Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia talk:Vital articles‎ | Level/5
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Well very well in topic Magazine removals
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

Remove animation-related articles

Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
PASSED
All removed/moved 3-1 Makkool (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2019 (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 establised some quota suggestions for the film related articles, and noticed that animation is over-represented. I would suggest we remove the following 12 articles: (Character animation, Disney Renaissance, Golden age of American animation, Motion graphics, Cel shading, Clay animation, Cutout animation, Machinima, Motion capture, Adult animation, Animation in the United States during the silent era and Animation studio). It would be better to replace at least some of them with more general film related articles, than to have so many articles listed from only one genre.

I would leave the articles on Computer animation, Stop-motion animation and Traditional animation be, besides Animation and Anime.

Support

  1. Support as nom. Makkool (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Motion graphics and Machinima. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 20:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support too specific. Could be swayed to keep Golden age of American animation and Motion capture. Gizza (t)(c) 22:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Disney Renaissance, Golden age of American animation and Motion capture. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 20:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

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.
PASSED
Enacted, 5-0 pbp 22:16, 21 September 2019 (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.

Spin off sports and games from life?

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

We have subpages for various topics at this level, such as writers and cities. I propose that sports and games get their own subpage. This would require a number of changes, including getting an admin to edit Template:Vital article to handle a sports and games perameter

Support
  1. pbp 14:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. Most combinations of "sports", "games", "recreation" and/or "entertainment" would do as category title. Currently leaning towards "sports and games".--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support as a general principle I support more subpages for Level 5. Smaller lists are easier to manage. Gizza (t)(c) 22:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support --Makkool (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support Tenatively. Although I think that recreation, sport and games are indeed overrepresented at this level, I would love to finally see on this level more general dicussions about selection and methotological processes. Currently we only remove and addrandom articles entry by entry what honestly is not productive when our goal is to list 40 000 articles or 50 000. I would like to see very excatly analyse of current selection by many engaging people and more ideas about selection. Better is made something new (even tenatively bad new subsection) than do nothing. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Pinging @RekishiEJ:, @Dawid2009:, @GuzzyG:, @Power~enwiki:, @Rreagan007:, @Feminist:, @DaGizza:   Done pbp 22:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Move Pantheism from Theistic philosophies to Non-theistic philosophies

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Not really "theistic." Hyperbolick (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2019 (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.
WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn pbp 17:05, 24 November 2019 (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.

Basketball swap: Remove Earl Manigault, add Giannis Antetokounmpo

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Manigault was proposed for removal a year ago and was archived prior to reaching consensus. In his place, I propose adding Giannis, one of a handful of foreign-born players to win an NBA MVP, and I believe the only Greek on the basketball list. pbp 16:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. pbp 16:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I boldly just swapped Manigault for Wataru Misaka who needs to be listed and Manigault is just going to get nitpicked further so i swapped him. Giannis Antetokounmpo i am neutral on either way. GuzzyG (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, Misaka was someone I was considering. I'll just withdraw this. pbp 17:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Happy 2-year anniversary!

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Happy 2-year anniversary to Vital Articles Level 5 and thanks to everyone who has contributed here. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Digital media use and mental health

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

As we have probable emerging consensus to have this article as the main article for the associated articles at Category:Digital media use and mental health, I propose to list this article as a Level 5 vital importance under Society#Issues. This addresses the high impact emerging phenomena, from a global perspective which will become more important as society and scholarship evolves, IMO. --[E.3][chat2][me] 02:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. as nominator --[E.3][chat2][me] 02:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

@E.3: You can just add it to the list yourself; given that we are are so far off 50k. J947 (c), at 03:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, done :) --[E.3][chat2][me] 03:27, 11 August 2019 (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.

About the five Ecuadorian politicians recently removed from the politician subpage

Latest comment: 4 years ago24 comments5 people in discussion
PASSED
All removed, 4-0 pbp 23:37, 6 September 2019 (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.

Yes, in archive 4 no one opposed to remove any of them, however, because all of the proposals were not closed as PASSED, and there were only three supporting votes in each of them, these politicians should still be kept.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

What should happen is that the discussions should have never been bot-archived and should remain open. The bot should only archive closed discussions. Or we could open a new discussion to add them back on, which would likely fail. We're kind of playing bureaucratic games here. pbp 04:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Ecuadorian politicians redux

We currently have a dozen post-1945 politicians from Ecuador, a not-particularly large, non-English speaking country. That strikes me as excessive, especially since five of them never served as President. I am proposing removal of those five pbp 02:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Remove Guillermo Lasso

Support
  1. pbp 02:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Nothing big done. J947 (c), at 03:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  4. Weak support Dawid2009 (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Paco Moncayo

Support
  1. pbp 02:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Nothing big done. J947 (c), at 03:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  4. Weak support Dawid2009 (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Jaime Nebot

Support
  1. pbp 02:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support though almost 20 years as mayor of the second-biggest city is something.
    Forgot sig. I'll place it here now. J947 (c), at 06:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  4. Weak support Dawid2009 (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Álvaro Noboa

Support
  1. pbp 02:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Weak support though from his article it sounds like he is most notable as a businessman. J947 (c), at 03:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Weak support --Thi (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  4. Weak support Dawid2009 (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Gustavo Pareja Cisneros

Support
  1. pbp 02:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Just your average South American political figure, I suppose. J947 (c), at 03:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  4. Weak support Dawid2009 (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
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.

Other politician removals

Latest comment: 4 years ago58 comments11 people in discussion

Remove Torez Kulumbegov

PASSED
Removed, 5-1 Well very well (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2020 (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.

Head of a "state" with little or no recognition, and only for one year. Only two interwiki links

Support
  1. pbp 18:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support, the article is in a sorry state but not vital at this level at any stretch. J947's public account 00:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support --Makkool (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support. No evidence of impact. Just keeping some due to quotas or because they fit a category, even if they had no impact, is wrong. He may be notable, but he is not vital. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose representative of a recognized territory. GuzzyG (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Discussion
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 Joshua Wong to activists

MOVED
moved pbp 04:35, 24 November 2019 (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.

Leader of protests, not of governments. Also, concerned about recentism. pbp 01:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 17:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support --Makkool (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support technical change. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Swap
  1. Swap with Martin Lee and/or Chris Patten if recentism is a concern. Both are probably significant enough for this list, and probably more significant than Joshua Wong (though Wong has arguably attracted more attention internationally). No objection to moving Wong to Activists. If we want a woman, my preference is Anson Chan. feminist (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Joshua Wong is already moved. GuzzyG (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Discussion
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.

Remove Dale Bumpers

PASSED
Removed, 6-1 pbp 23:54, 22 November 2019 (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 don't think this fellow rises to the level of Lv 5. We already have Bill Clinton for Arkansas; Mike Huckabee would probably be a better choice than this fellow pbp 17:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 17:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support maybe as a swap for Huckabee, unsure though. J947's public account 22:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Huckabee sounds like a good option. --Thi (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support not an especially notable senator, even in his own time. Orser67 (talk) 06:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 21:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. Very few senators should be on this list, and I don't think he makes the cut. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose had a long term as a senator --Makkool (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Discussion

Bumpers doesn't rank among the top 20 in longest Senate tenure tho. Also, what did he accomplish? pbp 23:06, 19 September 2019 (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.

Remove Lester Maddox

PASSED
Removed, 5-0 pbp 22:21, 29 November 2019 (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.

George Wallace, Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms represent mid-to-late 20th century American segregationists pbp 17:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 17:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support --Makkool (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support okGuzzyG (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support Hyperbolick (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
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.

Remove William R. King

PASSED
Removed, 5-0 pbp 22:21, 29 November 2019 (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.

Shortest Vice-Presidential tenure ever. Didn't spend a minute of his Vice-Presidency in Washington. pbp 17:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 17:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Weak support —J947's public account 22:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support --Makkool (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Weak support His career was cut short. --Thi (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support okGuzzyG (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
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.

Swap out Peter Hardeman Burnett for a different Californian

PASSED
Removed, 5-0. Nobody added in his place pbp 22:21, 29 November 2019 (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.

Look, I'm a Californian, and I can tell yah right now that somewhere between 95 and 99 percent of Californians don't know who this guy is. He's also not anywhere the most important fella to 19th century California history. We have Sutter, Stanford and Fremont in categories other than politicians. Activist Thomas Starr King, engineer Theodore Judah, or businessmen Charles Crocker, Collis P. Huntington or (from a little later) Henry E. Huntington would be better adds. We might also want to look at having a Latinx Californian, such as Pio Pico, Romualdo Pacheco or, from a later era, Edward Roybal (Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are no Mexican-American politicians on this list, but we do have two Puerto Ricans: AOC and Luis Munoz Marin). Has only 15 interwikis, which is low for an article about an American. pbp 17:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 17:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support as per nom. On a 40k people list I could see a case, but not here. J947's public account 22:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support --Makkool (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support ok, but no swap GuzzyG (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
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.

Remove William IV, Princely count of Henneberg-Schleusingen

PASSED
Removed, 5-0 pbp 01:31, 23 November 2019 (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.

Yes, was Prince for awhile...but of a teeny-tiny principality pbp

Support
  1. pbp 17:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support, the principality he ruled doesn't even have an article (the closest we have is this redirect), only the House of Henneberg. Hardly one of the 15,000 most important people in history. J947's public account 21:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 22:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support --Makkool (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
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.

Remove Friedrich Günther, Prince of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt

PASSED
Removed, 6-0 pbp 01:31, 23 November 2019 (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.

Yes, was Prince for awhile...but of a teeny-tiny principality pbp

Support
  1. pbp 17:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support again if Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt is not vital enough for the history section, there is no way one of many princes of the tiny principality is vital. Gizza (t)(c) 02:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support per Gizza. There may be some scenarios where the leader is more vital than the country via other work (for example, if Einstein accepted the offer to become Prime Minister of Israel), but this isn't one of them. J947's public account 01:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. feminist (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support --Makkool (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
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.

Modern Oceanian politicians

Latest comment: 4 years ago220 comments15 people in discussion

Sixty? That seems excessive. There are only about 40 million people in the entirety of Oceania. We don't need every Prime Minister of Australia; we don't have every Prime Minister of Canada and Canada's G7. And we don't need multiple representatives from small island countries or territorial dependencies. I think 30 would be a better number. I will be proposing removals in the coming days. pbp 23:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree with you. Tried to get Jacinda Ardern and Scott Morrison removed but it seems like people here think they're vital when many more important political figures are not listed. I know that you opposed that proposal but would you reconsider given who isn't on here? Will add proposals as well. J947 (c), at 00:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Ardern was a corner case because she was in international news shortly after you nominated her for removal. pbp 07:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Ah yes, the USA gets hundreds while each pacific country can't get two or each territory get ONE on a list of 2,300. So much for even attempting for diversity. Highly disapointted and not surprised this is done while still 300 under quota.. GuzzyG (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

First removal of probably many... pbp 21:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

PASSED
Removed, 6-0 or 6-1 pbp 14:05, 16 November 2019 (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.

Remove John William Stokes

Dude was essentially sheriff of a small island. Not vital by any stretch of the imagination, even at Lv 5. Not a single interwiki link, not one

Support
  1. pbp 21:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support agree. Also "what links here" including only articles not peoples talk and wiki log pages only 10 other articles link to it, and half of them are list articles. So hardly anyone has mentioned him in regard to influencing other people/events/topics in other articles.  Carlwev  16:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Strong support. Ridiculous that Stokes was added when Christmas Island itself wasn't. Wouldn't make it in a list of 100,000 vital biographies to be honest. Gizza (t)(c) 22:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support. Would only be in a 200k list for representation. Wikidata describes him as a police officer. Wow. J947's public account 23:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support Oceania is overrepresented everywhere. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support --Makkool (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Every territory should be added, as we're a encyclopedia we should cover every population of human, it's not this lists fault i only add to biographies. Doesn't mean a biography should be removed. Just Christmas Island itself added aswell. Saying a population of people are not worthy of being covered or represented in a encyclopedia of 2.3k politicians while we list hundreds of US senators/governors is a joke in of itself. Good luck on the endeavour of calling people unworthy to be documented historically due to low population. GuzzyG (talk) 13:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: First off, please don't treat this as a personal indictment. But this article has a very weak case. It has zero interwiki links, and there's a chance that it might even fail AfD here if nominated. As for covering every population, I could give you a big long list of things that pretty much have to be included if we have a representative of an island of 2,000 people. There are some countries that aren't represented. There are Caribbean possessions larger than Christmas Island that aren't represented. We don't have a representative from every U.S. state, even though most U.S. states have 1,000 times the population of Christmas Island. We have very few big-city mayors; even though there are plenty of cities with 500x the population of Christmas Island. pbp 15:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not treating it as a personal indictment. I just don't know why people are so impatient, always citing "other stuff isn't done" or that the Caribbean possessions being larger just means i have not got around to doing everything, just Asia/Oceania i have done; it takes time. Equating mayors to heads of states/governments based on population is irrelevant as someone from Rhode Island or Chicago is covered by a president. Unique territories are clearly different than a city. You've got everything backwards if you think Tuvalu shouldn't be represented because Chattanooga, Tennessee has a larger population but no mayor. There's just nothing else to say to that. GuzzyG (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2019 (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.

Australians

I'm not sold on having the full set of Australian PMs. We're talking a country of 22 million, that's G20 but not G7. In particular, I think we should explore dropping the Australian PMs with only brief ministries, as well as some of the non-PMs. pbp 17:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Remove Chris Watson

FAILED
Not removed, 3-2-1 Well very well (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2020 (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.

Australian PM for less than a year, and that year was before the Statue of Westminster. pbp 17:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 18:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose "led the world's first Labour Party government, indeed the world's first socialist or social democratic government, at a national level" if someone like this gets removed, than this section is lost. GuzzyG (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Makkool (talk) 11:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Swap
  1. Weak swap with Watson Government as that's the only thing that makes him anywhere near vital and it should cover it to a better extent. I'm not entirely convinced that it is needed but it was the first success of almost half of modern-day politics. J947 (c), at 04:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Discussion
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.

Remove George Reid

PASSED
Removed, 6-0 Well very well (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2020 (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.

Australian PM for a year, and that year was before the Statue of Westminster. pbp 17:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 18:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support ok. GuzzyG (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support as unimportant to Australian politics; has no legacy of importance. J947 (c), at 04:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose
Discussion
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.

Remove Joseph Cook

PASSED
Removed, 6-0 Well very well (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2020 (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.

Australian PM for a year, and that year was before the Statue of Westminster. pbp 17:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 18:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support ok. GuzzyG (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support; no legacy to speak of. J947 (c), at 04:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose
Discussion
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.

Remove Earle Page

PASSED
Removed, 6-0 Well very well (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2020 (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.

Australian PM for less than a year pbp 17:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 18:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support ok. GuzzyG (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support, very tentatively as forming the basis for the Australian Country Party which has been an integral part of Australian politics for quite some time. He was successless though and doesn't really deserve be here too much. J947 (c), at 04:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose
Discussion
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.

Remove Arthur Fadden

PASSED
Removed, 6-0 Well very well (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2020 (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.

Australian PM for less than a year pbp 17:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 18:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support ok. GuzzyG (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support tentatively on a similar base to my above support. More of a coalition player. J947 (c), at 04:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose
Discussion
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.

Remove Frank Forde

PASSED
Removed, 6-0 Well very well (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2020 (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.

Australian PM for less than a year pbp 17:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 18:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support ok. GuzzyG (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support; the equivalent of Lady Jane Grey being listed at VA4. J947 (c), at 04:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose
Discussion
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.

Remove Harold Holt

WITHDRAWN/FAILED
Withdrawn by nom pbp 15:10, 10 September 2019 (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.

Australian PM for just a year pbp 17:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 18:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose out of all of the Australian political leaders proposed here Holt is most famous. He is the JFK of Australian leaders. In charge for a short period of time but is still talked about and covered in detail in the textbooks. Gizza (t)(c) 22:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - stolen too soon by a Japanese sub Spacepine (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Discussion
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.

Weird opinion but could Disappearance of Harold Holt possibly be the vital article here? I don't think so but it may be worth considering. J947's public account 22:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Remove John McEwen

PASSED
Removed, 6-0 Well very well (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2020 (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.

Australian PM for just a year pbp 17:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 18:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support ok. GuzzyG (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support; caretaker for less than a month. J947 (c), at 04:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose
Discussion
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.

Remove Joh Bjelke-Petersen

FAILED
Not removed, 3-4 Well very well (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2020 (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.

Not even a PM, just the governor of a state. pbp 17:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 18:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. With all due respect, if we list politicians here because they are controversial, we will need thousands more entries. And he was not influential or known outside Australia, was he? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose his controversial career makes him a notable Australian politician, although he wasn't PM --Makkool (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose "His uncompromising conservatism (including his role in the downfall of the Whitlam federal government), his political longevity, and his leadership of a government that, in its later years, was revealed to be institutionally corrupt, made him one of the best-known and most controversial political figures of 20th century Australia." --Thi (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose we're not at quota; there's no need, what group of politicians are so important these are an issue? GuzzyG (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  4. Weak oppose; I think politicians even at quota are underrepresented and there's no real pressing need to remove, best to reduce bias by adding to non-western country's sections rather than remove from here I think. Just over the line of vitality I think. J947 (c), at 04:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Discussion
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.

Remove Robert Cosgrove

PASSED
5-0 to remove. ミラP 02:24, 21 November 2019 (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.

Not even a PM, just the governor of a state. pbp 17:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, only one interwiki link. pbp 14:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Support
  1. pbp 18:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support --Makkool (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support, rather tentatively. J947's public account 22:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Would you use this to remove American politicians or is USA the one special country? Is a unique area like Tasmania less vital than Alabama? GuzzyG (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: I proposed some removals of American politicians below, one of whom is an Alabaman. The other Alabaman on this list is George Wallace. George Wallace has an article on 28 other Wikipedias; Cosgrove has only one on the German Wikipedia. As for the vitality of Tasmania vs. Alabama, Alabama has about nine times the population, has articles on 72 more Wikipedias, and has been a state longer. pbp 14:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
By that measure India and China should have the hundreds of modern politicians and the US should be only 25 like the both of them. By population and state longevity making something more vital Ethiopia should have more than France or the United Kingdom. Our Wikipedia language level is irrelevant, or the world's tallest man Robert Wadlow (which got criticized for being on here) is more vital than George Wallace, as Wadlow has 44 to Wallace's 29, or would that be different? Is high school musical actor Corbin Bleu with 216 more vital than a nation state because Tuvalu has only 175? Or do you consider the fact that geographic diversity and complete coverage should be a encyclopedias focus over flashy cherry picked numbers which are obviously going to be dominated by the country with the massive tabloid industry to mass market it's image? Does Tuvalu not count because it doesn't have a TMZ like culture industry to push it's image everywhere? Would the Britannica disqualify countries or unique geographic areas recognition based on low population? GuzzyG (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
A lot of what you're saying is comparing apples and oranges; I think we'd probably all agree that'd we'd have to have different interwiki and viewership floors for ancient leaders than for pop culture topics. But since you brought up Britannica, let me ask this: how many of the people I'm nominating for removal have ever had entries in a paper Britannica? pbp 23:21, 23 September 2019 (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.

Other Oceanians

Remove Albert Henry (politician)

PASSED
5-1 to remove. Well very well (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2020 (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.

Minister of a small territory for only a few years. Fewer than 10 interwikis pbp 17:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 18:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support --Makkool (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Weak support; not just a few years in office, but I think he barely doesn't pass the mark. J947's public account 22:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Still no answer on why countries officially recognized as states don't need a representative, no proper alternatives offered on why we need to removed countries leaders while under quota. GuzzyG (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Discussion

@GuzzyG: Niue and the Cook Islands aren't exactly sovereign states, and what makes Albert Henry significant? pbp 14:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I meant countries recognized by atleast one state Foreign relations of the Cook Islands. I'm not knowledgeable on Cook Islands politics, but he seems to be the more significant unless Geoffrey Henry or Henry Puna are better but he's the founder of the main political party, it's just super important that on a list of 15k, every semi official "country" is covered. I understand stuff like Christmas Island not being covered if you're super stuffy on the word "vital" but never a semi operating country like Niue and the Cook Islands and absolutely will NEVER understand why a officially recognized country like Tuvalu can't be covered. If Emmy Noether gets listed on level 3 because that's whats right and not because shes extremely known/recognized than all countries can get a rep; who are we to decide entire countries are not vital to be covered on a list of 15k people total and 2.3k politicians, at the very least wait until the quota hits and see whats missing. That's how i operate anyway, i get the quotas filled, check whats not listed and cut the fluff; as i've done recently in the arts/musicians, sports, entertainers, religion and misc section. I'm a big believer in the integrity of this list, if there's bad adds they won't last forever, but one rep from each country isn't a bad rep. Also i'm constantly searching for better adds in every section most of the time, the only things i believe in strongly staying are the sections. There's just way too many people that should be listed, we could've easily done 20k people, religion/science/painters/directors/classical music are way too low. I really believe somewhere on the internet there should be a list that covers every field/section of society, i might just make my own 25k people one on Wiki like SethAllen. This thing is a big passion of mine, as you can tell. 15:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)GuzzyG (talk)
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.

Remove David Buffett

PASSED
Removed, 6-0 pbp 13:54, 21 November 2019 (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.

Minister of a tiny island for only a few years. Only 2 interwikis. pbp 17:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 18:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support leaders of islands that aren't listed are never vital. Gizza (t)(c) 23:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support as per Gizza. J947's public account 23:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support. Leader of an island with less than a few thousand people does not cut it. feminist (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support --Makkool (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

This could be a sign that a 15,000 quota for biographies is excessive. Norfolk Island is arguably Australia's most notable semi-autonomous external territory and despite its low population could be vital on that basis. It somewhat regularly makes the news as the people want more freedom and less interference from the Federal government. It still might not make it but either some of the quota for bios should go to geography or the biographies section needs a massive overhaul if articles like this are in there. Gizza (t)(c) 23:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I think we can sustain a quota of 2,000 politicians/leaders, maybe 2,100-2,200, but 2,300 may be pushing it. There are probably leaders from earlier in human history who aren't on yet but merit consideration. pbp 23:25, 9 September 2019 (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.

Remove Manuel Flores Leon Guerrero

PASSED
5-0 to remove. Well very well (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2020 (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.

Carlos Camacho is sufficient to represent Guam. pbp 17:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 18:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support --Makkool (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support ok. GuzzyG (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Unsure who should be included from Guam, whether it's Guerrero, Camacho, or someone else. One and only one should be included, but I don't know who. J947's public account 22:09, 25 September 2019 (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.

Remove Pedro Tenorio

PASSED
4-1 to remove. Well very well (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2020 (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.

Only 4 interwiki links. pbp 17:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 18:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support --Makkool (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support, unconvinced of vitality. His brother (probably his brother, at least) has a much longer article and isn't on this list. J947's public account 22:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose longest serving governor of this territory. short article doesn't matter and diminish that. GuzzyG (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Discussion
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.

Remove Mike Warren (mayor)

PASSED
6-0 to remove. ミラP 02:23, 21 November 2019 (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.

Mayor of an island with a population of less than 100. Only 6 interwiki links. pbp 17:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 18:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support. One of those 65-odd people has to be mayor. The only reason he's even notable is the sexual abuse scandal. J947's public account 23:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Per J947. Gizza (t)(c) 00:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. feminist (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support --Makkool (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
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.

Remove Sitiveni Rabuka

FAILED
Not removed, 1-3 Well very well (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2020 (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.

The least influential of the three Fijian politicians who we have on this list. Only 9 interwiki links pbp 18:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 18:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per DaGizza --Makkool (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, agree with Gizza. J947's public account 21:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, per others. Well very well (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Discussion

I'd remove Frank Bainimarama first. He has ruled for a longer time but it's mostly been business-as-usual/continuing the status quo. The coups led by Rabuka changed Fiji forever and led to mass emigration of the Indo-Fijian ethnic group. Gizza (t)(c) 00:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@DaGizza: Would you mind nominating that below? pbp 00:45, 10 September 2019 (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.

Remove Frank Bainimarama

PASSED
4-1 to remove. Well very well (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2020 (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.

Per above discussion.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 12:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. pbp 01:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Hyperbolick (talk) 03:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support, agree with Gizza. J947's public account 21:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose important as military coup leader. Fiji is a major country in this area, it can have a tiny few. There's space, believe me. GuzzyG (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Anote Tong

PASSED
4-2 to remove. Well very well (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2020 (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.

Ieremia Tabai is enough to represent the tiny nation of Kiribati pbp 18:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 18:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support --Makkool (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose; I think he's more vital than Tabai, at least for impact on the wider world. Has been described as the 'Mahatma Gandhi of the Pacific'. J947's public account 21:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose major activist against climate change considering it has a massive effect on his countryGuzzyG (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Discussion
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.

Remove Amata Kabua

FAILED
Not removed, 1-3 Well very well (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2020 (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.

Hilda Heine is enough to represent the tiny nation of the Marshall Islands pbp 18:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 18:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose the first president of the nation, who served for several terms --Makkool (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose as per others. Heine hasn't been president for nearly long enough, whereas Kabua has. J947's public account 21:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, per others. Well very well (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Discussion

Maybe remove Hilda Heine then? Ruling a country with around 50,000 people for less than 4 years. There would have to be more important women from the Pacific too if that was the basis for her inclusion. Gizza (t)(c) 06:34, 24 September 2019 (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.

Remove Hilda Heine

PASSED
3-2 to remove. Well very well (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2020 (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.

Too short a term for a country that size. —J947's public account 21:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. J947's public account 21:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 21:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose "She is also the first female president of any Micronesian country, and only the fourth woman to serve as head of government for any independent nation in Oceania" GuzzyG (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
    Barely even a first and keeping her just because she was elected with no probable legacy isn't a good argument IMO. J947 (c), at 05:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Other/Discussion
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.

Remove Hammer DeRoburt

FAILED
Not removed, 1-3 Well very well (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2020 (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.

Head of a nation of less than 10,000. That's one-eighth the size of the city I live in. pbp 18:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 18:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose, weakly. I think we should have a representative from 97–98% of countries and his long tenure as president convinces me. J947's public account 22:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per J947 --Makkool (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose "this independent nation and population should not be covered by a modern, diverse encyclopedia because my American city is bigger" is not a reason for removal. GuzzyG (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Discussion
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.

Remove Robert Rex

PASSED
4-1 to remove. Well very well (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2020 (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.

Head of, depending on how you look at, a territory or an unrecognized nation. Only 6 interwiki links. pbp 18:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 18:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support --Makkool (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per all my other opposals, Niue needs a rep. GuzzyG (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Discussion

Neutral, significant premiership but only really significant in the context of the pacific. Unsure when weighing everything up. J947's public account 22:15, 18 September 2019 (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.

Remove Haruo Remeliik

PASSED
5-0 to remove. ミラP 02:20, 21 November 2019 (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.

If we need anyone from the tiny "nation" of Palau, one of the Remengesaus should be sufficient. pbp 18:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 18:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support, agree with nom. We do not need two politicians from Palau anymore than we need 500 from the US. Impact is negligible. J947's public account 22:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support --Makkool (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support there are actually 3 political leaders from Palau. Roman Tmetuchl is in revolutionaries and activities. Ridiculous for a country of 20,000 people which doesn't punch above its weight (unlike say the Vatican) to have 3 political figures. Gizza (t)(c) 12:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
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.

Remove Fatafehi Tuʻipelehake

PASSED
5-0 to remove. Well very well (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2020 (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.

Wasn't monarch of Tonga, just the kid of the monarch. Only 8 interwiki links. pbp 18:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 18:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support --Makkool (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support probably at least 20 Tongans more vital than this guy. Gizza (t)(c) 01:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support ok. GuzzyG (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Prime Minister of Tonga for 25 years, and a royal. Dunno what this really means in Tongan terms though. J947's public account 21:52, 25 September 2019 (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.

Remove George Tupou V

PASSED
Removed, 5-0 pbp 14:42, 21 November 2019 (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.

His dad should be sufficient to represent modern Tonga. pbp 18:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 18:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support --Makkool (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support, probably isn't one of the four/five most influential Tongan leaders. J947's public account 21:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. 6 years of reign on a tiny island. Below vital. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
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.

Remove Toaripi Lauti

PASSED
5-0 to remove. ミラP 02:22, 21 November 2019 (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.

Head of a "nation" of only about 10,000 people and for only 3 years. Only 12 interwiki links. pbp 18:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 18:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support --Makkool (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support, too short a tenure. J947's public account 21:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 21:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
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.

About Chiune Sugihara

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I don't advocate for removing it, but it should be put in the politicians subpage instead since he is widely known as a Japanese diplomat rather than an activist and the English Wikipedia page does not regard him an activist at all.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Since no one objected, I've moved the person from the activist subpage to the politician one.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Remove Grigori Rasputin from list of religious figures

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Grigori Rasputin is very controversial figure. Of course he has to be in list of 50000 and 10000 articles. But he is not religious figure – he held no official position in the Russian Orthodox Church, there are no religious works from him. It is not correct take religious charlatan near other figures which are well known in christianity. --Ibidem (talk) 12:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that he doesn't belong in religious figures. Maybe the miscellaneous section is an option, in subsection paranormal or others. The article describes him as a "society figure", we have a subsection socialite, but the term socialite is tied to aristocratic or from a wealthy background - Rasputin was neither. Maybe we should introduce a section "society figure".
On the other hand, Rasputin was most noted for his political influence, so he might belong on the list of political figures. --Spaced about (talk) 15:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that it is possible to move it in one of that sections. In empty place in the list of religious figures possible add one of this persons (Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow, John of Kronstadt, Luka (Voyno-Yasenetsky)). There are so many prominent people from orthodox christianity persons which are not in list, that it was strange for me to see among them Rasputin, which is for sure not religious figure. Politicial influence charlatan, medium etc. maybe, but not religious figure. --Ibidem (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
He's a mystic and "Mysticism is the practice of religious ecstasies" so no, he belongs in religious figures, just like every other person listed in the category of 20th-century Christian mystics. Anything else is subjective opinion. GuzzyG (talk) 12:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Then move it to others or some new-age from orthodox christianity. Here we have a big mistake (it will be equal if you will take for example Salman Rushdie in Islam, because he is also mystic), which is need to be corrected. --Ibidem (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I moved him to "others". --Spaced about (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Accepted. I`m ready with russian analogue of list Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Religious figures. It will be helpful. Thank you for your work. --Ibidem (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Agree. Religious figure, but not for any orthodoxy. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hip hop adds/removals.

Latest comment: 4 years ago41 comments7 people in discussion

Several well-known rappers aren't on here, yet some obscure ones are. If you want my opinion, wanting seventy notable rappers may be a bit too ambitious. Below are five proposed swaps, although more could be changed. GeographyAholic talk 02:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Add J. Cole

FAILED
Not added, 2-2 Makkool (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2019 (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.

Support
  1. Support GeographyAholic
  2. Support Makkool (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Das EFX and A Tribe Called Quest are more historically important and more acclaimed lyrical/conscious rappers. GuzzyG (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Lil Uzi Vert

FAILED
Not added, 1-3 Makkool (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2019 (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.

Support
  1. Support GeographyAholic
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not before XXXTentacion/Lil Peep who are more influential AND popular in the soundcloud/mumble rap wave. Then there's the pioneers like Chief Keef, Lil Yachty, ASAP Rocky, Future, Bones and Yung Lean all of whom are more important on the genres development and as such have higher historical value. GuzzyG (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Makkool (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Logic

FAILED
Not added, 1-3 Makkool (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2019 (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.

Support
  1. Support GeographyAholic
Oppose
  1. Oppose no, Logic is definitely before alot of current pop rap artists, G-Eazy is more important then him. GuzzyG (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Makkool (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Migos

NO CONSENSUS
Only two votes and no others for almost 6 months Well very well (talk) 06:52, 27 February 2020 (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.

Support
  1. Support GeographyAholic
  2. Support Makkool (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Chance the Rapper

FAILED
Not added, 1-3 Makkool (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2019 (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.

Support
  1. Support GeographyAholic
Oppose
  1. Oppose super recentist. not anymore important then contemporaries like Tyler, the Creator, 2 Chainz, Travis Scott or Young Thug GuzzyG (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Agreed, too recent. feminist (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Makkool (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Boogie Down Productions

FAILED
Not removed, 2-2 Well very well (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2020 (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.

Support
  1. Support GeographyAholic
  2. --Thi (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose highly influential in new york rap. regularly regarded as one of the greatest groups. GuzzyG (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose very influental precursor to gangsta rap Makkool (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Doug E. Fresh

FAILED
Not removed, 2-2 Makkool (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2019 (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.

Support
  1. Support GeographyAholic
  2. --Thi (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose the greatest beatboxer, beatboxing is one of the five elements of hip-hop culture, it should have a representative . GuzzyG (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose perhaps one of the leading beatboxers today Makkool (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove DJ Jazzy Jeff & The Fresh Prince

FAILED
Not removed, 2-2 Makkool (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2019 (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.

Support
  1. Support GeographyAholic
  2. --Thi (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose highly influential in pop rap. regularly regarded as one of the greatest groups. GuzzyG (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose an early popular rap group Makkool (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove The Sugarhill Gang

FAILED
Not removed, 2-2 Makkool (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2019 (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.

Support
  1. Support GeographyAholic
  2. Support Rapper's Delight is listed elsewhere. --Thi (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose highly influential in old school rap. regularly regarded as one of the greatest groups. GuzzyG (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose the first rap group to have a big hit Makkool (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Geto Boys

FAILED
Not removed, 2-2 Makkool (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2019 (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.

Support
  1. Support GeographyAholic
  2. --Thi (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose highly influential in southern rap/horrorcore. regularly regarded as one of the greatest groups. GuzzyG (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose one of the most notable southern rap groups Makkool (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
I can see how Migos or maybe J. Cole can make the list, but these rappers that you're calling "obscure" are rappers that made a significant influence on rap... just the fact that you put The Sugarhill Gang on the delete list is quite surprising, I consider tthe Sugarhill Gang to be the makers of basically the first mainstream hip hop song. All five of these rappers you proposed are popular in the past few years, but we have yet to see their impact on the music scene. (but you could build a case for Migos and/or J. Cole, though it is very early.)Awsomaw (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2019 (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.

Is there any reason why Eastern and Southeastern Asian history are merged in the Early modern section of History level 5?

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

All other sections are separated, and there isn't enough overlap between the two histories in this specific era to justify why they are together. ~ P*h3i (📨) 04:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@P*h3i: Someone thought it was a good idea. Since they don't reply here, feel free to change this, as long as you can provide a good rationale. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Magazine removals

Latest comment: 4 years ago80 comments6 people in discussion

We have too many articles under Journalism and Mass Media. These are some I previously added that I feel are relatively less important, especially in comparison to some of the languages I recently added. feminist (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed there are 96 magazines and only 15 economies and vital economic concepts (which you learn in Economics 101) like externalities missing. The Society and Social Science section is very pop-culture heavy. Gizza (t)(c) 00:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Remove Complex

PASSED
Removed, 4-0 Well very well (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2020 (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.

A magazine that had only been in print for around 15 years, which is more notable for its website and doesn't have much which separates it from other pop culture publications.

Remove
  1. As nominator. feminist (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support --Makkool (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support - Gizza (t)(c) 00:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  4. Per nom Well very well (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Condé Nast Traveler or Travel + Leisure

PASSED
T+L - 3-1, CNT - 4-0 Well very well (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2020 (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.

We don't need two travel/lifestyle magazines targeting the same market. Either one of them, or both, should be removed. Of the two, I'd prefer keeping T+L because of its longer history and slightly higher circulation.

Remove Condé Nast Traveler
  1. As nominator. feminist (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Remove Travel + Leisure
Remove both
  1. Support --Makkool (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support - Gizza (t)(c) 00:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep both
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove DJ Mag, The Source and/or XXL (magazine)

PASSED
Removed, 4-0 about all Well very well (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2020 (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.

Genre-specific music publications that don't have a particularly long history. It's enough for us to keep Rolling Stone and NME.

Remove DJ Mag
Remove The Source
Remove XXL
Remove all
  1. As nominator. feminist (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support --Makkool (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support - Gizza (t)(c) 00:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Other combinations
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove FHM

PASSED
Removed, 4-0 Well very well (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2020 (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.

A men's magazine known mostly for its male gaze, which is not as notable as Playboy or (to a lesser extent) Hustler.

Remove
  1. As nominator. feminist (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support --Makkool (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support - Gizza (t)(c) 00:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Electronic Gaming Monthly or Game Informer

PASSED
Removed, 4-0 and 3-1 Well very well (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2020 (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.

Between these two video gaming magazines, Game Informer has a much higher circulation and has remained continuously in print.

Remove Electronic Gaming Monthly
  1. As nominator. feminist (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Remove Game Informer
Remove both
  1. Support --Makkool (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support - Gizza (t)(c) 00:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep both
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove PC Gamer

FAILED
Not removed, 3-3 Well very well (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2020 (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.

Unlike either Electronic Gaming Monthly or Game Informer, PC Gamer is platform-specific, with a focus on gaming on personal computers. I'm not sure if that makes it more significant or less.

Remove PC Gamer
  1. Support --Makkool (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
    Support feminist (talk) 05:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support - Gizza (t)(c) 00:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep
  1. Any magazine that has international readership and has been the most/2nd most/3rd most widely read of a particular genre should be added and kept. PC Gamer thus should be kept since it has had many country editions and been the most popular PC game magazine in the world.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Good argument from RekishiEJ. I was iffy at first, and this pushes me to "keep". feminist (talk) 16:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Per RekishiEJ Well very well (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove InStyle

PASSED
Removed, 4-0 Well very well (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2020 (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.

Has a much shorter history and had less influence than other women's/fashion magazines on the list.

Remove
  1. As nominator. feminist (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support --Makkool (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support - Gizza (t)(c) 00:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Maxim (magazine)

PASSED
Removed, 4-0 Well very well (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2020 (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.

Has a much shorter history and had less influence than other men's magazines on the list.

Remove
  1. As nominator. feminist (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support --Makkool (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support - Gizza (t)(c) 00:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove MIT Technology Review

PASSED
Removed, 4-0 Well very well (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2020 (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.

Editorially independent from the MIT (thus less important than its name may suggest); redundant to Popular Science, New Scientist, or Wired (magazine).

Remove
  1. As nominator. feminist (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support --Makkool (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support - Gizza (t)(c) 00:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Reason (magazine)

PASSED
Removed, 4-0 Well very well (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2020 (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.

It's enough for us to include National Review for this flavor of political commentary.

Remove
  1. As nominator. feminist (talk) 06:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support --Makkool (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support - Gizza (t)(c) 00:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove The Ring (magazine)

PASSED
Removed, 4-0 Well very well (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2020 (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.

Sports magazine specific to one sport (boxing); it's probably enough for us to keep Sports Illustrated and/or other more general sports magazines.

Remove
  1. As nominator. feminist (talk) 06:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support --Makkool (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support - Gizza (t)(c) 00:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Newsweek or U.S. News & World Report

PASSED
Removed USNWR, 4-0. Not removed Newsweek Well very well (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2020 (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.

Newsweek had a storied history but started fading into irrelevance from 2013. US News is now mostly known for its college rankings than anything else. We should perhaps remove one of them

Remove Newsweek
Remove U.S. News & World Report
  1. Leaning this, as nominator. feminist (talk) 06:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support --Makkool (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support - Gizza (t)(c) 00:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep both
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Teen Vogue

PASSED
Removed, 4-0 Well very well (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2020 (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.

Probably enough for us to keep Seventeen (American magazine)

Remove
  1. As nominator. feminist (talk) 07:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support --Makkool (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support - Gizza (t)(c) 00:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove British Vogue

PASSED
Removed, 4-0 Well very well (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2020 (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.

Somewhat distinct from US Vogue, but perhaps not different enough to warrant a separate entry. Its circulation figures are middle-of-the-pack compared to competing publications, none of which specifically have a UK edition listed separately.

Remove
  1. As nominator. feminist (talk) 07:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support --Makkool (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support - Gizza (t)(c) 00:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove The Watchtower

PASSED
Removed, 3-1 Well very well (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2020 (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.

Not sure what to feel about this. Unarguably the highest-circulation magazine in the world, but it's essentially propaganda distributed by a coercive organization.

Remove
  1. As nominator. feminist (talk) 07:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support - Gizza (t)(c) 00:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep
  1. Support --Makkool (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_5&oldid=947989411"