Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Project name

Currently at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level 5. Should it have a different name, such as Wikipedia:Vital articles/Compendium? Or, the slightly different Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5? power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd personally like Wikipedia:Vital articles/Comprehensive. For the meantime though, it should definitely be Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5 to match the others. J947( c ) (m) 07:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree, comprehensive sounds good. GuzzyG (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Separate talk pages

The Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded list has a single talk page for all 11 sub-lists. Will that be feasible for a list five times as large, or should each of the sub-pages have its own talk page? power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I think we should try to keep it all on a single talk page for simplicity. If that doesn't work, we can always split it up later. In the beginning as we are building the 50,000 article list, we probably won't adhere to a strict system of nominating articles for inclusion. People will be allowed to just add articles to the list that they think belong on it, just like the Level 4 list did in the beginning as it was being built. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreeing here with Rreagan007 tentatively—the highest number of bytes we've got to on that talk page's last 10,000 edits is 456,668 (mid-January 2015) for anyone who wants to know. We just need a dedicated archiver. Also, power~enwiki, can we use your Power 10000 pages for some development of L5? I'd like to make use of the cities page, personally. J947( c ) (m) 00:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh well for my question. I'll create Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level 5/Geography/Cities then. J947( c ) (m) 00:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I only had about 10 cities added that weren't on the L4 list. Better to start fresh (that is, by copying the L4 list) on that one. The others may be useful. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Highest ever was a truly enormous ~665,000 bytes in this project's peak activity around July/August 2013. J947 (c · m) 23:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I copied the L4 list for cities (and kept the Australian cities J947 added), at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level 5/Geography/Cities. Any formatting suggestions/concerns? power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

How to update

Do we want to try to keep all the counts accurate as we're going, or wait until the lists are a bit more complete to update them all? Also, is there a script that can update the article quality markers? I'm not going to look these all up by hand. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I think as people add articles to the list, they should at least be updating the counts in the section headings. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Page Creation

I'll create some more pages in about 12 hours, basically anything that seem clearly defined and less than 2500 in quota. Specifically:

  • Languages
  • Health, medicine and disease
  • Astronomy
  • Chemistry
  • Earth Science
  • Physics
  • Mathematics

For Geography, I think that "countries" and "country subdivisions" should be the same page, and a third page for "physical geography" should take up everything else, but I'm not sure that's the best approach. Similarly, I'm not sure what the "Basics and Measurement" section should be called, or if it can be combined with something else. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

A couple of observations. I see that you are putting in the Level 4 tags (i.e. "(Level 4)") which is great, but be careful. You have the Level 4 people listed under the sports section linking to the Geography list of Level 4 instead of the Biography list. I've gone ahead and fixed that. Also, if we are going to follow the same conventions in the other lists, all the articles listed in a higher level should also be bolded. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
The lack of bold was intentional, though I'm not sure it was correct. The geography linking was purely due to doing this way too late. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I see. I went ahead and added the bolding. I didn't realize you left it out intentionally. I guess you can remove it if you want, but I think the bolding helps to see what we've added to the Level 5 list that's not in the higher levels. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I figured that if over half the items are going to be from Level 4 for a while, the bold would be too prominent (at the end it will be 20% bold instead of 10%). If it will get to 30k entries quickly (30% bold), it's probably best to do the bolding now. Regardless, I'm going to wait another day before creating more pages to let other people chime in. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

A different idea:

  1. New York City (Level 3)
  2. Philadelphia (Level 4)
  3. Spokane, Washington

Bold the article link and the "Level 3" link for level 3 articles, but only bold the article link for level 4. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

One thing I would worry about with the bolding format you are suggesting is that it would be too subtle for the average person to pick up on and they would be more likely to think it is just a formatting error and might even try to "fix it" by changing the bolding to be all one way or the other. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Sports biographies

I have now completed a rough outline of this section, i have left it at 737 for now until we get the final number sorted as it changed from 750 to 800, i think 800 is better. I have moved Bruce Lee to martial arts and Tenzing Norgay and Edmund Hilary to climbing from their previous spots on level 4 to here as they fit better here. The way i have compiled this list is moving over SethAllen's 50k (he had 300 sports), having atleast one representative from each sports wikiproject, added some niche sports for diversity and tried to add people from different continents when necessary, i think this list is one of the most diverse/complete sports lists out there, with the extra space left i will fill up Athletics/more Association football etc. What do you guys think? I know there's relatively minor sports listed but i think it leads to a fuller list and it's better then having 300 soccer players. Everyone has a reason for being listed and if you think some is a odd listing, leave a comment and i will explain my reasoning, please don't go taking stuff out until we get a complete list/numbers allotted etc. I have listed a representative for nearly every Olympic sport too and have tried to add women when possible. GuzzyG (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I've made a couple of changes because there were some guys you forgot and some guys that didn't belong. Basketball's my forte so I may suggest additional changes pbp 21:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the baseball list, I think it's a mistake to assume the current list is supposed to be perfect. Some (Josh Gibson, Ted Williams) are clearly called for, others (Dale Murphy are less clear, and a few (Mike Trout) are probably WP:TOOSOON. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Balance between eSports and Equestrianism

The list currently contains 11 eSportsmen and only five representatives of Equestrianism, all jockeys. eSports is a relatively new phenomenon, in contrast to horse racing which has been a thing for centuries. I'd recommend we lower the eSports quota to 5 and raise the equestrian quota to 11, using most of that quota on racehorses since we already have jockeys. pbp 20:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

  • There's no "quota" per-se, just a count of the articles on the page at the current time. I added one racehorse at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Animals. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, I might step away from this list. All very well, everyone add stuff in a free for all, I'm guilty of it myself too, but I don't like the direction of some of it. 11 people slightly famous for playing games like Call of Duty, in my own opinion is very very silly. How about videogames designers, companies, games, consoles, characters perhaps? How can we list a Call of Duty player before Call of Duty, of a Street Fighter player before Street Fighter, to me sounds absolutely ridiculous. How about articles like Nintendo, Sony, Wii, NES, Megadrive, Sonic, Zelda, Final Fantasy, Strategy game, fighting game, Platform game, history of video games, Gamepad, EA, Activision, Sid Meier, Red Alert, Konami, puzzle game, RPG, PlayStation, Xbox, Game Boy, Super Mario, Street Fighter, Beat em up, Atari, Pac-Man, Space Invaders, Donkey Kong and a tonne more. Why are we listing Walshy who appear only in the English wiki? Even the other guys that are in a handful of languages are not among the 10'000 most influential people in all history of the whole world. I know we want to diversify but really? If video games need representing how about designers, companies, games, consoles, genres, characters/franchises. There's a lot to choose from. Theses gamers are all low priority on the Videogame wiki project, a few are mid importance. It just seems like a joke to me. Sorry, I'll step away for a little bit now.  Carlwev  20:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
      • @GuzzyG: who added this. The articles obviously have problems; Walsh is widely regarded as the greatest and most successful Halo player of all time. feels like puffery. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Obviously in any appropriate listing all of those things would be added as well, all because sports was done before designers doesn't mean i wasn't getting to that. I just have a very different interpretation of the list, if i was tasked to create a list of 800 sports figures for the Britannica, i wouldn't fill it with 600 soccer players (which is correct if you were purely going on worldwide notability) , 70 is fine and then you cover one of each, same with other fields, clearly this current generation of kids are gonna have their main form of entertainment be stuff like YouTube and sports be eSports - i did it to represent the 21st century, just like Mike Trout, 21st century baseball is baseball history too - i am like George Eastman why wait? Jockeys are not important it's mainly the horses, which do not belong in a list of people. I guess we cannot cover The Godfather and Marlon Brando, just seems like a quite silly arguement "The arts page isn't added too so why do we have these biographies.". I'll just step back for a bit i guess. Also saying they're low importance in Video Games is clearly irrelevant when you factor in the main eSports wikiproject does not have ratings. Clearly Wikipedia should have FA's (the point of this thing is to improve needed articles) on 21st century figures. Most of the American sports adds were from SethAllen's list anyway. I just did the most renowned 1-2 people from each sport with a WikiProject as i thought it was in Wikipedia's best interest to atleast have a FA from each WikiProject. esports is like motorsports or combat sports (a umbrella), i added one from each of the popular games, that's why there's 11. Clearly like Seth i should probably just do my own list, that focuses on representing everything that exists in a decent amount instead of having 100 from the same thing where you'd rather have an average soccer player then someone referred to as the best in a field (of only maybe 50k participants but it's still something). I mean it may be silly but i'm willing to bet people like Kim Kardashian, PewDiePie, and yes Walshy are looked back on as the leading proponents of uniquely 21st century phenomenons/fields, i hope someone looking back on this sites archives in 100 years can quote me on that too. Even people like Jenna Jameson, Ted Bundy, Bonnie and Clyde, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and Charles Manson should be in such a list as this, it's a gut reaction to think otherwise in my opinion, history does not discriminate. GuzzyG (talk) 05:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Limit eSports figures to 3

Support
  1. pbp 21:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Weak support, there are other categories with concerns and I've made a wider-ranging proposal. This seems like a good limit for now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Weak support, increasing by 1 every two years as it will become more and more important. J947 (c · m) 04:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support as Carlwev mentions, esports figures are arguably not the most significant people related to gaming anyway. Game designers are more notable. Gizza (t)(c) 02:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Fine, and the three should be Billy Mitchell, Johnathan Wendel and Lim Yo-hwan. GuzzyG (talk) 07:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. A lot of people play video games, and I think that they will consider all esports figures in the Lv5 list vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Is everyone set on Reagan's people quotas?

If so, i would love to start creating the people sub pages and get the shell of them over and done with, i am doing business and explorers currently in my sandbox. As you see i work fast so if you guys want i can do the biographies part (It's better to know who's working on what so there's no clashes with what's being added). I don't mind manually tagging the articles with their class either, also when it's made tagging the articles with the template. GuzzyG (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I expect some of the quotas to change, but I don't see anything that can't be fixed later. We can even merge pages later on if that's appropriate. I think Geography and "Biological and Health sciences" sub-pages are also in good shape. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
My edits are obviously just suggestions and we can adjust them as we go as needed. The one category whose subdivisions I am concerned about is Society and Social sciences. I don't see a very good way to split them up. Perhaps we just leave it all in one list rather than trying to split it up? Or maybe just pull out languages at 1,000 and leave everything else together? Speaking of the language quota, I'm not sure there are 1,000 languages that are vital enough to include in the list; 300 or 400 may be more appropriate. We only have about 300 language Wikipedias (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias#1.2B_articles), and many of those have very few articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I've dropped the Society sub-pages; I don't have a good idea of what's going to grow in Society. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Just a update

I have been working on each of the people subpages in my many sandboxes and it's coming along nicely, just letting you all know that i am still updating it and i plan to have the rough shell of it completed by the end of next week, i see a template has been made for level 5, i can start tagging articles manually when i am done.

I have also put in the effort to include both current pop culture people and historical influences, also i have diversified it by making an effort to include multiple people from each continent/countries, also adding women etc. Also for example every sport is represented by atleast one rep, including all current sovereign states with at least 2 politicians, each industry of business having a rep, each genre of art design, genre of music, pro and anti activism etc. If some of my additions look out of place it's because of this. While level 4 and 3 is good for being strict, i think level 5 should keep this type of placing as i think how i have handled the sports page is better then just having 300 soccer players or 150 baseball players etc. GuzzyG (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

In light of Cobblet's concerns i might spend a bit more time/days trying to make sure as many things are covered and spread out in terms of worldwide coverage and not just Western entertainment. GuzzyG (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the vital articles lists are supposed to be tailored for the English-language Wikipedia. Trying to include non-Western people is obviously good, but I don't think you should spend too much time and effort trying to make the list as global as possible. The most vital 10,000 people articles for English speakers won't be the same as the most vital 10,000 people articles for Chinese speakers. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
It's still good to represent some non-western entertainment, i've been a bit busy as it's my birthday on the 25th but i am still working on it, and now i am going to have to re-calibrate my sandbox lists with our updated ones, i did not think it would take this long but 10, 000 is a big number. GuzzyG (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Keep in mind that English is an international language. For instance, English has been a compulsory subject in Chinese primary school since 2003. I will request deletion of the list if contributors willfully ignore or minimize issues of bias. Cobblet (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Indeed English is the global lingua franca and there are readers of enwiki for all 200 or so countries of the world (except where it's blocked) not that it matters anyway. Copernicus isn't less vital because he was Polish instead of American or British. The passport you have shouldn't matter. The last thing we need is more bias. Gizza (t)(c) 02:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
There are still going to be language differences. I would expect the Chinese Wikipedia to have every Chinese emperor on the list, but I highhly doubt ours will. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Other subpages

The splits listed on the project page have been stable for a few days, is anyone else planning to create the level-5 pages? I know GuzzyG has separate lists for people, but don't think anyone is working on the others. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I just went ahead and created the Mathematics and Philosophy/religion sections. I'll try to get around to creating some more this weekend. If someone is working on creating a particular section, they should try to give everyone a heads up here on the talk page. I know GuzzyG is working on the People subsections. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
When i am finished with people i can do arts too. P. S it's taking longer then i expected, i have the people ready to be listed but it takes me roughly an hour to list 100 people and check their icons and so on so i will be finished around Wednesday instead of Sunday. But arts should be easier as there's generally lists of the top things etc. GuzzyG (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'm adding all the pages on my various lists to Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Society_and_social_sciences, I'll update the counts when I'm done. I don't plan to do anything else here this week, if any pages aren't created next Monday I'll make them then. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I should have all of them created by this afternoon (except for the people subpages that GuzzyG is working on. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Move Hamburger to cuisines:Fast food

Hamburgers fall under the category of 'Cuisine:Fast food' more than 'Meat and other animal products'

ILoveTheDC10 (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Moved. The article is about the sandwich not ground beef. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

On Jurists

A few days ago, at VA/E, @GeekyEnki: wondered about the VA status of the 23 lawgivers depicted in the House Chamber of the United States Capitol. Here's what it is now:

  1. Alfonso X of Castile has been added to Level 5 politicians list
  2. Edward I of England is on the Level 4 politicians list
  3. Gaius (jurist) has been added to the Level 5 jurists list
  4. George Mason has been added to the Level 5 politicians list
  5. Pope Gregory IX has been added to the Level 5 politicians list
  6. Hammurabi is on the Level 3 politicians list
  7. Hugo Grotius is on the Level 4 philosophers list and the Level 5 jurists list
  8. Pope Innocent III is on the Level 4 politicians list
  9. Jean-Baptiste Colbert has been added to the Level 5 politicians list
  10. Justinian I is on the Level 4 politicians list
  11. Lycurgus of Sparta is on the Level 4 politicians list
  12. Maimonides is on the Level 4 religious figures list
  13. Moses is on the Level 3 religious figures list
  14. Napoleon I is on the Level 3 politicians list
  15. Aemilius Papinianus has been added to the Level 5 jurists list
  16. Robert Joseph Pothier has been added to the Level 5 jurists list
  17. Saint Louis of France is on the Level 4 politicians list
  18. Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester has been added to the Level 5 politicians list
  19. Solon is on the Level 4 politicians list. He is currently on the Level 5 politicians list but could be moved to the level 5 jurists list
  20. Suleiman is on the Level 4 politicians list
  21. Thomas Jefferson is on the Level 4 politicians list
  22. Tribonian has been added to the Level 5 jurists list
  23. William Blackstone has been added to the Level 5 jurists list

pbp 18:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Regions are missing

Major regions like Eastern Europe would seem to belong in the /Physical_geography section. They certainly belong here more than "parks and preserves".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  20:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I assumed that was on the level 4 list so I hadn't added it, apparently it isn't. East Asia and a few others are on Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Geography/Countries. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Missing businesspeople

I took a look at businesspeople and I found that it's already near quota. That being said, I found some names that I feel are missing:

I think we can make room for some of those guys by removing some low-hanging fruit. Donald Trump, Jr., Paris Hilton, they're just celebrities. Travis Kalanick is a flavor of the week. Tech businesses seem to be over-represented considering most of their significance is in the last 40ish years. Errett Lobban Cord seems not as vital when you remember Durant's not on there. And some of the Hollywood personalities such as Harvey Weinstein belong in directors/producers/screenwriters. pbp 14:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. We have to be aware of recent-ism, and famous but not vital people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emir of Wikipedia (talk • contribs)
I've boldly fixed this. I don't see how we get to 2500 politicians anytime soon. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, I've made most of the changes I suggested, with two exceptions. 1) I haven't moved the producers to producers yet, and 2) I haven't added Biddle, because I'm going to add him to politicians. pbp 16:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah i had these already in my mock 10k and was about to add them to my sandbox list, the list was copied over originally from SethAllen's one. I was going to add 100 more to the space of explorers and businessmen, because 300 is low. GuzzyG (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I cut about a quarter of the businesspeople and added back nearly the same amount – I think 200 is a good cap. Cobblet (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I largely agree with your moves. pbp 03:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Sports sub-quotas

As these are apparently necessary. A first proposal:

  • Sports business-people, coaches, commentators, journalists and referees (150)
  • Major team sports (250)
    • Association football (75)
    • Basketball (50)
    • Baseball (40)
    • American football (30)
    • Cricket (30)
    • Hockey (25)
  • Other team sports (50)
  • Individual sports (250)
    • Martial arts (50)
    • Athletics (40)
    • Tennis (30)
    • Golf (20)
    • Figure skating (20)
    • Other olympic sports (90)
  • All other (50)
    • Chess, bull-fighting, eSports, billiards, fishing, etc.
  • Un-allocated (50)

I will modify the page to include the quotas if there's a consensus for them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this. I'd make the Athletics quota higher (35-40), and specifically delineate a quota for e-sports. pbp 21:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Athletics increased to 40. I've supported your proposal above and don't see a need to combine the two. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

If the level 4 list has only 110 sportspeople (and that number is still going down: Indurain just got cut and we still obviously have too many tennis players – Borg, Court and Evert should all be cut) how can we possibly justify listing any more than 550 on the level 5 list?

I counter-propose the following quotas adding up to 500. The quotas for most of the big sports simply come from multiplying the numbers on level 4 by five. In my judgment (but I don't think this is controversial) the team-sport athletes on level 4 are as a whole much more notable than the individual-sport athletes; so even though there are more of the latter on that level, I suggest they be equally represented here.

  • Coaches and referees (20; businesspeople and journalists/broadcasters should go in their respective sections)
  • Team sports (240)
    • Association football (70)
    • Basketball (35)
    • Baseball (35)
    • Cricket (35)
    • American football (15)
    • Ice hockey (15)
    • Others (35)
  • Individual sports (240)
    • Athletics (40)
    • Golf (15)
    • Gymnastics (25)
    • Martial arts, including boxing and wrestling (30)
    • Tennis (30)
    • Other Olympic individual sports (50)
    • Auto racing (20)
    • Chess (10)
    • Other non-Olympic individual sports (20)

Edit: Additionally, I propose that half of the extra 300 articles be allotted to politicians and leaders (499 at level 4, current level 5 quota at 2400) and the other half to scientists, inventors and mathematicians (242 at level 4, current level 5 quota at 1100). I don't think anyone has ever said that the level 4 list has too many of either even though both sections have slowly grown over the years. Cobblet (talk) 05:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree regarding the "Sports business-people, coaches, commentators, journalists and referees" and think that sports businesspeople/journalists are best handled here with a quota of at least 120. I am more-or-less fine with the rest of your suggestions at a quota of 600 (or, preferably, 650 to allow for loose enforcement of the quotas). The justification for increasing it a bit further is that there are a massive number of sports biographies on Wikipedia (spend some time on WP:NPP and you will appreciate this). While I expect enough sections to run out of articles such that this will be able to grow to 750, I have no good evidence for such at this time, and don't think that going up to the absolute limit immediately is beneficial in any case. power~enwiki (π, ν)
There are a lot of sports biographies on Wikipedia because Wikipedia's predominantly male editors are especially interested in sports. This list should not perpetuate the editorial biases of Wikipedians. (We also have a massive number of porn star biographies.) And I see no reason sports journalists and businesspeople should have a special quota reserved for them (and 100 is the epitome of overkill when we list zero at level 4) when we haven't yet discussed the quotas for other types of journalists and businesspeople. It's a simple matter of fairness. Cobblet (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm torn between Cobblet and Power on this. I don't think that sportspeople are as inherently vital as a lot of the other professions on this list, but it does seem to be an easier list. Also, since Jurists has partially been spun off from political leaders (John Marshall, for example, appears as a political leader on Lv 4 and a jurist on Lv 5), I think some of the quota change should go to jurists/law enforcement/criminals. pbp 15:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "easier." I don't think we have close to 20 jurists/police chiefs/criminals on the level 4 list (and we've rejected adding people as notable as Blackstone and Escobar), so I don't see why we'd need more than 100 on the level 5 list. Cobblet (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
1) Because some politicians and philosophers at Lv 4 would be classified as jurists at Level 5, 2) because we probably will never fill politicians. We have enough space for most world leaders of major countries and still loads of room to spare. For example, look at American and British leaders since 1815 are at now. Then consider that the American list is about a 5-fold increase from the size we had at Lv 4, and the British list (which includes all monarchs since 1815, most of the PMs of note, and several people who were neither) isn't even a 5-fold increase. And those are pretty much the two easiest countries to populate lists of. pbp 18:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
1) That probably applies to fewer than 10 people. 2) OK, so by "easier" you mean there's more room. The fact that we filled up the US political leaders so quickly and modern Oceanian leaders have already been expanded 35x suggests to me that there isn't more room. (Let's just stick to "western" Anglophone countries for a second. Where are the Canadian PMs? Have we added everyone from List of English monarchs, List of Scottish monarchs and List of Irish monarchs yet?) And it's not like the sports personalities we currently list are all that vital – can we really think of no other US Senator, Congressman, state governor or city mayor to list instead of Jim Rome? Cobblet (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I have deliberately refrained from adding any American politicians. As one point in your favor, I think Arnold Schwarzenegger is more relevant as a politician than as a body-builder. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
If you do the "what if" thing then technically this whole list should be head of states or figures in government. I don't understand how lowering the quota for the list while upping the quota of the major sports and removing figures of sports which are popular in other countries that are non western is a ideal thing. Is the 75th soccer player gonna be more notable then the number one in a smaller sport? I don't see how Martial Arts is overpopulated, Boxing should have a "5x increase" from the list, martial arts itself is non-western and 9 is barely enough (and alot are olympic sports). MMA is maybe one overdone but it's not bad (and mainly big in Japan and Brazil, non-western countries), wrestler's should be cut to 20, and sumo is five. Considering this list is meant to represent a list of what should be FA's i don't see how the 10k list should be under as strict as rules from the level 4 list, currently popular figures need to be FA's too and if they get replaced by someone else just swap them on here. Just seems the list is getting more westernized. GuzzyG (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I should clarify: I didn't mean to suggest that listing all those political figures was a good idea. Most of the work that has been done in that section has focused on western Anglophone countries (I personally would not have included every American president and Australian and New Zealand PM), and my point was only that even within such a limited context our work is hardly finished.
I don't know why you have the notion that adding more footballers means Westernizing the list. Adhering my suggested quota of 70, I've gone ahead and removed Neymar while adding 18 players who I think better reflect the sport's global popularity. Every player I've added is from a different country (Saudi Arabia, USA, South Korea, Paraguay, Cameroon, Chile, France, Sweden, Ghana, Mexico, Japan, Uruguay, Ukraine, Canada, Austria, Bulgaria, China, Ivory Coast), 15 of those 18 countries have no other footballers on the list, and four are women. Cobblet (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I have (arbitrarily) set quotas at 675, trying to split the difference. I expect some of the quotas will need to be modified, and the "Other individual sports" section will need more guidance. I think there's clear agreement that Baseball and Martial Arts are over-populated, as well as many of the "other" sports. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Probably only a couple of New Zealand PMs are vital at best. If you add nine political leaders for every country with a greater population than New Zealand, you would add about a 1000 articles. And obviously countries with a longer history and population will more than likely have more than nine leaders added if you want to be proportionate. Also, adding PMs overlooks important New Zealand leaders of earlier times like Hongi Hika and Te Rauparaha. Gizza (t)(c) 02:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
And with that 1000 articles, guess what? You would still need to add 1, 500 more, and with Cobblet reducing sports guess where the extra load will go, another 100 to politicians? Now where are all of them going? Why are we removing politicians before even the first 1,000 of them are even on the list? GuzzyG (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
The target quota for political leaders is 2400. The nine modern New Zealand leaders were additional articles (not on Level 4). There are already 500 from Level 4. And my estimate of 1000 was very conservative. It was assuming every country with a larger population than New Zealand (about 120 of them) will get the same number of additions when most of them deserve much, much more. It also didn't take into account countries with a smaller population will get increases too. Population is only one broad factor but New Zealand hasn't punched above its weight in political history and events unlike say, Israel, Switzerland, Singapore or even Qatar. If New Zealand gets nine leaders, every country in the G20 would deserve 50 at the very least, not to mention the huge number of countries more important than NZ not in the G20. Just as importantly, it would exacerbate recentism. If we use a similar ratio to Level 4 as a starting point (and Level 4 is still very modern heavy), the number of leaders will be 36.8% or around 884 out of 2400. Even if the quota goes up to 2500, the number will be 920. That would make the number of new leaders (not on Level 4) around 700-736. I just think it's better to anticipate articles which won't make it once this is full rather than making it a free-for-all and then later removing having to remove thousands of articles shouldn't have been here in the first place. Having experienced that on Level 4, that was a very tedious and painful process. Gizza (t)(c) 00:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
On a list of 2400 politicians (and sports will be cut unfortunately) so 2500, i just think it's odd if one whole continent is represented by 50 or less people. (No matter how small it is), on a list like this every country/state with at least one recognition from a state should have a representative. But then again my view of this list is to have quotas so everything gets a slice. The popular idea on here is that someone like Mitt Romney is more of a historical figure then the prime minister of Samoa (true) but Mitt is a local state governor with no actual bearing on history in his country while to Samoa that prime minister will. Who is more likely to get listed and infact is? Even if Samoa "hasn't pulled their weight", we should still have some representation. Who from Swiss politics will you list, since they share government? I'd say Australia and New Zealand and the other countries in Oceania should have a bit more leverage as they represent a new continent. Like how i added a Oceanian rep in basketball (Gaze) but it got removed and we got a representative from the US in cricket. Funny. And yes every English speaking country should have more then 10 politicians as we are an English speaking an encyclopedia. Although i do not see how every US president should not be listed, that's just straight out false claim. GuzzyG (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think of Oceania as on par with the other five populated continents. There are only 40 million people in Oceania. That's a tenth of the population of North America and a hundredth of the population of Asia. Oceania is also hamstrung by the fact that its recorded history is much shorter than that of a lot of places. Though if we are going to cull American politicians (and we probably will have to, it's at or above 5x its size at VA/E), Mitt Romney would probably be in my top 10 of people most likely to be culled. No US president would. pbp 09:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
At soccer I suggest remove Majed Abdullah and Cha Bum-kun. I suggest added Giuseppe Meazza and Clarence Seedorf. Abdullah and Cha Bum-kun there aren't in FIFA 100 while.... Giuseppe Meazza is a player who won two world cup in succession and in 1938 as captain And Seedorf is one player in history who won four times UEFA Champions League for three diffrent clubs and as deffensive player. In my opinion this list is bad. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
From List of countries by English-speaking population, New Zealand is 46th in the world by number of English speakers. Having said that, the sources used in the table are old and out of date for many though all countries. Based on the 2013 New Zealand Census, there are probably slightly over 4 million English speakers which will put it at around 42nd or 43rd at best. The most pro-NZ reasoning I can think of would be a large number of New Zealanders visiting the English Wikipedia because they are not only English speaking (with a majority as their first language) but a developed country with high levels of internet access. As of September 2017, New Zealand is 24th in the world by English Wikipedia page views. Over the last year, if you look at the archives, its position has floated between 23rd and 26th.
Anyway New Zealand was just an example and yes, there have been many insignificant Americans, Brits and Australians added too in politicians and elsewhere. And for that matter, people from other countries whether they are English speaking or not (though the bias is not as bad). My concern wasn't just country but era. All but one of the NZ leaders were in power during the 20th or 21st centuries. Even if NZ were to have many leaders, they should be spread over all of its history, which would mean a few more 19th century leaders. And within Oceania, Papua New Guinea should get a few leaders with a population of 8 million people (compared to 10,000 for Nauru which has one). Gizza (t)(c) 02:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Removal of four sports teams

Remove Tampa Bay Storm

The Arena Football League is not anywhere near as vital as the NFL or college football. Two football teams may be plenty, if we want a third, the New England Patriots, Pittsburgh Steelers and Notre Dame Fighting Irish football are all better adds pbp 02:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 02:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  5. —J947 (c), at 03:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Edmonton Eskimos

One CFL team is enough, especially since we already have two Canadian hockey teams in addition to the CFL pbp 02:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 02:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  5. —J947 (c), at 03:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Chesapeake Bayhawks and Philadelphia Wings

Professional lacrosse just isn't vital enough to justify having any teams on the VA/5 list. There are probably 100 association football clubs and national sides more vital than the Hawks and Wings. pbp 02:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 02:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  5. —J947 (c), at 03:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Well if we're not being diverse and limiting things (i tried by adding the top two successful teams from every league). then the whole list should have no american football or anything but soccer as it's the supreme notable sport and there's 100 more vital soccer clubs then any other sport teams. I don't see why deletions are necessary while we are highly under quota, this isn't a finished section. GuzzyG (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

While I see what you were trying to do, I don't think these were the best of adds. If you factor out soccer, over 30% of the teams listed are American or Canadian. I also believe that, even if we decide that 100 sports teams are vital at this level, these four teams will ultimately be deemed to not be vital. The Bayhawks are only 17 years old and play in a league that is not anywhere near the most-watched in their country, for example. pbp 15:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Gonna have to agree to disagree, if we cover 50 sports teams (we should cover around 50) then these will not hurt, obviously while still 1,500 under quota these were not completed additions, Lacrosse may not be the most watched sport but it's still a sport and the best team in a underrepresented league should always take precedence over the 50th ranked soccer team. GuzzyG (talk) 08:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to take this as a consensus to remove these. I'd be fine with 75-100 sports teams, but trying to go Noah's ark and have two from every league is the wrong choice. There are probably 20 European clubs (many multi-sport) that should be listed, while I'm not sure Arena football as a whole needs to be on the list. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Vital Articles talk page template

Someone needs to update the Template:Vital_article code so we can tag the articles added to Level 5. Ideally, people should be adding that template to every article added at Level 5 not listed at a higher level. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I've updated it for Geography (see at Talk:Bishkek). The other switch templates should be straightforward once the page divisions are decided and created. I'm going to need a bot or an alt-account with JavaScript helpers if I'm going to be adding thousands of these, any advice? power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm working on a bot to update the talk-page templates (and to check/fix the levels on existing entries). I expect it to hit WP:BRFA later this week. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
@Power~enwiki: I was actually thinking about that today! Also, a bot automatically updating/adding the article quality (including GAN, DGA, FAC, FFA, FFAC, and FGAN) would be nice. I haven't got the skills to code it myself, and I think anyway there should be just one VA bot. J947( c ) (m) 04:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I'll try to get GA and FA status detection at some point, but not initially. I cleaned up the L2 and L3 tags by hand, there were about 20 changes that needed to be made. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Update: this bot has taken longer than I thought it would. I'm finishing the code to find existing article ratings, it should be ready to test once that's done. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

5% done

Current count is 12,204. We've added 2200 of the 40000 articles needed. I'm still not convinced we're going to get past 30,000. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

From memory, the Level 4 list peaked at around this size before we started to go on a removing spree. Gizza (t)(c) 02:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
30000 seems like a more realistic goal, in my humble opinion. Orser67 (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
If it ends up being 30,000, I may need to make some major modifications to what I've done. A lot of my adds were based on a 50,000 list, not a 30,000 one. pbp 09:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
We've only just begun. It will be some time before we know if 50,000 is a good number or not. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Sports Business People

100 is quite a high allotted quota for something which only has one article at Level 4. And I'm even less convinced that we need coaches for sports which don't have any players at Level 4. Mick Malthouse was the last person I expected to see in a vital list, especially when the sportspeople list is missing Hossein Rezazadeh, Naim Süleymanoğlu, Kim Soo Nyung, Carl Osburn and many others. Gizza (t)(c) 01:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how all because of one's list failings should mean when we have the chance on this one to have a full representation of the complete history of sports to just ignore it. Obviously coaches are more important then players and that's a failing on the part of the level 4 list. Carl Osburn is on the list and i did not have the chance to add archers and weightlifters before i stopped due to people criticizing my additions and i am pretty sure they'd be labeled "niche" sports which should not have a listing now anyhow. I feel like when there's still spots left on the list these kind of "we don't have this" posts are a bit odd as you can always just add them. GuzzyG (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone else agree that coaches are more important than players? Archery and weightlifting are two of the oldest sports around and have been in the Olympics for a long time. Nothing niche about them. Cobblet (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
On the contrary, Australian Rules Football is niche. It is incredibly popular in half of a country (south of the Barassi Line) and that's about it. It has become a spectator sport at most north of the line. BMX is niche too although for more being recent than not spread around the globe. Go to any city in the world with a gym and there will be people lifting weights. Obviously there are people who lift for aesthetic (bodybuilding) and health (weight loss) related purposes but becoming stronger, i.e. weightlifting is a huge motivator. Beyond the Olympics, Strongman competitions are very popular. Archery competitions have been around for thousands of years across many countries and cultures. Even a specific type of archery like mounted archery is more widespread than Australian Rules. And while there are exceptions with some sports (possibly American Football), there's no way coaches are generally more vital than players. In the case of cricket, Bob Woolmer isn't among the sport's 100 most important figures let alone 40 (if you roughly add up players and others). The most significant non-player by a mile is Kerry Packer, without whom even Richie Benaud wouldn't attain significance beyond his playing years. Gizza (t)(c) 03:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Kerry Packer was on the list of businesspeople before I removed him for Kenneth Thomson. Feel free to add him back if you think removing him was a mistake. I think it is sensible to compare sports execs to businesspeople not listed from other fields and doing that will show just how non-vital the former generally are. Cobblet (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Comparing like with like (Australian businessmen), I'd replace Dick Smith (entrepreneur) with Packer. Dick Smith is mostly known for complaining about customers not buying Australian-made products while Packer changed the game of cricket forever. He popularized the shorter version which didn't last for five days, introduced coloured clothing, made the professional game playable at night, and modernized it in many other ways. Gizza (t)(c) 04:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
He used to be one of Australia's major retailers in electronics and for continental diversity i added him. I doubt a "Australian of the year" is just known for controversy. BMX is an Olympic sport so hardly "niche". AFL is as historically relevant as American Football and if you pull up the "numbers argument" then table tennis and badminton should have just as many figures. Why did Boxing and others not get a 5x update from level 4 then, why pick and choose? Coaches are more important to the development of the play then the players, we're not a media organization pushing "stars" we're meant to track the history of the sport and coaches are who make the plays like film directors. That's a fault on the level 4 list just as the fact we don't have any music business-people or music producers. GuzzyG (talk) 07:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  1. Actually boxers currently have a 6x increase, and boxing as a sport has an 8x increase if you count the trainers and promoters as well. That's clearly not proportionate.
  2. The power dynamics in sports and film are different. A director casts actors based on a script or artistic vision. Coaches usually design strategies around the players they have. I think that's why most people don't consider film directors and sports coaches equally important.
  3. I don't see why Australians should be prioritized over people from other countries with a similar population just because some people consider the Australian landmass a continent. I'm inclined to follow Gizza's suggestion and swap Smith for Packer. Cobblet (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  1. American football has 3 figures on the level 4, Boxing has 4 but American Football's quota is 25 and and Boxing has to be lowered from 25? Even though it's been around longer and is worldwide and even an Olympic sport? If we're basing it off the level 4 list why does Basketball have a higher quota then Baseball or Cricket even though there's less basketball players on the level 4 list. Why does Rugby not have the same allocation as Ice Hockey then? They both have 3 people on the level 4 list. Why does Figure Skating get 20 when it only has 2 on the level 4 list? The "5x" rule is not consistent.
  2. But it's then those strategies that the player's use. A bad coach can't help a good player, but a bad player can be helped with a good coach. Coaches just do not have a high media profile so subconsciously their seen as lower then they are.
  3. They should not be prioritized but just have a seat at the table because Australia (and other Oceania) are still another continent at the end of the day and as NX and Australia are English speaking a list on English Wikipedia should represent them too. I agree Packer is more vital then Smith.
  4. Also to Gizza's point about Archery and Weightlifting being around for centuries and should have some figures (i agree), would you say the same for Tug of War too? It's been around for centuries and it used to be an Olympic sport, if archery and weightlifting fit so does that. GuzzyG (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  1. I think you're looking at power's proposal, not mine. I suggested reducing numbers for both American football as well as the martial arts in general. Basketball has Naismith on level 4 in addition to the six players. I didn't propose explicit quotas for skating, rugby or boxing.
  2. Just because person A influences person B's thinking does not make A automatically more vital than B. Sports is a form of entertainment: at the end of the day it's the spectators who decide who they care more about, the players or the coach. I don't think this is something we can only blame the media for. Do you think your opinion is a common one?
  3. Are there individual tug-of-war players as notable as the archers or weightlifters Gizza's suggested? Cobblet (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  1. I may have, i still think a proper and more focused quota system should be thought up of every sport, just to be clear and to make it easier without people adding things randomly.
  2. I will concede it is not common and i agree with you in general. I do strongly feel coaches and music producers too are overlooked on the level 4 list and all because some fields are not listed on the level 4 list does not mean they can not be listed here in decent numbers either.
  3. Frederick Humphreys is the closest but still not really. All because a sport is not popular does not mean it shouldn't be listed though or if it's lost popularity, i know you've expressed disdain on the level 4 list but on this one i think we should include ancient athletes too like Milo of Croton, Pheidippides, Gaius Appuleius Diocles and Leonidas of Rhodes. GuzzyG (talk) 09:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
That's not quite what I said. I said they shouldn't be on the list while ancient non-athletes who are much more vital than them get left off. Cobblet (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Pageviews of sports

To get a better idea and gauge the popularity of various sports on English Wikipedia, I've collected pageview stats on most major sports. Here are stats over last 365 days for the sports that appear in the templates for team sports, Summer Olympic sports and Winter Olympic sports. There is no template for individual sports hence I used the Olympic sports templates as a proxy though there is overlap and a few notable sports missing, especially a few with many representatives on Level 5 which I've linked here.

I used a yearly period to account for seasonal variations though many sports run on quadrennial cycle with a major world tournament or Olympics held every four years. If those sports didn't have their major tournament within the last year, their pageviews may not quite reflect their long-term popularity compared to sports on an annual cycle.

As always, the number of views is just one thing to consider, but there are some big mismatches between the numbers of representatives of particular sports and the sport's popularity at the moment. Hopefully it will be useful and refine and improve the list. Gizza (t)(c) 01:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Here's another bunch of pageviews for sports with representatives on L5 but that not captured in the above links here. Gizza (t)(c) 03:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Rugby union: proposed swap

I propose we add Ned Haig. Haig is the founder of rugby sevens (which is a Level 4 article). I propose we drop Sebastian Chabal. Chabal was not one of the very best players of his era, not once earning a World Rugby Player of the Year nomination. Furthermore, of the twelve rugby union figures listed as vital, zero are from the century spanning the 1840s to the 1940s, but six are from the decade 2001–2010, so this swap would also partially cure an apparent case of WP:RECENTISM. CUA 27 (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Added to businessmen. GuzzyG (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Just cut a load of sports and comment on an "other" section

I've cut down, figure skating, martial arts and niche sports down to quota. i do not know where to start in individual sports. I do wish still that we kept the sports quota at 700 instead of 650. Since this list has appeared to have died, i will take up the reigns again and start adding some more. We really need a "other" section too for models, radio figures, stunt performers, chefs and other people that do not fit into the level 4 layout. Also because we've accepted 3 eSports figure, i think one (or more) internet personality PewDiePie and two (or more) reality television personalities Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton should be added. It's inarguable that both professions are gonna be seen as dominant forms of entertainment and pop culture in the first quarter of the 21st century (maybe half or all of it too), so we may aswell represent the forms by including the most dominant (by a margin) representatives. Baseball is also above quota by three, i do not even know where to start so if someone who is knowledgeable on baseball would cut three, that'd be good. Also, how are we gonna handle band members? How do we decide who gets listed outside of their group? GuzzyG (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
You're doing a good job to the sports, I would add Wimbledon and the other Grand Slams, they wouldn't be out of place if suggested at lev 4, but they're definitely worthy enough for here.  Carlwev  14:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that, i'm trying to get a majority of sports with a league listed and atleast two teams from each major sport (ones with the most championships is my criteria) and atleast one major championship/event if possible. I have added the tennis grand slams and the golf ones too, as they are pretty much the major individual sports. GuzzyG (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

User:J947/sandbox/3

Can some people help with the converting process? Link on section header. J947 (contribs · mail) 21:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it's way too early to initiate a formal voting procedure. We need people to just add articles to the list that they believe merit inclusion in the Level 5 list. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm thinking more of sorting quota/general discussions by category (e. g. the eSports discussions belong under People→Sportspeople). J947 (contribs · mail) 22:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Why not just vote for quotas (which i agree, unlike free for all level 4, level 5 should have strict quotas for each thing to make sure as much as possible is represented) on the talk pages of the sub pages themselves? GuzzyG (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Ulysses Grant

...is currently listed as both a politician AND a general. pbp 22:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

i'd say on this list it's better to remove the general one and have all the presidents together. GuzzyG (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Ulysses Grant is already a lvl 4 vital article. Someone added him here as lvl 5 aswell fyi. 130.237.148.223 (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Arts and quotas

I've created the final page, on "Arts". I expect this may fill up almost as quickly as the sports section. Do we want to add explicit per-section quotas?

We have 3350 allocated, a first pass (multiplying all the top-level quotas by 5, and guesstimating the large second-level groups):

  • Architecture (300)
    • Specific buildings / wonders of the world (200)
  • Cultural venues (150)
    • Museums (120)
  • Literature (1000)
    • Non-fiction (250)
    • Fiction (500)
    • Poetry (150)
  • Music (750)
    • Musical Works (400)
  • Performing arts (200)
  • Visual arts (500)
    • Specific works (300)
  • Modern visual arts (300)
    • Specific films (200)
  • Fictional characters (150)

Any thoughts? power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Critics and scholars

I noticed that currently folklorists and other cultural scholars are listed with critics in the writers and journalists section. I feel that only critics, who are also journalists, should be listed in that section, and the rest should be listed with other academic scholars like historians. What do you think? Makkool (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

yeah, go ahead and add them. GuzzyG (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

WHO Model List of Essential Medicines

The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines has a large number of medications. I think that all of them are probably notable at this level. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Tyrian purple

Would Tyrian purple be better classified as a color (under Everyday life), or a dye (under Technology)? power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm doubting that it's even vital. J947 (c), at 03:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Clearly a dye then. There are only a few historical dyes that were widely used, I suspect they'll all be vital on a list of this size. As far as colors go, I assume we want about 30 colors? power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Tools and machines in agriculture

Should Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Tools and machines (21) be listed under Agriculture, or instead under Machinery and tools? I noticed the duplication of Combine harvester. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

20% done

We have crossed the 18000 article mark, 8000/40000 additions are made. A few sections (Animals, at first glance) have a lot of obvious additions remaining. I still wonder how we're ever going to reach 50k articles. Even with canvassing relevant WikiProjects it seems a gargantuan endeavor. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

  • A good way forward could be taking help of bits to update counts and quality labels while allowing humans to focus on choosing which articles should be in this list. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I normally only update the lowest level of headers, and fix the top-level counts every month or so. I have a bot which could update the talk-page headers, but I haven't gotten a consensus to run it for the L5 list (and would need to fix the template first, anyhow; it seems generally not worth the effort to do when adding entries). As far as a JS gadget to populate the article quality, I don't know how to get that data (and haven't cared enough to figure out); the option found in "Preferences" under "Gadgets" to Display an assessment of an article's quality in its page header is helpful here to make this faster when doing it manually. power~enwiki (π, ν)
      • I guess running such a bot could be of great help. It would help in getting a word out that there's a thing called level 5 and will help editors of that particular article know that the article is a vital one. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • 20% done in less than 6 months is actually better than I'd thought we'd do. At that same rate we'd be at 50k in about 2 more years. I still see lots of obvious gaps in coverage in numerous places that I will attempt to fill in as time permits. Perhaps it would be helpful to create a "To-do list" of groups of articles that editors have noticed need to be added so that other editors can come back later to add them in. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Court Cases

It seems to me that Brown v. Board of Education is necessary at this level, as are many other court cases. Including it under Law on the Society and social sciences page is the obvious location. However, I'm not quite sure what non-US court cases would be included, or what sources are likely to give the most important court cases from countries other than the United States. I'm also unsure if it's reasonable to keep these in chronological order; for now I will try. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. I think chronological order makes the most sense. Most of the important court cases to list here will obviously be from common law jurisdictions, as those give judges the power to make new law through precedent, as well as those tend to be Anglophone countries. Somerset v Stewart is a British case that should definitely be included. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
If we include them, I would have thought they would go under history, as they are events from history. Specific Wars are in history not included under war; individual earthquakes and storms are listed in history not under natural science, and things like epidemics and recessions are listed in history not in medicine/biology or economics. Specific events or periods nearly always go in history, not with the topic the event touches. I think I might lean that way slightly for events that were significant to changing law, We could discus doing it differently of course, I was just pointing it out.  Carlwev  10:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I think legal cases belong under the Law section rather than the History section because if you look at those articles they aren't really written as history articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

History section subheads

Right now, we have top-level sections of "Prehistory", "Ancient history" (3000BC-500), "Post-classical history" (500-1500), "Early modern history" (1500-1800), and "Modern history" (1800-2018). The dates don't appear to be documented, I've made a best-guess as to the year.

I think that, if we're going to have around 2500 articles in these sections (quota of 3375, but many will be for per-country or per-topic articles) about historical events, we need more top-level headings. At a start, I think "18th century", "19th century", "20th century", and "21st century" should be separate headings. We may need a new section for "historical countries" as well, things like Ottoman Empire don't easily fit in a single century. I'm happy to do the work, but there's enough work I'd like some consensus that it's a good idea first. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

If you think you can organize the section headings better, I encourage you to be bold and just do it. Breaking up modern history into different centuries sounds reasonable to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I've done this for the 19th, 20th, and 21st century. I'm not sure it's useful for the 18th century right now. There are several obvious gaps in coverage now. Also, some of the US Civil War battles should probably be removed (the list of 30 appears to be from the {{American Civil War}} navbox); I suspect 10 articles will be enough. Some would be replaced with slightly higher-level articles such as Sherman's March to the Sea. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I added those the other day. Some of them probably should be removed. Go ahead and use your judgment and remove the ones that you don't think are vital. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Sports figures - Athletics

What is the approach for inclusion into this section? Seems like a real hotch-potch at the moment, including modern pentathletes (who are not part of the sport of athletics) and figures such as Dean Karnazes, who I would say is a figure of very little importance to anyone who isn't an American ultramarathon runner. Would be worth getting a wider audience at WP:WikiProject Athletics for better choices. SFB 21:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd recommend being WP:BOLD about additions/removal/sub-sorting. As long as the section stays under a quota of 50 articles, I don't particularly know or care what additions should be made at this level. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@Power~enwiki: Heheheh. A brutal assessment! SFB 01:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
This list absolutely needs a man and woman from Modern Pentathlon since it's an olympic sport and Dean is THE ultramarathon runner so yes he needs to be on here. There's no other place to put them so "athletics" worked. GuzzyG (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Remove: Napoleon Chagnon

Napoleon Chagnon is not anywhere near the level of vitality of the other social scientists in this list who are all major theoreticians whose texts one would expect to find in introductory textbooks of the field. Chagnon is mostly notable for his notoriety as the enfant terrible of modern anthropology, and his work is known because a majority of cultural anthropologists consider it to be both methodically, empirically and ethically suspect. He really doesn't belong in the list. There are other proponents of the sociobiological school of anthropology who would be a much better fit, for example Marvin Harris. Also why isn't the founder of sociobiology, E. O. Wilson, himself on either this list or the one for biologists?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

support
  1. support as nom ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
oppose
  1. Oppose When you say it like that, being "THE" of a field seems notable to me, especially on a list of this size. Do you think controversy precludes someone of being on a list? This list doesn't only have good people. Just googling "Napoleon Chagnon, whose ethnography Yanomamö: The Fierce People is the best-selling anthropological book of all time" brings you all the sources you need, so yes again for this level he fits perfectly. What's even funnier is our article on him describes his book as "commonly used as a text in university-level introductory anthropology classes" which disproves your nominating statement. GuzzyG (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
No, it does not - having written a text book used in introductory courses and being mentioned in textbooks is not the same thing. And yes, he is notable which is why we have an article on him, but he is not one of the 20 most notable anthropologists of all time. Your argument does not actually compare him to anyone, just says "he looks famous so he needs to be on the list", without knowing who else should be on the list that is nonsense.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Let me repeat that, no matter what you or i think of him personally, or no matter how wrong or controversial his work is, having wrote the best selling book in his field absolutely makes him vital enough for this list. You may find him "nonsense" but that's not relevant to the discussion. GuzzyG (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
discussion
I don't know how to even assess notability here; would h-index be a useful tool at this level? As far as the additions suggested, please just add them; while it would be nice to add the quality ratings as well it's not strictly required. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
No, I think mention in lists of notable practitioners of a given discipline would be best.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

A couple of suggested articles

@GuzzyG: G'day, I found this page following this edit to John Monash: [1]. I'm not sure what the process is to add an article to the vital articles list, but I note that Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Military leaders, revolutionaries, and activists only contains three Australian generals: Cosgrove, Hobbs and Monash. I would argue that Cosgrove and Hobbs (while they were important in their own right) possibly aren't vital articles when compared to Monash. Now, I'm not wanting to remove Cosgrove and Hobbs, as someone obviously felt they were vital, but I would suggest the addition of a couple of others. For instance Thomas Blamey and Harry Chauvel. The good news is that both these articles are FAs. Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: At this stage we take any suggestions, i have added both of them. If you have any more, feel free to add them yourself, until the quota is hit anyone can add whoever they feel like. GuzzyG (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Biography template tag

Ok i have just finished tagging every biography listed here with the appropriate tag, just over 4000. PLEASE add the template, update the count and rate the article quality when you add to the list. GuzzyG (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. It's a complete waste of time to ask editors to add the {{Vital article}} template to articles or to update all the counts when adding articles. I've deliberately refrained from asking to run a bot to populate the templates because I'm not sure it's useful yet. And it's easy to update the top-level counts every month automatically; keeping the individual section-level counts up to date is sufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it's more a complete waste of time removing the double entries caused by the lack of templates on the talk page. How does it not help? They're easy to remove, if things are swapped around. Doing it by hand is better then a bot anyway. Not only was my actions more beneficial, they also brought increased awareness to this halfway abandoned project, which can only help, i have had editors privately express their interest in helping out to me. GuzzyG (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
If you really want to add the templates, I think it's fine. But I haven't been adding the Level 5 templates to the talk pages either. I was assuming we'd get a bot to add them in later. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

World Book entries

The 2018 World Book contains about 50000 entries. A few of these are:

Despite the name, World Book is very much a US-focused encyclopedia. I doubt we will go quite as far into US cities as Decatur, but for insects we might cover these. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Pagerank

I've been running PageRank on the Wikipedia article corpus for a different project. Here are the 30 pages that show up as 25000th on the current list (a few are redirects to more prominent articles):

And at 50000, the next 30:

There are some obvious reasons why these lists will differ from the articles included in this list, but they are a baseline. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Swap 100 of the quota of Business and make an "other" section

With no objection after a week, I'm going to WP:BOLDly do the merge suggested below, and expand the quota at the same time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:42, 13 May 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.

I think business and exploration history is sufficiently covered by the 300 articles currently listed. We do not have a place to list things that do not fit into other sections like chefs, models, hobbyists, winemakers, sex work, socialites, oddity's, radio and podcast hosts - there's plenty other fields that cannot fit but they are not coming to my head, but the gist of my point stands, if 100 is too much then put 50 to an "other" section and 50 to entertainers which has a small amount compared to everything else.

support
  1. support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
oppose
discussion
  • I'd rather expand "Jurists, law enforcement, and criminals" to include an "other" section. 11 subpages is enough. As far as quota goes, I think "politicians" is the best place to steal 100 from, not "business". power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree fully with you on everything, realistically 2,400 politicians is way too much, but it was consensus and some people wanted 2,500 so i just ignored it. GuzzyG (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Thinking about it more, how about we merge "Explorers and businesspeople" (which is also a strange and awkward grouping) with "Jurists, law enforcement, and criminals", rename it "Other" or "Miscellaneous", and increase the total quota from 500 to 600 (removing 100 from politicians). power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, just let me know so i can redo all of the templates when they get merged. GuzzyG (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll make sure to update {{Vital article}} so the subpage names on talk-page templates don't need to be changed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok thanks, make sure to try and get a "other" tag too so that people don't have to be tagged with things that do not fit them. GuzzyG (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Propose adding Chuck Norris to martial arts

Someone just added another martial artist and upped the quota to 7. But reading the rules, I don't think just anyone can up the quota. I did add myself to the Vital Articles WikiProject, although I'm not sure if that is by invitation or if that was okay to do. Anyway, I don't know any of the Asian martial artists so I don't know who to suggest to remove and replace Chuck Norris with. I'm not even aware if he was considered before. He's not just a TV and movie star. He won the Professional Middleweight Karate Champion title 6 times consecutively. He trained with Bruce Lee for two years. He created the martial art Chun Kuk Do. He played Bruce Lee's nemesis in the highly rated movie, "The Way of the Dragon." He made history when he became the first Westerner in Taekwondo to be given the rank of 8th Degree Black Belt Grandmaster. And many more karate accomplishments.

support
  1. support as nom dawnleelynn(talk) 16:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • He's already listed under the entertainers section. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Thank you, I didn't realize. It's hard to keep track of where someone can be in more than one category and I guess we don't want them in more than one. Thank you, I'm still pretty new and finding my way around. I guess he is more notable as an actor than a martial artist. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Replace Count Fleet with Eclipse

The quota in the Horse category was upped by 1 recently to add Count Fleet. He is in lists of best race horses at most highest of No. 5 but in other lists lower down around 15 or so. This category has only thoroughbred race horses, but is not listed as a race horse category. However, the next notable racing horse is actually a British horse named Eclipse (horse). He ranks fourth among leading Thoroughbred racing horses by wins (18). He retired undefeated and from lack of competitors. We also need to consider more than just modern horses. Two of the three foundation Thoroughbreds are in close proximity in his pedigree. Foundation Thoroughbreds He had an abnormally large heart, like Man O' War, Phar Lap, and Secretariat. The Eclipse Awards are American Thoroughbred horse-racing awards named after him. Eclipse's influence on the breed spreads far and wide, and the stallion's male line has become the predominant male line in the breed, representing something in the neighborhood of 95 percent of modern Thoroughbreds.

After Eclipse, any of the three Foundation thoroughbreds would come next. Sires are just as important as race horses: Darley Arabian, Godolphin Arabian, and Byerley Turk. Other horses that should be mentioned should venture out of race horses and pick from horses such as Mister Ed, Trigger (horse), and Jay Trump the American steeplechase horse who won the Maryland Hunt Cup three times and the Grand National in Britian. Picking horses from race horse lists after these aforementioned horses is where arguments usually start over the Triple Crown Winners, Seabiscuit, and other notable horses who have won races in the Triple Crown trifecta. Even if upping the quota were proposed to keep Count Fleet, there are still other race horses that are more notable and more well known than him, such as some of other Triple Crown winners Citation (horse), Kelso (horse), American Pharoah, Seattle Slew, and others. However, it is at this point where some argue the greatest race horse lists. Note this list that shows well-known horses from many different areas List of historical horses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawnleelynn (talk • contribs)

The only section with fixed sub-quotas is the Sports section. For anything else (including individual animals under Animals), it's just a current count, and feel free to add pages without discussion. I'd recommend staying under 20 individual horses for now; there's always time to add more later. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
As Power~enwiki says, there are no fixed quotas. Those numbers are just the current article count so we can try to keep track of the total numbers. Just add them to the list if you think they merit it. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both for making the current rules in level 5 clear to me. I don't want to fill up the talk page with any more unnecessary chatter then. My goal is to be helpful naturally. I take it this means my earlier post on the rodeo category still applies as that is a sport. I will respect the quota in sports. I will update the horse category, it will require a little more thought now first though. Thanks again! dawnleelynn(talk) 21:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I actually went ahead and added your suggestions. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, yes I haven't gotten through all my stuff yet; busy day. dawnleelynn(talk) 21:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I popped by to fix some things. First off, we have 12 US Triple Crown winners, and of them, other than Secretariat, it's really a big argument which ones were greater than others, and it also is an open question as to whether other racehorses were better. So, I tossed a bunch of them, leaving those widely viewed as the top four US racehorses of the 20th century, Man o' War, Secretariat, Citation, and Kelso. (Two were TC winners, two were not). There's a good case for American Pharoah, but he is still living and so wasn't sure how to handle that...(Ditto for Frankel (horse).0 I kept Jay Trump as that's a famous steeplechaser, but if there's one more famous in Europe, I'm open to a swap. I kept Phar Lap and Seabiscuit because they were each very famous in their time (and had movies made about them and so on). I also moved the foundation stallions of the Thoroughbred breed (Darley, Godolphin, and Byerly) to the list, along with Eclipse, who was probably the most famous racehorse in his time. We could truly add 20 racehorses alone, but I think these are not going to be disputed as to their significance (other than maybe Jay Trump). There are some other major horses in other nations I'd like to look at, perhaps Ribot (horse), Black Caviar and/or Makybe Diva (the latter two are also mares, so girl power is good too). There's a case to be made for Native Dancer as well, due to the prepotency of his bloodline in most modern racehorses. But we can also poll folks at WikiProject horse racing for thoughts. Montanabw(talk) 22:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Montanabw Thank you for your assistance. I will poll the Wikiproject and we can update the Horse category with results. I will fix the Vital Article templates in the associated talk page articles with all of these changes too everyone. dawnleelynn(talk) 00:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

None of the individual animals seem to have the V A template added to their talk pages. Are we holding off on that section since it is still so fluid? If not, what is the correct category to add to the template statement in the talk page. For example, it says in the Arabian Horse article's talk page, "Arabian horse has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Science, Biology." For individual animals instead of Science, Biology, we would write what? Thanks! dawnleelynn(talk) 03:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea how or when the VA template gets added... but go for it. I'd say we add Red Rum, maybe instead of Jay Trump, cool as he is. And at least one mare... Black Caviar, Zenyatta, or Makybe Diva. Much as I adore Zenyatta, the international girls should maybe get the nod. (Maybe poll WP Horse racing on the mares) Montanabw(talk) 23:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

What to do when we hit the quota in a section.

So we've only hit the quota in the Sports figures section so far, but we do need to decide what we're going to do when this happens. There are three main options I can think of.

  1. Just keep adding to the section going over the quota and we can trim back later
  2. Allow people to just swap out less vital articles for more vital articles using their own judgment
  3. Begin some type of voting process for adding and removing people from full sections

We really don't know for sure if the quotas we have for each section are the quotas we'll end up with. In fact, I think it's pretty likely we will be adjusting the section quotas as we go along because we will discover that there aren't enough vital articles to fill some sections. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I would say option three but others probably would not, religion and politicians seems likely to be cut, 2.3k people on one thing just seems way too much. Especially when the artists, misc,and entertainers section is crammed.PS i would like to make clear, since this is a Wikipedia project i am trying to make sure each WikiProject has one or a couple representatives and in activism i have added anti activists of things, just for rounder coverage. Just incase anyone is "dumbfounded" at the notability of one of my adds. I'm not just random adding people, i do have a system here. GuzzyG (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
If we do institute a voting process for the filled sections, I'd strongly suggest we drop the 5 vote minimum for the time being since not that many people are really contributing to Level 5 at this time. So that vote counts of 2-1, 3-1, and 4-2 votes would pass. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree. GuzzyG (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Infact regarding quotas i would cut politicians down to 2, 000 and religion down to 500. With the remaining amount i would add 100 to entertainers, military, misc and artists. But we will wait and see how they fill up first. GuzzyG (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made adjustments to the quotas based on your suggestions. I agree that the politicians/leaders section was too big, especially since there is some overlap with the military leaders section. The religious figures section quota seemed too big to me also. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Looks much better. But let's see if anyone disagrees. GuzzyG (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I've been using "politicians" as a slush-fund for quota, but I don't think it should be decreased below 2000 for now. Both "Scientists" and "Writers" might be OK to drop to 1000 if necessary, but those lists are significantly more incomplete than the others so I'd wait on that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I support option #3, with a voting process identical to VA/E. I'm also not sold on the quota change. pbp 01:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
There are certainly some inclusions on the lists that aren't necessarily going to make the final cut. However, at 2500 politicians, I think we'll be including people like (American Senators) William Roth, Warren Magnuson, or W. Lee O'Daniel, who aren't so vital either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
On further examination, if we include all post-1000AD kings of England, France, China, etc., we'll easily get to 2000 without expanding sections such as modern US figures at all. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I doubt we really need to include every obscure monarch from the past 1,000 years. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I still believe atleast one politician from each country is needed, having each country represented on the list is a good goal. GuzzyG (talk) 04:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I hope option 2 can work for a bit longer. If we do need to start voting, perhaps we can have it on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/People? I don't see any non-biography sections hitting quota for at least 6 months. I agree that "5 votes to include minimum" is too strict if we do start voting, I'm not sold on 2-1 but I'd support 2-0, 3-1, or 4-2 being passing votes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Something else we should consider is the possibility that the overall people quota should be higher. At level 1 and 2, 0% of the articles are people. At level 3, 13.2% are people. And at level 4, 20% are people. It's possible that as we go up each level, the percentage of people articles should also increase. So at level 5, maybe 25% or 30% of the overall quota should be allocated to people articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I think this may eventually happen. Not a single non-people section is even at half its quota. I'm not sure where to take quota from, but I can guess (1000 should be enough for Chemistry and Physics). It will be very difficult to ever remove quota from People, so I'd recommend only going to 12k or 12.5k now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I find it highly unlikely that there are 2,500 cities worth listing. I'd probably cut that down to 2,000 or maybe even less. I wonder what the 2,000th and 2,500th most populous city on the planet actually is? Rreagan007 (talk) 06:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah most of the cities 2,000-2,500 on this list I'd have no interest in listing. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I think that at the current rate I'm adding cities, we'll be at about 1200 cities once I finish the countries with no expansion yet. (Brazil, Japan, Pakistan and Turkey all need to double the cities listed at a minimum). We can probably increase another 50% from there with less-important cities (Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Erie, Pennsylvania, Fairbanks, Alaska, or Rapid City, South Dakota as examples from the US). To get to 2500 we might have to go into suburbs/neighborhoods. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Then like I said, 2,000 cities is more than enough for this list. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Overall quota

A separate question is whether we still want the final overall quota to be 50k, or if it's better to have it be 30k or 40k. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

My feeling right now is that 50k is right for the overall number. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
50k is good. I do not mind the potential increase in biographies either, obviously. I must say again i know my additions may seem non-vital but i strongly believe we should have a representative of as much as possible. GuzzyG (talk) 04:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Just try to remember that the purpose of this list is to create a list of articles which are the most vital for the English Wikipedia to have a high-quality article on. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
That's what i am doing, i think a modern encyclopedia should absolutely be diverse in what it covers. An encyclopedia thirty years ago wouldn't cover something like Poker but we CAN and while they may seem non-vital in the grand scheme of things if an encyclopedia was to cover Poker Doyle Brunson and Stu Ungar are the most vital. I list the most vital people from a variety of things. I've been at this before this list exists. I have an excel sheet with thousands of people listed in various fields that i have been working on for 2 years now, for a project of mine, i just use wikipedia data like the amount of edits/pageviews/wikidata languages etc for apart of it, so i can put together a decent-ish list. I also think the majority of WikiProjects should have a representative as they are apart of this site and it's important that each project has atleast one FA. GuzzyG (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Does this category mean classical or western art music

I'm examining the structure of the lists. Looking at the section Performers (87 articles), it appears these are classical musicians? Is that accurate and or deliberate? Should it be labeled?Jacqke (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Composers and performers were originally under classical musicians, i do not know when it was changed though. GuzzyG (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok that helps. I'm not really thinking of adding more at this point, but wanted to be sure I understood the system. I do have a question now about the instrument makers. I am taking interest here as a member of the musical instruments WikiProject (that is to say it is one of my regular interests). It seems both limited in who it currently covers, but could easily get out of hand. I understand the section should probably be small. The bigger question is how to balance it. Wider spread of instrument types made? Only orchestral instruments, or should electric guitar luthiers be represented? Right now no inventors of instruments like trumpets or trombones. I'd like to put some thought into good candidates but feel there needs to be an idea of size and desired scope to filter candidates through. My 2 cents. Btw, those working this have been doing a great job.Jacqke (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, i have been busy. Maybe 15-20 is a good number to aim around, in my opinion anyway. A wide base would be good, too. Leo Fender, Adolph Rickenbacker, Orville Gibson and maybe Paul Tutmarc are certain. GuzzyG (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Those look like good choices. I'll let you put them in at you leisure. I didn't know about Paul Tutmar. I have been working on the Orville Gibson article, to make his contributions more clear.Jacqke (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent politicians

One of the sections of the FAQ mentions that vital articles try to avoid recentism, but I noticed that Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Politicians and leaders has 52 articles in a "21st century" section. Of course, most of the people in there are still living and still politically active (and some of them, still sitting heads of government). Does level 5 have a more relaxed criteria, or should that whole section be removed? Cambalachero (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Avoiding recentism doesn't mean having no recent biographies, it just means we avoid giving undue weight to more recent articles. There are recent politicians in Level 4, such as Barack Obama, which is perfectly appropriate. And it is appropriate to have some in Level 5. So no, the entire sections should not be removed. But some of the recent politicians such as Mitt Romney, Donald Rumsfeld, John McCain, and Sarah Palin probably don't really belong there. They will probably be removed eventually. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
That was before the level 5 list was made.I In my opinion level 3 is for people that are truly historic, level 4 is for people that are regarded as vital in understanding the respective fields history and level 5 should be for the John McCains and Justin Biebers, current extremely visible members of pop culture. Those types are an important aspect to have a featured article on too, it is absolutely unrealistic to have 10k people without any recent people. Plus i have no doubt people like McCain and Bieber will still be remembered, they're inescapable if you're covering early 21st century American politics or pop music, just give it 50 years after they die and the inevitable legacy build up and Bieber atleast will be on the 2k list. GuzzyG (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
John McCain doesn't really seem any more vital to me than a dozen other Senators I can think of from the last few decades. He's never even been a Senate majority or minority leader. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Long standing senate career, the military career and the presidential candidacy will make his biography live on i think. Mitt Romney is the weakest that you listed, Rumsfeld has being connected to a important war and Palin the first woman on a Republican ticket, i would say that's good enough for this list, for now anyway. GuzzyG (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
30 years from now, most people won't remember who John McCain and Sarah Palin are just like most people today don't remember who Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro are (neither of whom are listed by the way). And Mondale was also a Vice President in addition to being a Senator and Presidential candidate, and Ferraro was the first woman on any major party ticket. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
We are not most people though, we're an encyclopedia and Ferraro should be listed as her contribution is vital to the history of American politics. Most of the people on the 2k list the majority of people wouldn't recognize. GuzzyG (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
It will be easier to tell who should be removed once the list is further developed. It's not entirely clear how many US political figures we'll have when the list is complete. Assuming it's roughly 100 non-Presidents, that's roughly 1 person per 3 years, or 5 "21st-century" figures. John McCain probably is in the top 5 (in addition to his two Presidential runs, there's McCain-Feingold and his recent health-care grandstanding), Palin (and Mitt Romney) probably are not. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I think we may need to set a quota just for American political leaders, and that quota should be between 125 and 150. At that size, we probably want to have all 44 of the men who were President. That leaves between 81 and 106 non-Presidents, probably 15 or so of whom would be from between 1607 and 1815. So, yeah, I guess that DOES amount to one non-President for every three years. pbp 03:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I would support swapping out Palin for Ferraro. pbp 03:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Wild Man Fischer, really?

I don't know anything at all about how vital articles are assigned, but just to point out, User:GuzzyG (who has made a number of changes to this page just recently) with this edit added the vital article level 5 to the article Wild Man Fischer.

Well but I mean Wild Man Fischer is about the most marginal act I can image. Not really a professional musician most of the time, he was a paranoid schizophrenic whose songs got some attention because Frank Zappa was (I guess) amused by how crazy and different it was. It wasn't any good really and certainly didn't sell much. His one album that matters was out of print for many years (it was recently issued on CD, taken from a vinyl record as I suppose the master tapes are long discarded). He did open for some notable acts, but really it was all just a joke novelty act and arguably exploitation of a mentally ill person.

I mean if Fischer is a vital article on any level, then really any artist who has released an album on a major label would also be vital I guess. I'm hands off this one but I just though I'd mention this. Whether or not GuzzyG's other additions might be scrutinized I don't know. Herostratus (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Herostratus First of all, yes i have made a number "of changes" just recently (I have practically added everyone on the list, as i am involved in creating it.). I have been adding the "godfathers" of each genre, and as weird as it is Outsider art and thus Outsider music is one. Now as much as you may find it stupid that means nothing here. We have a quota of 1,150 musicians here and he is in the section "Comedy, novelty, children's and outsider music" where he almost certainly fits, The Wiggles are not artistically superior but they are dominant in their genre and that's what i go on. Feel free to scrutinize my additions though. Instead of having 500 rock acts, it's good to have atleast one from a wide variety of music, atleast i think so. My plan for this list is to completely cover music history (as i have done) rather then have the whole thing be the most popular, current musicians. GuzzyG (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
GuzzyG, I mean I am not familiar with the vital article process. Is there not some nomination procedure where articles are proposed and voted on or at least discussed? One would think there ought to be I would think.
At any rate I'm not saying that Fischer is stupid or whatever. I'm not accusing you or anyone of being stupid. I get your point about outsider art and all. It's a reasonable point but not one I happen to agree with. I think Fischer is just a marginal figure. He's maybe as notable as the Space Lady who doesn't even have an article.
I'm not able to scrutinize your other additions since I'm not familiar with the vital article criteria and process and don't want to learn. I'm just pointing this out to other readers of this page who are familiar with the criteria and process. Many eyes are better than one, is all. If the other people are OK with this, fine, case closed and no insult intended. Herostratus (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
There's no "nomination" procedure, it is assumed that people adding articles will add reasonable ones. My personal preference is to avoid the biography section as long as there are no active disagreements. I'm sure that, in time, some of GuzzyG's additions will be removed, but most of them are good additions. In this specific case, the list will have some "novelty acts" (such as Tiny Tim and Weird Al Jankovic), I'm not sure about this specific entry and until the quota is reached I would prefer not to care. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
power~enwiki To be fair to myself, i clearly do not add people willy nilly here. It's just some happen to be controversial adds due to either people thinking that field/genre of the figure is not vital enough to be listed or the people are controversial figures. I clearly add (like this example) people that are the seminal figure of something, it's just the debate of whether that something needs covering. Personally i believe with 12k people if i was tasked with creating a good, diverse encyclopedia i would cover as much as possible while not withholding truly vital people. I am not just adding my favorite celebrities here, (i do not have any, anyway, but still...). Also remember for the last couple of years i have been working on my own project that's very similar to this list so i already have knowledge of various fields, so it might seem like i am spamming when i am not. GuzzyG (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree that your contributions are generally good, I'd guess that at least 90% of your additions of people I haven't heard of are good additions (and I've heard of at least 75% of your additions). Due to the sheer volume of pages, there are still quite a few questionable ones; they can either be ignored or discussed here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I can vouch for Guzzy as I have seen many on target additions to categories I am well versed in. dawnleelynn(talk) 03:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Remove Homo rhodesiensis

Since it is a taxonomic synonym of Homo heidelbergensis, it should not be a separate article to begin with, and certainly not listed here. There is an infinite number of better contenders. FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Add Science (journal), remove Thrasher (magazine)

See also: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences § Magazines (32 articles)

If Nature is there, so should Science be. Thrasher is nowhere near anything that influenced society at large. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

We are 3000 under quota in that section. Just add science. GuzzyG (talk) 05:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Alright, if we're that short, I added a slew of high-importance academic journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Creationism et al.

I think Creation–evolution controversy, Creationism and Intelligent design are significant enough to include at least at level 5, but I'm not sure where exactly to put them. I'm considering Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Philosophy_and_religion#Other_religions_(40_articles). Thoughts? --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd probably stick Creation–evolution controversy under Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Society_and_social_sciences#Issues_(29_articles) and the other 2 under Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Philosophy_and_religion#Beliefs_(20_articles). Rreagan007 (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Quota change proposal

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.

Based on the above discussion, there seems to be support for adding more quota to biographies, here is an initial proposal to move 1000 of "Geography" quota and 1000 of other quotas to "People". To be pedantic, this requires a 2/3 majority, minimum 5 votes in favor, and minimum 7 days of discussion. I'll call it "no consensus" if we don't reach that in 60 days.

Specific proposed changes:

  • People: 10000 -> 12000
    • Writers: 1200 -> 1500
    • Artists: 1400 -> 1750
    • Entertainers: 1000 -> 1500
    • Social Scientists: 800 -> 1000
    • Politicians: 2000 -> 2500
    • Miscellaneous: 600 -> 750
  • Geography: 6000 -> 5000
    • Physical Geography: 2000 -> 1750
    • Countries and Subdivisions: 1500 -> 1250
    • Cities: 2500 -> 2000
  • Arts: 3375 -> 3300
  • Animals: 3000 -> 2700
  • Astronomy: 1075 -> 1000
  • Chemistry: 1350 -> 1200
  • Physics: 1350 -> 1200
  • Technology: 3750 -> 3500

I've deliberately refrained from adding more sports quota; I think that a period of scarcity will bring clarity to that field. If we want to increase it to 1000, someone else can propose it separately. Any other minor changes are welcome before there are too many votes.

Support
  1. Support as proposer power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support. This makes a lot of sense to me. The people quota definitely needs a boost, and the places we're taking quota from still seem to have adequate quota left over. My one gripe is that I don't think the politicians section really needs to be 2,500, but we can always adjust that later if need be. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. I too think that 2, 500 politicians is stretching it. I do think sports should be increased too, as it's the only subpage not to be increased during both of the recent increases. GuzzyG (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support. Makes a lot of sense considering the topics readers tend to read. Re: politicians, would something like 2200 be appropriate? feminist (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support BTW, Level 4 should have under 500 politicians (504 is slightly too much). --Thi (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Support except decreasing Animal quota dawnleelynn(talk) 16:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  • The current vote is 3 in favor with no opposes. We are already at or near quota in multiple categories, so I'm going to go ahead and increase the quotas in anticipation of this passing. If for some reason this doesn't pass, I will revert it later, but it seems rather urgent to increase the quotas now. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @DaGizza, Thi, Feminist, Maunus, Carlwev, Purplebackpack89, Emir of Wikipedia, and J947: to hopefully get a wider consensus regarding this change. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Four people have shown support for this proposal and nobody has brought up any objections. This meets Wikipedia's general consensus standard. A minimum of 5 votes is not required for something like this, nor is a minimum time period. That is only a local convention we use for adding and removing articles on the other levels. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
        • I would much rather canvas a few more votes here than have to defend my argument about quorum here. This doesn't appear to be controversial, so I have no qualms with your making the change while discussion continues. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
          • That's fine, and you'll notice that I didn't close this discussion. But my point is that even if nobody else comments on this proposal, it still meets Wikipedia's general consensus standards as it currently stands. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Present: pbp 05:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Per some of the comments above, I have boldly changed the politicians quota to 2,300 and the sports figures quota to 1,000. If someone disagrees with this change they can revert and we can discuss it further here. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I guess I'm neutral on this proposal. On the one hand, it is expected that the percentage of biographies will go up as the number of articles in an encyclopedia increases. On the other, I feel like this is partially being done because biographies are an easier section to fill than the other sections which require a greater level of expertise. I agree with Thi on 500 politicians at Level 4 being enough. In terms of each specific proposal, I'm least comfortable with entertainers jumping up so much. Having more entertainers than chemistry or physics, hmmm... Gizza (t)(c) 22:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I'd prefer making a cut to Basics and Measurement instead of the main sciences. Units of measurement is not an area that needs much expanding. Gizza (t)(c) 22:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral I think the idea of increasing the biography quotas is good but I am not sure if the specific changes for every category are the best. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move jurists to social scientists

Law and jurisprudence are considered social science. It makes no sense not to have them listed there, it'd be weird for an encyclopedia to misplace what it covers, as much as it is easier to list law, crime and law enforcement together our priority should be on being accurate. The template would have to be changed too, which can be requested along with a "other" section.

support
  1. support as nom GuzzyG (talk) 11:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
oppose
discussion

I'm not sure. While they could be moved to social sciences section, it also makes sense having them together with the law enforcement and criminals sections. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding politicians

Since we're the English Wikipedia and 2,300 politicians is still alot, what does everyone think about having all of the major politicians of the 5 predominantly english speaking countries (US, UK, Aus, NZ and Canada?), on the list? Every US president, UK PM, Aus PM, NZ PM and Canada PM is only 190 articles all up, it's not that unreasonable and i think they are the most vital articles for a English encyclopedia to have featured. We have every president and the majority of the UK/English monarchs anyway so the prime ministers would not hurt. IF we have 100 non president American politicians because we're the English Wiki then having the other English countries PMs is not that bad. PS if someone ignores the quota and we go over the limit, a revert would be the normal course of action with a comment to go and start a discussion, right?

I have no opinion on entertainment, but with regard to politicians, it seems to me that regardless of what language is spoken in a country the people who are considered to be the "founders of the nation" should all be included in an encyclopedia of international scope. I do not know if all of these List of national founders are already on the list, nor if this list is comprehensive, but perhaps it will be a helpful guide. SusunW (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I have prepared people and lists that i am going through and yes that is one. Just takes time to go through each list. I am trying to be diverse here, i do think every country should have a politician, just like i have tried to include one of every sport, artform and each type of entertainer and activists etc. GuzzyG (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Another question, what does everyone think about adding screenwriters/show creators to writers? seems odd to list writers in with filmmakers. GuzzyG (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Support Makkool (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Comment India, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Ireland should be included at least as comprehensively as New Zealand. Regarding screenwriters, there's something to be said for listing everyone involved in the TV/film industry on the same page, but I don't think it will work. At some point, the line becomes blurred, Henrik Ibsen will be listed under writers, so should Lin-Manuel Miranda? And then why not Charlie Kaufman? power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
India and Pakistan aren't really what I consider to be English-speaking countries. Only a small percentage of their populations actually speak English. Even in Nigeria only about 1/3 of the population speaks any English. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
South Africa would be the other, still that's not alot considering 2,300. Alright, bad idea, i agree with you. Better to have everyone to do with film/tv in the one spot. GuzzyG (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support US, India and British monarchs, definitely oppose Australia and New Zealand, neutral on UK PMs: Gotta be honest, I have a major mental block of thinking of Andrew Boner Law as vital. pbp 05:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Palm Springs

Why is Palm Springs a level-5 vital article? This might seem like a dumb question, but the city only has a population of around 45,000. Howpper (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying whether or not it should be listed, but population isn't the only factor in determining which cities should be listed. Associated articles like Palm Springs in popular culture, List of films and TV series set in Palm Springs, California, and List of films shot in Palm Springs, California do demonstrate that the city is very notable despite its relatively small population. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
It mostly demonstrates it's easy to shoot films in, not that it's of vital importance. And I'm really not sure that the US deserves 120 cities there. That could easily be cut down to 100 articles without much loss. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
With a 2,000 cities quota, the U.S. should probably have about 200 cities listed. This list is supposed to be tailored to the English Wikipedia after all, and cities located in English-speaking countries are going to be inherently more vital. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm somewhere in the middle here; my guess is that the US will have about 160 cities on the final list. If we were to allocate quota by population, with 5% of the world's population, the US would have 100 cities out of 2000. The actual number will be higher; neither China nor India will have 300+ cities listed as their populations would suggest. As far as the current list is concerned, a few state capitals (Frankfort, Kentucky) probably aren't needed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
All state capitals should be listed since they're all vital to Wikipedia and are all classed as High Importance on Wikiproject Cities. Howpper (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I definitely think all U.S. state capitals should be listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it's reasonable that, if there are 120-200 American cities on the list, that one of them be from Southern California's Inland Empire, home to 4.5 million people. Your choice of Riverside (the largest), Palm Springs (the city of most renown), or San Bernardino. My number of American cities would probably be 125-150, and I'm not particularly gung=ho about 33-40% being eaten up by capitals when those capitals include Frankfort, Montpelier and Pierre. pbp 05:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
    • The state capitals and the largest city in each state should absolutely be listed, with around 175-200 U.S. cities total listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

FAR too many American Civil War battles

No other war has that many battles listed, not even the world wars. Needs to be cut WAY down. Someone with knowledge on the subject please reevaluate which ones deserve to stay. --Vamanospests (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I commented earlier that we should reduce the 30 battles listed to 10. I'll try to do so, but I'm not an expert, and probably haven't studied the Civil War since middle school. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I've got an American history degree, so I'll take a stab:

  1. Gettysburg
  2. Antietam
  3. Vicksburg
  4. Fort Sumter
  5. Petersburg
  6. Sherman's March to the Sea
  7. Shiloh
  8. Hampton Roads (first battle of the ironclad age)

After this, it gets kinda fuzzy. My personal feelings would be Chancellorsville (Lee's big Pyrrhic victory) and 1st Bull Run. BTW, we need to pare down American military people as well; we've got relatively minor names like John Pope that don't belong on a list even of this size. pbp 15:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I would disagree, both world wars and the American civil war biographies section would be expected to be over represented on an English encyclopedia with this scope, or it'd be filled with articles like Ferdinand of Bavaria GuzzyG (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. This list by its nature of being tailored to the English-language Wikipedia is going to obviously include a disproportionate number of military people from the English-speaking countries, and the U.S. being the largest and having one of the most extensive Civil Wars will obviously be quite extensive. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
In theory, you're right, but I firmly believe that 55 happens to be too disproportionate, especially considering there's no more room in the military leaders section.Vamanospests (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm with Vamanospests on this one. @Vamanospests:, could you identify 10 American military leaders you consider appropriate for removal? Or would you prefer I did? pbp 16:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I could confidently eliminate that many. After a preliminary glance at the articles on the list I would personally nominate Bergdahl, Bucklew, Reckord, Tillman, and Travis for removal. Vamanospests (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Vamanospests: The first four I've swapped out for some glaring omissions, and more I've nominated for removal below. pbp 14:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Latin America and the Caribbean

What is the criteria for inclusion of people on this list? I see very few critical articles listed for the region, including omitting Nobel Prize winners? Simón Bolívar, Aime Cesaire, Juana Inés de la Cruz, Paulo Freire, Marcus Garvey, Roberto Gómez Bolaños, C. L. R. James, Audre Lorde, Rigoberta Menchú, Derek Walcott, Eric Williams are all pivotal figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SusunW (talk • contribs)

  • Several of those people are listed; perhaps you're looking in the wrong section. For example, Bolivar is on "Politicians and leaders", not "Military leaders, revolutionaries, and activists". The writers section is significantly under-developed compared to other biographical sections, please feel free to add missing names. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The standard is which articles are most important to have a high-quality article on the English Wikipedia. So, for example, the 800 people listed under the sports figures section should be the 800 most important sports biography articles for which the English-language Wikipedia should have a high-quality article. It is obviously important for the English Wikipedia to have broad coverage, but by its nature this list will have an English language bias to it. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure that one can compare the importance of say Simón Bolivar or Marcus Garvey and *any* sports participant. While there may be figures of entertainment who are relevant to world history, those by the very nature of their fields have far less impact than those that led to shaping the world whether that be by their deeds or the movements that developed from their thoughts, regardless of the language they spoke. SusunW (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Mauna Kea

I think Mauna Kea should be listed as vital in the mountains section. What do you guys think? Howpper (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I added that mountain before seeing this comment. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Australian writers

Writers like Louisa Lawson are notable in Australian literature, all because the widely inadequate WikiProject rating system lists her as "low importance" means squat, most likely as drive-by wikiproject tagging by bots and editors based on the categories the biographies in. Such wholesale removals based on such criteria are not good in my opinion, especially when modern writers as a whole is way over bloated. Especially when modern US writers are way over 200, we shouldn't cut from the least covered section, at least not straight away. I mean Mary Gilmore is on Australian bank notes, yet she was removed..... GuzzyG (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Modern Writers

As Guzzy pointed out, some of the modern writers categories are bloated, mainly the US writers and perhaps a bit of the UK and Ireland writers categories too. I added several writers over the previous few days and now some, I think, could be removed. I was an aspiring writer and poet in my youth, so naturally I read everything I could get my hands on. My initial attempt was to fill in the missing holes with any must haves. But after that I did get a bit carried away with trying to add some diversity, like children's writers, some more sci-fi, best-sellers in terms of how many millions sold, one-hit wonders (authors who are known for only one book and maybe the book is better known than they are, etc. So I'm counting on you to let me know if the following suggestions make sense. I also added some books to early modern, but those do not need ferreting out so I am not including them here. There are only five anyway. So, I'll give it several days before I say the list is final and make the removals. Today June 1, 2018, so the list will be final on Tuesday, June 3, and then remove the articles on June 4, 2018. Thanks for any feedback anyone has. It's no big deal. The list will be here so that the removals could always be added back at a later date. dawnleelynn(talk) 23:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC) Ok, so this motion is put down because the quotas are going up, and I did not understand how much, I thought we really needed much more room for the early modern writers to balance them out. Thanks anyway. dawnleelynn(talk) 18:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

First of all, these are the writers that I believe everyone would say yes, these needed to be added; they absolutely belong in this list:
American

Canadian

English


Okay, these are the ones that are on the bubble, I'm uncertain whether to keep them. If anyone feels they belong, write keep next them with your signature. If no comments are added to the writer, I will remove them.


These I plan to remove unless someone feels strongly about them.


Discuss

Among the bubble and suggested removals, I'd like to speak in favor of keeping Millay, Burnett and Tan pbp 02:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Before we start removing writers, we should discuss the quota for writers. The section they are in is still under quota, but I see that there has been a sub-quota of 1,000 writers and 500 journalists added. Do we really need that many journalists? I would think 400 journalists is more than enough, which means there's currently room for 1,100 writers. I also have a feeling that eventually the people quotas may get another bump. I could see the overall people quota going as high as 15,000, which would be 30% of Level 5 articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I can see another bump too, 15k would be a good nice number, the only reason it wasn't that high at the start is people thought it'd take forever to fill. That's why i wanted to wait before we removed any military people or writers because the limit could go up and then they'd just go back on. Limits like 2,125 for philosophy and religion and 3,500 for technology still seem a bit too high. Regarding this proposal i'd be in favor of keeping them on the list for now. GuzzyG (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I'll update all of the article totals this weekend so we can see where we stand and we can reassess the quotas. Until then, let's hold off on removing articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I was really under the impression that it would take a lot of spaces to balance out the number of early modern writers and modern writers, which is another reason I suggested it, trying to open up space to add early modern writers. However, I forgot to add that to my description. And I really did feel like I pushing some writers in there, but then maybe we have our ideas of just how notable an author slightly different at times. I was surprised to see someone want to save Tan and Burnett, so in fact they are more notable than I thought. I should leave the rest up to others too by leaving them in the list, especially as you both point out, the quota is going up. Guzzy did say that earlier, but I just had added so many. Anyway, I have only been involved in this project a short time, so I must trust others that have been here longer and know the system better. Thank you. dawnleelynn(talk) 18:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd say you can go right ahead and remove Masters and Johnson regardless of votes or quotas, they're both already represented in the Sexologist section of Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists.--Vamanospests (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Vamanospests Thanks, I will do that now. It makes more sense for them to be over there anyway. I couldn't even come up with a summary of why I picked them for writers. dawnleelynn(talk) 18:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Move Vitamins from Health and Fitness to Biochemistry?

Not necessary by any means, but just a thought. Makes a lot of sense to me, how about you guys? --Vamanospests (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. I'd probably expect vitamins to be under health and fitness along with nutrition. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Quota adjustments

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.

So here's my suggestion for adjusting the quotas. I think it makes a lot of sense to boost the people quota to 15,000 or 30% of Level 5 articles. Level 1 & 2 have no people, Level 3 has 133 or 13.3% people, Level 4 has 2,000 or 20% people. 13.3% to 20% is about a 150% increase, and 20% to 30% is a 150% increase.


List No. Section June 2, 2018 New target Current target
1 People 10,172 15,000 12,000
1.1    Writers and journalists 1,385 2,000 1,500
1.2    Artists, musicians, and composers 1,792 2,300 1,750
1.3    Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters 1,501 2,100 1,500
1.4    Philosophers, historians, and social scientists 912 1,300 1,000
1.5    Religious figures 289 500 500
1.6    Politicians and leaders 1,335 2,300 2,300
1.7    Military leaders, revolutionaries, and activists 624 1,000 600
1.8    Scientists, inventors, and mathematicians 564 1,100 1,100
1.9    Sports figures 1,000 1,200 1,000
1.10    Miscellaneous 770 1,200 750
2 History 1,560 3,300 3,375
3 Geography 2,688 5,000 5,000
3.1    Physical geography 686 1,700 1,750
3.2    Countries and subdivisions 780 1,300 1,250
3.3    Cities 1,222 2,000 2,000
4 Arts 1,794 3,300 3,300
5 Philosophy and religion 734 1,400 2,125
6 Everyday life 1,269 2,500 2,500
7 Society and social sciences 1,943 4,000 4,500
8 Biological and health sciences 1,906 6,400 7,100
8.1    Biology, biochemistry, anatomy, and physiology 489 1,600 1,650
8.2    Animals 733 2,400 2,700
8.3    Plants, fungi, and other organisms 337 1,200 1,500
8.4    Health, medicine, and disease 347 1,200 1,250
9 Physical sciences 2,216 5,000 5,100
9.1    Basics and measurement 159 400 400
9.2    Astronomy 418 1,000 1,000
9.3    Chemistry 326 1,200 1,200
9.4    Earth science 442 1,200 1,300
9.5    Physics 871 1,200 1,200
10 Technology 1,366 3,000 3,500
11 Mathematics 448 1,100 1,500
Total 26,096 50,000 50,000
Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --dawnleelynn(talk) 18:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC) It does look like we really need them in a lot of areas.
  3. Support Per nom. Some might criticize the hard science numbers not going up but i think it's appropriate how it is. Once you get past the originators of methods, nobel winners and name recognizable scientists the vitality drops off quick compared to writers, entertainers, musicians, artists , sports etc where it's more spread out over multiple sub genres etc. Like if you have 600 actors vs 600 physicists the article interest will stay strong for 600 actors but after about 400 physicists it's going to be like 100 views a month and at best, five sentence coverage in the Britannica. GuzzyG (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support. feminist (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Could we add a column for what the old quota was, in addition to the current number of articles? pbp 14:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Now that I look at it, I think we're really hosing religion. As a whole, bios will have 7.5x the number of articles they have in VA/4. But religion will only have 3.64x the number of articles as VA/4 (there are currently 137 religious figures at VA/4); on average, the other bio categories increase twice as much in size as religion does. pbp 16:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
This is partly because the various Biblical figures are almost all listed at L4, and there's no motivation to have endless lists of popes, televangelists, gurus, etc. at this level. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
If every President or UK prime minister is vital at Lv 5, I'd posit that certainly 20-30% of popes are as either religious figures or political ones (that translates to 50-75 popes, FWIW). And there's a surprising number of biblical figures that aren't listed at L4. For example, L4 has Mary but not Joseph, only three of the 12 disciples, and at most one of the Gospel preachers. pbp 19:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Religious figures are kind of like scientists in that there are really important ones that need to be listed and then a really big drop off in tertms of vitality as you start going down the list. One big problem I have with listing lots of religious figures is that many of them probably weren't actual historical people, but rather mythological figures. As far as popes go, most of them really aren't all that important. Regardless, the quotas can always be adjusted more later if we find there is a need to do so. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Questions

I was surprised to see on my watchlist in the last couple of days that User:Zingarese had added "vital article template using AWB" to the article talk pages of The Tales of Hoffmann and Aida, articles I watch and have contributed to. I don't understand why these are showing up on my watchlist as I have checked "Hide bot edits from the watchlist" on my "Preferences", I don't want to see bot edits, I find them extremely annoying. I couldn't understand why a bot had apparently decided that these two opera articles were "vital" but looking at this project page I see that some editors have set up a project to label the most "vital" articles. What is the point of this? I mean, are people going to do anything about these "vital" articles, watch them or improve them or something? Or is it just that someone (who?) thinks these articles are really really important and have decided to label them as such? Looking into this mystery a little more, I see that 17 operas out of the more than 10,000 that have ever been written are apparently "vital". No opera prior to 1787 makes it onto this list even though opera began about 1600, no Baroque opera is "vital", too bad Monteverdi, Handel, Rameau, Gluck, you didn't compose anything "vital". This list includes Die Fledermaus which as the opening sentence of the article states, is an operetta, not an opera, and is no more "vital" than Orpheus in the Underworld,The Pirates of Penzance,The Mikado or The Merry Widow. I note that Thaïs (opera) by Massenet is "vital" (jolly good! but why isn't his Manon?) but poor old Richard Strauss's operas Salome (opera),Elektra (opera), and Der Rosenkavalier are not. This is an utterly ludicrous, absurd list. Who has decided this? I also really, really would like to know why La traviata and Tristan und Isolde , for example, are labelled "Level 4" when most of the articles are "Level 5". Is "Level 5" supposed to be more important or higher quality than "Level 4"? Or the other way around? Or maybe it doesn't mean anything? Level 4 ran out of space or something so you had to add a level 5? Very confusing.I see similar issues when it comes to symphonic music, apparently Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev and Shostakovich never wrote any "vital" symphonies. Then today I get another notice on my watchlist User:Zingarese again has added Annals (Tacitus) with a vital article template using AWB. This one also makes it to "Level 5". Well, yes, very important but so is The Jewish War of Josephus, which does not get a "vital" mention at all. I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music,Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome,and Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera, no one asked any of these project members their opinion as to which articles in these areas were "vital", might it not have been a good idea to seek input from editors who might have some idea what they are talking about? These classifications are STUPID. And I want to know why, WHY Mozart, for instance, gets a "level 3" and Handel a "level 4". Does that mean Mozart is less or more "vital" than Handel? Or maybe I shouldn't worry about it because this is all just some silly game being played by people with nothing better to do and the only effect will be to clutter up the top of talk pages with another useless tag that no one will pay any attention to anyway.Smeat75 (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I will immediately follow this reply with a message that addresses all of your concerns, but I will say this: I am not a bot, I am using Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser. Thanks. Zingarese (talk) 06:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Smeat75:, and thank you so much for this message and for your concerns. First of all, I am currently adding the {{vital article}} templates to articles on Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts that are missing them, which applies to several hundreds of articles. wp:Vital articles are 50,000 articles on Wikipedia which cover significant topics and should ultimately all have featured-class articles. I am sorry if my adding of the templates is “extremely annoying” to you; there is nothing I can do about that. You are absolutely right, many great musical works are missing from this list. I came across this list and noticed not a single work by Schubert was on the list! The spectacular thing is that per Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5, the list is not complete (far from it) and everyone is welcome to contribute. I added several works by Schubert and other works to the list, but the other 99.9% of the articles on the list are not my doing. I also agree with you, I also agree that it’s disgusting that works like Handel’s Giulio Cesare, Tchaikovsky’s Sixth Symphony, Shostakovich’s Fifth, Prokofiev’s Fifth, etc... are not on the list. Please help out and contribute to the list! Finally, articles lists in levels 3 and 4 are full, and you must garner consensus to move articles in/out of those levels (for instance, if you believe Handel deserves to be in level 3). Kindest regards, Zingarese (talk) 06:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for new sports quotas

It looks like the quota adjustment is going to pass. Therefore, it's time to start thinking about quota adjustments

Athletes

Sport Is Prop.
Association football 90 110
Basketball 50 60
Baseball 50 55
Cricket 50 60
Ice hockey 40 45
American football 40 40
Tennis 40 50
Golf 30 35
Athletics 70 90
Figure skating 25 30
Boxing 25 30
Other martial arts 45 55
Cycling 15 20
Gymnatistic 18 25
Auto racing 33 40
Swimming 14 20
Rugby 24 30
Other individual sports 160 195
Other team sports 46 55
Ancient sports 5 5

Coaches/Refs/Pioneers/Front Office

Sport Is Prop.
Association football 25 30
Basketball 20 25
Baseball 15 15
Ice hockey 11 13
American football 25 25
Other sports 34 42
Support
  1. pbp 17:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support I support this, i doubt it isn't going to pass so i have updated the quotas already, if it somehow fails we can just revert back to the article's state before my edits. GuzzyG (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#International organizations

Does it have to be just international organizations? I'm thinking of adding stuff like National Rifle Association, National Health Service, and some articles from the User:SethAllen623/Vital articles/Expanded/Organizations list, which I think are notable at this level. feminist (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, from the current name of the section, no, because the NRA is a mere national one, But if the name is changed to "Organizations" then it's okay to include the NRA.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I've changed it to just "Organizations" so that non-international organizations can be added. As I said, I think some of them certainly have a place at Level 5. feminist (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Ten more basketballers

We recently just expanded the sports quota by 200. In my estimation, that means we can add 10 basketball players (BTW, check out my sports quota proposal above). There are currently 50 basketball players on the list. Not sure it's wholly the right 50, but we'll let that pass for the moment. To review the current list includes:

If you want me to parse the NBA players by era, position, primary team, or race, I can do that for you. One of my biggest observations of this list is that it's not particularly kind to the early game: George Mikan is the only player on the list who played professionally before 1954, even though there were 3-4 decades of basketball before then. On the women's side, all five women on the list played in the WNBA, ignoring the first couple decades of women's basketball. Also, I think the next ten needs to include at least two more non-American figures; basketball gets a bigger quota than American football so that non-Americans can be represented.

Here are the ten I propose we add. Of my four categories above, there are 4 American NBA players, 2 foreign men, 2 women (1 foreign, 1 American), and 2 in the fourth category. All are members of the Naismith Hall of Fame except for the first two, both of whom are still playing. All four of the NBA players made the NBA's 50 Greatest Players in 1996/97:

  • Manu Ginobili of Argentina
  • Pau Gasol of Spain
  • Uljana Semjonova of the USSR (the first foreign-born woman in the Naismith Hall of Fame, member of 1st classes of the FIBA Hall of Fame and Women's basketball Hall of Fame, won 2 olympic golds, 3 world champ golds and 10 euro champ golds)
  • Ann Meyers (one of America's greatest pre-WNBA first basketball players)
  • Joe Lapchick (member of the New York Celtics, the best basketball team of the 1920s; arguably the '20s best player, later coached the Knicks to three NBA Finals and St. John's to 4 NIT wins when the NIT still meant something)
  • Nat Clifton (member of the New York Rens, the best all-black team prior to the Globetrotters, and a member of the NBA's first groups)
  • John Havlicek
  • Rick Barry
  • George Gervin
  • Isiah Thomas

Thoughts? pbp 15:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

They all look good to me, i would just add them, regarding the sports quota vote above, i would just update it, i doubt anyone would have a problem with it and it looks good to me, GuzzyG (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd just add them now before someone fills the quota. When the list is finished it'll get a thorough checking if we miss anyone anyway. GuzzyG (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 Done I have some ideas for basketball coaches/contributors, but I'm worried my ideas aren't globalized enough. Two coaches that I think need to be added are Geno Auriemma and Pat Riley. We should probably add a couple more foreign coaches and contributors as well. pbp 16:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The sports section is more prone to recentism than other sections, for reasons that are hopefully obvious; this is why I abstained on the most recent expansions of sports quotas. I don't think that's avoidable; if this list exists in 100 years they can fix it then. That said, I support this (already-implemented) addition. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony)

I noticed that Plymouth Colony was listed but Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony) was not. The fame of the Pilgrims as a group as opposed to the actual colony itself is arguably greater so I think it's worthy of inclusion. I am not sure, however, exactly where to place the article. Should it go in History as a sub-listing under the "Plymouth Colony" article or in People? If People, where exactly? An argument can definitely be made for revolutionaries, but the political and religious figures categories could also be appropriate. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It should go in the History section as a historical group. The people section is for individual people biographies. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The medicine sub-section in the scientist subpage

This sub-section should have the following sub-sub-sections: dentistry, psychiatry and alternative medicine, since this sub-section is becoming larger and larger. If no one dissents in 15 days I'll add them to it.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you just go ahead and boldly add them. If someone objects, then we can discuss it. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Rodeo category

I just wanted to say that the first change I made before I really understood how adding to vital articles worked was adding articles to the Rodeo category. The quota was set at 1 at the time. I increased it to 6 and added 5 more articles. If the committee decides to reduce the quota back to 1 article, the rodeo performer that has dominated rodeo and holds all the records at this time is Trevor Brazile. See Encycylopedia Britannica - Trevor Brazile. Actually a search will produce plenty of results that say the same thing. If, however you want one performer from professional rodeo and one from the Professional Bull Riders, which is one of the fastest growing sports in the United States and reaches half a billion households in 130 territories around the world, then you want J.B. Mauney. The PBR is owned by William Morris Endeavor. See Mauney becomes third rider in history to reach 500 rides. Also see Mauney and Brazile remain ambassadors of Western Sports. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

6 people from rodeo seems like too many, but I don't know that 1 is the right number either. I expect GuzzyG may have an opinion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
3-4 may be ideal. I would not know where to start cutting though, maybe cutting Frost and Murray. Brazile, Mauney and James should probably stay though. GuzzyG (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your responses. Yes, keeping barrel racer Charmayne James would give us one woman in the category, she was just inducted into the ProRodeo Hall of Fame-1 of 2 women who made history as the first women to be inducted in an event category which started with 2017. Keeping Brazile and Mauney is a no-brainer. Keeping Shoulders or Murray is a tough call; but at least one of them would be nice; both roughstock athletes unlike Brazile who is a roping champion. Both have incredible records and notability; it's just a matter of if you want an old school champion or a modern one. Frost is an old school icon; there was a movie made about his life called 8 Seconds and Luke Perry played him. Frost, Shoulders, and Murray are in the ProRodeo Hall of Fame. Brazile is a given for that hall of fame, and he is already in five others, most cowboys usually just aren't in that many while they are still competing. We might want to balance out old school and modern. Include either Shoulders or Frost. I could live with cutting Frost and Murray. There are those who would pick Murray over Brazile, though, just so you know. Murray because he is a roughstock cowboy and co-founder of the PBR. (Roughstock means bareback bronc, saddleback bronc and bull riding). The other side of the arena belongs to the timed events, such as the roping events and barrel racing. Hope this helps! dawnleelynn(talk) 21:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

How about five? I took a look at List_of_ProRodeo_Hall_of_Fame_inductees and my take is that if they aren't in the Hall of Fame, then we need to look at them with a LOT of scrutiny. That said, we should also spread out selections over several events, not just the rough stock riders (broncs and bulls) If any non-HOF member is to be considered, it's probably Brazile; he'll be in the HOF eventually. (So will Mauney, probably but he's less of a name rodeo-wide, IMHO) Charmayne James is a for sure: woman, and barrel racer. We haven't considered Bill Pickett, but he is historically significant for many reasons, including having invented the sport of steer wrestling (called "Bulldogging" in the old days), as well as being a groundbreaking African-American athlete. Of other rodeo riders, either Mahan or Shoulders (both "all around" roughstock riders, so that covers the bronc riders); I lean toward Mahan, personally, but people can compare the two...or add both and make it six (sort of like the Secretariat/Man o'War debate in horse racing). For bull riders, Ty Murray over Mauney due to his HOF placement. So I recommend Bill Pickett, Jim Shoulders or Larry Mahan (preferably both), Charmayne James, Ty Murray, and Trevor Brazile. Montanabw(talk) 23:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I have changed the category and removed Lane Frost and J.B. Mauney after talking things over with montanabw. We got it down to 4 items that way. We will leave it up to the higher ups to mull over her suggestion of also including Bill Pickett. Brazile is a given forr the HoF when he retires. Read his entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica for all you need to know. Murray replaces Mauney well because he can represent both PRCA and PBR. We will leave it up to you regarding Pickett. dawnleelynn(talk) 04:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
GuzzyG I saw this change, so thanks for the addition of Mahan and Pickett. I know these are the two montanabw described as most notable with the others in the list. dawnleelynn(talk) 16:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
dawnleelynn No problem. An extra two should not be bad considering Rodeo does have a long history and Pickett and Mahan represent that. GuzzyG (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
GuzzyG That's good news about including Mauney and Frost. Yes, they are definitely who should come in next. Btw, the PBR just made an announcement today that they created a new award in their Legends and Heroes awards. They had 4 awards, one was named after Jim Shoulders, which goes to show that he is definitely a vital article. Now they created a fifth award named after Ty Murray, which goes to show how highly they value Murray as a legend. Also, there is an article about Mauney that says he will be inducted into the Ring of Honor immediately in his first year of eligibility. It's their hall of fame. dawnleelynn(talk) 23:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
GuzzyG The PBR announced their Heroes and Legends yesterday. It's their version of a hall of fame. The new Ty Murray Top Hand award went to three rodeo cowboys. Two who are no longer active. I think they intend to mostly award those finished with their careers. But they made an exception for Trevor Brazile. The announcement lists many of his records, some I didn't even know of. It's a major deal for Murray too, to have the award named after him. This really cements their status as icons for both men. It might be useful come voting time. You can always let me know if you need any type of press releases at any time though. I haven't seen you around much, I hope all is going well for you! Busy in real life I assume. :) This is just an fyi, no need to respond. dawnleelynn(talk) 03:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_1&oldid=1137397491"