" are strongly indicative that the criteria for inclusion and the methodology being used is wrong. If this project is to survive and gain any kind of legitimacy, I suggest you focus on getting a much wider audience involvement, that you focus on the process of selection and that you stop launching hundreds and hundreds of inclusion/exclusion proposals. This is simply rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

This list is dead anyway, as the person who added everyone (me) has retired from it, it's better to just get rid of the thing then to leave a rotting corpse open. A good look to nominate heaps of removals while still under quota and with no replacements, this list is meant to be indicative of pop culture figures compared to the level 4 list which is meant to be historically important but apparently someone predicted to be the youngest billionaire (also a woman, which we lack) and a major pop culture figure is "going to be removed", yikes. Good luck with your feeling and opinion based list when i tried to make it based on pageviews/britannica listings/wikidata stats. If people are seriously arguing for this list to "only" have 200/1200 sports people be American then there's no point, it's done.GuzzyG (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

And I think making quotas by nationality is flawed and will simply cause argument in any case. First of all the very reason for the existence of this list needs to be re-examined, and it needs more than just two or three regular editors to do that. Suggest an RFC is opened to determine if this project should really continue, especially in its current form. Right now these pages just suggest an argumentative timesink with no benefit to our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Suggest an RFC is opened to determine if this project should really continue, especially in its current form. Please do that The Rambling Man . User talk:Purplebackpack89 it is pointless every time someone criticizes this "project" to respond "Don't be mean, I have worked hard on this and you are hurting my feelings". I don't imagine anyone is setting out to be mean and nasty to you personally, it is just this is a ridiculous and pointless exercise, the whole thing. I find it absurd and offensive, for instance that J S Bach gets a "level 3" and Handel and Monteverdi are "4"'s, that "Thais" makes it on to the list of "vital" operas but "Elektra" does not. Don't tell me to add stuff or move stuff around, I don't want to have anything to do with these silly lists except to try to get them to go away.Smeat75 (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

If you find a "ridiculous and pointless exercise" "absurd and offensive" then it's you going on about hurt feelings; so bothered by a template on a talk page. I guess the other editors have gave you a inch so you'll take the mile. All over some pointless template; "Hurt feelings" indeed. I do appreciate your gall in wanting to get rid of a project that's existed for 11 years because you had your feelings hurt over some silly opera talk page templates. GuzzyG (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I guess the other editors have gave you a inch so you'll take the mile. Such erudition, obviously an editor who can write a sentence like that is perfectly suited to sit in judgement on exactly who and what is "vital" in the entire history of the world.Smeat75 (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: will you please just stop commenting here if you want to be retired? Your continued complaining that the list isn't everything you want to add is beyond tired. We must operate based on consensus; if there's a consensus your additions are "vital" they will remain. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Let's be clear, i will NEVER stop commenting on the process ; i am retired from additions and regret i have added anything. I have a right to complain when you've added barely anything to biographies and yet roll over to the first non-contributor who criticizes the list, i've spent years on building a biographical dictionary and scouring forums/websites/talking to people based on who is the top people in the respective endeavor. The best thing is i use Misplaced Pages's OWN STATISTICS in deciding my additions to this list. If you can't grasp that i've dedicated my free time since 2014 in building my own project in which i stumbled upon our vital list itself, then fine. But you don't get to tell me to stop commenting on something i've done the majority of the leg work on and if you want me to stop commenting, then start the list from scratch. Yes, i have a problem with people like you who roll over to any criticism without ever doing research associated with the item listed; like when you let the editor remove Born to Die yet the lede says "As of January 2018, Born to Die is one of only three albums released by a female artist to have spent more than 300 weeks on the Billboard 200 chart." which while the other two albums are listed is a decent argument for it to be on; yet you dismissed it and let the guy replace it with a regular Hootie & the Blowfish album when the band itself isn't listed. It's not up to you to decide what's "gossip fodder", like the oft mentioned paintballer; you might think it's small time but we have a wikipedia project for paintball and we should have atleast a biography for as many wikiprojects be a FA as possible, especially on a list meant for IMPROVEMENT of articles; not a 100% accurate historical ranking; Misplaced Pages benefits from having these "gossip fodder" high reader interest articles featured. GuzzyG (talk) 04:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: without some specific proposal to discuss, I don't think that advertising at WP:CENT or on a bunch of WikiProject pages will do anything but waste editor time. If you have a suggestion you think won't do that, please make it. (I don't yet have any good idea to fully devolve sections; i.e. to have the cricket biographies discussed at WT:CRIC rather than here). power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

No, I disagree I'm afraid. This is practically a closed shop, with a quorum of half a dozen regulars and nothing more. At the very least, a centralised discussion will make others aware of the project, and I don't believe that will be a waste of anyone's time. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

A few thoughts on this:

1. This isn't "closed" any more than any other talk page or noticeboard is closed. The claim that this isn't open could be said of AfD, ITN, article talk pages, pretty much anything.
2. This is the wrong time to assess the project. Give it time for the lists to fill up and stabilize. There was vitriol and instability at VA4 in 2013 and it's remarkable stable and civil now. VA5 may eventually be that way too
3. If we find that we can't build a 50,000 at this point, maybe we should build a 20,000 articles list instead. And then see if we want to build a 25,000 or a 30,000.
4. I'd like to echo the above disappointment on how The Rambling Man is participating in this project. I think he would do well to participate in more of the existing proposals rather than primarily just complain about how closed this is and vague demands for deletion or reconstruction of this project. That's just not helping. pbp 02:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I have noticed that we have two misunderstandings in this project (I try writing with good faith in my forgein language, I hope my words will sound right):

1. What excatly level5 list is:
   1. Is this generally more list TO DO? - in sense more list the articles than the people (for example more relevant various articles related with football instead list the best soccer players etc.) List the articles wchich would be valuable to correct per (most viewed articles, articles from popculture, articles wchich have little pageviews because of they are not good, popular articles on Misplaced Pages wchich are not described in some encyclopedias, not the most vital but pretty comprehensive articles etc.) . If it is more list TO DO we could agai try disscuss about change name of the project. I agree that aXXo would be very valuable to describe in Misplaced Pages (I generally belive that if we angage wikiprojects and suggestbot in future maybe article will be better for next years)
   2. Is this list generally the most or more vital people and things wchich have influence for, culture, history etc..?
2. What excatly mean: favorize English language:
   1. Favorize English world?
   2. Favorize westeren-english world?
   3. Making encclopedia for readers of ENwiki? If we make encyclopedia besed on statistics of ENwiki, I prytty agree with GuzzyG that balance editors/viewers beetwen USA and UK is very high , ....Compare various countries worldwide how often people edit and view English Misplaced Pages. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to echo the above disappointment on how The Rambling Man is participating in this project.? Where was that? I'm sure you are disappointed that I'm asking some serious questions about the viability of this mini-project and offering some critique of its current manifestation. Difficult questions can sometimes be challenging. But do try not to personalise everything, focus on the matter at hand, that of trying to open up this project to a much wider forum. If it truly is assembling what is considered to be vital, the more input the project receives, the better, and surely that's what our readers deserve, right? Broadening the input rather than offering up hundreds of proposals in which two or three people typically engage is a vital step to take right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• • • As a suggestion, to be eligible for the level 5 list an article should be rated as "high importance" on the talk page of the article. For example, an article I began called Fetterman Fight is rated as of high importance by the WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. Thus, I think the article should probably be a level V vital article. To the contrary, if nobody has seen fit to rate an article as of high importance, it can be disqualified from being on the vital article list. I realize that this policy could be abused -- but it would be a check on arbitrary additions to the vital article list. Smallchief (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: I feel like you ignored Point #1, that pretty much everything on Misplaced Pages is the domain of a not-that-large klatch of regulars.

• I paid attention to the items I found interesting and/or particularly relevant. While Vital Articles is dominated by a tiny handful of regulars, it will be regarded as nothing more than an anachronism, and will continue to be derided and dismissed. I'm sure that's not what those who contribute here want, but that's the status quo. It's hard, I understand, to realise that this is currently a huge and misdirected waste of energy, but some of us here are offering invaluable insight to help prevent any further loss. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Smallchief: The problem is that there are massive discrepancies in what constitutes a high-importance article. There are some projects that it would be reasonable to have all top-, all high- and maybe even some medium-importance articles, but other projects where it would only make sense to have top-importance articles. The projects that we assent to having auto-add of high-importance need their assessment scrutinized from time to time. (Note that I'm NOT weighing in on your specific example)

pbp 15:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Misc section

Since Power and others seems to have a big problem with the people listed in the "other" section on the "misc" page (let's throw in case studies/medical literature people too), then what do we do if we remove the 10 or 20 "problematic" people? We're not missing out on scientists because of them so what do we do? add 10/20 to business, explorers or the other sections (where we're already scraping the barrel); what exactly? take 10 off misc to add to another page? Seems silly. Any other people do you have in mind for the "other" section or are we trying to fix a problem that does not exist? GuzzyG (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

1. Same with the 3 explorers removal proposal; we're 90 under quota and already scraping the barrel, are we that afraid of being diverse in our coverage? Dumbfounded. GuzzyG (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• WikiProject Vital Articles pages