Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Archive 15
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/People. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Filthy rich 19th-century Brit who was the matron of a bazillion causes. Arguably one of the most influential women of Britain of that period
- Support
- pbp
- Sure, philanthropists is under Miscellaneous, which we're still topping up. No need to overthink it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk)
- Oppose
- Her father Francis Burdett is not listed. It would be like listing Lachlan Murdoch, Ivanka Trump, Ailsa Mellon Bruce, Christina Onassis, Frédéric Arnault instead of their fathers. Sahaib (talk)
- Would it, though? Do any of the sons and daughters you list have more interwikis than their daddies? Angela out-interwikis her daddy 17-13. By comparison, Aristotle Onassis throttles his daughter in terms of interwikis, 62-20. With the Mellons, it's 31-4. I'm sorry; while I think your analogy was in good faith, I just don't see it as particularly applicable to the Burdetts pbp
- If you check the talk page of Francis he is rated as High-importance to WikiProject Politics of the UK, I'm not an expert on the subject so I don't know if that rating is accurate but the point I'm making is that whilst he doesn't get as many pageviews, he is arguably more vital. Sahaib (talk)
- If you check the talk page of Francis he is rated as High-importance to WikiProject Politics of the UK, I'm not an expert on the subject so I don't know if that rating is accurate but the point I'm making is that whilst he doesn't get as many pageviews, he is arguably more vital. Sahaib (talk)
- Would it, though? Do any of the sons and daughters you list have more interwikis than their daddies? Angela out-interwikis her daddy 17-13. By comparison, Aristotle Onassis throttles his daughter in terms of interwikis, 62-20. With the Mellons, it's 31-4. I'm sorry; while I think your analogy was in good faith, I just don't see it as particularly applicable to the Burdetts pbp
- Her philanthropy isn't quite enough to list her, especially when we're decreasing the quota on miscellaneous people. Lophotrochozoa (talk)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Leader of the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, one of the longest running armed groups attempting to overthrow the Iranian government
- Support
- Nom Iostn (talk)
- Makkool (talk)
- Very weak support, I think either the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran article or Massoud Rajavi would be more appropriate. But they're a notable enough part of the past half century to have one article representing. -- Zar2gar1 (talk)
- Oppose
- Gotta agree with Zar2gar1 that either Massoud Rajavi or MEK is more important. --Bluevestman (talk)
- Per Zar2gar1 and Bluevestman. Lophotrochozoa (talk)
- Per above. Probably should be the organization if anything. GauchoDude (talk)
- Discuss
This one's complicated because after I first put aside my feelings about the MEK, I agree she would probably fit most under the Activist umbrella. However, if I had to think of a clear analogy, I think the closest would be Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the final wife and eventual heir of Lyndon LaRouche 
5. By that precedent, if we're going to have 1 person to represent the MEK, we should list Massoud Rajavi instead. -- Zar2gar1 (talk)
- I nominated Maryam first purely based on her seeming to be more well-known, and in any case the LaRouche movement had peaked well before LaRouche died Iostn (talk)
- Right, I know she's in the news now & then, but your 2nd point also kind applies to the MEK too. The MEK has been a despised fringe group within Iran since Operation Mersad, and by the time Massoud Rajavi "retired" in the early 2000s, they were essentially just a small cult camped out in Iraq. I think the only reason they're even notable in the West nowadays is enough of the American government & media, along with some wealther Iranian emigres, still fantasize about overthrowing the Iranian government. The MEK is the one group that can offer "subterfuge as a service" (again similarly to the LaRouche movement) so they get money & attention. -- Zar2gar1 (talk)
- Kind of missed this comment earlier but yes, you do have a point, although that said the foreign funding and attention they receive does elevate her nonetheless, regardless of wherever said attention is justified. I guess the question for now is if people here would be ok with adding both of them, regardless of other factors. Iostn (talk)
- Kind of missed this comment earlier but yes, you do have a point, although that said the foreign funding and attention they receive does elevate her nonetheless, regardless of wherever said attention is justified. I guess the question for now is if people here would be ok with adding both of them, regardless of other factors. Iostn (talk)
- Right, I know she's in the news now & then, but your 2nd point also kind applies to the MEK too. The MEK has been a despised fringe group within Iran since Operation Mersad, and by the time Massoud Rajavi "retired" in the early 2000s, they were essentially just a small cult camped out in Iraq. I think the only reason they're even notable in the West nowadays is enough of the American government & media, along with some wealther Iranian emigres, still fantasize about overthrowing the Iranian government. The MEK is the one group that can offer "subterfuge as a service" (again similarly to the LaRouche movement) so they get money & attention. -- Zar2gar1 (talk)
Rebels, revolutionaries and activists changes (set 4 of 4)
Remove Theodore Dwight Weld 
5
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This may be controversial, but he is a fairly obscure figure today, the US is generally overrepresented and we already have many others to represent the American abolitionist movement such as Harriet Tubman 4, John Brown (abolitionist) 5, Frederick Douglass 4, Harriet Jacobs 5, et al
- Support
- Nom Iostn (talk)
- Makkool (talk)
- Just five interwikis. --Bluevestman (talk)
- Oppose
- Weak oppose, despite American activists being over-represented. I've honestly never heard of him, but skimming his article, that may be more of a reason to keep him? It sounds like he was actually pretty influential. -- Zar2gar1 (talk)
- I am a bit impressed by the fact that his wedding has a robust article.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD)
- Aye.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Remove Nikolay Alexeyev
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There probably needs to be some other non-US LGBT activists (I did once propose Karl Heinrich Ulrichs 5 be moved from sexologists to here but got no response), but he doesn't seem to be that prominent outside of Russia, and also seems to have rather uh, let himself go since the 2000s.
- Support
- Nom Iostn (talk)
- Makkool (talk)
- Sure, deferring to nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk)
- Aye.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔)
- --Bluevestman (talk)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Swap Gail Dines for Emily Davison
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Don't even really know why Dines is here, we list Andrea Dworkin 5 who is much more well-known and impactful as a figure representing anti-pornography feminism, and pageviews and interwikis are also relatively low. Meanwhile, we seem to have a relative defecit of suffragettes, and Davison's death remains one of the most famous moments of the suffrage movement.
- Support
- Nom Iostn (talk)
- Makkool (talk)
- Sure, deferring to nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk)
- pbp
- --Bluevestman (talk)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Swap Ivan Kalyayev for Boris Savinkov
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Russia during the late Tsarist era was rife with assassins like Kalyayev, so someone who stands out much more would be the head of the armed organization to which he belonged. Arguably he might belong under assassination in Misc > Crime instead, but unlike Kalyayev, the latter's notable activities went beyond that.
- Support
- Nom Iostn (talk)
- Makkool (talk)
- Keep in rebels. --Bluevestman (talk)
- Agreed. Average daily page views ~40 to ~125, interwikis 14 to 31. Kalyayev's claim to fame was the assassination of Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich as part of the SR Combat Organization. Savinkov was a leader of the SR Combat Organization, but also impacted other areas of the Russian revolution via Union for the Defense of the Motherland and Freedom, Volunteer Army, etc. GauchoDude (talk)
- Oppose
- Mixed
- Oppose removing Kalyayev, but support moving him to Misc -> Assassination and also adding Savinkov. -- Zar2gar1 (talk)
- Discuss
I actually added Kalyayev during the WP:BRD era for a couple reasons. The article doesn't actually get into it, but IIRC, his assassination of Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich was linked to the Khodynka Tragedy (note we list neither). Also, the article only mentions the play by Albert Camus 4, but he's also a notable figure in The Rebel (book). -- Zar2gar1 (talk)
- I think we should probably add those two first, especially as there's no question to me of their vitality. Iostn (talk)
@Bluevestman: What do you mean? You say "keep" but you placed your vote in the "Support" section. Lophotrochozoa (talk)
- What I mean is I support swapping Ivan for Boris, and if the swap does happen Savinkov should be listed under rebels. Bluevestman (talk)
The article about Boris Savinkov doesn't say that much about his involvement in assassinations during the Tsarist era. Instead it is mostly about what he did and what happened to him during and after the Russian revolution. Lophotrochozoa (talk)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Known as the leader of the 1919 Hungarian Revolution - very surprised to realize he was neither here nor in politicians
- Support
- Nom Iostn (talk)
- Makkool (talk)
- Sure. -- Zar2gar1 (talk)
- Agree. --Moscow Connection (talk)
- --Thi (talk)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Anna Walentynowicz 5
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Arguably only second to Lech Wałęsa 4 in terms of Solidarity (Polish trade union) 5 figures
- Support
- Nom Iostn (talk)
- Makkool (talk)
- Sure. -- Zar2gar1 (talk)
- --Bluevestman (talk)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Remove Irataba
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A very thorough FA, but he seems more minor outside of the context of the Colorado River peoples, and overshadowed by other US indigenous figures we list, such as Sitting Bull 4, Geronimo 5 and Wilma Mankiller 5, as evidenced by the low number of interwikis and pageviews. Definitely important regionally, but unfortanately falls short when the US is already overrepresented.
- Support
- Nom Iostn (talk)
- pbp
- Just seven interwikis. --Bluevestman (talk)
- Per nom. GauchoDude (talk)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Roger Casement 5
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Important Irish nationalist, anti-colonialist, humanitarian and investigator
- Support
- Nom Iostn (talk)
- --Bluevestman (talk)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk)
- As an Irish nationalist, while mentioned, Casement is not listed as a leader on the Easter Rising page, which is a cause for concern. We already have Patrick Pearse 5, James Connolly 5, and Tom Clarke (Irish republican) 5 listed at Level 5 under the Europe section for this specific Level 5 event. Furthermore, he's only mentioned one time on the non-Vital Irish nationalism page, as a speaker on a poster image. I think he's got a better claim as a humanitarian. While employed by the British Foreign Office, he created the Casement Report which, alongside the Congo Reform Association, ultimately led to Belgian Congo. Casement later detailed the Putumayo genocide by the Peruvian Amazon Company. He received multiple recognitions for when they occurred. GauchoDude (talk)
- Activists are listed on the same place anyway. Lophotrochozoa (talk)
- Activists are listed on the same place anyway. Lophotrochozoa (talk)
- Oppose
- Discuss
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Leading figure of the Carnation Revolution 5 and alleged leading figure of Forças Populares 25 de Abril
- Support
- Nom Iostn (talk)
- --Bluevestman (talk)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk)
- Per nom. Averages ~70 daily pageviews and has 22 interwikis. GauchoDude (talk)
- Oppose
- Discuss
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wife of imprisoned Belarusian opposition politician who herself became the figurehead of Belarus's government in exile after running against Lukashenko in 2020
- Support
- Nom Iostn (talk)
- Importan figure in modern Belorusian politics. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here
- --Bluevestman (talk)
- Oppose
- She has zero influence in a country that isn't even that big. Yes, she was a forced meme back in 2020–21. But no one has heard about her since. --Moscow Connection (talk)
- Leading the Belarusian opposition in exile isn't enough for vitality on its own, and I'm not seeing any other claims to vitality here. QuicoleJR (talk)
- Per above. GauchoDude (talk)
- Discuss
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Table tennis section is a bit small. Per the article, "From December 2013 to December 2024, Fan was ranked top five in the world according to the ITTF -- this eleven year streak is the longest in men's singles history...He is also a two-time team event gold medallist, as well as a two-time World Champion and four-time World Cup champion in men's singles."
- Support
- As nominator. Sahaib (talk)
- Swap with Paola Longoria 5, otherwise support. Only two interwikis.--Bluevestman (talk)
- Oppose
- Weak oppose for now, largely a matter of timing. There's a concerted effort to trim the athletes section right now, regardless of whether the quota changes. Part of that is figuring out how much representation less mainstream sports like table tennis should have. If we decide down the road we need more, I would be fine adding him then. -- Zar2gar1 (talk)
- I'd rather not add to the number of athletes listed. QuicoleJR (talk)
- Already have five table tennis players listed and isn't even close to the most important not listed (IMO, that would probably be Ichiro Ogimura, he of 12 world championships, a key figure in Ping-pong diplomacy, and president of the International Table Tennis Federation). GauchoDude (talk)
- Discuss
Czech politicians
The leaders sector is quite full, so I do not propose just an addition, but rather a replacement. In both cases, it is a replacement of a Czech for a Czech, so it should not be nationally sensitive. In the first case, it is the elimination of Bořivoj I, Duke of Bohemia and the addition of Ottokar II of Bohemia. Bořivoj is not a particularly important ruler. His importance lies in the fact that he is the first historically documented prince from the Přemyslid dynasty. However, this does not mean that he is the founder of the dynasty. It is just that the real existence of his predecessors is not documented in historiography. On the other hand, Ottokar is an important king (not just a prince) who influenced the history of all of Central Europe. He expanded the Czech territory to the Adriatic Sea. He ruled Austria, Slovenia and part of Italy. He had the ambition to create a Central European empire, but was stopped by the Habsburgs, who thus began their own implementation of this concept. Ottokar is also a character in Dante's Divine Comedy. The interwiki ratio is 27:47.
The second case is the removal of Klement Gottwald and addition of Edvard Beneš. Gottwald was the first communist president, Beneš the last non-communist. Beneš was president for 14 years (including the government in exile), Gottwald for 5 years. Beneš was the real founder of Czechoslovakia (Masaryk was only a symbolic figure), he negotiated its existence and borders at the Paris Conference. He directed its foreign policy for thirty years. He decided on matters that affected all of Central Europe (linkage to France and Britain, acceptance of the Munich Agreement, decision on Operation Anthropoid - the killing of Reynhard Heydrich, entry into the Soviet sphere of influence, expulsion of 3 million Germans from post-war Czechoslovakia, post-war nationalization of 70 percent of industry). Gottwald was a communist, but Stalin did not take him seriously and did not meet with him once during the entire war. He always dealt only with Beneš. Gottwald's significance is only in organizing the communist coup in 1948. But even in this coup, Beneš was actually a more important figure. Gottwald organized the coup by appointing new pro-communist ministers to the government. And he left it up to Beneš to decide whether he accepted this solution. Beneš gave the green light, and the whole "revolution" ended. What would have happened if he had decided differently is another question (there would probably have been a violent coup). The interwiki ratio is 53:61. If you don't want to vote for a replacement, please at least vote for an addition. It would be sad if really important people didn't make it to the list because of some tactic.
Swap Bořivoj I. with Ottokar II
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Support
- --109.81.90.46 (talk)
- per nom. QuicoleJR (talk)
- Makkool (talk)
- Per well-argued nomination. Lophotrochozoa (talk)
- Oppose
Swap Klement Gottwald with Edvard Beneš
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Support
- --109.81.90.46 (talk)
- per nom. QuicoleJR (talk)
- Makkool (talk)
- Per well-argued nomination. Lophotrochozoa (talk)
- For the little it is worth, I've heard of Benes, but not of Gottwald. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here
- Oppose
- After sitting on this for a bit, agree with the above. GauchoDude (talk)
- Discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The only two monarchs of Wallachia listed are Vlad the Impaler (Dracula) who is level 4 and Alexandru Ioan Cuza at level 5. Poland and Lithuania have 28 (14 in Post-classical (500–1500) and 14 in Early modern (1500–1800)). Mircea's article could be expanded a lot from Romanian Wikipedia, an example of a detail not included in the English version is that he was featured on comparative coins in 2011. Basically he ruled Wallachia at its peak, had conflicts with the Ottomans and has a lasting legacy as can be seen by the film Mircea (film). He ruled a lot longer than Władysław and has more language links.
- Support
- As nominator. Sahaib (talk)
- Since nobody commented for over a month, I thought about this, couldn't make up my mind, then I asked ChatGPT and it agrees with the nom :P Here's AI rationale: "If we compare their broader historical significance, Mircea the Elder was more important because: He played a crucial role in defending Europe from Ottoman expansion. He strengthened Wallachia, setting the stage for later Romanian history. His legacy influenced key figures like Vlad the Impaler. Władysław II, while notable in Polish history, was largely a victim of circumstances and had less direct impact than Mircea."--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here
- Lophotrochozoa (talk)
- Weak support. The two are both remarkably similar in page views (~42 to ~39 daily average) and interwikis (32 to 34) so I don't think that's enough to tip scales one way or another. One has to view their body of work in a bit more detail re: vitality. For Mircea, as nom noted, Wallachia controlled the most amount of territory and Mircea was important in warding off the Hungarian and Ottoman Empires. For Władysław, one could argue his lineage (Silesian Piasts) was more important than his reign, which was under 10 years. GauchoDude (talk)
- Oppose
- Discuss
I feel that Basarab I of Wallachia would be the better add. pbp
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
When people talk about the Brontë family 4, it's almost entirely about the three sisters who survive adulthood. Any discussion regarding Branwell is mostly limited to how he's a drug-addled failbrother.
- Support
- Bluevestman (talk)
- Agreed, his only claim to vitality is his association with his more vital sisters, all three of whom we list at Level 5. There is no reason to include him as well. QuicoleJR (talk)
- Should be sufficiently covered by Brontë family 4.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs)
- pbp
- Agreed. GauchoDude (talk)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Quarry removals
I found a way to quarry for vital articles with very low interwikis. Here are a few people I found that seemed the least vital from the list.
- "Quarry"? Did you mean "query"? pbp
Remove Frank Bender
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3 Interwikis, nothing here really screams vitality.
- Support
- As nom. -1ctinus📝🗨
- Does not seem vital. QuicoleJR (talk)
- Kevinishere15 (talk)
- pbp
- Agreed. GauchoDude (talk)
- --Bluevestman (talk)
Remove Dale DeGroff
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3 interwikis, started the craft cocktail movement, which is not vital. I think his work on cocktails are too niche for this level.
- Support
- As nom. -1ctinus📝🗨
- Kevinishere15 (talk)
- pbp
- Agreed. GauchoDude (talk)
- --Bluevestman (talk)
Remove James Dibble
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3 interwikis, I don't see an outsanding legacy to earn vitality.
- Support
- As nom. -1ctinus📝🗨
- Does not seem vital. QuicoleJR (talk)
- Kevinishere15 (talk)
- pbp
- Agreed. GauchoDude (talk)
- --Bluevestman (talk)
Remove Paul Cinquevalli
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If we're contemplting removing Bud Selig, a juggler with 2 interwikis probably has to go, especially since juggling is only v5.
- Support
- As nom. -1ctinus📝🗨
- Does not seem vital. QuicoleJR (talk)
- Kevinishere15 (talk)
- pbp
- Agreed. GauchoDude (talk)
- Don't know why you crossed out the amount of interwikis these guys have. --Bluevestman (talk)
- See GuzzyG's reply below. Interwikis are a red herring. -1ctinus📝🗨
- Yeah, I firmly disagree with them. Bluevestman (talk)
- Yeah, I firmly disagree with them. Bluevestman (talk)
- See GuzzyG's reply below. Interwikis are a red herring. -1ctinus📝🗨
Remove D. Ray White
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A mountin dancer with 1 interwiki. What mountain dancing redirects to isn't even V5.
- Support
- As nom. -1ctinus📝🗨
- Does not seem vital. QuicoleJR (talk)
- Kevinishere15 (talk)
- pbp
- Agreed. GauchoDude (talk)
- --Bluevestman (talk)
Remove Lewis E. Lawes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Zero interwikis. He was a prison warden and wrote some books... I don't see V5.
- Support
Remove Melissa Doyle
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
One interwiki. Not globally known.
- Support
- As nom. -1ctinus📝🗨
- Kevinishere15 (talk)
- Article does not claim vitality. QuicoleJR (talk)
- pbp
- Agreed. GauchoDude (talk)
- --Bluevestman (talk)
Remove La Meri
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Short legacy section where her claim to fame is winning an award w/o a Wikipedia page, and that she is recognized as an expert in "ethnic dance". 1 interwiki.
- Support
- As nom. -1ctinus📝🗨
- Kevinishere15 (talk)
- pbp
- --Bluevestman (talk)
- Discuss
- We really need to formalize using interwiki or language links because this is not currently an official criteria. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔)
- It's a heavily bias metric, where irrelevant European articles like Dany Dauberson can have 24 interwikis because European culture is connected good with lots of little languages. American culture is backed by money. If Corbin Bleu wasn't so obviously non-vital, people who use this metric would be fooled by him too. There's normally just one person who typically adds article to lots of interwikis (if youve seen lots of the histories). Michael Jackson beats out Jesus. It's a fandom thing, all of the things affected by the interwiki links issue is non-popular stuff from countries isolated or stuff with no popular attention. Look at Enya with 108 where if you look at the edit history some IP has created 19 in one go on May 13, 2020. [1]. Now imagine this metric used en masse to get rid of non-Euro, non American culture. In La Meris case, along with the dancers above, does it really improve the encylopedia to just leave ballet dancers to a majority?. A interwiki list is a popularity contest. The only difference between a Walter Cronkite and James Dibble is the soft power of the culture behind them, a neutral encyclopedia would cover every countries similar standing people. Hiroshi Kume and Tetsuya Chikushi wouldn't even get a look in here, backed by the low interwikis argument and undeveloped articles (the point of the list to fix undeveloped articles, not already popular well maintained ones). But Cronkite, a American backed by prominence of pop culture, can be at level 4 at 53, despite being just as regional as a athlete. Rachel Maddow is listed and has 49, but one of Chinas most important journalists Liu Binyan has 10 and a article so bad you can't show why he's important (so now we list only 2 journalists from China). Ryszard Kapuściński a Polish journalist interconnected with European culture (and all it's little languages) has 47. There has to be a balance between Euro/American, the interwikis argument will destroy that balance, it would damage the list in favour of popularity to formalise it, despite it being used to rummage the list unfortunately as of now.GuzzyG (talk)
- @GeogSage There is an active discussion on the General VA page
- @GuzzyG Interwikis is still a better metric than any other metric. The main things with interwikis are that a) they work for "fame" categories (sports and entertainment), b) they work well comparing two people of the same industry, and c) it's a red flag if an article has no interwikis or only a handful. pbp
- I believe the best metric is research backed by context of the figure within the field, compared to everything else. Not a eyeset test by non experts based on robotic methods or wikipedia statistics (wikipedia statistics can be helpful when used with knowledge of the field and context of it). Say La Meri in this case, if one big documentary goes viral online (Like Fred Rogers boost to level 4) and it increases her popularity and in a day 50+ interwikis of her is created, what is the difference? She's still and always will be the most important figure in her subject. Does the temp popularity increase really matter or the context of her achievement in the wider scheme of dance? GuzzyG (talk)
- I disagree that language links are "better than any other metric." Honestly I think people like them because they are easy. There are several variables that can show different things, "interwiki's" at a point are mostly just demonstrating that it isn't Western Bias. Coupled with several others, I think we can have meaningful numbers. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔)
- Once we get a vitality estimator going, I predict it'll be the most useful at the beginning when the biggest omissions and junk listings are concentrated among the statistically highest and lowest ranking articles - but later, as we converge closer to a solid list, the cases where stats do not correlate with vitality and/or show biases will be more pronounced. Let's say that, somewhat optimistically, 70% of the addition suggestions in a generated list is good; we add those and the 30% bad suggestions remain in the next version generated by the estimator. Now, among the 70% new suggestions in the renewed list, not 100% of them will be good but probably an even lower portion than in the original suggestion list, let's say 60%. This means that 0.7 * 0.6 = 42% of the suggestion list is now good, in this example. We can tweak the algorithm to try getting better results, but at that stage we can be pretty satisfied with the VA selections as statistical methods are no longer useful.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs)
- Once we get a vitality estimator going, I predict it'll be the most useful at the beginning when the biggest omissions and junk listings are concentrated among the statistically highest and lowest ranking articles - but later, as we converge closer to a solid list, the cases where stats do not correlate with vitality and/or show biases will be more pronounced. Let's say that, somewhat optimistically, 70% of the addition suggestions in a generated list is good; we add those and the 30% bad suggestions remain in the next version generated by the estimator. Now, among the 70% new suggestions in the renewed list, not 100% of them will be good but probably an even lower portion than in the original suggestion list, let's say 60%. This means that 0.7 * 0.6 = 42% of the suggestion list is now good, in this example. We can tweak the algorithm to try getting better results, but at that stage we can be pretty satisfied with the VA selections as statistical methods are no longer useful.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs)
- I believe the best metric is research backed by context of the figure within the field, compared to everything else. Not a eyeset test by non experts based on robotic methods or wikipedia statistics (wikipedia statistics can be helpful when used with knowledge of the field and context of it). Say La Meri in this case, if one big documentary goes viral online (Like Fred Rogers boost to level 4) and it increases her popularity and in a day 50+ interwikis of her is created, what is the difference? She's still and always will be the most important figure in her subject. Does the temp popularity increase really matter or the context of her achievement in the wider scheme of dance? GuzzyG (talk)
- I understand that interwikis are a biased estimator, but they can be useful as an extremely rough and informal estimator. Especially if the article is about a western subject that the biases would HELP the article yet it still has low interwikis. It’s useful, it just doesn’t paint the full picture. -1ctinus📝🗨
- Do you think Ethnic dance anthropology is a popular western thing? Even one of the top contemporary dancers. Ruth St. Denis has only 19. What aspect other than Ballet is apart of regular pop culture? How often do you hear of achievements in Ballet? Margot Fonteyn is the biggest Western ballerina and has 57 interwikis, compared with Jack Kirby's 56 and Shigeru Miyamoto's 58. The historical star of Ballet Vaslav Nijinsky 54. Dance, despite it's low pop culture coverage, is foundational to humans but where it's biggest western stars barely match Markus Persson 52 a guy who created a popular video game. Dance is not a beneficiary of bias, let alone ethnic dance. Do you think a encyclopedia should cover just balllet or every form of dance? How does a single number paint the full context of a field?, how important each dance is to what culture in comparison to other dances? GuzzyG (talk)
- Again, it does not, I am using it as a rough estimator to FIND articles with low vitality. I know it has flaws.
- I ask why you downplay Markus impact, however, as an example of interwikis being flawed. It’s my opinion that a historical star of ballet matching the person who made the most popular video of all time, played by billions of people, actually SHOULD BE about the same level of vitality.
Do you think a encyclopedia should cover just balllet or every form of dance?
- Yes it should.
How does a single number paint the full context of a field?
- Absolutely not. I hope nobody is arguing that. I hope this is just a misunderstanding.
- If you oppose the nomination for that dancer, please vote oppose, and if your argument is convincing, I may withdraw my support. Please remember everybody is trying their best, we are all just volunteers. Thank you for your feedback, -1ctinus📝🗨
- PS: do you think an RfC would be beneficial for creating a policy for the use of interwikis on vital article nominations? A further discussion on this may be necessary. -1ctinus📝🗨
- I think that one should be drafted in a bit to discuss all variables we look at, not just interwikis. I also think we might need to revisit the vital article criteria a bit and clarify things. I see a lot of arguments that don't seem to align with these criteria. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔)
- I think that one should be drafted in a bit to discuss all variables we look at, not just interwikis. I also think we might need to revisit the vital article criteria a bit and clarify things. I see a lot of arguments that don't seem to align with these criteria. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔)
- Do you think Ethnic dance anthropology is a popular western thing? Even one of the top contemporary dancers. Ruth St. Denis has only 19. What aspect other than Ballet is apart of regular pop culture? How often do you hear of achievements in Ballet? Margot Fonteyn is the biggest Western ballerina and has 57 interwikis, compared with Jack Kirby's 56 and Shigeru Miyamoto's 58. The historical star of Ballet Vaslav Nijinsky 54. Dance, despite it's low pop culture coverage, is foundational to humans but where it's biggest western stars barely match Markus Persson 52 a guy who created a popular video game. Dance is not a beneficiary of bias, let alone ethnic dance. Do you think a encyclopedia should cover just balllet or every form of dance? How does a single number paint the full context of a field?, how important each dance is to what culture in comparison to other dances? GuzzyG (talk)
- I'm one of the biggest defenders of interwikis on the project, and I agree that they need to be taken in context. Like with pageviews, interwikis can be affected by pro-Western bias, although not to the same degree. There are certainly some vital topics with low interwikis. However, they are useful as a rough estimator of importance outside the English-speaking world, and not having any interwikis is a big red flag for importance. QuicoleJR (talk)
- It's a heavily bias metric, where irrelevant European articles like Dany Dauberson can have 24 interwikis because European culture is connected good with lots of little languages. American culture is backed by money. If Corbin Bleu wasn't so obviously non-vital, people who use this metric would be fooled by him too. There's normally just one person who typically adds article to lots of interwikis (if youve seen lots of the histories). Michael Jackson beats out Jesus. It's a fandom thing, all of the things affected by the interwiki links issue is non-popular stuff from countries isolated or stuff with no popular attention. Look at Enya with 108 where if you look at the edit history some IP has created 19 in one go on May 13, 2020. [1]. Now imagine this metric used en masse to get rid of non-Euro, non American culture. In La Meris case, along with the dancers above, does it really improve the encylopedia to just leave ballet dancers to a majority?. A interwiki list is a popularity contest. The only difference between a Walter Cronkite and James Dibble is the soft power of the culture behind them, a neutral encyclopedia would cover every countries similar standing people. Hiroshi Kume and Tetsuya Chikushi wouldn't even get a look in here, backed by the low interwikis argument and undeveloped articles (the point of the list to fix undeveloped articles, not already popular well maintained ones). But Cronkite, a American backed by prominence of pop culture, can be at level 4 at 53, despite being just as regional as a athlete. Rachel Maddow is listed and has 49, but one of Chinas most important journalists Liu Binyan has 10 and a article so bad you can't show why he's important (so now we list only 2 journalists from China). Ryszard Kapuściński a Polish journalist interconnected with European culture (and all it's little languages) has 47. There has to be a balance between Euro/American, the interwikis argument will destroy that balance, it would damage the list in favour of popularity to formalise it, despite it being used to rummage the list unfortunately as of now.GuzzyG (talk)
- @GuzzyG: I've never really bought into your argument that Australia deserves equal representation to the U.S. Cronkite simply was on a lot more screens than Dibble, not to mention the fact that his reporting is often cited as a major factor in replacing Lyndon B. Johnson 4 with Richard Nixon 4. And it IS somewhat significant that fewer languages/countries have articles on Dibble, and it IS fair to say a country of 325 million deserves more slots than one of 25 million pbp
- That's a complete misread of "The only difference between a Walter Cronkite and James Dibble is the soft power of the culture behind them, a neutral encyclopedia would cover every countries similar standing people" and a argument you regularly ascribe to me that i do not believe. I even directly used as examples Japanese news readers in the very next step. In a roundabout way it's funny that the two most globally viewed people in journalism are Julian Assange (46 mil [2] and Rupert Murdoch (32 mil [3]) which kind of shows clearly how American soft culture power determines views, as in when non Americans get access to the American market, they can succeed more. (and in this case, dominate it). "reporting is often cited as a major factor in replacing Lyndon B. Johnson 4 with Richard Nixon 4" this is another way of saying "reporting of the injustice of the Vietnam war made Americans aware of how bad the decision to cause it was" as this article shows [4] - so more being in the right place at the right time. The Vietnam war is just as big of a Aus culture thing too (Australia in the Vietnam War) with the Aus medias impact apart of the curriculum [5]. My point has always been that instead of out of 360 journalists and 340 being American/British - that it should be split by G20 and BRICS countries, with countries on the level 3 list that are not in those pairings included. (African countries). Television news readers or journalists in general are highly country specific. They have no impact on anything but local, national stuff - so instead of covering two countries at best 340 times, may aswell split it up proportionally for full coverage. It's great that you mentioned the change of government and big populations. Chitra Subramaniam - a woman journalist in India, is known for her investigation of the Bofors scandal, which is credited to have led to the defeat of Rajiv Gandhi 5, apart of arguably the biggest dynasty in India. But we have 0 Indian journalists, or like i mentioned in the post you misread, the little amount of Chinese journalists. Liang Qichao is actually a journalist and thought leader, has 28 interwikis. Not listed. If 325 million, requires about 320 spots, how much does China require with 1,408,280,000 or India with 1,413,324,000? If it's any less than the country of 325,000,000 (less than 4x), what's the difference too you? Fame? (pop culture list?). America's more important to history? (because that's what you know? Like my presumed preference of Aus?). Do you think in 1,000 years objectively, Walter Cronkite or Liang Qichao are gonna be any different but representatives of two of the big states when the current sovereign states no longer exist and are looked at objectively as being similar? Why is one level 4 and the other not even on 5? Are we sure it's not a "American" bias based on soft culture - the actual comparison point of my original comment? GuzzyG (talk)
- I didn't misread anything. You've said something completely different in your more recent post vs your earlier one. Your more recent post is criticizing that there are 340 journalists from the US or UK, which I agree is too many. But trying to make that point by pitting one of the journalists who would be retained if we only had 15 US/UK against a single Australian journalist isn't the way to make the "there are too many US/UK journalists" point.
- I've also said earlier the "in 1000 years" or "in 2000 years" isn't necessarily the metric I'm looking at for vitality, particularly since you've couched it in the downfall of sovereign states that I'm not sure will happen. Possibly in 1,000 years no journalists at all will be remembered. I certainly doubt Dibble will be. pbp
- I would support adding some Indian journalists, like Subramaniam. However, the fact that we overrepresent the US and the UK in Journalists doesn't make Dibble vital, and I have yet to see a reason he should be listed other than that one. QuicoleJR (talk)
- I like how over at Level 4 you're having a guilt trip over your perceived flooding the people section with pop culture figures, but here you're extremely defensive regarding your actual flooding of these lists with a bunch of Australians no one outside the country has heard of. --Bluevestman (talk)
- That's a complete misread of "The only difference between a Walter Cronkite and James Dibble is the soft power of the culture behind them, a neutral encyclopedia would cover every countries similar standing people" and a argument you regularly ascribe to me that i do not believe. I even directly used as examples Japanese news readers in the very next step. In a roundabout way it's funny that the two most globally viewed people in journalism are Julian Assange (46 mil [2] and Rupert Murdoch (32 mil [3]) which kind of shows clearly how American soft culture power determines views, as in when non Americans get access to the American market, they can succeed more. (and in this case, dominate it). "reporting is often cited as a major factor in replacing Lyndon B. Johnson