Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/People#Film directors

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1990265150}}

The purpose of this discussion page is to select 50,000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles.

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

{{Vital article level 5 rules}}

The following link represent all current Level 5 Vital articles that are classified as people:

{{See|Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Miscellaneous}}

{{See|Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Artists, musicians, and composers}}

{{See|Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters}}

{{See|Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Military personnel, revolutionaries, and activists}}

{{See|Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists}}

{{See|Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Politicians and leaders}}

{{See|Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Religious figures}}

{{See|Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Scientists, inventors, and mathematicians}}

{{See|Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Sports figures}}

{{See|Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Writers and journalists}}

The only Anglo-Saxon monarchs listed prior to Æthelstan (considered the first King of England) are Offa of Mercia, Alfred the Great (vital 4) and Edward the Elder. There is no monarch of Northumbria listed which is why I suggest adding Oswald of Northumbria as he brought Bernicia and Deira together and promoted Christianity in the region. He was also Bretwalda which basically meant that he was the most powerful Anglo-Saxon monarch at the time and a cult developed around him in the Middle Ages, there is even a place in Slovenia named after him (Ožbalt). Edmund Ironside has not left as big of an impact or legacy as he briefly ruled as King of the English prior to Cnut, other short reigning monarchs not listed include Edward V and Francis II of France.

;Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
3. From what I can gather, and I'm certainly not a historian, Oswald of Northumbria seems to have had the bigger impact. However, Edmund Ironside has a much larger impact on daily average views (~1,100 to ~200) and interwikis (57 to 29). That said, Edmund Ironside had a short life (~25 years) and even shorter reign (less than 1 year), during which he fought the Danish and lost to Cnut in that year. Oswald of Northumbria, on the other hand, as nom said, unified Northumbria and spread Christianity over a nearly 10-year reign. This feels like a case where the pageviews and links may not be pointing us in the right direction. GauchoDude (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. A much less important king. A meaningless exchange.--109.81.90.210 (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{Reply|109.81.90.210}} can you please expand on your response. What do you think makes Edmund Ironside vital? Another option could be Edwin of Northumbria. Sahaib (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:for example interwiki? 55:28? Does this score mean nothing? Or was this dominance caused by King Edmund's teenage fan club, which created articles for him on 40 Wikipedias with the help of Google Translate? 109.81.90.51 (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

::The interwiki links are just the result of him being king of England, which doesn't automatically make a person vital, the same way not every Emperor of Russia is listed (Paul I of Russia) or every King of Portugal (Afonso VI of Portugal), or every Emperor of Japan (Emperor Go-Momozono), etc. Sahaib (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)}}

"was one of the most influential theologians of the twentieth century". Not sure if he should be in philosophers instead. I'm hoping we could one day have a clear separate section for theologians in the Social scientists page, but that will be for the future. I'm not exactly looking forward to separating them out from the philosophers one by one.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support, and we don't list Theologians in the Religious Figures section? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
3. : We don't list them all there like {{VA link|Thomas Aquinas}}, who is in philosophers. I find it arbitrary and it's been on my mind as something that should be discussed. The best would be to have them all in either Religious figures or in Social scientists separate from philosophers. In the latter case Religious figures would be reserved to religious leaders and to figures other than academic theologians. Makkool (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
4. ::It does seem arbitrary, and I've actually been wondering something similar about bundling all Philosophers with Social Scientists. Not so much theologians, but I wonder if it would make more sense to split primarily moral philosophers from more intellectual ones. For example, if I think of {{VA link|Muhammad}}, {{VA link|Confucius}}, and {{VA link|Willard Van Orman Quine}}, I would personally consider Quine the odd-one-out there.
5. ::That would obviously be a separate discussion for Lv5 as a whole, but beyond filling out actual articles, we definitely still have a lot of organizational work to do here. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
6. Weak support. Not a strong area of mine, but lede seems to support a large amount of influence. GauchoDude (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
7. Weak support per GauchoDude. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

1. Point of clarification: This article mentions Tillich as "one of the most influential theologians of the twentieth century". How many other "theologians" do we list comparatively, both all time as well as from the 20th century? Is this over/under/adequately represented? GauchoDude (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Founder of Pietism, which I'll be also proposing later. Pietism was highly influential to Protestantism, as part of the Lutheranism in Central and Northern Europe and as influence to other Christian denominations like Methodism and Anababtism.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support, and more generally, our coverage of religious topics is really anemic; don't get me started on some of the basic concepts we're still missing. I'm still waiting for the Society talk page to quiet down some, but I have at least 30 or so ready to propose. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

1. Probably makes more sense to have Pietism. A case of work over person, IMO. If you remove Pietism, it reads to me that you have a fairly notable and influential, but likely not vital, preacher and lecturer. GauchoDude (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

American anthropoligist and best-selling writer, and an highly influential figure in the new age movement by promoting neoshamanism.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support, whether you put him in Social Scientists or Religious Figures. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Put him on the religious figures list. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. I might be the odd person out, but I'm not seeing a vitality case here. GauchoDude (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{Archive top red|status=Failed/no consensus |result=Take your pick}}

An English Benedictine monk who worked in India as a missionary looking to find common ground between Christian and Hindu mysticism. He was a significant promoter of religious dialogue between Eastern and Western traditions. He used to be listed, but at some point he was removed without discussion, so this is a proposal for re-adding.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. _pbp 18:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Doesn't do it for me either. GauchoDude (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

1. Two oppose votes should be enough to close as failed. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{archive bottom}}

Important pioneer of the Vietnamese anti-colonial movement

;Support

1. Nom Iostn (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
2. --Bluevestman (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

1. I can't decide one way or another, but commenting here to note that the subject has 55 average daily page views and 18 interwikis. GauchoDude (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

"Shih was one of the most prominent personalities of the Tangwai movement and greatly contributed to Taiwan's democratization. He has been referred to by some as "Taiwan's Mandela" on account of his efforts for democracy and prolonged incarceration." - also to note, we don't list anyone else from Taiwan currently

;Support

1. Nom Iostn (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
2. --Bluevestman (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

1. I can't decide one way or another, but commenting here to note that the subject has 19 average daily page views and 12 interwikis. GauchoDude (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Key figure in the Yemeni civil war (2014–present), Houthi insurgency and the Red Sea crisis.

;Support

1. As nominator. Sahaib (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support, starting to get a little nervous about the Leaders cushion, but clearly influential with staying power. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

1. Also to note, {{VA link|Houthis}} does not appear to be listed at all either. GauchoDude (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

One particular change I've cordoned off from the rest: Jardine is not vital as a batsman; his vitality comes from his captaincy in this incident, which better deserves listing in my opinion.

;Support

1. As nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support, assuming Bodyline would go under Cricket in the Everyday Life -> Sports section. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Support removal of Jardine for this change if the cricket people think this makes sense. Not sure if the Bodyline conversation needs to be held elsewhere. GauchoDude (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Moved 4-0
Moved to broadcast journalists rather than hosts 2-1
Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{VA link|Bill Nye}} is listed as an inventor but his main claim to fame is his science education and advocacy work. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:Support, he definitely is most known for being on TV. Maybe "Broadcasts journalists and commentators" is the right section, along with David Attenborough? Makkool (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:Support. Broadcast journalists and commentators seems fine to me. Aurangzebra (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

If you're going to move him somewhere, it should be to hosts. I know that {{VA link|Fred Rogers}}, {{VA link|Bob Ross}} and {{VA link|LeVar Burton}} are not scientists, but they, like Nye, hosted children's television programs. _pbp 23:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:Bill Nye Saves the World was made for an adult audience, and he's also known for the debate against creationist Ken Ham. He's more than a children's entertainer and TV host. Makkool (talk) 12:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

We have three votes in support (including me) and one neutral. Do we need another vote? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:Support. ALittleClass (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Corbyn has 69 language links whereas Benn has 35 languages. Corbyn gets about 5.7x more daily [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07-01&end=2025-02-01&pages=Tony_Benn%7CJeremy_Corbyn pageviews] than Benn. See also [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%2Fm%2F025m87,%2Fm%2F0pk_k&hl=en-GB Google Trends], the related searches for Benn include his son Hilary Benn at 2 and 3 with Corbyn himself at 5, 8 and 10 which highlights that a lot of people only search him in relation to those people. The map shows that Corbyn gets over 90% of searches compared to Benn in all countries included. The only metric that Benn beats Corbyn is scholar results with Benn's [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=tony+benn&btnG= 22,100] compared to Corbyn's [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=jeremy+corbyn&oq=Jeremy+Co 19,500] but this is can be explained by the fact that Corbyn is still an active politician, recently winning his seat as an independent (see also Template:Jeremy Corbyn sidebar, there is a whole page about his leadership of the party) and so his impact can not be fully assessed.

;Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 09:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Support add. --Bluevestman (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Weak oppose for now. I see a strong argument for adding Corbyn if we had the room, but all of the stats cited just suggest recency bias to me. With so many leader proposals still in play too, I don't have a clear sense of what our balance within and outside of British leaders is. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
2. :Corbyn has been a member of parliament since 1983 but I get what you mean. Sahaib (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
3. ::Actually, while I still think the stats largely reflect recency, that's not my primary concern. Corbyn is clearly notable; I'm just more concerned about removing Benn. And unless contemporary British leaders are under-represented, a straight add isn't an option.
4. ::I'm not British, but I've actually heard of Been before, and the impression I formed was that some consider him just a notch or two below say {{VA link|Aneurin Bevan}} in terms of influence. If someone with a deeper knowledge of British politics comes by and says, "Nah, we can probably cut him," I'll change to support.
5. ::Since this is a swap within a single heading, quota and representation isn't an issue. But it does show how things are probably going to take more deliberation here on out, which is one more reason I worry about us overloading proposals. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

It's a funny thing to say about a 36-year MP with an Olympic medal and a Nobel Peace Prize, but Philip Noel-Baker is the clear weakness on our list of British politicians IMO (an opinion mostly based on his incredibly low pageviews). J947 ‡ ^edits 03:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

From what I've seen, this is one area which has flown under the radar. Looking to propose a few changes here for some countries that are barely represented, or in Switzerland's case, completely unrepresented in the modern era. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

{{archive top|status=Mixed|result=Renner and Kreisky added 4-0, Seyss-Inquart remanded to further discussion as a Dutch leader rather than an Austrian one _pbp 23:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Though the nation is very well covered in its time with the Holy Roman Empire and Austria-Hungary, the only contemporary Austrian on the list is UN secretary-general Kurt Waldheim. A country of 9 million commands perhaps 3 entries at this level, but there are four who stand out to me so that's what I've proposed.

• {{VA link|Arthur Seyss-Inquart}} – Nazi executed at Nuremberg. Not sure what our coverage of Nazis is like, but I think he makes any sizeable list.
• {{VA link|Karl Renner}} – {{xt|often referred to as the "Father of the Republics" because he led the first government of the Republic of German-Austria and the First Austrian Republic in 1919 and 1920, and was once again decisive in establishing the present Second Republic after the fall of Nazi Germany in 1945, becoming its first President after World War II}}
• {{VA link|Bruno Kreisky}} – his article places him in the same vein as {{VA link|Willy Brandt}} and {{VA link|Olof Palme}}.

;Support all

1. Support all, but especially Renner and Kreisky, as nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

;Mixed

1. See below comment. Oppose Seyss-Inquart; he wasn't the paramount leader of Austria for long at all. Seyss-Inquart may be VA5 notable but for his role in the Netherlands, not Austria._pbp 05:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Support for Renner and Kreisky.--109.81.90.69 (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Support Renner and Kreisky, neutral on Seyss-Inquart. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Support Renner and Kreisky per nom. Neutral on Seyss-Inquart because he doesn't seem as important as the other two and I'm a bit worried about the quota for Leaders. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose all

;Discuss

On a slightly different note, {{VA link|Austromarxism}}, {{VA link|Otto Bauer}}, and {{VA link|Rudolf Hilferding}} are potential additions (though I think they're pushing it). J947 ‡ ^edits 04:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

To pre-empt any opposes for quota reasons, I think the fact that we have gaping holes in countries like Austria without there being many obvious removals is strongly suggestive that the quota for politicians and leaders is too low. As a matter of fact, the proportion of the pie that politicians/leaders occupy at VA5 is actually smaller than at VA4, despite the fact that we list a tremendous amount more people. It is a quarter of the VA4 people list, but between a sixth and a seventh of the VA5 people list. This area is an obvious place to add to and this proposal exemplifies why. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not particularly bothered by a paucity of 20th and 21st century Austrians, as Austria is a) pretty well represented by the Habsburgs, b) is not particularly populous in its present form, and c) hasn't been much of a player on the world stage since WW2 and arguably since WW1. I would also suggest that, if any of these do pass, that we REMOVE Charles I of Austria, who was King (Emperor?) for just two years. _pbp 05:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

We list three Icelandic politicians, which is (pretty obviously) two too many. Keep {{VA link|Vigdís Finnbogadóttir}}, by far the most well-known.

;Support

1. Support as nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

;Mixed

1. Support removing Davíð, neutral on Sveinn. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

Well I'm not so sure that three Icelandic politicians in the history of a country is "too many", but I'm open to the conversation. Both of these subjects seem fairly influential with 50 and 34 interwikis respectively. Björnsson was the first president in the country's history, was reelected multiple times, and oversaw the country's entrance to NATO. Oddsson was the longest-serving prime minister who looks to have had a bit of a controversial history but seems to have impacted some large-scale events. GauchoDude (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:We've been trying to reduce Eurocentric bias. Iceland has a population of 400,000, whilst Tanzania for example has 175 times as many and also has three contemporary politicians listed. At the risk of saying the obvious, the importance of politicians is strongly correlated with the size of the country which they lead. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::Fair, to a point. I'd argue the importance of politicians is more strongly correlated with the power of the country, not necessarily the amount of people in the country, but that's a different conversation for a different day. If diversity is what we're after with this initiative, (assuming we're looking at Contemporary section of politicians) why are we not focused on reducing the Asiancentric bias? Africa currently has 164, North American currently has 135, South American currently has 101, Asia has 328, Europe has 167, and Oceania has 40. There's a pretty clear outlier there and I'm not sure it's the Icelandic representatives.

::In any case, because this is not a swap with the reasoning and rationale behind it, I can only view the removals based on their impact in a vacuum as I also don't know who they'd be replaced by. At surface level, I think I'd be more inclined to oppose as they have seemingly fairly decent vitality claims in a vacuum. GauchoDude (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Are you suggesting that the continents should be represented equally? Asia is more populous that the other continents, and even if we only count power on a global level, Africa and South America are probably just as overrepresented according to the gloobal power metric. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::This is still very much a preliminary list. So there are problems. There are people who should be included but aren't, people who shouldn't be included but are, and widespread balancing issues. It is counterproductive to disagree with fixing overrepresentation of one country if you think that other countries are also overrepresented. (Though I was very silly with my Eurocentric remark, no less because I have been campaigning to add some European politicians. In the politicians list, the most significant bias is towards small countries. It's exemplified by the fact that we list three representatives for Mauritius, and just two for Kenya.) J947 ‡ ^edits 22:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ping|GauchoDude}} Asia contains over 4 billion people (60% of the world's population!) and has {{VA link|China}}, {{VA link|India}}, and {{VA link|Japan}} as pretty major players on the world stage. Of course it would have more politicians than the other continents. It would be problematic if it didn't. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Wow, three replies, we love to see a bit of conversation! Aren't I the popular one, lol. At the risk of length of response, I won't respond to each one but moreso a general summary.

::::Again, I said earlier "I'd argue the importance of politicians is more strongly correlated with the power of the country, not necessarily the amount of people in the country, but that's a different conversation for a different day." While Asia has a lot of people, that doesn't necessarily equate to the sheer amount, although it's certainly an important data point and one we should consider.

::::Maybe we do have something somewhere and I'm blissfully unaware; is there a generally broken down idea of how much "representation" we're trying to do here? I know how much we all love quotas. I also know how much we all hate quotas. So lol.

::::If the conversation is surrounding having the most important people represented on this list, it feels like at surface level Björnsson and Oddsson may belong based on their accomplishments.

::::If the conversation is surrounding removing these individuals for representation elsewhere, it feels like that probably should be part of a larger conversation surrounding a better idea, now that we're "full", of what that looks like.

::::Again, I'm neither in support or opposed to these two individuals, just opening up the conversation. GauchoDude (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Population is at least a better metric than equal representation of continents. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Similarly vital as {{VA link|Judith Leyster}}. Painters are underrepresented IMO (and this is obviously magnified when looking at female painters in particular).

;Support

1. As nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

1. Disagree that painters are underrepresented. It appears Ruysch had a long career, but I have concerns that it appears only two of her works (currently) seem to warrant their own Wikipedia articles in Roses, Convolvulus, Poppies, and Other Flowers in an Urn on a Stone Ledge and Still Life with Flowers on a Marble Slab. Lede says "...she became the best documented female painter of the Dutch Golden Age," which I'm not sure if that's a strong claim to vitality. It also has an unsourced claim that she "... achieve[d] international fame in her lifetime," of which the Reception section says the Dutch liked flowers and she painted flowers so she sold paintings to clients and was able to get more than Rembrandt. This feels weak, but maybe I'm missing something. GauchoDude (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

{{VA link|Johann Wilhelm Ritter}} discovered {{VA link|ultraviolet}} radiation.

;Support

1. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Feels important. 31 interwikis and 34 average daily pageviews. GauchoDude (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{archive top green|status=passed|result=Removed, 6-2 _pbp 19:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Lesser known biker. Don't think he's among the most vital criminals or people in human history.

;Support

1. As nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
2.  Carlwev  23:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Sure GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Five interwikis says "not vital" to me _pbp 15:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Agree with pbp. --Bluevestman (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
6. While I think he's important, he's likely not one of the most important people in history. I think it makes sense to remove Chambers and swap with Bandidos Motorcycle Club which is not currently VA listed. 5 interwikis doesn't scream worldwide importance, though he does average 124 daily pageviews. GauchoDude (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Changing to oppose. He's the founder of Bandidos and not just some biker. Makkool (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose per the below IP. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

To add something more than personal opinion: Chamber's assumed worth would be covered by founding the Bandidos Motorcycle Club; the second largest outlaw biker group. The lede says this gang has "303 chapters located in 22 countries", which would be more of a global reach than the one city located Chicago Outfit; which got Al Capone to level 4. On a list of 58 organized criminals, i don't think it's a reach to include two bikers with Sonny Barger being the obvious other. I don't think a good enyclopedia would only have all US mafia and not any variety in it's coverage. 118.210.24.72 (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

{{Abot}}

I get that these two aren't usually called socialites, but that section really does seem like the best place to put them. Their literary/activist careers are not even remotely large enough to warrant them being in the section they got moved to. Their main source of fame (which to be clear I do think is large enough to make them vital) is being the partner of F. Scott Fitzgerald and Bill Clinton respectively. (Marion Davies also got moved, but I personally feel like her acting career is largish enough to keep her in the acting section.)

;Support move

1. Support moving Zelda and Monica. Neutral on Marion. Oppose removing all three. 64.124.92.4 (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Support move per nom, oppose remove Makkool (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

;Remove outright

1. I've sat on this for a bit and I can't find a way to justify "hey, they were the partners of famous people" therefore implying vitality in that they're in the top 50,000 topics of humanity ever (or, alternatively, the top 15,000 people ever). Are they famous? Absolutely and without a doubt. Monica Lewinsky, without the {{VA link|Clinton–Lewinsky scandal}} would be nowhere near conversation for this list, of which that event is not VA listed. For Fitzgerald, her lede lists her has (in this order), a "novelist, painter, and socialite" and her short description only lists her as a writer. She would not be in the vital conversation for those first two by any stretch. GauchoDude (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Per GauchoDude. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Comments

• As the person who made the change, moving them back boldly is fair game. I will try to propose an alternative grouping to "socialites," especially for people like Lewinsky, who are never referred to that way in their articles. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• Tac nuke socialites. Most listed there should be removed or be moved to other categories _pbp 23:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• :I’m content with moving these two to the other section. 209.133.7.1 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Zar2gar1}} has reorganized the subpage for scientists, inventors, and mathematicians so that people from the early modern period are listed by country instead of by field. I disagree, as most of them are most famous for specific fields of science. I especially disagree with lumping inventors with scientists, as it is a different claim to fame. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

:I actually have no problem if anyone wants to rearrange the early modern figures by specialty; it's definitely a transitional period. My only concern was to separate out early modern, modern, and contemporary figures (still in progress). That said, there are still relatively more polymaths than in the modern period so several may be tricky to sort by specialty. At the same time, while there were immigrants and ideas still crossed borders, I think most scientific activity then was still local enough that the regional sorting is mostly straight-forward. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

::I had to undo your reorganization on for scientists and military figures/rebels. By creating these "temporary sections" (six! for the latter) resulted in those pages to have a much more unfinished appearance than what they previously had. 2600:387:15:2416:0:0:0:8 (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

In a failed thread to add Nick Ut, user Iostn suggested all of these as more vital photojournalists than him. I'm not personally familiar with the subject at all, but I'm opening them up for discussion, as we could have gaps in the Photojournalists section.

{{atopr|status=failed|result=Not added 1-2 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Two-times Pulitzer Prize winning photojournalist, known for covering the Vietnam War.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. I'm not convinced of his vitality. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
2. I'm going to put this here, but this applies to all of the following noms as well (Carol Guzy, Adnaan Abidi, and William Snyder (photojournalist)) and I may well just copy/paste the same thing to their discussions. Most/all of these noms, while they may be impactful and among the best ever in their field, have incredibly low "stats", which makes me question just how strong the vitality claims for these individuals actually are and how many photojournalists we should be listing. Faas has the "best" stats, with 16 interwikis and 26 average daily pageviews (ADPV's). The others are Guzy at 7 interwikis/24 ADPV, Abidi at 7 interwikis/7 ADPV, and Snyder at 1 interwiki and 7 ADPV. Again, this isn't to say they aren't great at what they do, they certainly have the resume and accolades for that, but I have a tough time making a case for "these are literally the most important people to ever exist" vs. "these people are just crazy good at their job". GauchoDude (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{abot}}

Four-times Pulitzer winning photojournalist, and the first journalist to win that many.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
2. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. I'm going to put this here, but this applies to all of the following noms as well (Carol Guzy, Adnaan Abidi, and William Snyder (photojournalist)) and I may well just copy/paste the same thing to their discussions. Most/all of these noms, while they may be impactful and among the best ever in their field, have incredibly low "stats", which makes me question just how strong the vitality claims for these individuals actually are and how many photojournalists we should be listing. Faas has the "best" stats, with 16 interwikis and 26 average daily pageviews (ADPV's). The others are Guzy at 7 interwikis/24 ADPV, Abidi at 7 interwikis/7 ADPV, and Snyder at 1 interwiki and 7 ADPV. Again, this isn't to say they aren't great at what they do, they certainly have the resume and accolades for that, but I have a tough time making a case for "these are literally the most important people to ever exist" vs. "these people are just crazy good at their job". GauchoDude (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{atopr|status=failed|result=Not added 2-2 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Three-times Pulitzer winning photojournalist, working for Reuters.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
2. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. I'm not convinced of his vitality, and the low interwiki count isn't helping. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
2. I'm going to put this here, but this applies to all of the following noms as well (Carol Guzy, Adnaan Abidi, and William Snyder (photojournalist)) and I may well just copy/paste the same thing to their discussions. Most/all of these noms, while they may be impactful and among the best ever in their field, have incredibly low "stats", which makes me question just how strong the vitality claims for these individuals actually are and how many photojournalists we should be listing. Faas has the "best" stats, with 16 interwikis and 26 average daily pageviews (ADPV's). The others are Guzy at 7 interwikis/24 ADPV, Abidi at 7 interwikis/7 ADPV, and Snyder at 1 interwiki and 7 ADPV. Again, this isn't to say they aren't great at what they do, they certainly have the resume and accolades for that, but I have a tough time making a case for "these are literally the most important people to ever exist" vs. "these people are just crazy good at their job". GauchoDude (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{abot}}

Four-times Pulitzer winning photojournalist, and a professor of Photojournalism in Rochester Institute of Technology.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
2. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. I'm going to put this here, but this applies to all of the following noms as well (Carol Guzy, Adnaan Abidi, and William Snyder (photojournalist)) and I may well just copy/paste the same thing to their discussions. Most/all of these noms, while they may be impactful and among the best ever in their field, have incredibly low "stats", which makes me question just how strong the vitality claims for these individuals actually are and how many photojournalists we should be listing. Faas has the "best" stats, with 16 interwikis and 26 average daily pageviews (ADPV's). The others are Guzy at 7 interwikis/24 ADPV, Abidi at 7 interwikis/7 ADPV, and Snyder at 1 interwiki and 7 ADPV. Again, this isn't to say they aren't great at what they do, they certainly have the resume and accolades for that, but I have a tough time making a case for "these are literally the most important people to ever exist" vs. "these people are just crazy good at their job". GauchoDude (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

Kadyrov served as President of the Chechen Republic for less than a year, and so can be adequately represented by his son Ramzan Kadyrov. Dudayev has more language links and seems more vital but I'm not an expert.

;Support

1. Support as nom. Sahaib (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Support--向史公哲曰 (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
4. This seems reasonable, but I think an argument can be made to keep both. Both have a high number of interwikis (52 and 73, respectively) and average daily page views (593 to 385, respectively). They played different roles in shaping Chechnya. Kadyrov, while president for less than a year because of assassination, led Chechen forces in the first war, then switched allegiances to Russia and was conveniently appointed by Putin to head the government before being elected. Dudayev, one could argue, was more influential in the eventual break off and independence for Chechnya. GauchoDude (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

The vote now stands at 4-0 for adding Dudayev and 3-1 for removing Kadyrov. We need another vote. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Sahaib|向史公哲曰|GauchoDude}} Should Dudayev be listed as a politician or as a rebel? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::I would say as a politician because that is how Kadyrov is listed. Sahaib (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::That's a bad argument. They should each be assessed by their own roles. I'm leaning toward listing Dudayev as a rebel since he led a separatist insurgency. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::It depends on through which lens you're viewing him through, the Russian or Chechen. It's a pretty blurry line between "politician/leader" and "revolutionary/rebel" tbh and I'm surprised they're listed as two separate buckets. Different conversation for a different place though. GauchoDude (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Despite Murphy starting his career 23 years after O'Neal, he has more language links (78/40), more [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07-01&end=2025-03-02&pages=Cillian_Murphy%7CTatum_O%27Neal pageviews] (42/11 million), more acting credits on IMDb (61/37) and has won more awards. O'Neal's father Ryan O'Neal and former husband John McEnroe are both already listed.

;Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Tatum O'Neal is incomparably more famous. (This is a case of recentism, isn't it? Tatum O'Neal receives a good amount of views, considering that she doesn't seem to be active as an actress anymore.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
2. :{{Reply|Moscow Connection}} by what metric? I only discovered O'Neal after stumbling upon the article List of oldest and youngest Academy Award winners and nominees today. The closest metric I could find would be the Pantheon website's Historical Popularity Index (HPI) which gives Murphy a HPI of [https://pantheon.world/profile/person/Cillian_Murphy 69.24] and O'Neal a HPI of [https://pantheon.world/profile/person/Tatum_O'Neal 60.70]. Sahaib (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
3. :: By the metric that she is famous and I've actually seen her movies. :-) Yes, she seems to have been very, very famous. Which I can't say for Murphy. He is not a household name where I live.
   Like, Elizabeth Taylor would probably be on this list just for "Lassie Come Home", "National Velvet", "Little Women". --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
4. :: Molly Ringwald is kinda comparable, and she is listed. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
5. Oppose adding Murphy because this seems like a textbook case of recentism. He is mainly famous for {{VA link|Oppenheimer (film)}}, which came out in 2023 and also gave him his only Oscar. I'd like to see some more accolades or a stronger argument for cultural impact before adding him. Neutral on O'Neal, she seems somewhat famous as the youngest Oscar winner but I'm not sure whether she should be included or not. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
6. Per above. GauchoDude (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

I think I would support removing Tatum O'Neal only. It is too early to tell how great Cillian Murphy will be. He has only one Academy Award and it was from last year. There are at least a hundred or so actors and actresses who have at least one Academy Award in one of the acting categories. He has other awards, but only two other ones I would consider top-tier. It's also a bit dangerous to use traditional metrics for entertainment-facing professions because more prominent celebrities will skew the metrics. Of course, in acting, celebrity is correlated with vitality but it is just one piece of the pie since there is so much recency bias and it disproportionately helps those who star in critically mediocre blockbusters. I would expect O'Neal to have less pageviews and interwikis than any recurring actor/actress in the MCU, for example. We justifiably don't list Tom Holland who has way more interwikis than either of them (110). I also don't think more acting credits is a selling point; after a certain point, it becomes inversely correlated to vitality since it usually indicates an actor who is mass producing slop (not saying this is the case for Cillian Murphy but just showing why this metric should be taken with a grain of salt). Aurangzebra (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Aurangzebra}} Are you going to vote? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'm with {{U|Aurangzebra}} on this one. GauchoDude (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Do you mean that you support removing Tatum O'Neal? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

A director noted for his unique visual style and provocative themes. A Cannes festival regular.
And this list needs to be stirred up a bit.
Selected movies: The Draughtsman's Contract (1982, one of "Top 100 British films"), Drowning by Numbers (1977), The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover (1989).

;Support

1. As nom. Moscow Connection (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Iostn (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Not seeing it. GauchoDude (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

Here's a sequel to Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/People#Film directors.

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Mikhail Kalatozov directed The Cranes Are Flying (1957) that won the Palme d'Or at the 1958 Cannes Film Festival. Also, his film I Am Cuba (1964) was "rediscovered" in the 1990s and is now considered a masterpiece.
I, personally, would rather add the actual movie The Cranes Are Flying to VA5 instead. But that doesn't seem realistic, considering there's an obvious (and understandable) Hollywood bias on the English Wikipedia. As for Kalatozov, he often appears on English-language lists of the best directors:
• The Cinema Archives: 46th [https://thecinemaarchives.com/2019/05/29/the-46th-best-director-of-all-time-mikhail-kalatozov/];
• TSPDT: 157th ([https://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_top250directors.htm], [https://www.theyshootpictures.com/kalatozishvilimikheil.htm]) — a high place, considering there aren't many people from non-English-speaking countries on that list.

Addition. He also directed the Soviet epic Valery Chkalov (1941) and the feel-good movie True Friends (1954). The latter was restored and is on Russian cable TV, like, every day. So he has quite a legacy to his name, not just the two–three movies usually mentioned on English-language websites. But these films are different from what he is known for in the West. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom. Moscow Connection (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
2. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)}}

They are on the TSPDT list of the best directors at number 201: [https://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_top250directors.htm]. It is a high place, considering there are mainly Hollywood directors on that list. Here's a direct link to their profile on the website: [https://www.theyshootpictures.com/dardennejeanpierrelucdardenne.htm].
They are actually very big in French-speaking countries and won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival two (2!) times (in 1999 and 2005).

;Support

1. As nom. Moscow Connection (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
2. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Where do they rank among foreign directors or French directors? _pbp 20:16, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

: Hard to say, especially since they aren't French, so I can't just google "meilleurs réalisateurs français". But the French Wikipedia article says: "They are presently considered major representatives of European social cinema, alongside Ken Loach and Mike Leigh."
I've browsed some contemporary/"more recent" French directors, and {{VA link|Bertrand Tavernier}} is not listed on VA5, {{VA link|Claire Denis}} is listed, {{VA link|Alain Resnais}} is listed, {{VA link|François Ozon}} is not listed, {{VA link|Bruno Dumont}} is not listed. (Not sure what to make of it, other than that our list needs more non-Americans.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::{{Ping|Moscow Connection}} can't you just, from the IMDB list you have, count which are French, which are American, &c? _pbp 14:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Now I see what you mean. I'll count tomorrow. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

: {{VA link|Bertrand Blier}} is not listed, {{VA link|Claude Sautet}} is not listed. Kinda surprisingly... Especially since Blier was probably among the most famous directors in the world at some point in time. I would rather add him... --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

: {{VA link|Shōhei Imamura}}, too, won the Palme d'Or 2 times. But he is not listed. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

: According to the French Wikipedia, when Dardenne brothers won the Palme d'Or with Rosetta in 1999, it came as a surprise to everyone cause Almodóvar was expected to win. And Rosetta, was "violently criticized". But then they won again in 2005 and were very close to winning in 2011. And it looks like every time they make a movie, they make it with the intention to win the Palme d'Or.
I'm not sure what to make of it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

{{reply|Purplebackpack89}} Sorry for the delay. I tried to count the articles immediately, but that proved to be trickier than I had thought. And I was busy on the weekend.
The French/French-speaking directors go like this:

1. {{VA link|Jean-Luc Godard}}
2. {{VA link|Jean Renoir}}
3. {{VA link|Robert Bresson}}
4. {{VA link|François Truffaut}}
5. {{VA link|Chantal Akerman}} (Belgium)
6. {{VA link|Jean Vigo}}
7. {{VA link|Agnès Varda}} (Belgium)
8. {{VA link|Jacques Tati}}
9. {{VA link|Chris Marker}}
10. {{VA link|Claire Denis}}
11. {{VA link|Jacques Rivette}}
12. {{VA link|Éric Rohmer}}
13. {{VA link|Marcel Carné}}
14. {{VA link|Jacques Demy}}
15. {{VA link|Jean-Pierre Melville}}
16. {{VA link|Claude Lanzmann}}
17. {{VA link|Jacques Tourneur}}
18. {{VA link|Jean Eustache}}
19. {{VA link|Straub–Huillet}}
20. {{VA link|Ousmane Sembène}} (Senegal)
21. {{VA link|Céline Sciamma}}
22. {{VA link|Maurice Pialat}}
23. {{VA link|Jean Cocteau}}
24. {{VA link|Abel Gance}}
25. {{VA link|Henri-Georges Clouzot}}
26. {{VA link|Louis Malle}}
27. {{VA link|Marguerite Duras}}
28. {{VA link|Leos Carax}}
29. {{VA link|Dardenne brothers}}

--Moscow Connection (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

The TSPDT list of foreign directors goes like this:

1. {{VA link|Alfred Hitchcock}}
2. {{VA link|Federico Fellini}}
3. {{VA link|Jean-Luc Godard}}
4. {{VA link|Ingmar Bergman}}
5. {{VA link|Akira Kurosawa}}
6. {{VA link|Jean Renoir}}
7. {{VA link|Yasujirō Ozu}}
8. {{VA link|Andrei Tarkovsky}}
9. {{VA link|Luis Buñuel}}
10. {{VA link|Charlie Chaplin}} (Hollywood director, though)
11. {{VA link|Robert Bresson}}
12. {{VA link|Carl Theodor Dreyer}}
13. {{VA link|F. W. Murnau}}
14. {{VA link|Michelangelo Antonioni}}
15. {{VA link|Fritz Lang}} (Austrian-German and American)
16. {{VA link|François Truffaut}}
17. {{VA link|Kenji Mizoguchi}}
18. {{VA link|Roberto Rossellini}}
19. {{VA link|Chantal Akerman}}
20. {{VA link|Sergei Eisenstein}}
21. {{VA link|Wong Kar-wai}}
22. {{VA link|Abbas Kiarostami}}
23. {{VA link|Vittorio De Sica}}
24. {{VA link|Luchino Visconti}}
    {{VA link|Powell and Pressburger}}
25. {{VA link|Satyajit Ray}}
26. {{VA link|Alain Resnais}}
27. {{VA link|David Lean}}
28. {{VA link|Sergio Leone}}
29. {{VA link|Jean Vigo}}
    {{VA link|Ridley Scott}} (English-American)
30. {{VA link|Roman Polanski}}
31. {{VA link|Max Ophüls}}
32. {{VA link|Rainer Werner Fassbinder}}
33. {{VA link|Agnès Varda}}
34. {{VA link|Pier Paolo Pasolini}}
35. {{VA link|Jacques Tati}}
36. {{VA link|Chris Marker}}
37. {{VA link|Werner Herzog}}
38. {{VA link|Dziga Vertov}}
39. {{VA link|Krzysztof Kieślowski}}
40. {{VA link|Claire Denis}}
41. {{VA link|Hou Hsiao-hsien}}
42. {{VA link|Bernardo Bertolucci}}
43. {{VA link|Edward Yang}}
    {{VA link|Frank Capra}} (Italian-American)
44. {{VA link|Hayao Miyazaki}}
45. {{VA link|Wim Wenders}}
    {{VA link|Douglas Sirk}} (German-American)
46. {{VA link|Carol Reed}}
47. {{VA link|Lars von Trier}}
48. {{VA link|Béla Tarr}}
49. {{VA link|Apichatpong Weerasethakul}}
50. {{VA link|Jacques Rivette}}
51. {{VA link|Éric Rohmer}}
52. {{VA link|Michael Haneke}}
    {{VA link|Elia Kazan}} (Greek-American)
53. {{VA link|Jane Campion}}
54. {{VA link|Marcel Carné}}
55. {{VA link|Nicolas Roeg}}
56. {{VA link|Gillo Pontecorvo}}
57. {{VA link|Jacques Demy}}
    {{VA link|Erich von Stroheim}} (Austrian-American)
58. {{VA link|Jean-Pierre Melville}}
    {{VA link|David Cronenberg}} (Canadian-American)
59. {{VA link|Víctor Erice}}
60. {{VA link|Claude Lanzmann}}
61. {{VA link|Pedro Almodóvar}}
62. {{VA link|Jacques Tourneur}}
63. {{VA link|Jean Eustache}}
64. {{VA link|Glauber Rocha}}
    {{VA link|James Cameron}} (Canadian-American)
65. {{VA link|Theo Angelopoulos}}
66. {{VA link|Tsai Ming-liang}}
67. {{VA link|Straub–Huillet}}
68. {{VA link|Lucrecia Martel}}
69. {{VA link|Elem Klimov}}
70. {{VA link|Jim Jarmusch}}
71. {{VA link|Ousmane Sembène}}
72. {{VA link|Ken Loach}}
73. {{VA link|Bong Joon-ho}}
74. {{VA link|Mikio Naruse}}
75. {{VA link|Mike Leigh}}
76. {{VA link|Céline Sciamma}}
77. {{VA link|Sergei Parajanov}}
78. {{VA link|Michael Snow}} (Canadian)
79. {{VA link|Maurice Pialat}}
80. {{VA link|Djibril Diop Mambéty}}
81. {{VA link|Andrzej Wajda}}
82. {{VA link|Věra Chytilová}}
83. {{VA link|Peter Weir}} (Australian-American)
84. {{VA link|Terry Gilliam}}
85. {{VA link|Alexander Dovzhenko}}
86. {{VA link|Jean Cocteau}}
87. {{VA link|Nagisa Ōshima}}
88. {{VA link|Abel Gance}}
    {{VA link|Otto Preminger}} (Austrian-American)
89. {{VA link|Zhang Yimou}}
90. {{VA link|Ang Lee}}
91. {{VA link|Luis García Berlanga}}
92. {{VA link|Mikhail Kalatozov}}
93. {{VA link|Manoel de Oliveira}}
94. {{VA link|Terence Davies}}
95. {{VA link|Jia Zhangke}}
96. {{VA link|Maya Deren}}
97. {{VA link|Alfonso Cuarón}} (Mexican-American)
    {{VA link|Christopher Nolan}} (British-American)
98. {{VA link|Alexander Sokurov}}
99. {{VA link|Ritwik Ghatak}}
100. {{VA link|Pedro Costa}}
101. {{VA link|Henri-Georges Clouzot}}
102. {{VA link|Emir Kusturica}}
103. {{VA link|Louis Malle}}
104. {{VA link|Victor Sjöström}}
105. {{VA link|John Boorman}} (British)
106. {{VA link|Alexander Mackendrick}} (American-Scottish)
107. {{VA link|Shōhei Imamura}}
108. {{VA link|Paul Verhoeven}}
109. {{VA link|Marguerite Duras}}
110. {{VA link|G. W. Pabst}}
111. {{VA link|Leos Carax}}
112. {{VA link|Fei Mu}}
113. {{VA link|Hirokazu Kore-eda}}
114. {{VA link|Ermanno Olmi}}
     {{VA link|James Whale}} (English-American)
115. {{VA link|Lynne Ramsay}} (Scottish)
     {{VA link|Jonas Mekas}} (Lithuanian-American)
116. {{VA link|Dardenne brothers}}

But I wouldn't take this list too seriously. It lacks many Italian and Russian directors and mistypes Hayao Miyazaki's name.

--Moscow Connection (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:The sources compile 16000+ rankings from critics from every single country with a film industry, including over 100 ballots from the Federazione Italiana Cineforum and 60+ lists just focusing on Russian cinema. It is possible that these Italian and Russian directors you hold highly are less important in aggregate than you thought. Also, out of curiosity, where is Miyazaki's name spelled wrong? Aurangzebra (talk) 04:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::«Including over 100 ballots from the Federazione Italiana Cineforum and 60+ lists just focusing on Russian cinema»
— These ballots and lists probably didn't account to much in terms of percentage. Cause you can't possibly not include Dino Risi and Ettore Scola and Mario Monicelli in such ballots/lists. If you do a serious list like this one on Wikipedia pretends to be, you need to balance it considering that English-language movies have plenty of Oscar categories and often win just because they are popular. Compare the sheer number of Oscar categories to just one for foreign films, and you'll understand that 3–4 nominations in that category is a lot. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::«Where is Miyazaki's name spelled wrong»
— I don't know, I've looked at the page now, and Hayao Miyazaki "looks okay". But when I copy-pasted the names from there yesterday, some got messed up. Hayao became Hazao, Erich von Stroheim became Eric, and someone else was misspelled too.
And the website doesn't look professional or even good. And since it doesn't look good, we can assume that the rating calculation method is not professional or even good as well. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

{{VA link|G. W. Pabst}} and {{VA link|Shōhei Imamura}} should be added too. I'm surprised that {{VA link|G. W. Pabst}} isn't listed. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=partial pass|result=Kinkade not removed 2-2
Léger and Freud added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Kinkade sticks out like a sore thumb on our painter list. Probably the only painter on our list whose vitality is derived through his commercial impact and not his critical success or impact to art history. Kinkade's vitality derives from the sales of his mass-produced reproductions. His commercial sales are quite impressive but from what I gather, these numbers are self-reported by his company. Under his Reception section, you can see that the quality of his art is universally derided as being "garish" and "twee". If he should be kept at VA5, it should be under Businessmen but his business is not at the same caliber as the other corporations whose executives and founders we list. He also has 19 interwikis and doesn't seem to be a name that is popular or known in the high art world.

If people think Kinkade should be removed, we will have removed 2 painters from VA5 in quick succession. I proposed adding Hugo Simberg in the other thread and that proposal was up 3-0 before it was prematurely closed because it was shoehorned into the removal. I've thought about it a bit more and I'm not as attached to adding Simberg as I used to be since I think there are a few better/equal contenders if people are interested (roughly ranked by my personal opinion):

- Fernand Léger (47 interwikis): {{VA link|Cubism}} is an influential enough movement to warrant a decent number of representatives. We have {{VA link|Pablo Picasso}}, {{VA link|Georges Braque}}, {{VA link|Robert Delaunay}}, and {{VA link|Juan Gris}}. Léger was enough of a Cubist big dog to be included as well and his Legacy section demonstrates vitality.

- Lucian Freud (42 interwikis): Painters is one of the rare sections that suffers from an anti-recency bias. Besides {{VA link|Jenny Saville}}, I don't believe we list any painters who solidified their place in art history in the 21st century. Freud's works are some of the most expensive paintings of all-time and Benefits Supervisor Sleeping set a record for highest price paid for a painting by a living artist when it was sold in 2008.

- Hugo Simberg (30 interwikis): I proposed this at the time because I thought Scandinavia, and Finland in particular, had minimal representation. But not only do we list some Scandinavian painters ({{VA link|Edvard Munch}}, {{VA link|Carl Larsson}}), we already list a more notable Finnish painter already, {{VA link|Akseli Gallen-Kallela}} (48 interwikis). Simberg has the fact that he has Finland's national painting, The Wounded Angel, going for him but we can't list every artist who has done significant paintings for every single country especially when we already have representation for that country. Besides, there are other Scandinavian painters who seem to be more prominent that we could list before Simberg such as Peder Severin Krøyer and Anders Zorn. Aurangzebra (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom. Aurangzebra (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Aye.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Keep Kinkade and add Fernand Léger and Lucien Freud per nom. Thomas Kinkade was able to parlay his style into a multi-million-dollar industry and, for better or worse, was also loved by multi-millions. This level of public popularity for an artist is rare, but Kinkade pulled it off. I personally prefer the comparable level 5 Dogs Playing Poker, although that series gained momentum on its own and not by a successful full-scale marketing campaign and industry such as Kincade orchestrated. He worked his own ingenuity, "luck", and unique style into becoming famous for his artworks, but they did sell like back-lit pancakes. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Keep Kinkade and add Fernand Léger and Lucien Freud, per above Makkool (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Per above. This isn't a "how good of a painter" contest, it's "how important to painting are you" and what Kinkade did certainly qualifies. GauchoDude (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{ping|Aurangzebra}} {{ping|GeogSage}} Do you support adding Fernand Léger and Lucian Freud? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:sure. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|GauchoDude}} Do you support adding Fernand Léger and Lucian Freud? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::I've decided to count Aurangzebra as a vote for Léger and Freud. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Mock was the first woman to fly solo around the world. Not a regular pilot, she was an Ohio housewife who decided to fly solo around the world - and did. In 1964, in a single-engine plane (named Spirit of Columbus). In addition to the records set on that flight, Mock went on to achieve further aviation records. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom. Even Amelia Earhart didn't try to do it solo. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Weak support. Will rely on the aviation experts on this one. 15 interwikis and 44 daily average pageviews seems to align with importance, especially for someone not current. GauchoDude (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Has served as President of the Philippines (currently the 12th most populated country in the world) for almost two years and will likely serve till the 2028 election. He is also the son of {{valink|Ferdinand Marcos}} and {{valink|Imelda Marcos}}.

;Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 07:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Feels too soon. Being the president for 2, or even 6, years doesn't automatically imply notability IMO. The Asian subsection is by far the largest of the Politicians and leaders category. GauchoDude (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
2. :Are you arguing for equal representation of the continents? I don't think politicians of a country are less important because the country is considered part of a large continent. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Removed 4-1 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Beach soccer player, when we don't even list the sport in VA5.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Agree per nom. We are over quota on sports figures; this move would help. I would not be opposed to a swap per {{U|Purplebackpack89}} noted below. GauchoDude (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Agree, would support swap for the sport  Carlwev  17:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Aye.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Weak oppose. Beach soccer should be VA5 and we should list its best player. Beach soccer is a more global sport than the vast majority of other sports we list. If you don't believe me, just look at the countries that qualified for the 2024 FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup; you have teams like Belarus and Oman and Tahiti. There are 193 countries with beach football associations registered with {{VA link|FIFA}}. Aurangzebra (talk) 02:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

Swap with beach soccer tbh. 50 interwikis for the sport is decent; only 12 for Madjer which is mediocre for a VA. _pbp 18:16, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I also support a swap with beach soccer. I would put the bar on if the sport has been in the Olympics, if we should include the best player of niche sports. Makkool (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:I think appearing in the Olympics is correlated with vitality but it is not necessary. For example, {{VA link|cricket}} has never been in the Olympics. Also, every form of auto sport. Also, all the regional yet popular variants of football such as {{VA link|American football}}. Aurangzebra (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

:{{comment}} This wasn't removed so I removed it. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Campbell had too short of a tenure to be considered vital, similar to Liz Truss or William Henry Harrison who are both not listed. Carney is likely already vital as an economist due to being the Governor of the Bank of Canada for 5 years and the Governor of the Bank of England for 7 years. Searched in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_7#Canadian_PMs archives] and found that User:NorthernFalcon suggested Campbell's removal five and a half years ago.

; Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Support Mark Carney is now more significant of a figure in Canadian history than Kim Campbell. Provided that he remains in office for a full term, he will go down as a significant Prime Minister. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

; Oppose

1. Too soon. If Carney loses the next election, he will have been no more significant than Campbell, and Campbell probably wins vs Carney on legacy as the first female prime minister. If we want to have a chat about vital Canadian politicians not currently represented, I'd mention former Minister of Everything C. D. Howe from the Modern era, for being the most important minister in the war cabinet, founding the CBC, and founding Air Canada. At any rate, re-discuss after the next federal election. NorthernFalcon (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose add: a) We're talking about a guy who's been PM for four days, b) His previous jobs do not carry with them VA5 vitality, c) he probably needs to serve until the next election and probably win that election as well to justify a VA5, and d) Campbell is still the first female prime minister and one of a very very few female Canadian politicians listed _pbp 22:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
3. : {{Reply|Purplebackpack89}} Being the first female leader of a country, doesn't make them automatically vital. Ertha Pascal-Trouillot, Jadranka Kosor, Janet Jagan, Jenny Shipley, Roza Otunbayeva, Sophie Wilmès are all not listed despite serving longer than Campbell and presumably being more vital to their respective countries. Sahaib (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
4. ::You've named six countries whose COMBINED population is only slightly larger than Canada's... _pbp 15:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
5. :::On the other hand those listed all had longer tenures than Campbell. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
6. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

;Mixed

1. Remove Campbell and don't add Carney. Canadian politician are overrepresented on the list. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

; Discussion

I wouldn't add any of the Canadian prime ministers, not until all the U.S. presidents are included. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:The only U.S. presidents who are omitted are the two who died less than a year into their terms _pbp 02:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Moscow Connection}} William Henry Harrison didn't do anything except catch pneumonia and die. He was President for a month. He isn't vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Moscow Connection}} Are you going to vote? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{reply|Lophotrochozoa}} No, I don't want to vote against someone I know nothing about. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• I could close this now, but the Canadian election is in three days, so I think better part of valor is leave it open until then _pbp 20:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• {{Reply|NorthernFalcon}} {{Reply|Purplebackpack89}} {{Reply|TonyTheTiger}} Update, Carney won the 2025 Canadian federal election and is now definitively more vital. Sahaib (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty obvious oversight. Acclaimed four-decade career. British Academy Award win. Three Academy Award nominations. Major roles in {{VA link|Schindler's List}} and the {{VA link|Harry Potter (film series)}}.

;Support

1. As nom. CopiousAmountofCannons (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Kevinishere15 (talk) 08:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Strong support, far more influential than some listed actors despite being Oscar free. Could do with a swap. Idiosincrático (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Too many actors as is. _pbp 00:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per my comment below. I've decided to vote cause it doesn't seem fair to me to remove cult figures like Molly Ringwald and Roy Scheider (see some discussions on this page) and replace them with Ralph Fiennes. Simply because his films are "serious" films, the kind that usually catches the Academy's attention. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

1. Yes, Ralph Fiennes fundamentally changed the entire world and James Bevel didn't (insert gif of Homer Simpson backing into the bushes here). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

1. I support listing him but with how many actors we have I'm not sure a straight add will pass, you should probably propose a swap with someone else. Kevinishere15 (talk) 08:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
2. :Yeah, not feeling as strong in this proposal as I was before. I don't really care to continue updating this proposal. CopiousAmountofCannons (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
3. A. {{tq|Major roles in {{VA link|Schindler's List}} and the {{VA link|Harry Potter (film series)}}.}}
   Was he in Harry Potter? Who is he? I can't imagine. I'm afraid to ask. Someone terrible? jk
   B. Yes, Schindler's List (1993) and The English Patient (1996) are good movies, but their popularity didn't last. (That's my impression. These are not the kind of movies you can watch several times.)
   I don't want to vote against him, but don't really think he's "vital". --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

The cosmetics subsection is very 20th century Amero-centric. In many cases the look is in higher renown than the person who created it _pbp 16:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Removed 4-2 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)}}

We're poised to remove James Charles and this guy has 20 FEWER interwikis (only five total) _pbp 16:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. _pbp 16:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
3. --Bluevestman (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose; light on wiki stats because make up isn't a predominantly big field for wiki enthusiasts, but Face Forward is widely considered to have introduced Contouring to the general public and Aucoin's probably the most defining modern make up person. Cosmetics isn't a wiki heavy field but one that has a larger in world impact, it deserves a couple names and this guy is the big modern name (Max Factor's the old one). Here's a ChatGPT check that articulates it better; [https://i.imgur.com/uC4Py5t.jpeg]. GuzzyG (talk) 03:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
2. :That doesn't sound vital at all. --Bluevestman (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Per GuzzyG. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Removed 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)}}

0 interwikis. ZERO. Not even one in French. Greatly eclipsed by {{VA link|Vidal Sassoon}}, who I think stays. _pbp 16:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. _pbp 16:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Zero interwikis should be an automatic removal IMO. Kevinishere15 (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
3. The article does not make any claims to vitality. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=failed|result=Not removed 3-2 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)}}

2 interwikis. Bouffant hairstyles MIGHT be VA5 but Kenneth, I don't think so. _pbp 16:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. _pbp 16:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
3. --Bluevestman (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose, "world's first celebrity hairdresser" means something in fashion history. The section isn't Americo-centric. Cosmetics has 10 people, for a centuries long industry that affects and influences a large proportion of the world and has massive impact on society, a large proportion of people it impacts however does not edit wikipedia, which reflects these wiki stats (it'd be different if a video games or cricket guy has low stats as these are two wikipedia enthusiast types of fields). I don't think large, very influential industries that are covered very little should be cut when there's much larger problems out there. These fields are just easy to cut because they're not wikipedia enthusiast type fields and the importance is harder to articulate. This manifests on the level 4 list with heaps of athletes with many individual sports having more than the 2 fashion designers we list. (despite fashion names being known globally to a larger proportion of the population). The cosmetics field section should be merged with a fashion one however, with models, designers and cosmetics all in one place to be accurate to the industry. Here's a ChatGPT influence check that can explain his impact better [https://i.imgur.com/DmL6MtQ.jpeg], "the first hairstylist to be widely recognized by name" plus his impact on the three most stylish women of the 20th century (Jackie Kennedy, Marilyn Monroe, Audrey Hepburn) ensures his place in cosmetics history (and in larger history with those 3). GuzzyG (talk) 03:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak oppose per GuzzyG. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Removed 5-2 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Served a brief presidency, nothing special that makes him vital. Similar to William Henry Harrison and James A. Garfield.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Questions? four Olliefant (she/her) 16:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Weak support. Just read through the article, he isn't vital enough as a general and his presidency was inconsequential. I don't think we should list people solely for holding an important position, and I'm not seeing a lasting impact here. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
5. --Bluevestman (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Was also a significant general in the Mexican-American War _pbp 20:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per above, and I would also support adding Garfield, we should cut the failed candidates like {{VA link|Thomas E. Dewey}} and {{VA link|Walter Mondale}} instead. Kevinishere15 (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Removed 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)}}

This architect is pretty obscure, despite the sum of his works, and doesnt really have a long enough legacy to say he is one of the most notable people. There's a reason his page is still a stub despite 20 years.

;Support

1. As nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 22:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. @User:1ctinus, is youre user name related to this fellow? Just curious. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Yeah, I don't think this article can be improved. --Bluevestman (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopr|status)failed|result=Not added 4-4 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Someone mentioned this as a possible addition. Had a more important presidency than William Henry Harrison.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per my own comment above, we should cut the failed candidates instead of presidents that served. Kevinishere15 (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
3. IDK if he should've been removed _pbp 18:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
4. I think he is actually one of the few presidents everyone knows.
   I am not American and may be wrong. But it's my impression that everyone knows him. His life ended so tragically.
   P. S. And everyone knows he was named after a cat. :-) --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. He was barely even president for six months and his legacy section does not suggest to me that he left a significant enough impact within those six months. I doubt him being among the 50,000 most important subjects of all time solely because of the fact he was president and outlived another president who only served thirty days. He needed to have actually accomplished something important during his tenure. Also, according to his article, his time spent as president was so short he is frequently left out of presidential rankings. We should probably go by that as well since he seemed to have accomplished nearly nothing to earn him a spot here. I'd say that this proposal probably comes off as Ameri-centric, but I'm not sure if the U.S history classes I actually took even mentioned or discussed him beyond a brief footnote. I could potentially be swayed if there's something I'm missing but I'm leaning towards him being near completely irrelevant. λ NegativeMP1 18:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per NegativeMP1. This man is a footnote. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Would support cutting U.S. presidents dramatically before adding more. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Not every US president needs to be on here. Interstellarity, you really got to stop jumping the gun. --Bluevestman (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

Acting chairman of the People's Republic of China (a symbolic office) for a brief period that was relatively inconsequential compared to a man who a very sigificant role in the era of reform and opening up and was seen as only second to Deng Xiaoping, not to mention the key role he played in the economy of the early Mao Zedong era.

;Support

1. As nom. The Account 2 (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Makes a lot of sense to me. Being the acting state representative during a time period such as the Cultural Revolution almost speaks more about how irrelevant Dong was during that time. OrientalTraveller (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

;Mixed

1. Support adding Chen, neutrel on removing Dong. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Per Lop _pbp 14:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

If {{VA link|Margo St. James}} should be listed it's as an activist. It has been said that Americal activists are overrepresented, but I can't judge if she is important enough.

;Move to activists

• As nom Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

;Remove

1. _pbp 11:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per pbp. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Not a worldwide or lasting impact, IMO. 4 interwikis probably supports this. 57 daily average page views inflated with a spike in January 2021 when she died. GauchoDude (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Keep

;Discussion

We don't have enough votes to remove her, but in the meantime I'm moving her to Activists. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

This may be a case of recentism, but since we list both the {{VA link|AI boom}} and {{VA link|ChatGPT}}, then this is worth a shot. Altman is currently the most prominent figure in the AI industry. His company, OpenAI, has developed ChatGPT, as well as DALL-E and Sora (text-to-video model).

;Support

1. As nom. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk)
2. Per nom Iostn (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose. I think we need to set very strict standards for including BLPs. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

1. On one hand, he objectively meets the standards of what we typically look for at present when listing businesspeople ("{{xt|Altman is considered to be one of the leading figures of the AI boom.}}", CEO of the company that made a highly important product, etc.). But on the other hand, I feel like we're cracking down more on the people we list as vital, and that includes businesspeople. So depending on what our standards are or are not, I could be swayed either way. Don't know right now. Note that I'm not taking recentism into account here as even in the few years these subjects have been vital they've left a enough of an impact for V5. λ NegativeMP1 23:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
2. :Same. GauchoDude (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

Prime minister of Pakistan from 2022–2023 and 2024–present. He is the brother of {{vital article link|Nawaz Sharif}} and was the longest-serving Chief Minister of Punjab (the country's most populated province).

;Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Don't see it. GauchoDude (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

Ancient military leader, person of Plutarch`s "Parallel Lives", famous for his life and inventions in siege' tactic Ibidem (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. Nominator's support assumed.
2. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Going to trust the logic behind this one. 41 interwikis which is high, but only 22 average daily page views. GauchoDude (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibidem (talk • contribs) 00:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Significant figure in 20th century Chinese history. longtime and main interparty rival to {{VA link|Chiang Kai-Shek}}, and led the Japanese puppet Wang Jingwei regime during WW2.

;Support

1. As nom. Zinderboff (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom Iostn (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. --EleniXDD※Talk 02:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
4. --Bluevestman (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopr|status=failed|result=Not added 1-2 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Brother of {{VA link|Ridley Scott}} and the director of {{VA link|Top Gun}}. Many of his other films have been successes at the box office.

;Support

1. As nom. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk)

;Oppose

1. Too many American directors as is _pbp 16:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
2. I don't think that creating something that is vital automatically makes you vital. Also, I'd like to cut down on directors, not add more. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

Kenny is the voice of {{vital article link|SpongeBob SquarePants (character)}} in {{vital article link|SpongeBob SquarePants}}, the Ice King in {{vital article link|Adventure Time}}, the Narrator and Mayor in The Powerpuff Girls (recently removed from the vital articles list) and Heffer Wolfe in Rocko's Modern Life. He also voiced major characters in Johnny Bravo, CatDog, Transformers: Animated and Talking Tom & Friends. Thomas is mainly known for narrating Forensic Files (which is not vital).

;Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 08:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Support removal, weak support addition. We need to cut down the number of actors, but I think SpongeBob's voice actor is one of the ones that could remain. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Support removal. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
5. --Bluevestman (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
6. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose Addition. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

1. Support remove, oppose add. We have too many actors as is _pbp 20:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:#{{Reply|Purplebackpack89}} the voice actor section is relatively small and Kenny seems to have a similar level (or above level) of vitalness compared to those already listed like {{vital article link|Charles Martinet}}, {{vital article link|Christine Cavanaugh}}, {{vital article link|Rob Paulsen}}, {{vital article link|Tara Strong}} and {{vital article link|Veronica Taylor}}. Sahaib (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{ping|GauchoDude}} Do you oppose removing Peter Thomas? You placed you vote on Oppose but you said "Agreed", and no one other than you is opposed to removing him. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Woah, thanks for pinging me on this. I meant agreed on I agreed with the swap. I must have put the vote in the wrong section? I will adjust now and backdate. GauchoDude (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

{{atopr|status=failed|result=Not removed 4-5 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)}}

{{vital article link|Grime music}} doesn't necessarily need people to represent it. Whilst Wiley is known as the "Godfather of Grime", there is quite a lot of non-vital people with honorific nicknames in popular music. See also [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2023-09-01&end=2025-04-11&pages=Ghetts%7CJme%7CDizzee_Rascal%7CSkepta%7CStormzy%7CKano_(British_musician)%7CWiley_(musician)%7CDave_(rapper)%7CCentral_Cee%7CDigga_D pageviews] compared to other British rappers such as Central Cee and Stormzy (who are too recent to be added).

;Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
2. support  Carlwev  10:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
3. _pbp 16:02, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:53, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose without any potential swap - not into the idea of cutting influential figures in hip hop outside the US Iostn (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
2. :To add - in the hip hop section currently, literally the only non-Americans other than these two are {{VA link|Drake (musician)}} and {{VA link|M.I.A. (rapper)}} - the former of him currently has a majority in favour of removal right above this. Iostn (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
3. ::{{Reply|Iostn}} there is others already listed that could be considered hip-hop artists/rappers (some more than others): {{vital article link|BTS}}, {{vital article link|Wizkid}}, {{vital article link|Blackpink}}, {{vital article link|KSI}}, {{vital article link|Stromae}}, {{vital article link|Psy}}, {{vital article link|DAM (band)}}, {{vital article link|Yo Yo Honey Singh}}, {{vital article link|Arashi}}, {{vital article link|Agnez Mo}}, {{vital article link|Falco (musician)}} and {{vital article link|Gorillaz}}. Also {{vital article link|Bad Bunny}} and {{vital article link|Daddy Yankee}} from Puerto Rico which is part of the US. Sahaib (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Oppose Removing any form of global nature from a very prominent section of US bias would be weird. Comparing Wileys pageviews to Central Cees would be like comparing Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five to Post Malone. The grime music articles shows impact in Australia, Brazil and China/Japan, that's an impact. 1 representative out of 47 in rap is not out there. Americanization of the list is never a good thing. What good would it be for an encyclopedia to only cover American hip-hop if they were to show people in hip hop? GuzzyG (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
5. At first, I was leaning towards support but hip-hop and rap are such global genres that they warrant more global representation on our list. You can argue that these aren't the best candidates but at best, I'd like to see a swap proposed. It's not like grime is a UK-specific phenomenon either. Also, the comparison to Central Cee and Stormzy is quite unfair considering those are artists who are popular right now (Sabrina Carpenter has more pageviews in the past year than {{VA link|Michael Jackson}}). Sahaib mentioned above that there are many global artists we list in other sections that could be considered rappers but I feel like 1) their primary focus is on pop music (or other things like {{VA link|KSI}} ) and 2) the fact that these celebrated pop musicians include rap in their work is a testament to why rap/hip-hop deserves more, and not less, recognition on our list. Aurangzebra (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
6. Did you seriously just argue that BTS and Blackpink are good representatives of the global hip-hop scene? --Bluevestman (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
7. : {{Reply|Bluevestman}} see Rap Monster and Lisa (rapper). Sahaib (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
8. Per above. GauchoDude (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopr|status=failed|result=Not added 2-2 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Was recently re-elected in the 2025 Ecuadorian general election, so will likely be president until at least 2029. See Ecuadorian conflict (2024–present).

;Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
2. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Ths subject's claim to fame, per the lede, appears to be the 2nd youngest president in Ecuadorian history and that he held corporate positions in his billionaire daddy's company. On credentials alone right now, a clear no pass for me. GauchoDude (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Let's wait until he does something that makes him vital. I don't think we should list people just for holding office. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

{{abot}}

According to [https://theintercept.com/2024/10/23/peru-president-dina-boluarte-rolexgate/ this], Boluarte is the world's least popular president. See Peruvian protests (2022–2023).

;Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. For me, first female president of Peru is not notable enough for this level. Being the least popular president is not worthy of inclusion. Has only been president for less than a handful of years. Not one of the most notable people in history, which is what this project is looking for. GauchoDude (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
2. She hasn't been president that long, and our list of politicians is a bit over quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

Was elected due to the 2018–present Argentine monetary crisis. See Public image of Javier Milei.

;Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Definitely. Aurangzebra (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Weak support, he hasn't been president for that long yet but he seems to have had a sizable domestic and international impact. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. I may be out of the loop, but a president who has served under 1.5 years doesn't seem like one of the most important people in history. GauchoDude (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Per GauchoDude. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

{{atopr|staus=failed|result=Not added 1-2 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Notable for being left-wing. See Presidency of Gustavo Petro.

;Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Again, a president who served for less than 5 years whose notability is the side of the aisle they're on? Interesting political history so a potential future add for me, but being (slightly) overquota already on the "Politicians and leaders" category (at least as of last updated statistics), this doesn't scream "add" to me. GauchoDude (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
2. I don't think he has made enough of an impact to be listed yet. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Removed 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Was vice president, so did not have much of an impact.

;Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
3. _pbp 13:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{abot}}

Was mainly the country's prime minister not president, so did not have much of an impact.

;Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

Briefly served as president, so did not have much of an impact.

;Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

1. I would add that he doesn't appear to be more vital than Arturo Umberto Illia (who isn't listed). Sahaib (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Removed 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Athletes is overquota. This mountaineer is famous as the second woman (not second person) to climb all fourteen eight-thousanders, and the first to do so without supplemental oxygen. According to the article, three women have climbed these mountains. We don't list number 3, and with the current quota, I don't see why we should list number 2.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
4. In my view, "the first XYZ to do ABC" shouldn't be listed as vital unless it brings long lasting fame or historical recognition to that person. She doesn't seem to have that. However I should note that she has been mentioned twice before on VA5 archives. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

53 player and a dozen execs is probably too much for a non-Olympic sport; 40 players and 8 execs seems fairer. _pbp 21:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

11 interwikis. More famous from being banned from the game than from playing it. We have over a dozen other outfielders, including quite a few other Americans, many of whom have 20+ interwikis _pbp 21:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. _pbp 21:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Does not seem vital enough to include. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Weak oppose. He and Pete Rose are the two prime examples of "player who could have easily been a Hall of Fame member if he didn't get banned." --Bluevestman (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
2. :Being a Hall of Famer isn't enough to get you to VA5 though. Pete Rose isn't just a borderline case: if you throw out all his misbehavior, he's a Top 20 position player (i.e. excludes pitchers) EVER _pbp 20:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose. If the level of importance for sports biographies inclusion is {{VA link|Nigel Richards (Scrabble player)}}, then subject should be kept. GauchoDude (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
4. :@GauchoDude I think your string of oppose votes is a bit over the top. You're comparing arguably THE best Scrabble player with people who aren't even Top 20 (in many cases arguably not Top 50) baseball players _pbp 03:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
5. ::The sport of competitive baseball is exponentially harder to succeed in and has a much longer history than Scrabble. As such, of course someone like Jackson is clearly more important, which is demonstrated by a 1,646 to 125 difference in average daily page views, which is a WP:VITALCRITERIA metric of importance. This despite Jackson being dead since 1951 and your GOAT being modern, currently active, and likely affected by WP:RECENTISM as noted in the criteria. GauchoDude (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

1. Say it ain't so, pbp. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

20 interwikis. While he at one time held the single-season home run record, both juiced and clean players have since passed him. Isn't even in the Baseball Hall of Fame. We have over a dozen other outfielders, including quite a few other Americans, many of whom have 20+ interwikis _pbp 21:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. _pbp 21:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. (side note: this proposal accidentally got placed in one of the archives, so I moved it.) QuicoleJR (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Maris held the American League home-run record for, ironically, 61 years. Those 61 years included the juicing era, where no American League player was able to juice themself enough to break it. A two-time MVP and a symbol of baseball in the pre-1969 golden era, Maris's overall impact on both the game and public appreciation of the game seems adequate for inclusion here. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
2. :So impactful he's not in the Hall of Fame and Aaron Judge broke his record... Wasn't even the best player on those 50s/60s Yankees teams _pbp 14:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
3. ::Good points, but those 61 homers reverberated at the time and for 61 years. If others support your reasoning I'll withdraw my oppose and move this to discuss, it's just that Maris's achievement seems enough to make him a credible entry for this list (as he has been). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Oppose. If the level of importance for sports biographies inclusion is {{VA link|Nigel Richards (Scrabble player)}}, then subject should be kept. GauchoDude (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

{{atopg

| status = PASSED

| result = Removed 4-0. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

14 interwikis. We have over a dozen other outfielders, including quite a few other Americans, many of whom have 20+ interwikis. _pbp 21:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. _pbp 21:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Does not seem vital enough to include. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Removed 4-1 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)}}

18 interwikis. There was a time when it was thought that he would become one of the greatest players in baseball, but injuries and both his and the Angels' mediocrity made that unlikely. We have over a dozen other outfielders, including quite a few other Americans, many of whom have 20+ interwikis _pbp 21:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. _pbp 21:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Seems like recentism. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:12, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Overrated WAR merchant, does not have a legacy for vitality -1ctinus📝🗨 22:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. 3x MVP, 11x All-star. One of the brightest lights in baseball history. The duration of his luminescence is not such an issue. We still anticipate 400 HRs and 1000 RBIs.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
2. :{{ping|TonyTheTiger}} I don't like that word "anticipate". If his VA5-ness is based on getting to 400 homers and 1,000 RBIs, he shouldn't be VA5 until he actually gets there? What if he gets hit by a bus on State College Boulevard? _pbp 13:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

{{VA link|Mel Ott}} is unlisted despite having more hits, homers, RBI (almost twice as many!) and a better batting average than Trout _pbp 19:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Only nine interwikis. Eclipsed by fellas like Ty Cobb, Jimmie Foxx. Honus Wagner and Ted Williams _pbp 21:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. _pbp 21:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Does not seem vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Sahaib (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
5. --Bluevestman (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. 5X (2x contested) batting champion, triple crown, 3x RBI leader. Most votes in baseball's 2nd HOF class. I.e., the 6th most important player in baseball history as of 1937 (ahead of Cy Young who was 8th based on experts of the game at the time).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
2. I'm with Tony here. One of the greatest impact players in history at a time that the game was ripe for the need to have impact players. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose. If the level of importance for sports biographies inclusion is {{VA link|Nigel Richards (Scrabble player)}}, then subject should be kept. GauchoDude (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

{{atopg

| status = PASSED

| result = Removed 5-0. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

Much as I hate removing guys named Charles, he only has 10 interwiki links, and his main claim to fame is being his team's only pitcher for most of a season.

;Support

1. _pbp 21:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Sahaib (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
5. --Thi (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|Removed 6-1. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)}}

I get the impetus for having female baseball players, but she doesn't have any interwikis. NOT ONE. _pbp 21:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. _pbp 21:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Not vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Sahaib (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Zero interwikis should be an automatic removal. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
6. --Thi (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. She represents female excellence in the sport.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

@Kevinishere15, Interwiki links is not an official part of the vital article criteria. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• Article has been listed among {{ping|LaukkuTheGreit}}'s bottom 20% of sports figures _pbp 14:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|Removed 5-1. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Just not anything approaching a household name. Only 10 interwikis. We will still have a dozen other pitchers if he is removed. _pbp 21:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. _pbp 21:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Sahaib (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Does not seem vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
5. --Thi (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. He seems to be one of the greatest ever. In many fields we try to preserve a semblance of equal representation across time. This removal seems to be based on the fact that he is less remembered around the world (interwikis) than that he is not an important baseball player.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{archive top green|status=Passed |result=Removed, 4-1 _pbp 00:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Only 9 interwikis vs 37 for the team he owned _pbp 21:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. _pbp 21:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Does not seem vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
4. --Bluevestman (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Comiskey's initial and continued contributions to the establishment and success of the American League is substantial and essential, maybe equal to Ban Johnson who should also be a 5. As I ask below: is present-day fame a solid and actual criteria for inclusion here? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
2. :# Sports and entertainment very much have vitality intertwined with fame, more so than other topics where vitality and influence is more concrete
3. :# Even at VA5, and certainly at VA4 and higher, we except at least some notability outside of home country
4. :# What's the point of writing a good or featured article if nobody reads it?
5. :# Could you answer my question about why Charlie Comiskey is more vital than the White Sox themselves or the American League itself, neither of which is VA?
6. :_pbp 14:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
7. ::Can't argue with Comiskey or Johnson being more vital than the American League, which they created. When it comes to baseball the American and National Leagues shaped the modern (20th century onwards) baseball era, so I thought that their founders would fit here. Seems criteria and what's important is a quickly moving target. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

{{archive bottom}}

{{atopg

| status = PASSED

| result = Removed 5-0. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

Didn't actually invent baseball, and military career not enough to justify VA5

;Support

1. _pbp 21:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
2. On this I'll support removal (which I don't like to do) because Doubleday's reputation as the inventor of baseball is not credible even though it is used well promotionally. A level-designation should be for actual accomplishment, not the legend (see James Bevel for someone with actual accomplishment without the legend, although I don't know if he ever played baseball). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Not vital enough as a soldier, and the "he invented baseball" myth isn't enough to make him worth keeping. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
5. --Thi (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{archive top|status=Passed |result=Removed, 4-1 _pbp 00:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Only 7 interwikis. _pbp 21:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. _pbp 21:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Sahaib (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
4. --Bluevestman (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Miller took the game of professional baseball from one era to another by gaining outlandish salaries for ballplayers - which then led to the scourge of advertising on the field, having to sell naming rights to stadiums, and a general non-enjoyment of the game (ads everywhere in sight) except for the players, who laugh and thank Miller all the way to the bank. Bottom line is that he influenced the game of professional baseball more than almost all the players in the Hall of Fame. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

{{archive bottom}}

{{archive top green|status=passed |result=Removed, 4-0 _pbp 00:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Surprisingly, only 5 interwikis. If he and Comiskey are removed, we still have Connie Mack and George Steinbrenner to represent MLB owners and Kenesaw Mountain Landis to represent commissioners _pbp 21:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. _pbp 21:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
4. --Bluevestman (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{archive bottom}}

Only 4 interwikis. While important to the growth of professional baseball, just isn't enough of a household name. _pbp 21:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. _pbp 21:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
3. --Bluevestman (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. He had more impact on the sport than most of the individual players we list. Kevinishere15 (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose. If the level of importance for sports biographies inclusion is {{VA link|Nigel Richards (Scrabble player)}}, then subject should be kept. GauchoDude (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

1. {{u|Purplebackpack89}}, maybe I don't understand the criteria for inclusion. Does it include present-day fame? Wright shaped the game as much as anyone could. Please educate me about your reasoning here (I seem to see "not enough interwikis" mentioned a lot on these noms too, why is that a criteria? Does it have to do, as well, with present day fame?) thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
2. :There is a consensus that we have too many athletes and sportspeople in general, and in particular too many American athletes in the mostly-American game of baseball and almost-exclusively American game of American football. Let me ask you this: what evidence is there for Harry Wright's influence outside the United States? He doesn't have an interwiki in Spanish or Korean even though Latin America and Korea are some of the few places outside the United States where baseball is played. And he died decades before baseball expanded beyond the United States and Canada. And that's what interwikis are good for: measuring global influence. _pbp 13:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
3. :{{ping|Randy Kryn}} To pbp's point, we need cuts in Sportspeople. To be vital, they should either be one of the greatest of all time or have had a lasting impact that goes beyond stats. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks. I'm not opposing, just asking if being a "household name" is a criteria here. It seems implied that it is, but I don't think it is or should be, just the extent of the societal impact. Wright is major in the American game, no doubt, but his and Ban Johnson's influence shaped the game to such an extent it became an international game. Doesn't that count for international? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

• Article has been listed among {{ping|LaukkuTheGreit}}'s bottom 20% of sports figures _pbp 14:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Alexander Cartwright: more likely than Doubleday to have invented baseball
• Kenesaw Mountain Landis: Founding commissioner of MLB, banned the Black Sox
• Connie Mack: all-time wins and losses leader as a manager, also a team owner
• Buck O'Neil: Negro Leagues
• Branch Rickey: Exec who integrated baseball
• Albert Spalding: Though possibly should be moved to general sports or business
• George Steinbrenner: One of the most vocal and well-known owners in professional sports

_pbp 21:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:Ban Johnson, the founder and long-time first president of the American League, belongs here, and probably should be added. Will Harridge, I'd personally add him immediately both for his long influence on the game, on the American League as president and before, and the creation and impact of the All-Star game, but that's a bit inside-baseball. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Randy Kryn}} How do you square that with the consensus that there are 1) too many American biographies in general and 2) too many sports biographies? _pbp 14:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I can't because I wasn't aware of those decisions. Just saying that if any early baseball pioneer is mentioned then Ban Johnson should be included in that list. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Removed 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2025 (UTC)}}

It is indicative of our overrepresentation of biographies at VA5 that we list 900 prose writers but only 500 literary works of fiction. Works of fiction are almost always more vital than their creators. Let's get the ball rolling with Meg Cabot.

Cabot is the author of {{VA link|The Princess Diaries}} (not listed) and a few less important works. If we think Princess Diaries is vital, we should swap Cabot out for the work itself. I don't believe that creating a VA5 work automatically makes you VA5, although certain works can. If we don't think Princess Diaries is vital, there's no real reason to list Cabot, since her other works aren't that important. Either way, there is no reason to list her.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Bluevestman (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|Removed 5-0. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Stub on a World Memory Championships winner which seems very niche in of itself, mnemonist isn't even VA

;Support

1. Nom Iostn (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
3. _pbp 12:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
5. --Thi (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|Removed 5-0. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Unsure of the overall popularity of organized competitive fishing as a sport, and the lack of interwikis don't help - {{VA link|Bass fishing}} is a specificlly North American activity in any case

;Support

1. Nom Iostn (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Aye.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
3. _pbp 11:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
5. --Thi (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

Shot put world record holder and 1x Olympic gold medalist but there doesn't seem to be much to speak of beyond that

;Support

1. Nom Iostn (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Aye.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
4. I hate to say it, but it's unlikely to be a coincidence that [https://worldathletics.org/records/all-time-toplists/throws/shot-put/outdoor/women/senior the longest shots] were all thrown by Eastern Europeans in the 1970s and 1980s. Just because Lisovskaya came at the end of that era doesn't mean that she's the most important female shot putter (in addition to {{VA link|Valerie Adams}}). They don't have the record – so they're less well-known – but Women's shot put world record progression shows that the likes of Nadezhda Chizhova, Margitta Gummel, Galina Zybina, and especially {{VA link|Tamara Press}} would all be better inclusions – they dominated the sport for a longer period of time. Press is also notable for the discus and a non-doping controversy. I think she'd be an excellent inclusion. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Per below, a 40 year record holder. -1ctinus📝🗨 13:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
2. _pbp 19:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Changing vote. If the level of importance for sports biographies inclusion is {{VA link|Nigel Richards (Scrabble player)}}, then subject should be kept. GauchoDude (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

She's held the Shot put world record holder for 41 years (beating herself in 1987 and nobody beating her since), longer than I've been alive. _pbp 20:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

A former and popular early {{VA link|Ultimate Fighting Championship}}, but nothing beyond that stands out

;Support

1. Nom Iostn (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose. If the level of importance for sports biographies inclusion is {{VA link|Nigel Richards (Scrabble player)}}, then subject should be kept. GauchoDude (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{atopg|Removed 5-0. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{VA link|Aggressive inline skating}} is relatively niche and his own influence seems too niche to be worth listing. Listing the sport is probably enough

;Support

1. Nom Iostn (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
3. _pbp 20:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
5. 4 interwikis. --Bluevestman (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Removed 5-1 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Accoplished sure (was named "the best offensive lineman of all time" 40 years ago), but difficult to justify with only 8 interwikis, in an over-quota section, for a sport only played in the US that already has 40 other players listed

;Support

1. Nom Iostn (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
3. He's good but I don't think he reaches Level 5 vitality. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
4. _pbp 19:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
5. --Bluevestman (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose. If the level of importance for sports biographies inclusion is {{VA link|Nigel Richards (Scrabble player)}}, then subject should be kept. GauchoDude (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Removed 5-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Writers is still over quota and we still have too many modern American authors. This guy's strongest claim to vitality is writing some bestsellers which were popular in the early twentieth century, but the article makes no claim to any sort of lasting cultural impact. As for statistics, he only has 17 interwikis, none of his books have more than 3, and he averages less than 100 pageviews a day.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
2. _pbp 14:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
5. His pageviews are decent, but I imagine a large portion of them stem from the non-vital fact of the confusion with his namesake. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

I have a feeling that this one will be controversial, but hear me out. Writers is over quota still, and needs some cuts. We currently list {{VA link|Catch-22}} as a Level 5 vital article. Catch-22 was an important book, but it was also Heller's only work of any significance. None of his other works had any impact on anything. If we list the book as vital, and the only important thing Heller did was write that one book, then listing him is redundant. We don't list the creator of every VA5 work of fiction (I believe we are even missing the creators of a few VA4 works) so I don't see a reason to list Heller.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
2. λ NegativeMP1 22:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
3. ALittleClass (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

1. The same things about "only one notable work" can be said about {{VA link|Dante Alighieri}} and {{VA link|Miguel de Cervantes}}, both of whom are listed at a level above their masterpieces (although, this is due to us not putting specific works in Level 3 with the exception of religious texts). ALittleClass (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
2. :Obviously I don't think that this applies in every single case, and certain works can make you warrant a slot at the same level, but I believe it applies the vast majority of the time. Level 3 is an exception because adding specific works is a can of worms nobody wants to open. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

He was mentioned recently in a VA discussion that circled into missing ancient figures. 71 interwikis, which is great for an ancient historian. Notable for writing a 40-volume Bibliotheca historica, or the history of the world to that point

;Support

1. _pbp 14:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Either him or Bibliotheca historica. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;List Bibliotheca historica instead

1. Per GauchoDude. (I know this isn't the right page, but the discussion's started here and I hate when they're fragmented.) J947 ‡ ^edits 00:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

1. I like the idea here, but not sure if I'm sold on it or not. The majority of the article surrounds Bibliotheca historica, which itself is not vital-listed. While that work is 40 books in total (of which just 15 survive), there doesn't seem to be anything else in the article that would further lift him above what just this work is. There are numerous examples of a singular work being greater than the producer and, without knowing more (which the article doesn't provide), I'd lean more in favor of adding the work here than the person. GauchoDude (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Removed 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Nowlan's only major impact is creating {{VA link|Buck Rogers}}, which we don't list. If we think Buck Rogers is vital, we should make a swap. Otherwise, Nowlan should be removed since he hasn't done anything else. Either way, I don't see a reason to keep this stub on the list.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
3. _pbp 16:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

Recommended as a removal by Aurangzebra in a different section. We still list too many sportspeople. Keegan was good for his time, but he isn't considered one of the best of all time, and his stats are impressive but not VA5-level by themselves. He also never won any major international tournaments AFAICT.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose without swap. Would support a swap with a modern player such as Luka Modrić, Andrea Pirlo, Xavi or Sergio Ramos. I think Ramos is a safe shout, might be the most recognisable defender of the 21st century alongside {{VA link|Paolo Maldini}}. Idiosincrático (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Building off statement below and if the level of importance for sports biographies inclusion is {{VA link|Nigel Richards (Scrabble player)}}, then subject should be kept. GauchoDude (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

As a point of discussion, Keegan is one of 10 players who have won the Ballon d'Or more than once, an award (now) given to the best player in the game annually, in 1978 and 79. He also came second in 1977. Quite the three-year run but could indicate Keegan is a large soccer figure. GauchoDude (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Co-founder of first widely-used web browser Mosaic/Netscape (where JavaScript, HTTP cookies and SSL were invented) and co-founder and general partner of venture capital firm a16z, which ranks first by assets under management.

;Support

1. 2001:9E8:E1F8:F500:14D4:9CB1:6FF1:46DB (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Wary of recentism here, but he feels like he should be on the list. GauchoDude (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Popular author and prominent as a columnist in the UK, but he doesn't seem particularly influential on the field of philosophy, see the low interwikis compared to other listed entries - also we should probably address the relative European bias under philosophy

;Support

1. As nom Iostn (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
2. _pbp 18:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

Iostn (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Luis Antonio Tagle is a more globally influential cardinal due to holding an important position in the Dicastery for Evangelization and previously serving as Archbishop of Manila. There are several other cardinals like George Pell who were involved in scandals who are not listed like Bernard Francis Law, Keith O'Brien, Roger Mahony and Theodore McCarrick. Plus Australia is already represented by {{vital article link|Mary MacKillop}} in the Christianity: Modern, 1800-present section.

;Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Don't like listing people for scandals. Tagle is pretty significant in the Philippines already. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Pell's case was highly prolific and internationally known. He was Archbishop of both Melbourne and Sydney, and arguably the most famous Catholic leader during the 21st century thus far (excluding the popes). Idiosincrático (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

:Wouldn't it make more sense to swap w/ Catholic Church sexual abuse cases? Iostn (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::I would also support this swap. Sahaib (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::I would support this swap as well. The subject is much more vital than one of the people involved. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I would also support this swap. GauchoDude (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::Me too. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Um, this is the wrong time to discuss Tagle. He might be the next pope...or he might not. I say hold off until after the conclave. Also find it kind of funny that Mahoney, who would've been my archbishop if I was Catholic and was my mom's boss' boss' boss, is being mentioned for VA5. _pbp 16:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I was honestly quite surprised to not see him on the list or having been discussed previously. Keller has owned and operated The French Laundry since 1996, and it's held 3 Michelin Stars since 2007 consecutively. It was named to the The World's 50 Best Restaurants list 4 times, winning twice. Additionally, he's opened Per Se in 2004 and it also has held 3 Michelin Stars since 2006 consecutively. He has a 7th Michelin Star from The Surf Club Restaurant in addition to the other notable restaurants he owns (Bouchon which previously held a Michelin Star, Ad Hoc), has a number of published books, and a huge amount of professional accolades.

We are currently under the mark on Miscellaneous people (1,164 at last count vs. 1,200 quota).

;Support

1. As nom. GauchoDude (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
2. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Seems like a good candidate for Level 5. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

1. I don't think chefs are badly overrepresented, but in this case I'd rather list the restaurant. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
2. :Which one? Because The French Laundry and Per Se are both rated as 3 Michelin Stars and are wildly famous so I'm assuming you mean one of those. If not, though, then you still have the 1 Michelin Star The Surf Club Restaurant that you might be referring to. If awards aren't an indicator of vitality for you, perhaps you mean Bouchon and Ad Hoc?
3. :That also disregards the 4 notable books he has too. What I'm saying is Keller isn't likely a "work is greater than the person" situation we encounter. GauchoDude (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

It has been argued that we are listing too many in the miscellaneous people page, so it's possible that we should decrease its quota instead of adding more to it. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:This proposal is under the current set of rules/guidelines/quotas. I believe we should not be adjusting our operating procedure based on what we *think* might happen at some indeterminate future point. If a more concrete conversation is had that leads to the rules being changed, then we can re-evaluate at that time. As it exists now in the current landscape, I believe the Keller addition makes sense. GauchoDude (talk) 15:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 5-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Primarily famous for {{VA link|The Sellout (novel)}}, released in 2015. I don't think "first American to win the Booker Prize" is enough for vitality, especially since it was only the second year Americans were eligible. Also seems like a case of recentism, since his most famous book only came out in 2015, which happens to be the year Level 5 was created. None of his books have enough impact to warrant him being on the list, and only two of them even have articles. Beatty is simply not important enough to reach Level 5.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
3. _pbp 20:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Kevinishere15 (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Per nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Historica Japanese monk. According to the article he is "a popular subject of Japanese folklore showcased in many ancient and modern literature and productions". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Had to dive into this one a bit. The folklore bit seems important. 29 interwikis and nearly 400 average daily pageviews (with a huge spike on April 5, 2019, for some reason). GauchoDude (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Per both above. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Bluevestman (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Removed 6-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)}}

No real signs of importance other than one Pulitzer Prize, and we don't list every Pulitzer recipient. Only one of her books has any interwikis, most of the major honors are unsourced and may not be real, and the article does not show any major impact. She is less important than several authors we don't list or that we have removed, so she should not be listed either.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Per above. Sahaib (talk) 20:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Pulitzer is a major award, but not everyone who gets it (or Oscar, etc.) is Vital 5, IMHO. The bio needs to show her impact or influence on the world beyond just one or two works that were briefly popular. Her major work, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, has just 4 interwikis. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Kevinishere15 (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
6. Weakly. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

The section Animators and puppeteers seems to include all listed filmmakers who are most known for working in animation. Should we list them that way or should we list them by the role in the production they are most known for (for example, Walt Disney would be listed as a producer, Hayao Miyazaki would be listed as a director, John Lasseter and Don Bluth would be listed as directors or producers, Matt Groening, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, Seth MacFarlane, and Steven Hillenburg would be listed as television writers)? If we continue listing all of them with animators, should we clarify this? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think animation-related people can remain grouped together, to more easily see coverage of the medium (as opposed to moving Bluth and Miyazaki elsewhere under film directors and such). I have my doubts about subcategorising the section, since people can have multiple roles and it's so small, but on the other hand separating the more script-oriented people from ones known for their visual contributions makes some sense.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Minchin has quite a substantial international audience and probably the most prominent active Australian comedian. How Gadsby is vital is beyond me, barely known outside of Australia and New Zealand. Idiosincrático (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. as nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, why not. Data seems to support with Minchin besting Gadsby in interwikis (24 to 14) and average daily page views (1,249 to 867). GauchoDude (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
3. I admit I've never even heard of Gadsby. I note that we list 173 comedians, out of which 111 are American. Yeah – uh – that's problematic to say the least. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

There has been talk about bloat in this section, so I decided to create a similar kind of bottom list which I've done a couple of times before, for us to see what the most obscure people here are and whether they deserve removal. Least viewed at the top, counted from 2022-01-01 to 2025-04-30.

{{extended content|{{ubl

|{{VA link|Johann Karl Ehrenfried Kegel}}

|{{VA link|Maria Pronchishcheva}}

|{{VA link|C. J. Freezer}}

|{{VA link|Praskovya Angelina}}

|{{VA link|Harry de Windt}}

|{{VA link|Xaver Hohenleiter}}

|{{VA link|Sataspes}}

|{{VA link|Mikhail Stadukhin}}

|{{VA link|Henenu (high steward)}}

|{{VA link|Juan Galindo}}

|{{VA link|Roberto Ivens}}

|{{VA link|Qian Zhuangfei}}

|{{VA link|Diogo Fernandes Pereira}}

|{{VA link|Diocletian Lewis}}

|{{VA link|Thomas Hardy (winemaker)}}

|{{VA link|Louis-Gustave Binger}}

|{{VA link|Colaeus}}

|{{VA link|Gonçalo Coelho}}

|{{VA link|Ernest Mercier}}

|{{VA link|António de Noli}}

|{{VA link|Louis E. Eliasberg}}

|{{VA link|John Rackham (pirate)}}

|{{VA link|Mithaecus}}

|{{VA link|Émile Peynaud}}

|{{VA link|John Marshall (Royal Navy officer, born 1748)}}

|{{VA link|James Augustus Grant}}

|{{VA link|James G. Fair}}

|{{VA link|Euthymenes}}

|{{VA link|Damaris Page}}

|{{VA link|Jesús Arriaga}}

|{{VA link|Alexandre de Serpa Pinto}}

|{{VA link|Kurbat Ivanov}}

|{{VA link|Francisco Lopes Suasso}}

|{{VA link|Q. David Bowers}}

|{{VA link|Marguerite Gourdan}}

|{{VA link|Jacob van Heemskerck}}

|{{VA link|Elmer Lincoln Irey}}

|{{VA link|Hu Xueyan}}

|{{VA link|Irineu Evangelista de Sousa, Viscount of Mauá}}

|{{VA link|Ada and Minna Everleigh}}

|{{VA link|William Keeling}}

|{{VA link|Antonia Ferreira}}

|{{VA link|Lewis E. Lawes}}

|{{VA link|Carme Ruscalleda}}

|{{VA link|Harlow Curtice}}

|{{VA link|Elizabeth Cresswell}}

|{{VA link|John Insley Blair}}

|{{VA link|Yñigo Ortiz de Retez}}

|{{VA link|John Moresby}}

|{{VA link|Giovanni de' Marignolli}}

|{{VA link|Aleixo Garcia}}

|{{VA link|Sydney Omarr}}

|{{VA link|Shel Dorf}}

|{{VA link|Philipp von Ferrary}}

|{{VA link|Asa Lovejoy}}

|{{VA link|João Álvares Fagundes}}

|{{VA link|James Braidwood}}

|{{VA link|Edward Blount}}

|{{VA link|Louis Mandrin}}

|{{VA link|Yuri Romanenko}}

|{{VA link|António de Abreu}}

|{{VA link|James W. Moseley}}

|{{VA link|Jorge de Menezes}}

|{{VA link|Constantine Hering}}

|{{VA link|William Weightman}}

|{{VA link|Lancelotto Malocello}}

|{{VA link|Nellie Kershaw}}

|{{VA link|Wilhelm von Finck}}

|{{VA link|Albert Hastings Markham}}

|{{VA link|Mr. Kenneth}}

|{{VA link|Charles Debrille Poston}}

|{{VA link|Margaret Olivia Slocum Sage}}

|{{VA link|Pedro Mascarenhas}}

|{{VA link|Louis de Wohl}}

|{{VA link|William Lawson (explorer)}}

|{{VA link|A. Bruce Bielaski}}

|{{VA link|Juan Fernández (explorer)}}

|{{VA link|Francisco Serrão}}

|{{VA link|Wang Dayuan}}

|{{VA link|Thomas Willing}}

|{{VA link|George Barrington}}

|{{VA link|Gregory Blaxland}}

|{{VA link|Charles Heidsieck}}

|{{VA link|Gregory Olsen}}

|{{VA link|Arthur Whitten Brown}}

|{{VA link|Charles Ranhofer}}

|{{VA link|Ward Melville}}

|{{VA link|Diogo de Azambuja}}

|{{VA link|Ben Carlin}}

|{{VA link|John Nevison}}

|{{VA link|Alain Chapel}}

|{{VA link|Sally Salisbury}}

|{{VA link|Pêro da Covilhã}}

|{{VA link|Matsutarō Shōriki}}

|{{VA link|John Hemming (explorer)}}

|{{VA link|Édouard Michelin (industrialist)}}

|{{VA link|Willem Schouten}}

|{{VA link|Moses Taylor}}

|{{VA link|André Tchelistcheff}}

|{{VA link|Dick Smith (businessman)}}

|{{VA link|William John Wills}}

|{{VA link|Sonya Golden Hand}}

|{{VA link|Alexander Gordon Laing}}

|{{VA link|Vincenzo Pipino}}

|{{VA link|Paul Scully-Power}}

|{{VA link|Hugh Willoughby}}

|{{VA link|Alan Leo}}

|{{VA link|Juan Díaz de Solís}}

|{{VA link|Guillaume Tirel}}

|{{VA link|Álvaro de Saavedra Cerón}}

|{{VA link|Bartolomeo Scappi}}

|{{VA link|Edward Henry}}

|{{VA link|Heinrich Barth}}

|{{VA link|Seiu Ito}}

|{{VA link|Fred Patten}}

|{{VA link|Samuel Wallis}}

}}}}

Lots of explorers/navigators here.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:I’m curious as to how some of these people even got listed by volunteers. How do people know about some of the more obscure people listed in V5… lots of cleaning to do -1ctinus📝🗨 21:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

A section which many have expressed the desire to drastically cut down. I'm posting a bottom list of this too to see if it would help. 20% this time because people have been so vocal about the topic. Least viewed coming first, pageviews from 2025-01-01 to 2025-04-30 (using an earlier start cutoff date resulted in too many recently moved pages being ranked low):

{{extended content|{{ubl

|{{VA link|Yusuke Suzuki (race walker)}}

|{{VA link|Mariano Juaristi}}

|{{VA link|Debbie Watson (water polo)}}

|{{VA link|Ned Haig}}

|{{VA link|Yasuharu Ōyama}}

|{{VA link|Guido Cappellini}}

|{{VA link|Maria Grozdeva}}

|{{VA link|François Robichon de La Guérinière}}

|{{VA link|Rechelle Hawkes}}

|{{VA link|Hon'inbō Sansa}}

|{{VA link|Simone Niggli-Luder}}

|{{VA link|William Wilson (aquatics)}}

|{{VA link|Hubert Van Innis}}

|{{VA link|Ralf Schumann}}

|{{VA link|Philippe Quintais}}

|{{VA link|Michal Martikán}}

|{{VA link|Kevin Kuske}}

|{{VA link|Federico Caprilli}}

|{{VA link|Hans Günter Winkler}}

|{{VA link|Sawao Katō}}

|{{VA link|Anne-Caroline Chausson}}

|{{VA link|Anastasia Davydova}}

|{{VA link|Paul Radmilovic}}

|{{VA link|Carl Osburn}}

|{{VA link|Park Sung-hyun (archer)}}

|{{VA link|Teun de Nooijer}}

|{{VA link|Kim Soo-nyung}}

|{{VA link|Saif Saaeed Shaheen}}

|{{VA link|Klaus Dibiasi}}

|{{VA link|Adam Krikorian}}

|{{VA link|Björn Dunkerbeck}}

|{{VA link|Māris Štrombergs}}

|{{VA link|Lucien Petit-Breton}}

|{{VA link|Nicolas Vouilloz}}

|{{VA link|James T. Sutherland}}

|{{VA link|Kevin Young (hurdler)}}

|{{VA link|Karl Schäfer (figure skater)}}

|{{VA link|Kristjan Palusalu}}

|{{VA link|Darrell Pace}}

|{{VA link|Federico Tesio}}

|{{VA link|Aldo Nadi}}

|{{VA link|Eugenio Monti}}

|{{VA link|Brenda Villa}}

|{{VA link|Dezső Gyarmati}}

|{{VA link|William George Beers}}

|{{VA link|Viktor Saneyev}}

|{{VA link|Inessa Kravets}}

|{{VA link|Ratko Rudić}}

|{{VA link|Takashi Ono (gymnast)}}

|{{VA link|Paul Elvstrøm}}

|{{VA link|Arlo Eisenberg}}

|{{VA link|Geraldine Heaney}}

|{{VA link|Georg Hackl}}

|{{VA link|Andrey Lavrov}}

|{{VA link|Jackson Haines}}

|{{VA link|Leontien van Moorsel}}

|{{VA link|Regla Torres}}

|{{VA link|Emma Snowsill}}

|{{VA link|Ralph Greenleaf}}

|{{VA link|Bobbie Rosenfeld}}

|{{VA link|Henri Desgrange}}

|{{VA link|Jamie Dwyer}}

|{{VA link|Roland Matthes}}

|{{VA link|Boris Shakhlin}}

|{{VA link|Mary Jepkosgei Keitany}}

|{{VA link|Ezekiel Kemboi}}

|{{VA link|Eliška Junková}}

|{{VA link|Josune Bereziartu}}

|{{VA link|Robert Korzeniowski}}

|{{VA link|Pavel Kolobkov}}

|{{VA link|Ken Westerfield}}

|{{VA link|Birgit Fischer}}

|{{VA link|Bernard Thévenet}}

|{{VA link|Jin Jong-oh}}

|{{VA link|Wu Minxia}}

|{{VA link|Kane Waselenchuk}}

|{{VA link|Raymond Ceulemans}}

|{{VA link|Enid Bakewell}}

|{{VA link|Jack Blackham}}

|{{VA link|Paola Longoria}}

|{{VA link|Silvia Neid}}

|{{VA link|Madjer}}

|{{VA link|Ely Culbertson}}

|{{VA link|Alice Milliat}}

|{{VA link|Elisabeta Lipă}}

|{{VA link|Pedro Romero}}

|{{VA link|Manuel dos Reis Machado}}

|{{VA link|Jean Faut}}

|{{VA link|Almaz Ayana}}

|{{VA link|Carl Diem}}

|{{VA link|Mirko Novosel}}

|{{VA link|Hadi Saei}}

|{{VA link|Cecilia Colledge}}

|{{VA link|Jürgen Schult}}

|{{VA link|Madge Syers}}

|{{VA link|Hon'inbō Shūsaku}}

|{{VA link|Ken Aston}}

|{{VA link|Shirley Strickland}}

|{{VA link|Patty Sheehan}}

|{{VA link|Wang Nan (table tennis)}}

|{{VA link|Shingo Kunieda}}

|{{VA link|Anja Andersen}}

|{{VA link|Kaori Icho}}

|{{VA link|Alfredo Binda}}

|{{VA link|Bobby Morrow}}

|{{VA link|Edoardo Mangiarotti}}

|{{VA link|Reiner Klimke}}

|{{VA link|Manuel Estiarte}}

|{{VA link|Leonidas of Rhodes}}

|{{VA link|Randy Barnes}}

|{{VA link|Heather McKay}}

|{{VA link|Gillis Grafström}}

|{{VA link|Barbora Špotáková}}

|{{VA link|Sandra Elkasević}}

|{{VA link|Rachel Atherton}}

|{{VA link|Reg Gasnier}}

|{{VA link|Mariana Pajón}}

|{{VA link|Alexander Zaitsev (pair skater)}}

|{{VA link|J. Sigfrid Edström}}

|{{VA link|Louise Suggs}}

|{{VA link|Mark Todd (equestrian)}}

|{{VA link|Gordon Coventry}}

|{{VA link|He Kexin}}

|{{VA link|Filip Filipović (water polo)}}

|{{VA link|Axel Paulsen}}

|{{VA link|Rakesh Kumar (kabaddi)}}

|{{VA link|Chioma Ajunwa}}

|{{VA link|Gao Ling}}

|{{VA link|Wyomia Tyus}}

|{{VA link|Harry Hopman}}

|{{VA link|Sergei Mozyakin}}

|{{VA link|Kikkuli}}

|{{VA link|Ryoko Tani}}

|{{VA link|Richard Sears (tennis)}}

|{{VA link|Kim Rhode}}

|{{VA link|Luciana Aymar}}

|{{VA link|Walter Lindrum}}

|{{VA link|Valentina Vezzali}}

|{{VA link|Deng Yaping}}

|{{VA link|Nikolai Andrianov}}

|{{VA link|Irene van Dyk}}

|{{VA link|Yoshiharu Habu}}

|{{VA link|William Renshaw}}

|{{VA link|Esther Vergeer}}

|{{VA link|Jim Shoulders}}

|{{VA link|Sun Wen (footballer)}}

|{{VA link|Danie Craven}}

|{{VA link|Willie Park Sr.}}

|{{VA link|Alexander Gomelsky}}

|{{VA link|Bernardo Rezende}}

|{{VA link|Demetrios Vikelas}}

|{{VA link|Julie Krone}}

|{{VA link|Galina Chistyakova}}

|{{VA link|Dave Scott (triathlete)}}

|{{VA link|Anita Włodarczyk}}

|{{VA link|Cyclone Taylor}}

|{{VA link|Daisuke Ohata}}

|{{VA link|Christy Ring}}

|{{VA link|Alexei Nemov}}

|{{VA link|José Leandro Andrade}}

|{{VA link|Armin Hary}}

|{{VA link|Yuriy Sedykh}}

|{{VA link|Natalya Lisovskaya}}

|{{VA link|John Henry Taylor}}

|{{VA link|Vitaly Scherbo}}

|{{VA link|Lang Ping}}

|{{VA link|Dally Messenger}}

|{{VA link|Ulrich Salchow}}

|{{VA link|Marion Tinsley}}

|{{VA link|Futabayama Sadaji}}

|{{VA link|Jayna Hefford}}

|{{VA link|Jack Broughton}}

|{{VA link|Elena Zamolodchikova}}

|{{VA link|Bill O'Reilly (cricketer)}}

|{{VA link|Harry Wright}}

|{{VA link|Charmayne James}}

|{{VA link|Tony Allcock}}

|{{VA link|Ken Climo}}

|{{VA link|Dominic O'Brien}}

|{{VA link|Paul Hamm}}

|{{VA link|Samuel Wanjiru}}

|{{VA link|Terje Håkonsen}}

|{{VA link|Alberto Spencer}}

|{{VA link|Waisale Serevi}}

|{{VA link|Sven Kramer}}

|{{VA link|José Manuel Moreno}}

|{{VA link|Eddie Arcaro}}

|{{VA link|Frank Calder}}

|{{VA link|Lim Yo-hwan}}

|{{VA link|Caroline Ouellette}}

|{{VA link|László Papp}}

|{{VA link|Hossein Rezazadeh}}

|{{VA link|Herbert Sutcliffe}}

|{{VA link|Claudia Pechstein}}

|{{VA link|Genzebe Dibaba}}

|{{VA link|Barbara Ann Scott}}

|{{VA link|Henri de Baillet-Latour}}

|{{VA link|Pudge Heffelfinger}}

|{{VA link|Ivan Yarygin}}

|{{VA link|Lewis Pugh}}

|{{VA link|Patty Berg}}

|{{VA link|Lilia Podkopayeva}}

|{{VA link|Giba}}

|{{VA link|Howard Hill}}

|{{VA link|Clarrie Grimmett}}

|{{VA link|Go Seigen}}

|{{VA link|Krisztina Egerszegi}}

|{{VA link|Heike Drechsler}}

|{{VA link|Marvin Miller}}

|{{VA link|Clarence Campbell}}

|{{VA link|Shizuka Arakawa}}

|{{VA link|Ireen Wüst}}

|{{VA link|Trevor Brazile}}

|{{VA link|Saori Yoshida}}

|{{VA link|Kunimitsu Takahashi}}

|{{VA link|Frank Buck (animal collector)}}

|{{VA link|Jenny Thompson}}

|{{VA link|Henry Shefflin}}

|{{VA link|Jem Mace}}

|{{VA link|Johann Olav Koss}}

|{{VA link|Mickey Wright}}

|{{VA link|Tom Wills}}

|{{VA link|Stefka Kostadinova}}

|{{VA link|Colin Meads}}

|{{VA link|Balbir Singh Sr.}}

|{{VA link|Victor Trumper}}

|{{VA link|Maurice Garin}}

|{{VA link|György Sárosi}}

|{{VA link|Catherine Destivelle}}

|{{VA link|Kipchoge Keino}}

}}}}

Many of these seem to have half-decent vitality claims at first glance, but then again I know next to nothing about sports.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:32, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Awesome! How'd you go about getting these? I'd like to see your scripts if possible to improve my own. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::No script (I am not experienced enough a programmer to interface with Wikipedia/XTools APIs), I describe on my talk page the process, which involves getting a CSV file which I cleanup partly manually and partly with several tools including Notepad++.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I linked my github below, it has a tool that can get you the CSV and query for several variables, including pageviews, on the xtools api. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|LaukkuTheGreit}}, a few questions if I may:

1. How does it break down by discipline? I feel like certain sports have more than 20% of their VAs on the list, and others a lot less. For example, I don't think I see a single basketball player on there, not one. I see two from baseball, and they happen to both already be up for removal above.
2. What about nationality? I don't see very many Americans on there but I see a lot of Asian and Eastern European surnames
3. What about interwikis? Is there any way to find out what the sportspeople with the fewest interwikis are? _pbp 15:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:I've been working on getting some stats for a while. I can post a table later today when I get home.

:1: Harder to sort out by code. I can do each page easily enough, but breaking down sports categories is harder.

:2: Very hard to get that in an automated way. Would need an entirely different script, and wouldn't trust it.

:3: "Interwiki" as in the language links is hard. The best option in my opinion is called "sitelinks" and it includes the langauge wiki's, in addition to other Wikipedia sites. If you look at the xtools data [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Ireen_W%C3%BCst here] (literally the first page I clicked, not chosen for any reason), you can see the easy variables to nab.

:As stated previously, I'm trying to get an index together that could reflect "vitalness." I've got some data to level 3, have explored level 4 a bit, and am actually finishing up my next version of the script that will get us to level 5 with the levels marked. My goal is to include the quota of each topic at level 5 to help weight the index (articles in topic areas with high quotas would need to have a higher bar for "vitalness," which is assuming lower quota areas would have lower vital "scores" based on purely unweighted metrics). I've been using scatter plots to explore the variables for now, and my recent few proposals have been based on preliminary findings to see how those go. Once my classes are done, I'm hoping to do a full analysis. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::@GeogSage Hard how on the interwikis? Worst case you gotta go to every page. They ARE listed at every page _pbp 18:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Purplebackpack89}} They are actually listed on the Wikidata items, so I'm not sure if the bot could read them from the page or if it would have to go to Wikidata. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Purplebackpack89 and @QuicoleJR, I'm using xtools, which has sitelinks. Going to each of 50,000 pages on a dynamic list to get a changing variable is something we'd have to automate. I'm not 100% on how to get that, but honestly think sitelinks are probably superior as those include langauge links and other projects. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|GeogSage}} For full clarity, what does sitelinks include that language links (aka interwikis) doesn't? QuicoleJR (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Using Geography as an example, it has 259 "Language" links, but on [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Geography xtools] you can see it has 304 "sitelinks." The difference isn't much between these two values, obviously, but looking at the [https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1071 Wikidata] site you can see a bit more of a breakdown. The "Sitelinks" includes the number of Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikiquote, Wikversity, etc. projects that the article is a part of across languages. So, for example, Geography has 19 pages across langauges in Wikiquotes projects. I think that the sitelinks is a bit more meaningful then language links on Wikipedia, as it includes other projects as well. I'm using the xtools API for capturing page statistics, so while I think the number is better in general, it is also just easier to get. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::@QuicoleJR, @Purplebackpack89, I have some of the numbers for sports figures on github [https://github.com/GeogSage/Wiki_Vital/blob/main/RawStats_SportsFigures_Test.csv here]. This was one test on getting the data for the next verision of the script, and I'll need to actually clean up the vital level 5 subpages formatting before I can get all 50,000. The coolest variables to include are pageviews and watchers IMO. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 07:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I don't understand why a high number of page watchers would indicate vitality. All it would show is that there are a bunch of Wikipedia editors interested in the topic, which doesn't always correlate to vitality (otherwise there would be even more NFL players on the list). QuicoleJR (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::There needs to be a bit of normalization involved before we can look at cross category "vital" articles.

:::::::::$V\; =\; \backslash frac\{\; \{S*\}\; l\}\{q\}$

:::::::::Where:

:::::::::V is the "Vitality estimation"

:::::::::S is the raw score we calculate using the aggregated indicators (This is obviously going to be it's own equation, but I'm hoping to include page views, page watchers, and some combination of the different types of links)

:::::::::l is the (current) vitality level of the article. Calculated in a way where Level 1 might be 1, level 2 might be 0.8, level 3 might be 0.6, level 4 might be 0.5, level 5 might be 0.4, and non vital articles 0.3.

:::::::::q is the quota of the section the article is in at level 5

::::::::I'm currently working on what I think could be the value "S". Looking at the vital article criteria, I think we need an overhaul, but 5 Page views could be changed to "prominence on Wikipedia" and we can use both pageviews and watchers to help with this. The number of people watching a page can serve as a psudo-vote for pages editors think are important, and are likely to be articles that have experienced vandalism. Importantly, this variable correlates a bit with the vital articles we have. All language links really do is help argue there is less western bias. Sitelinks or language links would be helping with criteria 4 and to a lesser extent level 1 by showing a topic is relevant on other language projects. "Links to this page" and "Links from this page" help establish vital article criteria 2 "Essential to Wikipedia's other articles." An article that is linked to by many articles is going to be more essential to other articles then one that isn't. With these variables, we have quantitative metrics for criteria 2, 4, and 5, as well as possible proxies for 1 and 3.

::::::::In terms of normalization, the current approach I'm working with could be looked at in when comparing sports and religious figures like this: Sports figures would have a "vital estimation of" $V\; =\; \backslash frac\{\; \{S*\}\; l\}\{1,100\; \}$, while religious figures would be $V\; =\; \backslash frac\{\; \{S*\}\; l\}\{500\}$. The denominator is the quota of the sections at level 5, so articles in smaller sections default to having higher "vital scores." All things considered, an individual religious figure would be about twice as "Vital" as a sports figure. This would make it much harder for a swap from religious figures to sports figures. Writers and journalists would be about half as vital as sports figures and a quarter as vital as religious figures. This kind of normalization would help avoid "salami slicing of less-active categories," something specified on the main page as desirable. There might be some more tweaking needed on this, but it is mostly only relevant for between category comparison, I'm much more interested in inter-category comparison so we can know the least vital of an individual category for removals or swaps. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

If we're going to make this a popularity contest based on page views, run it across all of Level 5/4 and see what actually turns up, not just areas someone might be prejudiced for/against. We wouldn't want to introduce any sort of bias to this process, because that's what we're trying to do by using numbers and equations, right? I think it would be more illuminating to see what the bottom, say, 1% is for each regardless of topic/area. GauchoDude (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:I've been actually waiting/hoping for a tool to handle all of VA5 to efficiently catch the worst junk listings across the whole project (and using more stats than pageviews), the way I've been doing these (using [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/massviews/]) is clunky and only handles only a page at a time.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 15:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed, pretty surprising that 1. there isn't something already out there that can handle this similar to tools that can capture all pages in any given WikiProject and 2. it seems like we're all flying blind re: pageviews when it's one of the five criteria for determining if an article is Vital. GauchoDude (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

The funny thing is that this list was actually created and built by a non robot script method i've done (for my own work). The highest person from every sport based on wiki stats, google ngrams/books, jstor - among many other stats was chosen for this list. Here's a preview organised by global pageviews (i update it every half year). [https://i.imgur.com/EOurIrd.jpeg]. The only thing removing this 20% will do is take away all the non soccer, non US big 4 sports coverage - which is why they're low views. These wern't just fan added or without method, they're actually the top names of each field/thing, you just either think the field (in this case sport) should be covered or not. Better option than this is too decide which sports deserve a bio and which ones don't, that will solve all the issues. There's no sneaky sports athlete added, unless it was after my time. GuzzyG (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah, the pageview method seems less successful here than in the case of Technology for which I posted a list over a year ago. At least posting this here and letting others comment on it helps determine the value of it.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah. Pageviews can be useful for some topics, but it is particularly ill-suited for sportspeople due to a recency bias and pro-Western bias that is even stronger than other categories. I prefer to use interwikis and actual in-article vitality claims to determine which sportspeople are kept and which should be removed. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atopr|status=failed|result=Not added 4-1 Kevinishere15 (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Sostre is among the earliest known Black activists to adopt anarchism alongside his significant work in the prisoners' rights movement. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 20:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 20:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. We have too many American activists as is and he only has a single interwiki _pbp 20:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Only one interwiki, suggesting a lack of actual importance on a global level. λ NegativeMP1 20:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Idiosincrático (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
4. His most notable cases don't even have articles. Kevinishere15 (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|Removed 4-0. Kevinishere15 (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)}}

One single interwiki usually isn't a great sign, being "Father of the South Australian Wine Industry" probably isn't enough to be vital.

;Support

1. As nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
2. _pbp 18:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Not seeing anything is his article that suggests that he fits on this list. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Thought i'd provide context for the archives, (since the noms don't provide context other than robotic gathering of wikidata). Australia is in the top 6 wine producing countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wine-producing_regions. South Australian wine being the dominant part of that. French wine is covered by many winemakers being listed. Dom Pérignon (monk), Charles Heidsieck, Claude Moët and Émile Peynaud. American wine is covered by Robert Mondavi and André Tchelistcheff.

Spanish wine is held back by no articles on it's main figures of importance, in some case just the wines. Bodegas Marqués de Riscal, Álvaro Palacios, Telmo Rodríguez. Italian too with Giulio Ferrari and Angelo Gaja. China too with Zhang Bingzhai, [https://en.grace-vineyard.com/] not having articles or Emma Gao having a article so little it'd be judged too. The argument for Hardy being, he is single handedly held as the father of a top 6 wine production company, other than all his shared names. Wine is a big enough thing to cover this amount of people, compared to the 30+ regional American journalists etc. It's just a underdeveloped subject on wiki and probably a prototypical example of the popularity standards of this list, where something can be a basic household product, but the industry behind it not having the fame of say pop culture, means it is covered little. GuzzyG (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|GuzzyG}} Then let's add {{VA link|Australian wine}}. The topic is more important than the person here. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Removed 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)}}

We do not need to list every winner of the {{VA link|Booker Prize}} (we already don't) and winning it once is Newby's only claim to any amount of importance. Only two of his books have articles and neither has more than two interwikis.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Aye. I think awards in general should be considered very cautiously when it terms to determining vitality. As a qualitative metric, they can be mentioned, but I wouldn't pin all the entire argument onto it. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom, and I have to agree that awards shouldn't determine much, I've talked about this with actors before. Kevinishere15 (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

Alan Duff's only claim to vitality is writing the novel {{VA link|Once Were Warriors}}, which was adapted into the much more important film. This novel is his only major work. The film definitely has some strong arguments for vitality, and is rated High-Importance by WikiProject New Zealand, so I would rather list it than the author or the novel. The film also crushes Duff in terms of pageviews and has double the interwikis.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
2. ALittleClass (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Mixed

1. Support removal of Duff, oppose addition of the film. Does not feel like it fits in with others currently on the list, but I'm not dead set on this. GauchoDude (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Agree with GauchoDude. --Bluevestman (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Per GauchoDude _pbp 20:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

Founding president of the controversial Soka Gakkai International Buddhist organization, which he led from 1975 until his death in 2023. The lead states that Soka Gakkai is "among the largest of Japan's new religious movements", and that over 8 million people claim to be followers of the organization. He established many universities and cultural centers across Japan (as well as one university in California). He is also the founder of Komeito, which is among Japan's most prominent political parties. I'm torn over whether he should be listed as a religious or political figure, but I'm leaning towards religious, since he is most recognized for his role in the SGI movement.

;Support

1. As nom. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Iostn (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Kevinishere15 (talk) 05:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

Seems like the man is a jack of all trades. He appears to have been influential in all of the following: Sōka University, Soka University of America, Min-On Concert Association, Tokyo Fuji Art Museum, Kōmeitō (1962–1998), Soka Gakkai, and Soka Gakkai International. While all seemingly notable, none of those appear to be Vital-listed themselves. GauchoDude (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:That may be true, but I feel like the same can be said for other new religious leaders that are listed. {{VA link|Shoko Asahara}} is listed, but Aum Shinrikyo and the Tokyo subway sarin attack aren't; {{VA link|Marshall Applewhite}} is listed, but Heaven's Gate isn't; {{VA link|Raël}} is listed, but Raëlism isn't. It doesn't make sense to me that we shouldn't list somebody just because none of their (many) contributions to society/culture are. Many people we list (mainly those in the entertainment industry) could apply to that aforementioned principle. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Writers still needs cuts. Her only claims to vitality are writing a somewhat popular children's novel and winning one Newbery Medal. She does not appear to have enough of a lasting impact for VA5, and she only has 9 interwikis.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Per above. Sahaib (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
4. --Bluevestman (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{atopg|Removed 4-0. Kevinishere15 (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Writers and Journalists still needs more cuts, and I'm not seeing how Ingraham is vital. Her arguments for vitality are being the anchor of a few news programs with some contemporary popularity. Her two shows have 0 and 2 interwikis respectively, and I'm not seeing anything in her article to suggest vitality. We need cuts, and she looks like a good target.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
2. _pbp 15:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Agreed, feels like the Vital-equivalent of recentism. GauchoDude (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|Removed 4-0. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Only two interwikis, and nothing in his article makes him stand out as a particularly vital poet. His strongest claim to vitality is being friends with a bunch of more famous poets. Writers is still over the quota, and he can be removed.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Very poor stats (~6 daily pageviews) and an American from the last 100 years, should be safe to cut. "Blackburn played an important part in the poetry community", but did his influence extend much beyond that community?--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 19:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
4. --Bluevestman (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

Right now, religious figures is close to quota @ 494/500, but Christianity is heavily over-represented with 236 listed. While it ha the most adherents of world religions, that is still disproportionate, especially as no other religion has over 100 (Islam has 95 and Hinduism, despite being the third largest religion, has only 36), so in the interest of WP:SYSBIAS:

:{{ping|lostn}} If you want to talk SYSBIAS, there are at least 236 American actors, actresses and comedians from the past 125 years at VA5. Compare with 236 Christian religious figures for almost 2000 years of Roman rite, about 1000 years of Eastern rite, and 500 years of Protestantism. _pbp 13:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:Do you think that cleaning up different topic areas are mutually exclusive for some reason? Or is there any reason you are nor proposing anything in actors, or proposing to increase the religious figures quota? Iostn (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::Have proposed several dozen cuts (probably close to 100) of actors, comedians and hosts in the last few months... _pbp 10:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

A saint, of which there are thousands - he doesn't seem to be particularly well-known, and pageviews are low

;Support

1. Nom Iostn (talk)

;Oppose

1. He's listed as a Doctor of the Church (has been for almost 300 years) and I sorta think we should have the full set of those. Has 30 interwikis, which is about standard for a VA5. _pbp 00:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
2. : FYI, at least one other Doctor of the Church is unlisted (Lawrence of Brindisi) Iostn (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
3. ::At present he is the only one unlisted. The other 36 are listed. _pbp 13:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

Forgive my naivety, but want to make sure I'm understanding correctly. Are "Doctors of the Church" basically like a shortlist of sorts for the best/most impactful saints? Additionally, where do these people rank compared to popes? E.g. which is seen as more important? GauchoDude (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|GauchoDude}} I would more say they are the most important THEOLOGIANS. Most wrote a tome or book or treatise of some sort. {{VA link|Francis of Assisi}} is somebody most would consider an important saint; he is NOT a Doctor of the Church. And, surprisingly, the overlap between Doctor of the Church and pope is tiny: only two were both. Consider that several of the Popes are listed under political leaders, while two Doctors are listed as philosophers, one as a historian. The average number of interwikis of a Doctor of Church is 53, the average number of interwikis of the 50ish popes we list (200+ popes are unlisted) is 85. For more information, see Doctor of the Church _pbp 16:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

7th century Pope who served for less than 3 years - I assume just listed for being claimed to be the oldest one? Also canonized as a saint, but as mentioned above, so were thousands of other people

;Support

1. Nom Iostn (talk)
2. Agreed, unless someone has something else to add here. GauchoDude (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

I think this guy still clears a lot of the entertainers and miscellaneous figures listed at VA5 _pbp 17:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Seems to be a case of a work being more vital than its author, at least in the present day

;Support

1. Nom Iostn (talk)
2. The book even beats him in interwikis. He is known for nothing else, we should just list the book. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Support add. Neutral on removal. --Bluevestman (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

Patriarch of Moscow for 10 years in the 17th cetury, helped restore churches, was involved in a theological dispute, is there anything else?

;Support

1. Nom Iostn (talk)
2. Nothing in bio screams out "one of the most important people in world history" and given only 7 other interwikis besides en. doesn't strike me as someone particularly influential. I think you have a correct assessment here, but this isn't my area of expertise. GauchoDude (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Does not seem particularly important to history. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
4. --Bluevestman (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{archive top|status=Passed|result=Removed, 5-0 _pbp 23:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Very low pageviews (recent average: 4 per day). He has written several books about dance, and written in notable publications including the New York Times. Does someone have a good method to judge the notability of scholars like this?

;Support

1. As nominator, unless good reasoning is given. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
2. He wrote poetry and dance history books which seem to have enjoyed some mild popularity, and he has won a couple of awards, but at this level of obscurity I think we can live without his article.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
4. _pbp 14:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{archive bottom}}

{{archive top green|status=passed|result=Removed, 6-0 _pbp 23:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Very low pageviews (recent average: 3 per day). Known for building and writing about model railways, but nothing that indicates widespread fame or significance, and no interwikis. We have {{VA link|Rail transport modelling}} at VA5.

;Support

1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
3. He seems important to the model train community, but I don't think said community warrant Level 5 representation. He also has zero interwikis. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
4. {{VA link|Rail transport modelling}} should be sufficient to cover important enough of his contributions to the hobby, if there are any.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
6. _pbp 14:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{archive bottom}}

{{atopg|Removed 5-0. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Another author who isn't vital. Irving's main claim to vitality is trying to write a hoax autobiography of Howard Hughes and going to prison for it, and someone made a movie about it. None of his books even have articles! I see no reason to keep him on the list.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Kevinishere15 (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
3. One quote in the article tries to assert some importance ("an important writer who has lived a colorful and controversial life..."), but that is coming from only one person, and he can hardly be important if none of his works have enough impact to have articles.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
5. _pbp 15:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|Removed 4-0. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Warden of Alcatraz, Folsom and San Quentin, although all 3 are pretty famous as far as prisons go, {{VA link|Alcatraz Island}} is already vital, and James has only 2 interwikis, I guess this is a question on if we need a prison warden, since we're probably going to remove the only other one ({{VA link|Lewis E. Lawes}}) and James has a much better case than him.

;Support

1. As nom, although maybe I could be convinced that we need a prison warden and James is the best candidate. Kevinishere15 (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
2. At only two interwikis, I'm not even convinced he's the most notable warden, nor that warden is a VA5-worthy profession _pbp 22:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
4. --Bluevestman (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

Another British author whose only claim to vitality is winning one Booker Prize. Nothing in his article suggests any form of lasting impact, only one of his books has an article, and he gets very few pageviews.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Kevinishere15 (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

I don't think we need to list five sport shooters at VA5. Out of the five we list, Grozdeva seems the least vital. She has the least medals, a low interwiki count at only 19, and her only claim to vitality is being pretty good at the sport, but not as good as the other four. She also gets very few pageviews.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Kevinishere15 (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose. Changing my vote. If the level of importance for sports biographies inclusion is {{VA link|Nigel Richards (Scrabble player)}}, then subject should be kept. GauchoDude (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
2. :{{ping|GauchoDude}} Richards is the undisputed GOAT of his competition. He is certainly more famous than some of the people you are opposing because of him. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
3. ::And that is your opinion. My opinion is such that I don't believe I can support the removal of any further sports biographies. While I'm sure the casual game of Scrabble is played by many, competitive Scrabble is hilariously niche. There are, like, [https://playscrabble.com/news-blog/naspa-scrabble-north-american-scrabble-players-association-playscrabble 2,000 to 2,500 active paid members] in North America and the NASPA all-time database has less than [https://www.scrabbleplayers.org/cgi-bin/members.pl 9,000 total] members regardless of lapsed status or death. Obviously when looking at a worldwide view, the number will rise, but not so much that Richards is one of the most vital people in "sports" ever. GauchoDude (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
4. :::I simply don't see why if one thing that you don't think is vital is kept, that means you must oppose removing any other non-vital people. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
5. ::::Because it means I've not calibrated what this project believes is vital correctly for myself. As such, I must readjust what I believe meets that criteria. This isn't a "hey, we kept a 17th century general and now we're figuring out if this modern, abstract art concept is vital", this is as apples to apples as you can get within Level 5 sport-specific biographies. GauchoDude (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{atopg|Removed 5-0 in a different discussion. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)}}

I'm not convinced that {{VA link|Aggressive inline skating}} is itself worthy of VA5, so it definitely doesn't need a representative. The lead calls him an important innovator in the sport, but the body doesn't elaborate and that claim is unsourced. He also only has 4 interwikis.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Kevinishere15 (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

I would also likely remove the Aggressive inline skating topic as a whole. We already have {{VA link|Inline skating}} as a whole represented at Level 5 and I doubt this subset warrants the same status. GauchoDude (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Isn't he already nominated? --Bluevestman (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg|Removed 5-0. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)}}

He was pretty good at golf, but that doesn't make him vital. He seemingly isn't considered one of the best, and his strongest claim to vitality is being one of a group of three golfers who were really dominant in one country during one specific time period. He only has 8 interwikis, which is low for a vital athlete.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Golfers are not vital IMO. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
3. I definitely don't agree that an entire profession is inherently non vital, but Braid doesn't seem to be. Kevinishere15 (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Per Kevinishere15. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
5. --Bluevestman (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

She's a decently prolific author who was popular at the time, but the article does not make any claims to a lasting impact. Her strongest claim to vitality is writing a lot of books, some of which were made into movies. If this is enough for vitality, we have a lot of authors to add. Only one of her books has any interwikis, and she herself only has ten. She also does not receive many pageviews.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Obscure. Kevinishere15 (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

I just closed a proposal to replace cricket players, but {{VA link|Greg Chappell}} didn't have enough votes to close. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. J947 was ther original nominator.
2. Zar2gar1 voted support in the original discussion.
3. User:Aurangzebra voted support in the original discussion.

;Oppose

1. User:GeogSage voted oppose in the original discussion.

;Neutral

1. I know almost nothing about cricket. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

American Artist involved in the Light and Space movement. If you click his page, the profile shows Obama awarding him the "National Medal of Arts to Turrell in 2014." While awards are not the main thing I think should get someone added, I think this shows he has been identified at a fairly high level as influential enough for level 5.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:I haven't made up my mind on this yet, but I will note that {{VA link|Light and Space}} is not listed. I would prefer to add the genre before adding Turrell. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::Would support adding that if you want to nominate it and ping me. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Agreed with QuicoleJR, the genre is likely more important than the artist. GauchoDude (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

{{atopg|Removed 5-0. Kevinishere15 (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Monaco has far too many politicians and leaders entries for a microstate with a population less than that of a small city.

Remove:

• {{VA link|Rainier I of Monaco, Lord of Cagnes}}: Not even the first leader of Monaco, who was his stepfather {{VA link|François Grimaldi}}
• {{VA link|Honoré III, Prince of Monaco}}: led Monaco for 60 years before being deposed, but apparently barely even speny any time there for that time, and he article lists little to suggest large scale influence
• {{VA link|Louis II, Prince of Monaco}}: I assume listed solely for his (highly neglectful) role during WW2, but even then it seems like he's vital for not using his power very efficiently

;Support

1. Nom Iostn (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Monaco is definitely overrepresented. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Kevinishere15 (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
4. _pbp 13:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
5. I see that 8 leaders of Monaco are currently VA's, which is too many. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

Iostn (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Given the discussion above, I will not be citing interwikis AT ALL in my justifications, but on the lone merits of the subjects of the articles. I used Quarry to find these articles.

:{{ping|1ctinus}} As noted elsewhere, I think you mean "query" not "quarry". You are researching, not mining rock. _pbp 13:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::nope. [https://quarry.wmcloud.org/ The software is called Quarry.] It’s a dumb name so I get the confusion. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atopg|Removed 4-0. Kevinishere15 (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)}}

He makes crossword puzzles for the NYT and created a crossword tournament. Is he really one of the 15,200 most important people of all time though?

;Support

1. Per nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 12:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Support, probably less vital than word search (up for vote to include now) and spot the difference not in at all.  Carlwev  14:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Kevinishere15 (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
4. 3 interwikis. --Bluevestman (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg|Removed 5-0. Kevinishere15 (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)}}

I don't see the international impact from this person outside the UK as an art curator.

;Support

1. Per nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 12:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
2. _pbp 13:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Kevinishere15 (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
4. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
5. 5 interwikis. --Bluevestman (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg|Removed 4-0. Kevinishere15 (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Seems to only have a local impact in my Chicagoland area.

;Support

1. Per nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 12:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Kevinishere15 (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
3. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
4. 9 interwikis. --Bluevestman (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg|Removed 4-0. Kevinishere15 (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)}}

We don't need to list two founders of the New Yorker. We already list Harold Ross. He seems more vital.

;Support

1. Per nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 12:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Kevinishere15 (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
3. 7 interwikis. --Bluevestman (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Remove both. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

NGL, I'd remove Ross _pbp 13:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:Is it just me, or does it seem like we list waaaay too many journalists and editors? -1ctinus📝🗨 20:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::@1ctinus Too many AMERICAN journalists and editors, yes _pbp 00:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Looking at the data, English writers and journalists are far more over represented, but it is slightly understandable since it’s the global language {{shrug}}. Work needs to be done. -1ctinus📝🗨 00:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Since Sysbias is a notorious complaint of Wikipedia (that I agree with), I plan on collecting data about the nationality of everybody listed on V5. I’m predicting Australia and the US will be overrepresented while Latin America and Africa will be especially underrepresented. This might be a massive pain to get all the data, but I will remain persistent :) -1ctinus📝🗨 12:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:Sounds great! We definitely need more representation of India, China, and Latin America on the list. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::Update: I have a csv of every person listed with their short description and their lead sentences. I need to write a parsing algorithm now. -1ctinus📝🗨 18:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::Here's the report: about 85% of the people I was able to parse with by terrible code. Here's the results:

::File:sysbias.png

::Multiple refers to Hyphenated Americans for US and for non-US, those who are formatted such as Swiss-born French or Swiss-French. I tried my best so the data may not be perfect. I will categorize them to make it less hideous, but I have already spent so much time on this already. -1ctinus📝🗨 21:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Interesting. Seems like India, China, and Brazil could use more representation. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Also Russia should likely have at least as much representation as France, Germany, and British. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::This data is kind of a mess but a lot of it is because soviet politicians are split into "soviet" in their parsing, which decreases the number. The data is kind of a mess and a pie chart sucks as a way of representing it. The amount of overprotection of Americans is astonishing. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Honestly I expected American over representation to be much worse. I'm working on some python scripts that might help with this, at least to build out the query. I'm currently struggling with getting level 5 pages, as I need to reformat the pages a bit for consistency, but once done it should be able to get an effective list. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::These numbers are actually extremely unfortunate and make me quite disappointed in the vital articles process. Based on my best guesses here, the ratio of Americans on the list (counting multiple) seems to be about 25%, maybe a little less. I hope that we can find effective methods to combat this issue. λ NegativeMP1 01:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::My preferred way of combatting this issue would be to add more representation of countries like India and Brazil, which deserve more people on the list. We could also stand to remove some Americans in several categories. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::This actually reminds me that I was working on a batch removal proposal of Country music artists. I should probably get back to work on that. λ NegativeMP1 01:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::One of the best ways to fix this could be to shift some American quota to people born before 1492. I have a few world history books that have names in bold, I'm sure there are other similar sources. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

The funny thing with "I’m predicting Australia and the US will be overrepresented while Latin America and Africa will be especially underrepresented" and "The amount of overprotection of Americans is astonishing" is that this list was specifically worked on with the goal of including non-western culture as it's primary method. There was 0 bias here and as the person who did the large majority of this list in it's foundation stage i will counter this narrative which is flat out false. Using music as a example; there was way more African musicians and musicians from Latin America than there is now. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/People/Artists,_musicians,_and_composers&diff=prev&oldid=1009230717#Musicians_and_composers_(1,500/1,500_articles)]. The bias lays with the new process of interwikis and drive by browsing from people with no subject matter knowledge. Important African musicians look like E. T. Mensah, Mahlathini and Hukwe Zawose and Latin American musicians look like Miguel Faílde, Felipe Pinglo Alva and Gilda (Argentine singer), both Sri Lankan musicians (W. D. Amaradeva and Clarence Wijewardena) got removed - we even covered Tajikistan pop culture with Muboraksho Mirzoshoyev but because they are non-identifiable to non experts on first glance and have bad wikipedia articles because of the low amount of editors who have knowledge in this area they get removed. Everyone here can't remove every form of popular culture from these non-American places and then imply the list is bias, especially if you're not accepting of articles that are that small or there will not be any articles from these cultures that get accepted. Look at the proposed additions; it's people like James Turrell - irrelevant Americans and never any people from the pop culture of these under represented countries. I will fight the classification of the list being sysbias in it's inception though, especially when the list has gotten worse as it's aged in this measure. I even tried to have one person from every country listed in politicians, but that was rejected.

Would this Kazah singer fit, Kulyash Baiseitova? How about these Algerian cultural figures El Hadj M'Hamed El Anka or Rachid Ksentini? Armenia with Gohar Gasparyan or Yeghishe Charents or Silva Kaputikyan? Would one of the main guys in Burmese music Shwe Pyi Aye be added? How about Thai Actresses Petchara Chaowarat? Indonesian culture with Gesang Martohartono, Suzzanna, Rd Mochtar, or Dian Sastrowardoyo? Iraqi culture and Muhammad al-Qubanchi? How about Fijian and pacific culture Epeli Hauʻofa? Or do they all have low interwikis and get ignored in favour of James Turrell types? This list was founded on the ideals of including all of these rather than the Turrell types, but it got rejected largely by the interwiki method, so until that goes, there's gonna be not alot of non-Americans or Europeans (and Europeans are the more significant bias, i specifically included Armenia here to show that even a small European country has significantly more interwikis due to the close nature of European languages). I can do this with every country as most countries have their own important cultural figures and the result is the same, low interwikis and bad articles and look at these articles when they are written good - Roekiah they clearly show worth, but she's still not on the list. Until that is a accepted measure, we will be talking in circles about self caused bias - because i would be glad to see every country listed in proportion as that is what i intended to do here but was largely rejected. GuzzyG (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|GuzzyG}} I would support adding several of those people, but I would like to note that not every country warrants representation in every people category. I would probably support adding a politician for every independent country, but not a writer, for example. Overall, I would like to improve the bias issue, but that doesn't mean adding non-vital people for the sake of adding more countries (not talking about any article in particular here). QuicoleJR (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Having a list of film people that only covers directors and actors would be problematic. We have room for more than one editor. Murch is an extremely impactful editor and sound designer with a somewhat important side career as a director. He has nine Academy Award nominations and three wins, including being the only person to win Academy Awards for both sound design and editing. He also helped legitimize {{VA link|sound design}} as a field and coined the term "sound designer". Films he worked on include {{VA link|The Godfather}} and {{VA link|Apocalypse Now}}. I see no reason not to list him.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Only one editor being listed currently is ridiculous.SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
3. We need more people that work behind the scenes and this is probably where I would start as well. λ NegativeMP1 01:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Seems solid.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 06:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Some recent numbers show some odd numbers when it comes to our biography coverage by nationality. I looked at our WWI Russian Generals and found them lacking, as well as our coverage of other figures from the first World War. Here are 3 to consider.

Russian cavalry general, chief of staff of the Imperial Russian Army from 2 February 1911 to 4 March 1914. At the beginning of World War I, he assumed command of the Northwestern Front. He was relieved of command after several failed campaigns.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Seems pretty important. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Soft oppose. 10 interwikis and 11 daily average page views does not scream importance. Obviously held a high position within the Russian military (I believe the highest?), but very few of the Chief of the General Staff (Russia) are listed as vital and I'm not seeing what puts Zhilinsky on that level. GauchoDude (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

From lede "He was the commander of the Russian Second Army which was surrounded and defeated by the German Eighth Army in the Battle of Tannenberg, one of the early battles of World War I. Ashamed by his loss of the Army, Samsonov committed suicide while retreating from the battlefield."

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. GauchoDude (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

Frome lede " In the years leading up to World War I, he served as the Quartermaster-General on the Russian General Staff and had a major role in developing Russia's war plan that was implemented in 1914."

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Seems pretty important. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Soft oppose. Not seeing it. 13 interwikis and 11 average daily pageviews. GauchoDude (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I used a better type of chart to address the data above. @QuicoleJR @GuzzyG -1ctinus📝🗨 13:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC). I fixed problems with the algorithm to cut the # of parsing failures in half to about ~1200.

File:Sysbias treemap.png

:{{collapse top|Here's the data as well}}

:India,384

:Greece,194

:could not parse,1201

:Syria,14

:England,995

:Persia,35

:China,371

:Japan,347

:Italy,417

:Multiple (non-US),267

:Arabia,41

:United States,3744

:Spain,192

:France,861

:Scotland,127

:Germany,553

:United Kingdom,451

:Russia,351

:Portugal,60

:Tanzania,10

:Nigeria,56

:Congo,18

:Morocco,11

:South Africa,58

:Somalia,6

:Egypt,111

:Ghana,11

:Zimbabwe,6

:Cameroon,7

:Algeria,14

:Sudan,7

:Africa,21

:Kenya,13

:Jamaica,24

:Canada,191

:Multiple (US),390

:Poland,95

:Brazil,129

:Mexico,86

:Chile,30

:Argentina,71

:Cuba,29

:Dominica,14

:Colombia,26

:Peru,23

:Armenia,13

:Israel,30

:Kyrgyzstan,3

:Pakistan,36

:Taiwan,17

:Iran,75

:Singapore,9

:Korea,130

:Hong Kong,26

:Turkey,68

:Thailand,33

:Laos,7

:Azerbaijan,7

:Bangladesh,16

:Vietnam,25

:Yugoslav,5

:Belarus,7

:Slovenia,11

:Bulgaria,18

:Hungary,54

:Czech Republic,34

:Albania,5

:Jewish,28

:Denmark,53

:Norway,45

:Sweden,92

:Finland,32

:Iceland,9

:Soviet Union,148

:Austria,98

:Switzerland,64

:Netherlands,121

:Belgium,40

:Ireland,105

:Wales,46

:Australia,241

:New Zealand,38

:Rome,158

:Arabic,2

:Iraq,20

:Muslim,21

:Islamic,47

:Papal States,52

:Sierra Leone,9

:Senegal,8

:Madagascar,11

:Malawi,3

:Gambia,4

:Martinique,2

:Saint Lucia,3

:Guatemala,17

:Uruguay,13

:Puerto Rico,14

:Nicaragua,9

:Paraguay,11

:Indonesia,33

:Burma,14

:Palestine,6

:Romania,24

:Ukraine,31

:Isle of Man,1

:Samoa,4

:Georgia,8

:Black,18

:Malta,1

:Saudi Arabia,14

:Philippines,50

:Flanders,13

:Croatia,11

:Prussia,17

:Venezuela,21

:Mali,9

:Luxembourg,11

:Serbia,15

:Mozambique,4

:Cambodia,16

:Estonia,3

:Malaysia,12

:Panama,8

:Barbados,7

:Côte d'Ivoire,6

:Haiti,16

:Hawaii,9

:Lebanon,9

:Slovakia,7

:Nepal,14

:Kazakhstan,5

:Macedonia,11

:Afghanistan,21

:Moldova,1

:Bosnia and Herzegovina,6

:Uzbekistan,2

:Cape Verde,2

:Ethiopia,28

:Angola,5

:Latvia,6

:Guinea,3

:Uganda,9

:Niger,3

:Burkina Faso,4

:Sri Lanka,13

:Cyprus,4

:Hebrew,3

:Zambia,2

:Lithuania,10

:Mongolia,5

:Tibet,5

:San Marino,1

:Basque Country,4

:Timor-Leste,5

:El Salvador,9

:Carthage,6

:Assyrian,6

:Chad,4

:Brunei,4

:Bengal,2

:Venice,4

:Monaco,7

:Bhutan,6

:Oman,4

:Vanuatu,2

:Swaziland,2

:Benin,2

:Costa Rica,6

:Honduras,6

:Bolivia,10

:Ecuador,14

:Maldives,4

:Kuwait,5

:Qatar,3

:Yemen,7

:Liechtenstein,1

:Montenegro,1

:Fiji,4

:Hawaiʻi,4

:Tonga,3

:Tunisia,4

:Libya,2

:Mauritania,3

:South Sudan,1

:Burundi,2

:Comoros,2

:Djibouti,2

:Eritrea,2

:Mauritius,3

:Seychelles,2

:Guinea-Bissau,3

:Liberia,7

:Togo,2

:Central African Republic,4

:Gabon,3

:São Tomé and Príncipe,1

:Equatorial Guinea,2

:Rwanda,4

:Botswana,2

:Lesotho,1

:Namibia,2

:Belize,2

:Antigua and Barbuda,3

:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines,1

:Saint Kitts and Nevis,1

:The Bahamas,2

:Grenada,4

:Trinidad and Tobago,2

:Guyana,4

:Suriname,2

:Tajikistan,2

:Turkmenistan,3

:Bahrain,2

:Jordan,7

:United Arab Emirates,4

:Kiribati,1

:Marshall Islands,1

:Nauru,1

:Papua New Guinea,3

:Solomon Islands,1

:Kosovo,1

:Norse,3

{{collapse bottom}} -1ctinus📝🗨 13:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:@1ctinus Is it possible to also parse the data by subpage? For example, the United States only has about 6% of the politicians, but at least 25-30% of other subpages _pbp 14:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes. I will make a subpage of my findings, these are mostly preliminary. I want to significantly reduce the "could not parse". I assume in the actors and writers section, Americans are overrepresented. Indonesia is likely not as bad as the data shows given that Indonesia was historically many kingdoms under different names, which the parser struggles with. I am trying my best though, I am away from my home PC so I can't improve the data until I get home. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:Update: I have nearly halved the amount of "could not parse" from 1300 to under 800. I will have more time to get it to zero soon, and then I will create a FAR more comprehensive study on this. Maybe somebody could get this into the signpost or something? -1ctinus📝🗨 12:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::@1ctinus If you could shoot me a list of 100 bios of unknown nationality, I could try to figure it out _pbp 01:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I have already done this! The data is complete. It was super boring and did take forever. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@1ctinus Nice. And confirms we need to keep cutting American content a lot, still. By 50%, I'd say. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

GuzzyG pointed this person out as a potential addition above. Actors is under quota, and {{VA link|Indonesia}} is the fourth-largest country in the world, so we have room for more than two Indonesian actresses. Roekiah is an idol of the Indonesian film industry, and is still popularly remembered even today, which is impressive for someone who died in 1945. If we want to combat sysbias, this is a good option to start.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

I skimmed through the top 100 most-viewed articles in :Category:Indonesian actors, skipping most people born in 1980 or later, and these caught my eye (with fairly superficial looks at the pages for some semblance of importance): {{VA link|Titiek Puspa}} (has big boost due to recent death), {{VA link|Joko Anwar}}, {{VA link|Krisdayanti}}, {{VA link|Suzzanna}}, {{VA link|Rossa (singer)}} and {{VA link|Happy Salma}}.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|LaukkuTheGreit}} I would support adding everyone you just mentioned, although some of them would fit better under directors or musicians than actors. Indonesia is the fourth-largest country in the world, it deserves a lot more representation on this list. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

We list too many {{VA link|College basketball}} coaches, and we should cut some. Out of the ones we list, Smith seems like the least vital. His main claim to vitality is being really good and holding an important record, but he seemingly isn't widely considered among the best and his record only lasted eight years. I don't see why we should list him.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. He may not have many championships, but Smith's success throughout his coaching career (in terms of wins and winning percentage) was unprecedented at the time, plus he was also someone who knew how to coach. It may be weak reasoning, but I feel that Smith was important enough, especially in the 60s through the 80s, to gain a keep. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose. If the level of importance for sports biographies inclusion is {{VA link|Nigel Richards (Scrabble player)}}, then subject should be kept. GauchoDude (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

1. Would only support removal if Iba or Knight is also removed _pbp 16:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

What's the rationale for dropping Dean Smith but keeping {{VA link|Henry Iba}}? _pbp 23:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Purplebackpack89}} I planned on nominating Iba after a couple days. I was simply trying to avoid nominating two basketball coaches at once. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

At present, there are five men's college basketball coaches (and two women's college basketball coaches), whom I would rank as follows:

1. John Wooden (10 NCAA championships, 0 Gold Medals, 27 interwikis)
2. Mike Krzyzewski (5 NCAA championships, 3 Gold Medals, 22 interwikis)
3. Dean Smith (2 NCAA championships, 1 Gold Medal, 20 interwikis)
4. Bob Knight (3 NCAA championships, 1 Gold Medal, 17 interwikis)
5. Henry Iba (2 NCAA championships, 2 Gold Medals, 1 silver medal, 10 interwikis)

I think Wooden and K definitely stay and you can debate the other three. There are also several prominent college basketball coaches, such as Phog Allen and Roy Williams, who are unlisted. I would also note that Dean Smith's notoriety stems in part from coaching and recruiting some of the most prominent players of all time, particularly Michael Jordan, and also having several prominent coaches, such as Williams and Larry Brown, serve under him as assistant and players. _pbp 15:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Purplebackpack89}} I have opened a proposal to remove Iba. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

His main claim to vitality is founding a non-vital sports promotion company, when the concept of sports promoters isn't even listed. Nothing in his article shows how he is one of the 15000 most vital people in history, and he only has nine interwikis.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Kevinishere15 (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Support - important enough for an article but not a vital one - if we are trying to remove the founders of the New York Times, the founder of Matchsport doesn't really sound linke it should compare.  Carlwev  03:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
5. --Bluevestman (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
6. _pbp 04:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose. If the level of importance for sports biographies inclusion is {{VA link|Nigel Richards (Scrabble player)}}, then subject should be kept. GauchoDude (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
2. :OK, just because Nigel managed to survive his removal proposal doesn't mean you need to oppose every other sports removal proposal. Bluevestman (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
3. ::Per my note on the Maria Grozdeva conversation:
4. ::Because it means I've not calibrated what this project believes is vital correctly for myself. As such, I must readjust what I believe meets that criteria. This isn't a "hey, we kept a 17th century general and now we're figuring out if this modern, abstract art concept is vital", this is as apples to apples as you can get within Level 5 sport-specific biographies. GauchoDude (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
5. :::Wait, your proposal hasn't even closed yet. I think you're acting prematurely on this. Bluevestman (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
6. ::::Just trying to course correct and vote on as many proposals as possible so we can clear as much of the backlog as possible. This issue has been mentioned by many people over various pages of the project so trying to do my part.
7. ::::If we all waited around for everything to close, this would move at a snail's pace. If things change again, I'll readjust. GauchoDude (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

In the vote to remove Lys Assia, three people suggested a swap for {{VA link|Udo Jürgens}}. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. Iostn proposed the swap in the original discussion.
2. Sahaib voted for the swap in the original discussion.
3. Moscow Connection voted for the swap in the original discussion.
4. Seems important. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Makes sense. Long career, large body of work, 53 interwikis, over 100 average daily page views. GauchoDude (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

As it was noted by {{u|Iostn}} in the previous discission, German popular music is underrepresented, and Udo Jürgens is the best candidate. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Patriarch of Constantinople (most important post in Eastern Orthodox religion) for the past 34 years. Among other things, was the first patriarch in nearly a millennium to attend the funeral of a pope. 56 interwikis._pbp 12:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. _pbp 12:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Seems very important. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
3. --Bluevestman (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Was very popular in the 1910s and 1920s, but he doesn't have much of a legacy and his popularity hasn't stood the test of time. Other than being a popular celebrity a century ago, this article doesn't make any claim to vitality.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
2. _pbp 16:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Weak oppose, VA is meant to be anti-recentist, and he seems to have been pretty popular in his time. Kevinishere15 (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Also weak oppose. If lede sentence is accurate, "... was one of the biggest stars of the 1910s and early '20s." The volume of his body of work would seem to support that and subject has 19 interwikis and nearly 140 average daily page views. GauchoDude (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

We list too many college basketball coaches, and Iba seems like one of the least vital. He's a very successful coach, but he hasn't had the level of dominance or impact required for VA5. I'd rather use this slot to add someone who represents a less Americentric area than college sports.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Much as I'm reticent to remove somebody with multiple gold medals AND multiple NCAA championships, he doesn't have enough interwikis to be listed in a fame category _pbp 16:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
3. I feel the reason why Iba was listed is because of his Olympic success, but I feel like that doesn't cut it (especially cause the U.S. was dominant at Olympic basketball during this time period). Iba is definitely a notable coach don't get me wrong, but I feel like someone like {{VA link|Roy Williams (basketball coach)}} or even {{VA link|Jim Boeheim}} is more deserving of a spot if we add someone else. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose. If the level of importance for sports biographies inclusion is {{VA link|Nigel Richards (Scrabble player)}}, then subject should be kept. GauchoDude (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

I have a question. Since March when I proposed to add some Italian film directors, I have found some (non-European) film directors who, IMO, can be easily removed. I decided not to submit those "removes" yet and to wait for the outcome of my earlier proposals, but those March discussions are moot.

The question is:
Will it be frown upon if I submit new proposals for the same Italian directors, but this time not as simple "adds" but as "replaces"? --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'd just open the removals separately and leave the additions open. Swap proposals tend to be less likely to succeed in most cases. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::Then there is danger that my March proposals won't pass while a dozen or a couple of dozens of those other directors will be removed. And I want those March people added, that's why I did a research on who is not too notable and can be removed. :-) Some of those "removes" look very straightforward to me. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Those March people are probably less likely to be added in a swap proposal, since you might have people opposing both parts because they don't like your choice of removal. I'd leave it as-is and wait for people to vote on the March proposals, almost all of which seem like they are going to pass. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

P. S. I'm talking about #Film directors. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

QuicoleJR was supportive of these so I'm nominating them.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Filmmaker who has enough award wins and nominations for a separate page; he "has two films in the top 10 list of highest-grossing Indonesian films of all-time".

;Support

1. As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
2. {{VA link|Indonesia}} is currently underrepresented, and these people are vital enough to add. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Per above. Kevinishere15 (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
4. With those stats I think he's absolutely needed for global coverage. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Contrarian here. His awards page is filled with a majority of stuff he was nominated for but didn't actually win. We're removing/not adding people who have won much more prestigious things throughout their careers. Additionally, the Indonesian film scene is certainly not at the same level as Hollywood, Bollywood, etc. so I'm not sure the magnitude of importance when comparing apples to apples on some of the others who have been listed. Subject has just 10 interwikis, which doesn't scream global importance, and for someone who is currently active in their industry has just 110 average daily page views which I think (but stand to be corrected) is low in comparison to other modern people in the same industry. Edit to add that Cinema of Indonesia is not VA listed when comparing to those others. GauchoDude (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

"Puspa has been described as 'the grand dame of Indonesian entertainment'"; received an award for "her lifetime dedication to the music industry"; Rolling Stone Indonesia named two of her songs as some of the all-time best from Indonesia.

;Support

1. As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
2. {{VA link|Indonesia}} is currently underrepresented, and these people are vital enough to add. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Per above. Kevinishere15 (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Weak support per legacy section and large body of work. Just 14 interwikis and 55 average daily page views is concerning, especially because they were just inflated with Puspa's death in April. GauchoDude (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

She is "considered the most expensive Indonesian artist to hire for singing or acting, with Swa magazine writing that she earns more than the president of Indonesia"; "in 2007 Globe Asia ranked her 31st in its list of the 99 influential women in Indonesia".

;Support

1. As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
2. {{VA link|Indonesia}} is currently underrepresented, and these people are vital enough to add. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Per above. Kevinishere15 (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Short of being {{VA link|Mansa Musa}}, {{VA link|John D. Rockefeller}}, or {{VA link|Andrew Carnegie}} (all of whom were hilariously wealthy, but still didn't derive their vitality via money) the amount of money one makes has little bearing on historical vitality. There may be slight edge cases, but Krisdayanti is no where near one of them. Has a fair amount of studio albums and film/television credits, but only one is notable. 15 interwikis and 65 average daily page views doesn't seem huge for someone current. GauchoDude (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

Seems a fairly iconic horror actress; mentioned by GuzzyG above.

;Support

1. As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
2. {{VA link|Indonesia}} is currently underrepresented, and these people are vital enough to add. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Per above. Kevinishere15 (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Weak oppose. I'm not sure if a niche actress in a non-VA {{VA link|Cinema of Indonesia}} justifies inclusion. 13 interwikis feels low, but over 100 average daily pageviews for a non-modern actress seems elevated. GauchoDude (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

"She is one of the best-selling Indonesian artists of all time based on album sales, with over twelve million copies sold in the region until 2023"; dubbed "Queen of Pop Indonesia"; "she is one of the most awarded Indonesian artists in history".

;Support

1. As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
2. {{VA link|Indonesia}} is currently underrepresented, and these people are vital enough to add. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Per above. Kevinishere15 (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

"In 2020, Tatler Asia named her as one of the most influential figures in Asia."

;Support

1. As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
2. {{VA link|Indonesia}} is currently underrepresented, and these people are vital enough to add. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Per above. Kevinishere15 (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Weak oppose. The magazine reference, while nice, is unmoving; it's what appears to be a celebrity magazine. She has a few award wins for the non-VA {{VA link|Cinema of Indonesia}}, but nothing that screams worldwide notability and influence. Only 12 interwikis and 59 average daily page views for someone modern seems to support. GauchoDude (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

Quite frankly, I'm not sure why this person is listed. I could not find an entry conversation for this person either. For me, being the best at a board game doesn't infer Level 5 notability for a sports/biography. Scrabble is a relatively new game (within the last 100 years), so we're not dealing with a majorly historical game like Chess or Go. I see no difference between Richards and the best Monopoly player, or best Clue player, or best Battleship player, or best Candyland player, etc., of which I'm fairly confident we've not added. Reduces biographies (and sports ones at that) and Richards has just 9 interwikis plus en.wiki.

;Support

1. As nom. GauchoDude (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
2. --Bluevestman (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
3. As GauchoDude mentioned in a different discussion, competitive scrabble is not that big. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. I understand the rationale and support cutting down on sports bios, but I'm going to have to push back on this one. {{VA link|Scrabble}} is Level 4, meaning that it warrants a representative if there is someone suitable, and Richards is the undisputed Scrabble GOAT. He is so dominant that he was able to win Scrabble tournaments in languages he doesn't even speak! His unrivaled Scrabble prowess has also made him a household name among many Scrabble fans. The difference between listing him and a Monopoly player is that Monopoly and other Level 4 games do not have a large tournament scene and an undisputed greatest player ever, while Scrabble has both. We can keep Richards at Level 5. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
2. : Agree with QuicoleJR, I do think that more competitive players for other board games could be represented too but Richards is important enough to keep. ‪AllyWithInfo‬ (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllyWithInfo (talk • contribs) WP:SOCKSTRIKE QuicoleJR (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

Not defending this person, but we list some esports players, Faker (gamer) "the best League of Legends player. Daigo Umehara a fighting game player, Lim Yo-hwan a StarCraft player. Not sure listing a StarCraft player is more vital than a scrabble player, or another game like Prince of Persia, Dominic O'Brien, a memory record holder seems a bit odd as well.... Also we list a competative eater - Takeru Kobayashi, although - eating is older and more popular than scrabble, but I'm not sure competitive eating is.  Carlwev  17:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:For the record, I would support retaining some amount of esports representation on this list. The list shouldn't be only athletic sports, we should also list a few major figures from less physical sports. The memory guy can go, though, and likely will soon since there is an active proposal to remove him. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I'm going to pick a side on this nomination, but QuicoleJR is correct that Scrabble is not analogous to Monopoly and Candy Land, as it has a world championship. _pbp 17:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• :So does (did?) Monopoly, per this bit on the article so I'm not sure what argument we're trying to make here. And while not currently Level 4, apparently so does Catan, Stratego, Diplomacy, etc. I assume we don't list those winners either but I didn't check (heck, I'd even assume winners don't have articles). Does this guy pass GNG? For sure. But to make an argument that he's one of the 50,000 most vital things to ever exist? Especially when people are banging on about biography and specifically sports bloat? Bit of a bridge too far for me, personally, but will let the process do its thing. GauchoDude (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Alright, now I'm down a rabbit hole. We have 10 board games listed at Level 4 (Backgammon, Checkers, Chess, Go, Mancala, Monopoly, Pachisi, Scrabble, Shogi, Xiangqi).
• ::Of those, we currently have "sports" (I use that loosely, but that's where it's categorized) biographies for Checkers (1), Chess (12), Go (5), Scrabble (1), and Shogi (2). We do not have sports biographies for the other five (Backgammon, Mancala, Monopoly, Pachisi, and Xiangqi).
• ::Of the board games/sports/whatever we don't have "sports" biographies for, they of course, all have world championships: Already pointed to Monopoly above, Backgammon, Mancala (apparently has many?), Pachisi (also apparently has multiple?), and Xiangqi. So, like, I dunno man. Still doesn't feel important and these are a bit more apples to apples than Candyland and Battleship. GauchoDude (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::I would like to list a Xiangqi player at Level 5, but unfortunately our only representative for that game was removed. I think not including one player for Chinese chess but listing 40 for the NFL is clear Americentric bias, but I don't know enough about the game to suggest an addition. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::We sit on opposite ends of this spectrum. I would be in favor of removing probably all of them, save for likely a handful of chess players. And if you believe listing that many for NFL is silly, I continue to encourage you to list and let's remove. I'm not sure there's any convincing argument that would sway me that a non-chess board game player is one of the top 50,000 topics to ever exist in humanity while people are saying we have too many sports bios. GauchoDude (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Listed under sportspeople, claim to fame appears to be he at one point was the record holder for {{VA link|Dressage}} Olympic medals, or maybe just gold medals, which has since been surpassed per the article. Of those golds, 5 were won as part of a team whereas just one was done individually. Incredibly low pageviews at 16 daily average.

;Support

1. We don't need ten equestrian riders at this level, and Klimke seems like one we can remove. {{VA link|Dressage}} is only Level 5. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. It's worth noting that the category includes both Olympic equestrianism and Derby/Stakes horse racing. Guy has 32 interwikis and some of the other jockeys have only 5 or 6. _pbp 18:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Actually, as nom, I change my vote. We can either let the process play out or someone with editing/admin power can withdraw. GauchoDude (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

His only claims to vitality are opening a minor boarding school and being a somewhat important early temperance leader. Nothing in his article makes him stand out as vital, he is one of the least-viewed biographies on the list, and he has zero interwikis. There is no reason to include him on this list.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
2. _pbp 18:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
3. --Bluevestman (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
4. No non-english article. ALittleClass (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Television writers and producers is bloated, especially with Americans. A lot of the other writers/producers have 20-30 interwikis but he only has four. _pbp 19:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. _pbp 19:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
2. --Bluevestman (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

1. I would imagine Aubrey was placed on the list because he was the president of CBS, during which time the American television channel was absolutely dominant. GauchoDude (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Incredibly iconic band; first paragraph of their article states that they have sold over 50 million records worldwide, received several Grammy Awards, and was have been inducted into the Musicians Hall of Fame and Museum. Africa (song) is the ninth highest certified single according to List of best-selling singles, which puts them behind other artists that we currently list (with even some of the singles being listed themselves). If this proposal fails then I will consider nominating Africa to be placed in the Arts section.

;Support

1. As nom. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Definitely. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Definitely, I was going to propose this sometime in the future, so thanks for doing it in advance. Toto might be the most notable rock band not listed. It's not just Africa they have to claim fame, Hold the Line and Rosanna (song) were both successful and popular (although definitely Africa's level). As for Africa, I'd weak oppose that because despite the single success, I feel like a lot of its popularity, especially nowadays, has been bumped because of its meme status (and I feel like the only song we should list solely based on meme status is {{VA link|Never Gonna Give You Up}}). It has less sold singles than {{VA link|Thunderstruck (song)}}, which I can't see being listed anytime soon. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Bluevestman (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
5. Weak support. GauchoDude (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Weak oppose: I would support Africa as being potentially vital, but there is not much of a legacy to talk of tbh. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

1. Are they more important than the recently-removed {{VA link|Foreigner (band)}}? Might support this anyways since nowadays I honestly regret proposing Foreigner for removal - there were probably better places to start the removals than Foreigner and I underestimated how much airplay and sales Foreigner still gets 50 years later. λ NegativeMP1 02:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Another Asian entertainer, this time from Thailand. He popularized Thai action movies and is apparently considered one of the greatest martial arts stars in the history of cinema. He is important enough to the cinema of Thailand to be mentioned in that article's lead. He also gets very high pageviews and has an impressive 48 interwikis.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
3. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Weak oppose. We're on a very niche subject here with action-based Thai cinema and I'm not sure if that's worthy of inclusion. The entirety of {{VA link|Cinema of Thailand}} isn't even Level 5 rated. Certainly cannot deny the interwikis and page views (48 and 1,500 average daily), but we literally just removed {{VA link|Macaulay Culkin}} a few months ago who has significantly better statistics than Jaa. GauchoDude (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

In the discussion of the failed proposal to add Carl Bildt, J947 suggested that we should add {{VA link|Tage Erlander}} instead. As J947 quoted from the article: {{xt|His uninterrupted tenure of 23 years as head of the government is the longest ever in Sweden and in any modern Western democracy}}; {{xt|He was considered one of the most popular leaders in the world by the end of the 1960s}}; {{xt|During his premiership, Sweden developed into one of the world's most advanced welfare states, with the "Swedish Model" at the peak of its acclaim and notoriety}}; {{xt|He has been compared to other notable Swedish "political giants" such as Palme and Dag Hammarskjöld.}}

;Support

1. As nominator. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Definitely seems like an impactful enough politician to list. 40 interwikis, rated High-Importance by WikiProject Sweden. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Thanks for this nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Weak support. Scandanavia is overrepresented so we probably need to cut down the number on V5. But I'm not a fan of opposing based on quotas, we can deal with this later. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
5. :{{ping|1ctinus}} If you are worried about overrepresenting Scandinavia, would you be willing to support the removal later in this section? QuicoleJR (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
6. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{VA link|Erik XIV}} is mostly remembered for being deposed, so he feels a bit out of place among the other Swedish kings listed.

;Support

1. As nominator. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Does not seem important enough to list. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
3. not a strong enough legacy. {{ping|QuicoleJR}} Hi! -1ctinus📝🗨 18:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Ballon twisting is not V5. Does this need more elaboration?

;Support

1. Per nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 21:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
2. No interwikis is still an auto drop IMO _pbp 21:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Per OP and PBP. Kevinishere15 (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Fully agree with pbp. --Bluevestman (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
5. As ALittleClass said in another discussion, another possible inventor of balloon twisting is Herman Bonnert.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 20:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
6. ALittleClass (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
7. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Moved 7-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Fundamentally, he was NOT a Christian bishop or apostle or theologian or anything like that. While he is obviously VA5 important and obviously mentioned in the Holy Scriptures, his career was as a governor and administrator _pbp 21:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. _pbp 21:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Makes sense. QuicoleJR (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Support agree, although mentioned in religious writings, always described as a governor.  Carlwev  10:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
4. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
5. --Bluevestman (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
6. Per nom. My understanding is Pilate is one of the people from the gospels with 3rd party verification, no small thing after 2 millenia. He has more material then other Roman governors that were around during his time. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:36, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Abot}}

Senegal is underrepresented with only two contemporary politicians for a country of 18 million. During Sall's 12-year tenure as president, he completed several major infrastructure projects, heavily improved Senegal's economy, received international praise for his diplomatic efforts, played a major role in ousting Gambian dictator {{VA link|Yahya Jammeh}}, and helped resolve a major domestic conflict. He also caused a constitutional crisis by repressing political opposition and attempting a self-coup. He is rated High-Importance by WikiProject Senegal and has an impressive 58 interwikis. I see no reason not to list him.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 08:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Weak support. Concerned with recentism here as they've just left office within the last few years. 59 interwikis and 310 average daily page views. GauchoDude (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{VA link|Cicely Williams}} has a clear case for importance in her article, while {{VA link|Frank Gotch (physician)}} doesn't so much.

;Support

1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 05:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Williams has numerous awards for her work which has a larger impact worldwide whereas Gotch doesn't and his field is more specialized. Additionally, Williams has 25 average daily page views compared to Gotch's 1. GauchoDude (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

I know we already have plenty of Nazi politicians but this guy was the Nazi figurehead in the Netherlands and terrorized the Dutch for five years. 53 interwikis. _pbp 18:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. _pbp 18:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Support. Agree with {{U|Purplebackpack89}} that we have a ton of Nazis/people from this era on the list. Maybe too many? In any event, Seyss-Inquart likely should be added. He's certainly more important than {{VA link|Anton Mussert}} and {{VA link|Georgios Tsolakoglou}} and has better stats (interwikis 53 to 31 to 18; average daily page views 456 to 44 to 116) who we should think to cut. GauchoDude (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

There a current discussion about him and two other Austrian politicians, but I don't mind a separate discussion here. In that discussion J947 supported listing him as nominator and you, Purplebackpack89, opposed it. I was among the people who voted neutral. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:That discussion has been closed, with the other candidates added and the matter of Seyss-Inquart referred to here _pbp 17:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Come have a look. It is collapsed so it does not take any space.

Feel free to comment on this and especially feel free to take action to increase coverage in other countries on this list. :)

{{Collapse top|THE V5 REPORT}}

{{User:1ctinus/V5 Report}}

{{Collapse bottom}} -1ctinus📝🗨 19:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Largest claim of notability is that he founded a mostly defunct store that is not vital either.

;Support

1. Per nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 21:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
2. The founder of Kmart is not vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
3. If Kmart isn't vital, then the founder probably isn't. Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
4. 2 interwikis. --Bluevestman (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

We need more coverage of Indonesians. He seems to be an influential painter in his country.

;Support

1. Per nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 21:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Seems very important. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
3. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
4. A good painter too, based on the paintings in the article. Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Weak oppose. Subject appears to have only one notable painting, The Arrest of Pangeran Diponegoro. None of the lede is sourced, so it may not even be true. This seems to be an attempt to add someone who is Indonesian without respect to their work or a potential claim to vitality. Does have 24 interwikis and ~70 average daily page views so maybe there's something here I'm missing? GauchoDude (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
2. :Comparative to other painters w.r.t. interwikis and pageviews, Saleh probably makes it even if he wasn't Indonesian. As a means of ensuring that the Western world – 1/7th of the world's population – doesn't take up 90% of the painter slots, I will give someone like Saleh a lot of leeway for representation. Wikipedia has fewer articles on specific paintings than ideal, and what coverage there is can be patchy, so I'm generally not minded to use that as a metric. The painting article we do have for Saleh is a fine article; ledes don't need to be sourced. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:39, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

From the article: "Szálasi's collaborationist government, with its authority limited to the city of Budapest and its environs, only lasted 163 days." Consider this a way to balance out Seyss above. _pbp 22:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. _pbp 22:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atopg|Removed 5-0. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)}}

His main claims to vitality are writing a bestselling finance book, collaborating with Trump on a couple other finance books, and scamming people. He has some impressive interwikis, but that statistic does not always correlate to vitality (see {{VA link|David Woodard}} and {{VA link|Corbin Bleu}}). He doesn't seem to have had much of an impact on anything outside of having some commercial success, and we can't list every minor American celebrity. There are plenty of other authors I would rather give this slot to.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Kevinishere15 (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Seems like the kind of person to care about their interwikis, won't be trusting that. ALittleClass (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

Tunisia is currently completely unrepresented on the Writers list. A country of its size deserves representation, and Douagi seems like one of the best candidates. His page describes him as "a Tunisian literary and cultural icon" and "the father of the modern Tunisian short story". He has had enough of an impact on the Tunisian literary scene to warrant inclusion at Level 5.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. I think Aboul-Qacem Echebbi, Gisèle Halimi, and Albert Memmi are better options, as pageviews, interwikis and creation dates all suggest. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Four interwikis. --Bluevestman (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

Subject has just ~5 daily average pageviews. GauchoDude (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Tunisia does not have a single writer on the list, and this issue needs to be rectified. {{ping|J947}} identified this person as a better addition option than my original choice. I still stand by adding the other guy, but I also think that Echebbi should be added. He contributed lines to Tunisia's national anthem, and his poems were used as slogans during the {{VA link|Arab Spring}}. He is also rated High-Importance by WikiProject Tunisia. He is definitely important enough to warrant a slot at VA5.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
2. fr:Abou el Kacem Chebbi – a FA – discusses his importance. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
3. If the french article is to believed, he is vital enough for V5. (Mobile messes up formatting, sorry) -1ctinus📝🗨 01:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Subject has just ~30 daily average pageviews. GauchoDude (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:I have never liked pageviews as a statistic because they disadvantage important Global South people in exchange for minor American pop culture figures. The statistic can be helpful sometimes, but I don't think that it should be the main reason behind supporting or opposing. Also, averaging thirty pageviews a day isn't bad. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::There was no implication of support or opposition, hence why it was placed into the discussion section. Per WP:VITALCRITERIA, it's one of the 5 listed whether we like it or not.

::On a separate tangent, I'm not sure just because the subject is a writer from Tunisia and Tunisia doesn't have any writers listed that that's even something we should be attempting to fix. There are like 195 countries in the world or so and they don't all necessarily need writers. They should be admitted based on their merit, not that we're trying to fill a hole. None of that is to say whether this particular subject is or isn't worthy. GauchoDude (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:Pageviews are useful in comparing people of a similar type: they're the metric I most use. For non-Western writers, particularly African, 30 daily or 1,000 monthly pageviews is enough. At VA4, it appears the relevant figure is probably about 5,000 monthly for African writers. A reduction to a fifth is fairly standard. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

African literature is horribly underrepresented at VA5, and Aidoo would be a great addition to counteract that. She is a very impactful author of both novels and plays, winning the Commonwealth Writers' Prize and becoming the first published female African dramatist. Several of her novels became very popular, and when she died, she was given a state funeral. She also held political office as Ghana's Secretary of Education for a bit. 38 interwikis is quite impressive for an African novelist, and she is rated High-Importance by WikiProject Women writers and Top-Importance by WikiProject Ghana and WikiProject Africa.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Yes. I do ask if you are to find more African authors, Ghana already has 3, we should consider other countries with no authors like Uganda and Gabon additionally. BTW, do you think we should consider creating goals for how many Africans we should try to add for each category? -1ctinus📝🗨 01:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
3. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
4. _pbp 06:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{ping|1ctinus}} I plan on trying to find more Africans from a variety of countries and in a variety of areas. However, I don't see why Ghana should only get 4 writers, although I will probably look through other countries first. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Painters are underrepresented at this level, and African painters even more so. Tayali is described as Zambia's most famous painter. He is also described as playing a pivotal role in Zambia's cultural and artistic development, and as being one of the first Africans to put a lot of effort into raising the profile of African art. His works are still exhibited throughout the world. We have room to add more artists, and Tayali deserves a slot.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Subject has just ~10 average daily pageviews. GauchoDude (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Noting for readers of this discussion that I responded in the Echebbi proposal. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:If we decided to base everything on pageviews, v1 would be facebook and Trump instead of topics like technology or science. They are biased towards the Anglosphere. -1ctinus📝🗨 14:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::Then remove it as a criteria for measurement? I certainly didn't add it on there. As it stands, it is one of the 5 things that are "...key criteria in determining whether an article is vital..." so it would be irresponsible to ignore.

::Will also ping {{U|QuicoleJR}} as they had a previous response as well on a separate nomination. Lastly, user J947 indicated "For non-Western writers, particularly African, 30 daily or 1,000 monthly pageviews is enough." I have no idea if that's accurate as I haven't looked into the others on the list (yet?), but that wouldn't be a positive for this instance.

::While not an "official" metric, subject only has 5 interwikis so that also may indicate they don't have a level of notability worth inclusion for the project. GauchoDude (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

We have just decided to list {{VA link|Nimr al-Nimr}}. I listed him as an activist because he is most famous as a political dissident, but Zar2gar1 and User:Bluevestman suggested that he should be listed as a religious leader instead. Was he religiously influential enough to list him as a religious leader? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

;Keep on activists

1. As nominator.

;Move to religious leaders

1. Zar2gar1 argued for this in the original discussion.
2. Bluevestman argued for this in the original discussion.

Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

His main claim to vitality is a few film adaptations, one of which was quite successful at the Oscars. He seems like he was decently popular, but I'm not seeing enough of a legacy for VA5.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Not seeing compelling vitality claims (only the aforementioned film adapations and a brief mention of "After achieving literary success [...]"), pretty obscure at ~33 daily pageviews, the {{VA link|Angry young men}} group he belonged to is not listed as vital, he was not even a prominent member according to the Finnish article, only one of his novels is [https://thegreatestbooks.org/authors/12249 listed at thegreatestbooks.org] and not high at all with a currently 3849th position.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 17:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 11:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Only was Emperor for two years, after which the Hasburg monarchy was ushered out _pbp 23:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. _pbp 23:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

I've sat on this for a bit and am still digesting. While he was only head of state for two years, it was a pretty dang big state. Despite his efforts, he was important in the dissolution Austria-Hungary, and his peacemaking efforts led to him being named(? selected? not sure the right terminology) a saint by the Catholic Church. I find that bit a little ironic as he tried multiple times to retake the throne of Hungary. Also has 64 interwikis and nearly 1,600 average daily page views which feels significant. GauchoDude (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

{{atopg|Removed 7-0 in WP:AVALANCHE Kevinishere15 (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)}}

No legacy or impact besides liking a non-vital economic theory. Nobody has written about him in other languages outside English Wikipedia.

;Support

1. Per nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
3. As I've said before, 0 interwikis = Ya gone _pbp 23:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Out of place. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Less important than the theory, {{VA link|Dow theory}}, and in turn {{VA link|Technical analysis}}. Praised for his editorials but is too forgotten today with abysmal pageviews, ~9 daily.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 05:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
6. :Should Technical analysis be added to v5? -1ctinus📝🗨 16:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
7. Piling on in agreement that he needs to be removed from the list. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
8. ALittleClass (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Being a prostitute almost never makes a person notable enough for the vital articles list, but this person is apparently an academic. It has been complained that American activists are overrepresented, so removal is an option.

;Remove

1. As nominator. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Seems to be mostly known for the obscure idea of "ecosexuality" and an equally obscure genre of porn. Kevinishere15 (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

;Move to activists

;Move to philosophers and social scientists

;Keep

;Discussion

We don't have enough votes to remove her, but in the meantime I'll move her to activists. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Charles Reynolds is another of those 0-interwiki folks, and miniscule pageviews too. Instead, I propose adding Maximilian Kolbe, who has 52 interwikis, has been called "the patron of our difficult [20th] century" and is frequently venerated.

;Support

1. _pbp 20:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, seems a reasonable swap. Reynolds has an average of ~5 daily pageviews compared to Kolbe's ~850. GauchoDude (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Support swap but also support simple removal if the swap doesn't get consensus. Kevinishere15 (talk) 04:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
4. ALittleClass (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

Working on formatting section headings for level 5 and came across this. Seems like an odd organizational choice to have sports entertainers in a section outside sports figures. This would impact 30 articles.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Support as they, mostly wrestlers, are categorised as athletes in other sources like Biography.com and ESPN the Magazine, and coverage of the sport airs in sports channels. I sometimes considering a discussion of this. CrisBalboa1 (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Mostly disagree. Nearly the entire section (28 out of 30) is "professional" wrestling, which is scripted, acted, and is created and designed for entertainment, not sport. It is essentially a soap opera drama with a lot more physicality, hence belonging in the entertainment section, IMO. Same for Meadowlark Lemon, who was a member of the Harlem Globetrotters which operates under similar pretenses. A similar, but not perfect, analogy would be an attempted move of Jackie Chan, Jet Li, Chuck Norris, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Steven Seagal, etc. into Sports figures / Martial arts because of their bodies of work. I would be agreeable to moving Joan Weston to sports figures. GauchoDude (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
2. As GauchoDude points out, professional wrestling is fiction. However, I don't understand why the roller derby athlete is listed on the entertainers list. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
3. :We could change it to "Professional Wrestling" and move the roller derby athletes? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
4. ::There is one roller derby athlete. The other non-wrestler is exhibition basketball so you'd still have multiple subheadings. GauchoDude (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
5. :::Is exhibition basketball a sport? Seems like one as much as {{VA link|Figure skating}} GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Disc sports are too niche. Only languages are English and Esperanto. Many editors believe we list too many athletes as is.

;Support

1. Per nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 13:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
3. {{VA link|Frisbee sports}} (where disc sports redirects) is only VA5, so it does not deserve two representatives, and Climo seems more vital than Westerfield. I'm not going to comment in depth on Richards here, but I don't think that him and Westerfield are at a comparable level of importance. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose. If the level of importance for sports biographies inclusion is {{VA link|Nigel Richards (Scrabble player)}}, then subject should be kept. GauchoDude (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

1. I have been finding that if we just apply the same standards of vitality to the sports figures as we do for all the other sections, the section is going to shrink a bit very naturally. That being said, disc sports currently just has 2 figures listed, which doesn't seem like over representation. From this list, disc golf (just one of the disc sports) is pretty popular in America, Finland, Iceland, and Estonia, with good popularity in the other nordic countries and Canada. ALittleClass (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
2. :Disc golf is enjoyed, at least here in the States, as a mostly amateur, pick up sport. As a result, it is not surprising to me that there is a lack of famous (or in my opinion vital) disc golf players. Disc golf is only V5, so it does not need subsections. -1ctinus📝🗨 17:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Another non-vital American author. Nothing in his article makes him stand out as anywhere near vital except a vague claim that he influenced the {{VA link|Language poets}}, which is a non-vital school of poetry. Only 4 interwikis.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Easy agree. Daily average page views = 6. No admittance conversation found so unsure why Eigner was added in the first place and there certainly wasn't consensus. GauchoDude (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Iostn (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
4. ALittleClass (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Asma al-Assad, Syria's first lady until her husband's government was overthrown in December 2024, is not remotely vital. Her notability only exists in association with her husband who is already V5. I suggest swapping her with Syria's new president Ahmed al-Sharaa, who led Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham's offensive against the Assad regime. This might appear as having a slight recency bias, but al-Sharaa has played a pivotal role in Syria's civil war for well over 10 years, leading and fighting for various factions. He has started to reach international mainstream media, notably with his recent interview with Donald Trump. Idiosincrático (talk) 06:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. as nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 06:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Per above, seems to have been quite notable prior to becoming president. Sahaib (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

I am indifferent, but noting here that Asma al-Assad has fewer interwikis than Ahmed al-Sharaa (42 to 62), but has more average daily page views (1,423 to 596). GauchoDude (talk) 12:20, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

We still list too many unimportant writers, and Maddox is a great example of that. He is a somewhat famous Internet celebrity who also wrote one NYT bestseller. He is less vital than several other writers that we removed or that we voted against adding, and I see no reason to list him as one of the 15000 most vital people in history.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Sort of a random writer. Added in 2019 when discussion was not needed, probably biased by the interests of internet users in the early 2000s. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Not even that a famous an Internet persona, at ~140 daily pageviews. His bestseller, The Alphabet of Manliness, has faded into obscurity at ~15. Skimming through his article, I can't see much lasting impact, other than possibly some mild historical interest for becoming an e-celeb rather early in Internet culture.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 05:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Kevinishere15 (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Seems like a weird choice, agree with the above. AllyWithInfo (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
6. ALittleClass (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
7. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

African writers are horribly underrepresented, and Girma would make a great addition to counteract that. He is credited as one of the most important authors in Ethiopian literature, with a significant influence on literature in Ethiopia's Amharic language. He was disappeared by the ruling military government in the 1980s for his criticism of them. He is extremely popular in Ethiopia and across the Ethiopian diaspora, and he should be listed. The only point against him is a low interwiki count, which can be attributed to systemic bias against African culture. Other than that, I see no reason not to list him.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Interwikis can be a nice metric, but we must remember to not put the cart before the horse. Seems like the type of person that deserves more interwikis. ALittleClass (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

The Caribbean listings for Writers are way too focused on Martinique, and Cuba could use some more representation. Guillén is an extremely popular and influential poet, famous as the national poet of Cuba. He also has an impressive 32 interwikis and is rated Top-Importance by WikiProject African diaspora.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Seems very much vital. ALittleClass (talk) 05:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Indonesian writers are awfully underrepresented here (really, Indonesia in general is underrepresented on this list). I checked the writers section and out of 2000 there is ONE Indonesian person on the whole list ({{VA link|Amir Hamzah}}). Given there are 2,022 writers currently listed and Indonesia has 3.47% of the world population, that means there are 70 times less Indonesians on the list than the general population, yikes.

This writer has 36 interwikis, which according to [https://pantheon.world/profile/occupation/writer/country/indonesia this website] is the most interwikis of ANY Indonesian writer. His novels also prominently touch on parts of Indonesian history at the time. Wrote the Buru Quartet which is considered one of the most important pieces of modern Indonesian literature. Nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature 8 times.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

Popular Indonesian poet. His writing "influenced the development of the Indonesian language" itself. From the article: "Teeuw notes that by 1980 more had been written about Anwar than any other Indonesian writer." The anniversary of his death is a public holiday in Indonesia to this day.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 07:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 07:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Definitely important enough. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

Given how much importance we've put on {{VA link|Kurt Gödel}} here (among the 111 most immportant people ever? voted more vital than Muhammad Ali?), I think this person should be on here, as he's definitely the second biggest contributor to the field of incompleteness. He proved that the {{VA link|Continuum hypothesis}} and the {{VA link|Axiom of choice}} were independent from Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, using a technique he invented called forcing. He won the Fields Medal which is the most prestigious award in math, and the National Medal of Science. He also made contributions to many other fields such as abstract algebra, differential equations, and harmonic analysis. 38 interwikis.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Sounds important. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{atop

| status = no consensus

| result = Not removed 3-3. Kevinishere15 (talk) 03:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

}}

Per Hannah Montana discussion at Society, she’s not influential.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
2. She is in fact not influential. She is simply one of many contemporary pop culture figures that have had little to no influence on human history, or even the music industry. Only American celebrity pop culture. Even her own section on cultural impact reaffirms this idea. I don't care that she started in a successful show or sometimes releases popular music - plenty of other musicians have as well that we don't list as vital. To be on this list, you should either have a proven impact on human history or your respective industry (even if that means being purely representative), or exceptionally popular. Cyrus is neither of those and is pure recentism. Nothing separates her from countless other pop culture figures and this list should be scrubbed of all figures like her. Less recentist American pop culture and more actually important figures please. (Although, full closure, I probably wouldn't have started with her - she would've been way later down the line). λ NegativeMP1 00:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. I don't really care for having contemporary celebrities in general, and America is heavily over represented. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Celebrity pop culture is in fact important. If you personally think it's not, that doesn't matter to me. Many people find her significant so she can be included. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
2. I only supported removing the show Hannah Montana under the basis it would be covered by Cyrus herself, she's definitely big enough for 1 spot on the list, and based on the article it seems like she did have impact on the music industry. Kevinishere15 (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Per Kevin. ALittleClass (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

It does pain me to do this a little, as this is a personal favorite of mine, but I don't think this band should be taking up two spots on the list. I think {{VA link|Loveless (album)}} ought to be here because it's easily the best representative of the Shoegaze music genre/scene and has been acclaimed by critics as one of the best rock albums ever made. But that's all that's so important about the band; their other two albums didn't make much of a splash. Dinosaur Jr., Modest Mouse, Pavement, Neutral Milk Hotel/In the Aeroplane Over the Sea are examples of other indie rock bands of similar stature that we currently don't list.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Too many damn bands _pbp 21:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. I might be biased as MBV is also one of my personal favorite artists, but there are less popular rock groups such as {{VA link|Death (metal band)}} and {{VA link|Mayhem (band)}} that are here because they pioneered a genre. I know there is the concern of MBV and {{VA link|Loveless (album)}} being redundant but if MBV is removed, Loveless will become the only vital album whose artist is not considered vital (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm personally opposed to that but I'm willing to hear counterarguments. CopiousAmountofCannons (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
2. :We cut {{VA link|The Ronettes}} not that long ago while keeping {{VA link|Be My Baby}} as a vital song. So there is precedent for this. λ NegativeMP1 02:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
3. ::There are definitely VA-5 songs where the artist isn't listed. Loveless would just be the first album without the artist which feels more significant to me. I remember opposing/voting neutral on that Ronettes removal too.
4. ::CopiousAmountofCannons (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

1. Not really all that opposed to removing them and agree that the album is more important than the band, but being the sole representation of a Shoegaze band might make them important enough, {{VA link|Merzbow}} is listed under Electronic music for a similar reason. Also other albums they've done haven't had as big of a splash, but Isn't Anything is similarly critically acclaimed and often listed as one of the best albums of the 80s. AllyWithInfo (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

A major Nicaraguan Catholic priest and poet, although his poetry is much more important than his priesthood. He wrote several important works and is an important Nicaraguan cultural figure. 34 interwikis, rated High-Importance by WikiProject Nicaragua.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

A contemporary American author, famous for writing a somewhat popular memoir that got turned into a mediocre movie. She has decent stats, but no real claim to vitality. Her memoir doesn't seem like a vital book and none of her other works even have articles. This slot would be better used to include authors who have actually had a meaningful impact.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
2. One book with an english wikipedia page, of which the film adaptation has 5x as many pageviews and interwikis. ALittleClass (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
3. If her only notable book isn't vital than she probably isn't. Kevinishere15 (talk) 03:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Japanese electronic act mainly from the 70s and 80s. Often cited as pioneers of multiple genres like {{VA link|Synth-pop}} and {{VA link|Techno}}, as well as serving as a major influence on {{VA link|Hip-hop}} and {{VA link|Sampling (music)}} early on. Has sustained huge success and notoriety in their home country and even a fair bit abroad. Also could see a minor argument in favor of adding Ryuichi Sakamoto due to his extensive work on film soundtracks.

Support

1. As nom. AllyWithInfo (talk) 02:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Not even Japanese or a frequent listener of the genres they're noted for and I've heard of them and their importance. Also we need more non-American / non-Western acts. λ NegativeMP1 02:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Very important and influential. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Put them in the electronic music category.--Bluevestman (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Per nom. CopiousAmountofCannons (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Prolific Filipino film director. Lead states that "he is frequently known as one of the key members of the slow cinema movement, and has made several of the longest narrative films on record. Diaz is one of the most critically acclaimed contemporary Filipino filmmakers." His films have also won a considerable amount of awards.

;Support

1. As nom. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Seems important enough to list. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Moved 2-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Why is he listed under 'United States' of the 'Television hosts and personalities' section? He should be in the 'UK & Ireland' section.

;Support

1. As nom. CrisBalboa1 (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Support move _pbp 21:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

:Decided to just move him. Bluevestman (talk) 04:53, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

CrisBalboa1 (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Dominica has a population of about 70,000 people, the current prime minister Roosevelt Skerrit (who is not listed) has served for 21 years, 7 years longer than Charles's tenure.

;Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Strong Oppose Longevity doesn't always mean vital. "She was the first female in the Americas to be elected in her own right as head of government" and "was the world's fourth longest-serving female prime minister, behind Sheikh Hasina of Bangladesh, Sirimavo Bandaranaike of Sri Lanka and Indira Gandhi of India" makes her go above her tiny country. She's inarguably the most dominant woman in Caribbean politics in the 20th century. Look at chapter 11 "Eugenia Charles, the United States, and Military Intervention in Grenada" of this academic book [https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/nich20180?searchText=Eugenia%20Charles%20Grenada&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DEugenia%2BCharles%2BGrenada%26so%3Drel&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3Ab05a4ebd78b30929b29af51726782b76]. Her role as head of Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States gave the approval for the United States invasion of Grenada. A vital event in the history of the Commonwealth Caribbean. Skerrit has not achieved as much and that should be clearly obvious on first examination of his page (the only stuff on his page is stuff relating to corruption in comparison). GuzzyG (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose per GuzzyG. I'm not seeing much case for removal other than her country is small _pbp 19:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose per GuzzyG. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

Americans are heavily overrepresented in Writers, and I'm not seeing enough of a cultural or literary impact to warrant listing Levertov. Her only claim to vitality is winning a few awards, which isn't enough to warrant a slot.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

So my city pop proposal is shaping up to be a total dud. Maybe we can add her instead? We got her husband {{VA link|Tatsuro Yamashita}} who has less interwikis than her.

;Support

1. Bluevestman (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

Americans are overrepresented in Entertainers. Ashby seems like a good director, but his critical acclaim isn't to the point where he can be listed for it, and I don't see any sort of cultural impact or industry influence. I would rather use this slot to list someone with a stronger claim to vitality.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
2. _pbp 08:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Creator of the Franz Kafka phenomenon. 53 iw. I'm just not sure whether to put him in the subcategory Journalists, Prose Writers or the Miscellaneous category. The Literary Promoters category, where he would most likely belong, is not established.

;Support

1. [nom] 109.81.82.157 (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

Just two interwikis. Seems to be relatively unknown outside Australia. We'll still have eight other Oceanian directors if he's removed, and even that seems excessive _pbp 18:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. _pbp 18:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Australis is super overrepresnted. -1ctinus📝🗨 16:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

Still making up my mind on this proposal, but apparently {{VA link|The Sentimental Bloke}} is considered the best Australian silent film and one of the best Australian films of all time. However, said film is not listed, and it is his only claim to vitality AFAICT. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:Sentimental Bloke itself only has four interwikis, suggesting a lack of notoriety outside of Australia _pbp 14:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Apparently a German prolific robber for 2 years back in the 1800s. I could not find a single major source on this person that wasn't written in German, which I think is a bad sign. 2 interwikis, average of ~5 pageviews.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
2. _pbp 00:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Not vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
4. --Bluevestman (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

Explorer of the Kamchatka Peninsula, apparently took high quality reports of the natural details and the life of the people. Despite the decent interwikis (30), I think this is a false flag for vitality. The article cites a single book written in German, which in fact may even be the only secondary source written about this person, from what I checked. Apparently the least viewed of all the people filed in the miscellaneous section, average of ~2 pageviews.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Does not seem vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
3. If his explorations are important enough they ought to be covered in the "History and exploration" section of {{VA link|Kamchatka Peninsula}}.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 06:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

From the article lead: "He conceived the nuclear chain reaction in 1933, and patented the idea in 1936. In late 1939 he wrote the letter for Albert Einstein's signature that resulted in the Manhattan Project that built the atomic bomb."

Also, "Szilard was the first scientist of note to recognize the connection between thermodynamics and information theory... He discovered Feedback Inhibition and invented the Chemostat." 54 interwikis, potentially VA4 territory.

;Support

1. As the nominator. ALittleClass (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Didn't realize he was missing Iostn (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Seems pretty important. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

An extremely famous and important Indian actor. He has played many major roles, including the starring role in the third film in {{VA link|The Apu Trilogy}}. He has also received several major awards, including the Padma Bhushan and France's highest civilian award. He is a very major Indian actor, and he should be listed.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Major social reformer in Meiji era Japan, was featured on the 10,000 yen note for 40 years

;Support

1. As nom, to educators Iostn (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Seems pretty important. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

Visual art (paintings, sculptures, illustrations, etc.) and music are two entirely different forms of art, so why is it that we list the biographies of visual artists and musicians together? This point is further emphasized by the fact that the biographies for writers and filmmakers/actors each get their own sublist, as films and literature are also separate forms of art themselves. I'm not making this post expecting there to be any major changes to the sublists, this has just confused me for a long while, lol. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk)SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

We only list this article and Jeanne Calment for individuals known just for their longevity. I think Calment is enough for this level for longevity.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
2. We only need one person for longevity, not one for each gender. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

Chief songwriter for Chess Records, particularly for {{VA link|Muddy Waters}} and {{VA link|Howlin' Wolf}}. Wrote "Hoochie Coochie Man", "Spoonful", "You Need Love", "Back Door Man", and others. Also successfully sued {{VA link|Led Zeppelin}} for plagiarism.

;Support

1. Bluevestman (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

Improvement of the Journalists category. Weingarten does not have a global reach (only 2 interwikis outside of English), Kisch is a classic of reportage (27 iw). 109.81.91.228 (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. [nom] --109.81.91.228 (talk) 06:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom Iostn (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{VA link|Albert Speer}} is listed as an architect, but he is primarily known for his role in the Nazi government. Thus I think that he should be moved to poiticians.

;Support

1. As nominator. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. GuzzyG claimed elsewhere that Speer is more known as an architect.

;Neutral

;Discussion

Do this list really need a stamp collector? when {{VA link|Stamp collecting}} isn't even vital? He does seem to have been the greatest there ever was in his field so we aren't replacing him with another.

;Support

1. As nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Would rather put something else in this slot. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom. Certainly notable, certainly not vital. 12 interwikis, 14 average daily page views. GauchoDude (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

@1ctinus very kindly provided a list of the articles with 0 interwikis. Here's all the people on that list, with the people that seemed least vital towards the top (excluding those that have already been nominated):

:Pressed for time rn but put me as remove on everything _pbp 15:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

An American celebrity barbecue chef. Apparently has won over 180 barbecue grand championships.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. 106 average daily page views, but competitive barbecue isn't even notable enough to warrant a page. Potentially a television celebrity as he appeared as a judge in 34 episodes of BBQ Pitmasters, but still very much lacking from a notability standpoint. GauchoDude (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Support removing all articles with zero interwikis from this list. Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
5. _pbp 15:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

Apparently was a famous pole sitter in the 1920s and 1930s. Well, Pole sitting itself isn't vital, and I don't think his fame has retained itself much.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. 26 daily average pageviews doesn't make me question lack of vitality. GauchoDude (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Support removing all articles with zero interwikis from this list. Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
5. _pbp 15:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{atop|status=archived|result=Already proposed ALittleClass (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)}}

A pioneer of Balloon modelling (which itself isn't vital). He wasn't definitively the first person to do it either; some claim Herman Bonnert invented it first.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

:Already being proposed for removal.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 20:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

"Scottish-born American journalist. He was the manager of the San Diego Union and a founder of the Los Angeles Daily Times, precursors to today's San Diego Union-Tribune and Los Angeles Times, respectively." The article is a stub and currently cites 3 sources, two of which are from the Los Angeles Times itself.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Obviously the LA Times is vital, but Gardner is not. 9 average daily page views. GauchoDude (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Support removing all articles with zero interwikis from this list. Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
5. _pbp 15:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

The first printer in what is now Canada. We don't list the first printer in a bunch of other equally important countries, nor do I think we should.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Being the first in this instance, per nom, doesn't indicate vitality. 3 average daily page views. GauchoDude (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Support removing all articles with zero interwikis from this list. Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
5. _pbp 15:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

An English bowls player. We list 3 other bowls players, and {{VA link|Bowls}} itself is only VA5, so I don't feel bad about removing him.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Support removing all articles with zero interwikis from this list. Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Easy cut. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
5. _pbp 15:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose. If the level of importance for sports biographies inclusion is {{VA link|Nigel Richards (Scrabble player)}}, then subject should be kept. GauchoDude (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
2. :You don't agree with that inclusion, though. I wouldn't recommend trying to uphold a standard set by other people that you don't agree with. If you still want to keep this person regardless, that's fine. ALittleClass (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

A former professional rodeo cowboy. (I'll note that we currently list 4 rodeo riders, 2 of which have no interwikis, one has 1 interwiki and another has 2. I never really considered it, but rodeo is extremely regional to the US and a bit in other English speaking countries)

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Support removing all articles with zero interwikis from this list. Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
4. _pbp 15:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose. If the level of importance for sports biographies inclusion is {{VA link|Nigel Richards (Scrabble player)}}, then subject should be kept. GauchoDude (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

1. Rodeo, or maybe more specifically bull riding, while I'm not an expert, is also big(? to what extent I don't know) in Brazil and Australia. The bull riding circuit PBR seems to have a lot of riders from those countries. GauchoDude (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Another rodeo rider. Slightly more reserved about removing this one because it's nice to have female representation.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Support removing all articles with zero interwikis from this list. Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
4. _pbp 15:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose. If the level of importance for sports biographies inclusion is {{VA link|Nigel Richards (Scrabble player)}}, then subject should be kept. GauchoDude (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
2. :GauchoDude, these people have zero interwikis. The Scrabble guy at least has nine. Bluevestman (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

"two sisters who operated the Everleigh Club, a high-priced brothel in the Levee District of Chicago during the first decade of the twentieth century." The Everleigh Club itself is not vital.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Average of 13 daily pageviews. GauchoDude (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Support removing all articles with zero interwikis from this list. Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
5. _pbp 15:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

A ballroom dancer and dance teacher. We list many ballroom dancers currently so I don't feel too bad about removing her.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Weak support. The "first lady of the ballroom" bit gives me hesitation, but 21 average daily page views. Might need a dance expert to come in over the top here. GauchoDude (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Support removing all articles with zero interwikis from this list. Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
5. _pbp 15:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

An American radio personality and podcast host, also known as Opie. I've never heard of him.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
3. I've heard of this individual, but do not believe he's vital. Notable, certainly, but not one of the greatest humans to ever walk the earth. Longtime partner of {{VA link|Anthony Cumia}}, who probably also shouldn't be listed, there's no vitality claim here. They had a long-running radio show, that's it. High average daily page views at ~350 as you'd expect for someone who is current. GauchoDude (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Support removing all articles with zero interwikis from this list. Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
5. _pbp 15:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

Isaac Fawkes was apparently one of the earliest people to present magic as entertainment outside of fairgrounds. I would rather list Reginald Scot's book The Discoverie of Witchcraft, which is both an important work of skeptical thought by defending people accused of witchcraft by the Catholic church, and also happened to expose the methods behind many supposed "witchcraft" practices, thereby becoming the first ever document on how to perform magic tricks.

;Support swap

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Support whichever gets consensus, the swap or the straight removal. Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

;Support straight removal

1. Bluevestman (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Average 4 daily page views, no thanks. GauchoDude (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Support whichever gets consensus, the swap or the straight removal. Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
4. _pbp 15:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC) (did not give information on whether to swap or full remove)

;Oppose

;Discuss

A British art curator and one of the first to promote impressionism in Britain.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Unless an art historian comes through and makes a case, Rutter's got 5 average daily page views which seems to add more evidence to non-vitality. GauchoDude (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Support removing all articles with zero interwikis from this list. Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
5. _pbp 15:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

An Italian art thief who performed thousands of thefts in his lifetime. The article only cites sources written in Italian, which makes the fact that an Italian wiki article does not exist funny to me.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Agreed on the lack of interwikis, feels off. 22 average daily page views, likely not vital. Seems regionalized as well with no major notable crimes. GauchoDude (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Support removing all articles with zero interwikis from this list. Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
5. _pbp 15:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

A British economist and journalist, currently the head of Economics and Politics at Bloomberg News. Quite accomplished, but I don't see the vitality.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Agreed. She's currently active so an elevated 111 average daily page views, but no claim for vitality in lede. GauchoDude (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Support removing all articles with zero interwikis from this list. Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
5. _pbp 15:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

"Considered the father of the science of questioned document examination in North America." I would list questioned document examination (which itself is not vital) before this person.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Agree with nom that genre should be reviewed first. I don't see vitality here. 27 average daily page views. GauchoDude (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Support removing all articles with zero interwikis from this list. Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
5. _pbp 15:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

"a London publisher of the early 17th century. As the publisher of the first edition of Shakespeare's King Lear in 1608, he has also been regarded as one of the first publishers of a newspaper in English." I don't think publishers/producers hold nearly as much historical importance as creators themselves.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. 6 average daily page views. GauchoDude (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Support removing all articles with zero interwikis from this list. Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
5. _pbp 15:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

Now we get to people that I'm not even sure should be removed. (do not fill me in as nominator for support for these)

The first Chief of the Internal Revenue Service Intelligence Unit from 1919 to 1943. He was a very successful investigator, ("Irey's "T-men" unit prosecuted over 15,000 people for tax evasion (with a 90% conviction rate)") and the big claim to fame of leading the IRS's investigation on {{VA link|Al Capone}}. (Although, Frank J. Wilson seemed to operate in the same area and seems equally important)

;Support

1. Bluevestman (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Catching Al Capone seems cool, but I don't see vitality here. 11 average daily page views. GauchoDude (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Support removing all articles with zero interwikis from this list. Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
4. _pbp 15:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

Cuban rumba dancer. I did not spend a huge amount of time to see if we have other cuban dancers on the list; if we did list some, then I would probably support the removal of this person.

;Support

1. Don't care if she's the only Cuban dancer we have. If Spanish Wikipedia can't be bothered to give her an article, then she straight up isn't vital. Bluevestman (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Agreed with above, with the exception of gendering. Malanga was a dude named Jose. Jose only gets 5 average daily page views so he's probably not world-changing, regardless of how well he dances the Cuban rumba. GauchoDude (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Support removing all articles with zero interwikis from this list. Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
4. _pbp 15:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

"A Ugandan linguist, scholar and literary theorist. He is credited with coining the word "orature" as an alternative to the self-contradictory term, 'oral literature'." Hesitant to remove him because of sysbias concerns.

;Support

1. Bluevestman (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Sysbias shouldn't be a concern when there are 0 interwikis and 6 average daily page views. What I presume is his claim for vitality, {{VA link|Oral literature}}, isn't listed either. GauchoDude (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
3. :{{VA link|Oral tradition}}, which is similar in concept, is VA3. I assume Oral literature was seen as redundant. ALittleClass (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Support removing all articles with zero interwikis from this list. Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
5. _pbp 15:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

One of the chief songwriting teams for Motown. If you can name a Motown song (especially if it's from {{VA link|The Supremes}}), chances are they wrote it.

;Support

1. Bluevestman (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

I think he classifies as one of the all-time greats. He won a Heisman and an NFL DPOY. 9 Pro Bowls and an All-Decade team. As the first primarily defensive player to win the Heisman, he changed the game.

;Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I missed a guy. "a Gaelic poet and crusader and member of the Ó Dálaigh bardic family."

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 08:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Zero interwikis = you're gone. Kevinishere15 (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
4. per nom, 0 interwiki!EleniXDD※Talk 15:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
5. _pbp 15:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)