Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 75

Archive 70

←

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

Archive 78

Merge politicians, military leaders, jurists and rebels/revolutionaries/activists at VA3, VA4 and VA5

A discussion on this topic has begun at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles pbp 16:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Add Modern era

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 is a basic history topic that should be listed at this level.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Interstellarity (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
4. J947 † ^edits 23:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
5. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 07:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Support per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Maybe a discussion better for VA2, or at least VA3. If it's not listed in either place, it probably shouldn't be listed here. Opened discussion at VA2. J947 † ^edits 02:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Articles aren't listed at higher levels unless they are listed at lower levels first. So this article can't be listed at Level 2 or 3 unless it is listed at Level 4. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm generally supportive of this approach (which IIRC isn't always followed, but that's nitpicking). In this specific circumstance I was concerned that given the article was removed from VA2 and all other levels at once due to being made a redirect, listing it again should probably be considered from a top-down approach rather than a bottom-up. But I agree with you now. J947 † ^edits 23:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Modern history was removed when it became a redirect, because as a general rule we don't list redirects. But Modern era has never been listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

They're the same thing. Compare the ledes: this and this. J947 † ^edits 08:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Placement on the list needs to be discussed. When modern history existed in 2019, Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/4/History had a section called Modern history. However, now we have Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/4/History#Late_modern_period and Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/4/History#Early_modern_period.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
• I could still use some help in deciding where to list this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
• @Rreagan007, Thi, Interstellarity, J947, Starship.paint, and Aszx5000:--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @TonyTheTiger: - bite the bullet - Early modern period: General. starship.paint (RUN) 10:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
    • Done.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

    If no one disagrees or proactively lists it in the next couple of days, I will put it there.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  Is the issue that Modern Period should really be Level 3, and thus Early Modern and Late Modern are sub-sections suitable for Level 4? Aszx5000 (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  The issue is that the modern era is split into two sections on the level 4 list. BTW, I think Modern history was formerly VA2 before it was redirected. So this probably should be nominated at VA3.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• This subject is now nominated for VA3.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Swap: remove Lev Yashin, add Serie A

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.

---

Football league with too enduring significance against player who is rather forgotten for people who are not quite deeply interested in football. Now, when we have lower level 5 it is more important to among 10 000 articles make completness of Big Five leagues which are broad topics (cover clubs, everyday life etc.) than specific players from all ppositions. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose removing Lev Yashin, the goalkeeper is a special position in football. Instead I'd suggest removing Di Stefano or the Brazilian Ronaldo. starship.paint (RUN) 14:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Suggestion: swap one (or more) Basketball player with Los Angeles Lakers

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.

---

Currently we have mre basketballers who played for Lakers than all Japanese politic leaders. Article on Lakers IMHO is 5-th the most imprtant artcle related to Basetball (after 1Baskerball 2 NBA 3 Michael Jordan 4Naismith). LEt check which player could be swapped. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of the joint topic

This is a very misleading nomination because 3 of the 4 players were quite prominent NBA players for teams other than the Lakers. Maybe the way to better represent basketball is to present the importance of the college game with something like NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament, which should at least be VA5. Keep in mind James won 3 of his 4 championships with other teams, was All-NBA First Team with only once with LA, won all 4 of his league MVPs before he got to LA and didn't join the team until his 16th season, Chamberlain played 9 of his 14 seasons elsewhere and won 1 of his 2 championships in Philadelphia, was never All-NBA First Team with LA and also won all 4 of his league MVPs before he got to LA , Jabbar played his first 6 season in Milwaukee and won 3 of his 6 league MVPs there. These guys played their best basketball elsewhere winning a combined 11 of 14 MVPs elsewhere. Only Magic is a pure Laker.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The teams are just franchises, owned as businesses. The real notability is the greatest players, and most of the ones below are in the top 10 of all time. Aszx5000 (talk) 02:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Support

Oppose

1. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Aszx5000 (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

Wilt Chamberlain

Support

Oppose

1. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

1. You might be able to convince me to swap Bill Russell for Chamberlain since Russell dominated him and the league winning 11 championships in 13 seasons.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

LeBron James

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose James is the most significant player in the game right now. I don't really have an opinion on the others, but he is the most vital of the 4 listed IMO. On par with Michael Jordan at this point. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose - per Presidentman. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
3. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

Magic Johnson

Support

Oppose

1. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Aszx5000 (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Add Great Salt Lake

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.

---

Largest saltwater lake in North America. Interstellarity (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Would rather have SLC listed than the lake since it doesn't seem to have a lot of biological nor geological importance. The Blue Rider 21:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

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

Remove Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Silicon Valley

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.

---

Illinois is only vital because of Chicago. Pennsylvania is not vital at all when we list two cities there. Silicon Valley is adequately covered by the neighboring cities. Interstellarity (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I eventually want to remove the regions of the Southern, Western, and Midwestern United States. I tried to remove them, but it failed. Another user said it would be a great start to remove these places first before removing the regions. Interstellarity (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Illinois

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
2. I am mildy supportive to reducing US-bias in the vital list, and I don't think Illinois is that improtant (never heard it mentioned in the terms of world history). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We should have at least one Midwestern state IMO. Illinois makes the most sense. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Presidentman. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Presidentman. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Presidentman. Jusdafax (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Pennsylvania

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. Unlike Illinois, I think it is an older and more relevant region to the history of US. But it is vital at V4? I have doubts. Borderline, hence my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Woah, woah, woah...you think all that's vital about Pennsylvania is Philly and Pittsburgh (the latter of which is being discussed for removal)? pbp 16:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Alberta, Add Canadian Prairies

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

---

It’s a broader region of Canada compared to Alberta. While Alberta may be the most populous province in the prairies, I think the region would be a better choice. Interstellarity (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

1. I agree with the sentinment, although 4m+ pop is not insignificant. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Add Christchurch

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

---

It is the second-largest city in New Zealand. I think the three cities of Auckland, Christchurch, and Wellington with a population of over 200,000 are enough to cover the country at this level while cities over 100,000 are good for level 5. Interstellarity (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Wellington should be removed (and Canberra too, before someone points that out). J947 ‡ ^edits 00:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose Not convinced New Zealand needs 3 cities at this level. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
3. NZ only needs one city at this level. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
4. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 07:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Per above. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

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

Remove Ottawa

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.

---

Considering that Edmonton has no support for addition, this is probably the next Canadian city for removal. Although it is the capital of Canada, it doesn't have the same influence and vitality that Washington, D.C. has to the world. Interstellarity (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose: much more populous than the other two capitals, even ignoring Gatineau next door. For Canadian cities in general I'm pretty happy with what we've got. A change I was considering is swapping Alberta out for Edmonton. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose per J947. 5 cities for Canada seems reasonable. Not sure I would support the swap J947 proposes. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Support-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

   You said support and put it in oppose. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 12:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

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

Swap: Remove Southern United States  4, Add Southwestern United States  5 and Southeastern United States

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 are multiple ways to divide up the United States into regions and there isn't a well accepted way to how the country should be divided. You could divide the country in an infinitely many amount of ways. This is not like states where they all have defined boundaries. I found some sources that divide up the country this way and I think it is worthy of consideration since these regions have different cultures from one another. Interstellarity (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I don't see why we need to split this up at this point at V4. Also, how about we add Southeastern United States to V5 first, for some reason it is not there yet? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
2. In U.S. parlance, "Southern" and "Southeastern" are virtually synonymous. (And, if they aren't, "Southern" is arguably a larger, more distinct, region). So, the swap would really not anything of value. I could support adding "Southwestern" but not convinced it is necessary with "Western United States" already being listed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Being an official region of the United States, I see the South as being more vital. Plus, the South has had nearly 1.5 times as many monthly page views as the Southwest and Southeast combined. Speaking of U.S. regions, I’m thinking of proposing the Northeast. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
4. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

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

Add Volodymyr Zelenskyy

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.

---

Zelenskyy is a key figure of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I would place him above all the Ukrainian presidents in terms of vitality. I'm sure if Zelenskyy has not been president during a major crisis in the country, he surely would not be vital, but since he is widely regarded as Ukraine's greatest president, I think he makes the cut. Interstellarity (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. WP:TOOSOON. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Agree with WP:TOOSOON. Went from Time person of the year to being an out of touch leader, from what I hear.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose as recentism. Russian invasion of Ukraine is only Level 5 and Russo-Ukraine War (going on since 2014 whereas Zelensky only came into power since 2019) isn't listed at any level, both of which are a higher priority. Also for comparison Bashar al-Assad is only Level 5 despite being in power since 2000 and being involved in the Syrian Civil war since 2011. Benjamin Netanyahu has also been ruling Israel for over 15 years and is only Level 5. Gizza (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Per DaGizza. We don't list Biden. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
5. TOOSOON. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

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

Swap: Remove Eskişehir, add Diyarbakır

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.

---

Diyarbakır is the largest Kurdish-majority city in Turkey and a focal point for ethnic conflict. In contrast, nothing in the Eskişehir article convinces me that it deserves placement at V4 despite its sub-million population.

Support

1. As nominator. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

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

Boston Public Library vs New York Public Library

I notice that we list New York Public Library, but not Boston Public Library. I have been looking at a few different sources and some sources say the BPL is larger while others say the NYPL is larger. We list NYPL, but not BPL. I was wondering if you support the addition of BPL or the removal of NYPL since different sources say different things about which library is larger and more vital. We could also list both which I'd be fine with. No comment on which is better to be listed or have both listed. Interstellarity (talk) 12:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

List of largest libraries says NYPL is twice larger than BPL. --Kammerer55 (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Addition of Boston Public Library

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

Oppose

1. What makes it vital? Is it V5? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

   It seems to be V5, see full list of 22 libraries here. We also have 8 libraries at VA4 (see here). --Kammerer55 (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

2. I would keep only one US library at this level. --Kammerer55 (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Does not seem important enough. starship.paint (RUN) 08:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Not as well known as NY library. --Thi (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Per above. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

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

Removal of New York Public Library

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

---

Support

1. Not seeing what makes it vital. US bias. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Per above. Two US libraries out of 8 total on this level is too much. --Kammerer55 (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Manhattan is passing. This should be swapped out for it. starship.paint (RUN) 08:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
4. NYPL is no more significant than Boston Public Library. It is best placed at level 5. Interstellarity (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Per above. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Swap: Remove Downtown, Add Central business district

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.

---

Downtown is more of a North American term for the CBD. CBD is the better addition since it is more synonymous with a worldwide scale. Interstellarity (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Pretty straightforward change really. J947 † ^edits 02:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Lorax (talk) 06:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support - per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 15:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Support - per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Support --Thi (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
7. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I think we should add city centre instead. CBD is pretty technical and not worldwide. I also base this comment after looking at interwiki links. Ping voters as I suggest reconsidering this: @Interstellarity, J947, Lorax, Starship.paint, and Aszx5000:. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

   I am fine with either option. Interstellarity (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

   I'm sticking with my original vote. The city centre also considers the "cultural" centre of the city. I think that is more subjective than CBD. Judging by the state of the articles, it seems that editors agree because there are really not many examples in the CC article versus the CBD article. starship.paint (RUN) 06:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

   Yeah; I'm undecided, but CBD is the more high-profile article. A merged city centre–downtown article would be preferable IMO. J947 ‡ ^edits 07:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

An alternative option is city centre, which I might support over CBD, but both are far superior options to Downtown. J947 † ^edits 02:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

City centre is kind of different from CBD. Look at these descriptions taken from the respective article "The city centre is the (often historical) area of a city where commerce, entertainment, shopping, and political power are concentrated." and "A central business district (CBD) is the commercial and business centre of a city." Also look at the illustrative photos on those articles. I think more cities have CBDs than city centres and CBD is more vital so I would stick with CBD as my vote. Lorax (talk) 06:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Remove a baseballer

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's been a general trend towards reduction in the number of sportspeople listed, and at this point baseball stands out. It seems wrong that it has the same number of representatives as basketball or cricket. I'm no baseball expert, but it seems like Aaron or Oh are the ones to cut. As an aside, winter sports look to be massively overrepresented – I think representation has been taken too far in that regard. J947 † ^edits 23:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• Those sports each only has 6. Why not reduce athletics from 14 or football from 12? Is climbing vital enough for 3 spots?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
  • But still, the representation of baseball compared to football and basketball is odd at best. Irregardless of the rest of the sports section, either (1) we add a cricketer and a basketballer or (2) we remove a baseballer. I do take your point that the former may make more sense though. J947 † ^edits 01:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Add Porto, remove San Jose, California

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 are currently four cities listed from California: Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, and San Jose. San Jose's significance is mainly due to its hosting of Silicon Valley, already a VT4, and several universities, including Stanford University, another VT4 article. There is not be much else vitality-worthy content about the city, as its relevance can be adequately covered at this level by the other two VT4.

Porto, one of the oldest cities in Europe, has ancient origins tracing back to the Phoenicians. Founded as Portus Cale during Roman rule in 136 BC, Porto's history includes occupations by Phoenicians, Celts, Romans, Suebians, Visigoths, Normans, Moors, Castilians, French First Republic and many others due to its importance as a port city, administrative center, and trading hub. It was the capital of the County of Portugal, the precursor of modern Portugal. Today, Porto is Portugal's second-largest city, with its old town designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

All in all, Porto's historical significance spans numerous ancient and modern civilizations, making it a level 4 vital city. On the other hand, San Jose's reasons for inclusion are limited and already well-covered by other VT4 articles. — The Blue Rider 12:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator. — The Blue Rider 12:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
2. One is clearly more vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Note that GaWC rank both as Gamma+ cities, and that's without taking into account history. J947 † ^edits 02:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support addition The addition definitely makes sense based on the nominator's rationale. I'm not 100% convinced by the case for removing San Jose at the moment. It is a pretty significant city economically. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Support both the addition and the removal. Porto has a long history (and Port wine), San Jose is bet known for its connection to Silicon Valley. Lorax (talk) 06:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Support - Porto is an important city on par with Lisbon. San Jose is adequately covered by Silicon Valley. Interstellarity (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
7. Support both addition and removal per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 12:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
8. Support, both removal and addition. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal. This is a tremendously important business hub. It is more populous than San Francisco. Very ethnically diverse city as well.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC) I didn't notice I was at level 4. This is a level 5ish city of import.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

   Oppose after thinking it over, San Jose is an important enough city to be listed at VA4. I unstrike my comment above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

2. Oppose per below pbp 23:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

• May I say "there are four cities listed from California" isn't a convincing reason. There are nearly 40 million people in California and each of the four cities listed has over three-quarters of a million people pbp 18:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  That would be a good argument if demography was the sole criteria. Nevertheless, the difference of the metropolitan area population between the two cities is not significant. The Blue Rider 19:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  User:Purplebackpack89, I am pretty sure you know how things work, but this is the second time I have seen you express strong comments that should be interpretted as an Oppose, but left it in the discussion section.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  If I make comments but don't vote, it should be interpreted as my opinion on the nomination isn't strong enough one way or the other to vote. But I am now ready to oppose pbp 23:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• Previous discussions:
  • 2016: Porto not added 3–1
  • 2020: San Jose not removed 3–1
  • 2021: San Jose not removed 2–2
• – J947 † ^edits 02:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Add Satyricon

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 Satyricon is the most celebrated work of fiction to have survived from the ancient world. It can be described as the first realistic novel, [and] the father of the picaresque genre." (Oxford University Press) [1] The Golden Ass by Apuleius is already listed, and Petronius or Satyricon are even more frequently listed in my dictionaries and encyclopedias.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
2. Support -- Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. Jusdafax (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. That claim is not in the article. It is from a blurb of a reliable book, yes, but it is just a blurb. I could switch to neutral or even support if a reliably referenced claim like the above were to be added to the article (ping me then). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Per Piotrus czar 03:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
3. A level 5 candidate, but did not shape world literature in a manner we would epect from a level 4. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

• Point of order This article is not listed at Level 5. Usually, articles have to be added at the lowest level before we consider them for inclusion at a higher level. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Add Donato Bramante

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.

---

"Regarded as one of the greatest architects of the Italian Renaissance, Donato Bramante (Donato di Angelo) was considered by his contemporaries to have restored the true principles of ancient architecture, and is acknowledged today as the founder of the High Renaissance architectural style." [2] He planned the St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. "His buildings - - were copied by other architects for centuries. The circular Tempietto on Montorio is just one example. With its elegant facade and barrelled centre rising straight through a ring of columns to a soaring dome, it was imitated everywhere thereafter and can still be seen today in buildings worldwide, from London's Saint Paul's Cathedral to the United States Capitol." [3] [4] Raphael depicted him as Pythagoras/Euclid in the School of Athens.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Interstellarity (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Level 5 yes, but not at Level 4 notability. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Aszx5000. Gizza (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Add François de La Rochefoucauld

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.

---

He perfected the art of the aphorism in his Maximes. "Deceptively brief and insidiously easy to read, La Rochefoucauld's shrewd, unflattering analyses of human behaviour have influenced writers, thinkers, and public figures as various as Voltaire, Proust, de Gaulle, Nietzsche, and Conan Doyle." (Oxford World's Classics)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
2. Support -- Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Yes, influential (and a level 5), but don't think he shaped literature in the manner of a level 4. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Asxz5000. Gizza (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
3. The Blue Rider 19:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Add Traditional Chinese medicine

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

---

It's a good overview article of things like Acupuncture and other alternative medicines. Interstellarity (talk) 12:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 12:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Weak support Dawid2009 (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support I think it's fair that the most notable forms of alternative medicine be included at VA4. Homeopathy and traditional Chinese medicine stand out as their influence goes beyond its followers. Gizza (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Other alternative medicines like Acupuncture and Homeopathy are already at level 4; traditional Chinese medicine is at least as notable/prevalent as those two. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Strong support. The Blue Rider 02:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose "It has been described as 'fraught with pseudoscience', with the majority of its treatments having no logical mechanism of action." --Thi (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

   Traditional Chinese medicine has a huge influence globally, even if it's not scientifically proven. Chinese people believe the totoaba fish have healing powers, creating a million-dollar industry for its fishing in Mexico. Vaquita, the most endangered marine mammal, is at risk due to it being a bycatch of the totoaba. As a consequence, the Mexican Navy's is now patrolling the waters. See how, even if pseudoscientific, this belief in a fish's healing powers have such repercussions, even involving other countries' militarily. The Blue Rider 10:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

• Hmmm. Alternative medicine is also V4. This is V5. That seems reasonable. why bump this to V4 and make it same level as the parent I linked? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Add One Piece

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.

---

Currently there are three comic series listed (The Adventures of Tintin, Asterix, Peanuts). One Piece beats them all in sales and is the best-selling manga and comic series of all time. It also gets way more page views than the aforementioned articles, has received at least one Guinness World Record, and is easily one of if not the most influential manga. Link20XX (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Link20XX (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. To not have any manga in such a listing is a major example of WP:SYSBIAS vitals are suffering from. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
3. I extremely strongly support this. One Piece is arguably the most popular comic book of all time, and contains very important themes about the values of freedom, equality, tolerance, solidarity, courage, joy, kindness, and compassion. David A (talk) 08:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
4. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 13:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Per above. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Obvius omissions in our current list would superhero comics (Superman probably) and Disney (Mickey Mouse). Surely they are Vital for Lv4. It's weird to have both Tintin and Asterix but no American comics which are arguably more influential overall. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Piotrus: - Superman and Mickey Mouse are both Level 4? Under fictional characters. starship.paint (RUN) 13:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Remove Gravity's Rainbow  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.

---

SF novel. Claims of significance ("it is considered by many critics to be one of the greatest American novels ever written") so it could remain at V5 but just 19 interwikis are IMHO too few for V4. That's much less than most other entries under sf novels in V5 (ex. Animal Farm with 89, Dune (novel) with 49, Fahrenheit 451 with 49, Slaughterhouse-Five with 35 and others. Further, a quick glance at Great American Novel shows entries there in the table that are not even V5 (perhaps they should be). Anyway, this is one of the 6 sf&fantasy entries from V5 that are at V4 again I think it is much less signifciant then those (Brave New World with 50 interwikis, The Lord of the Rings with 112, The Metamorphosis with 69, Nineteen Eighty-Four with 94 and The War of the Worlds with 50). Ping User:TompaDompa whom I consider an expert on sf. Disclaimer: I consider myself a fan of sf and fantasy, but I've never heard of this novel nor its author before... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
2. With the caveats outlined below, my intuition is that it is rather peculiar that this is listed at level 4 while e.g. Foundation series is at level 5 and e.g. The Martian Chronicles  5 and Stranger in a Strange Land  5 are not listed at all. TompaDompa (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
3. This may be a great book, but I do not think it is a popular book to the level of 1984 mentioned above, that crosses cultures. Perhaps it can be replaced by Animal Farm. starship.paint (RUN) 01:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Not convinced it's more important than the likes of Kalevala  5, Animal Farm  5, Dune (novel)  5, Around the World in Eighty Days  5 or Treasure Island  5. Seems like an esoteric book with a limited audience (Postmodern literature isn't even listed on any level), VA5 fits better.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Support per above. Gizza (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
6. Support per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
7. Support --Thi (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

• Foucault's Pendulum  5 is at level 5 now. Just to confirm, do you want to remove it from Level 5, or did you mean to nominate Gravity's Rainbow  5 instead? --Kammerer55 (talk) 08:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• @Piotrus: - you listed an Italian book, not an American one. starship.paint (RUN) 13:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
  • My apologies, folks (@Kammerer55 and Starship.paint:), I copypasted wrong book. Should be fixed now. (The intended removal target is indeed Gravity's Rainbow  5.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• I'm flattered to be viewed as an expert on the subject, as I wouldn't consider myself to be one (I might suggest Mike Christie and Olivaw-Daneel as likely more knowledgeable editors in this area). I'm also very unfamiliar with the WP:Vital articles side of Wikipedia, so I'm not sure I'm the right person to weigh in on this back-end process. TompaDompa (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping. I don't know much about the VA project either, so I don't really have an opinion on whether the book fits. At level 5 -- presumably 100,000 articles? -- it seems an enormous effort of classification. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  Level 5 has 50,000 articles. It is a work under construction but the project is gaining a lot of momentum and hopefully it will be more prominent within Wikipedia. The Blue Rider 20:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  (Responding to ping) I highly doubt that SF is the primary genre here - the word "science fiction" is barely mentioned in the article. "Literary fiction" or "historical fiction" might be better categories but I don't know enough to judge if it is "vital" in those cats. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• This is one of the 90 works of fiction listed, here. J947 ‡ ^edits 20:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Remove Russian State Library  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.

---

It may be the largest in Europe, but it is not significant for Europe, just Russia. 6th largest in the world is not V4 either. Not as famous as the LoC or British Library.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 07:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Lorax (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Support. per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Remove Bibliothèque nationale de France  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 for France, perhaps, but not seeing what makes it significant to the world science or history sufficient for V4. Not as famous as the LoC or British Library. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 07:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Lorax (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Support. per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Remove National Library of China  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.

---

Founded barely a century ago, not seeing what makes it significant to the world science or history sufficient for V4. Not as famous as the LoC or British Library. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 07:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Support The Shanghai Library seems more important. Lorax (talk) 04:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Support. per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Remove Canberra and Wellington

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.

---

These two cities are the capitals of Australia and New Zealand respectively, but they don't have the importance of cities like Sydney, Melbourne, and Auckland have. Interstellarity (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Support both as someone who lives in Wellington and proposed the addition of Canberra. :) The importance of capital cities is overstated here IMO. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
3. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 05:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Not convinced we need anything with a metro area under a million in this continent of under 50 million. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
6. Oceania is horrendously over-represented. pbp 18:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
7. Support removing Canberra per my comments in 2017. Neutral on Wellington per my comments there too. Gizza (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Both Australia and New Zealand have been vital, thus the capital of each of them no doubt should be kept.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

   I find this argument to be weak. There are plenty of countries with cities on this list that don't have their capitals listed. For example, in Switzerland, we list Zurich and Geneva, but not Bern, the capital. In Myanmar, we list Yangon, but not Naypyidaw. Just because a country is vital, doesn't automatically make its capital vital. Interstellarity (talk) 20:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

   The capitals are most certainly vital, maybe not just level 4 vital. The Blue Rider 10:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

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

Add Oahu

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.

---

Oahu contains the majority of Hawaii's population and one of the most populous islands in the United States. We list the rest of the islands at level 5 and it doesn't make sense that they are all at the same level. I recently proposed several Hawaiian island removals at level 5 to clean up the list. I think having the island at this level along with Hawaii would be a positive addition to the list. Interstellarity (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Given my strenuos objection to Honolulu's recent demotion, I support this, but would rather see Honolulu restored.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Less vital than Honolulu  5 (Honolulu metro area = Oahu, I think). J947 ‡ ^edits 21:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
2. I’d prefer Honolulu to be restored over Oahu to be added, but I’d prefer neither of them if I had a choice. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose Honolulu is more vital. --Thi (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose, Honolulu is more vital. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Oppose Hawaii is listed at this level, which seems sufficient. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Add Almanac  5 and Gazetteer  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.

---

These are important tools of reference especially since one is updated every year and the other is a directory. Interstellarity (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

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

Add History of Saudi Arabia

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 country is very important in the Middle East, and there has been civilization there since prehistoric times. It is also the birthplace of Islam, which is currently the second-biggest religion in the world.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Weakly, since history of Islam is also level 4. That said, so is history of Poland or Korea, and arguably, Saudi Arabia is as important for its region as those are. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Important country as the birthplace of Islam. Interstellarity (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
4. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Swap: remove Zinedine Zidane, add Ligue 1

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.

---

Football league with too enduring significance against player/Coach who give vias toward recentism if we have already Cristiano and Messi. Now, when we have lower level 5 it is more important to among 10 000 articles make completness of Big Five leagues which are broad topics (cover clubs, everyday life etc.) than specific players from all ppositions. If someone like Jimmy Carter is not at this level beceuse of "being living person" then we can have 3 football players from 2000's, not 4. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 14:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Zidane is one of the top 10 greatest in history. Not a swap that makes sense to me. Aszx5000 (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose Respublik (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Proposal: Swap Remove Barbra Streisand, Add Taylor Swift

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.

---

She's had an impact and prevalence in the American popular music industry that hasn't been seen in decades, and has practically defined the pop music scene for most of the 21st century so far. While Streisand is undeniably important, I think Swift makes a better case for a Level 4 placement at this point in time due to her cultural importance. Cerrathegreat (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. [Support as nom.] added in formatting by TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD)
2. Support add In proposing an add at level 4, it is common to propose a remove. When proposing such an add/remove pair it is common to choose a remove subject that is similar to the add subject. Since only 3 women (Miriam Makeba, Madonna and Streisand) are VA4 within the generic genre subsubsubsection of the Popular music (60 articles) subsubsection of the Musicians and composers subsection (149 articles) of the People section (1,990 articles).Streisand seems to be the logical choice. However, some believe that VA4 needs more women in its people section so swapping a woman for a woman does not get us there. In that same 9 element subsubsubsection I see ABBA listed. I ABBA discography only shows one of their albums has been certified in their own home country and that they have never gone more than 2x platinum with an album outside of Australia. I would think they are a better remove. There are probably other better remove candidates in the other genres of the popular music section than Streisand. Additionally, people at 1990/2000 seems to be under quota so there is no urgency to remove. Although I am not sure she is more vital than Britney Spears (VA5), I support this add.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

   No way ABBA is not VT4; this accolade comparison has been proven insufficient many times. Though agreed that Britney Spears is more close to level 4 vitality than Swift. The Blue Rider 14:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

3. Support. The extra ordinary success and notability of her current mega world tour makes her a Level 4, and I think that Streisand is a weak Level 4. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
4. I think being made TIME Person of the Year is a good indicator of vitality especially since she is a key figure in music. Interstellarity (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Support add: I suppose with TIME Person of the Year and all that, she is vital at this level. But not at the expense of Babs Streisand. pbp 17:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
6. Support. Undoubtedly the biggest figure in the entertainment industry of this century, dominating every possible metrics (album sales, touring, airplay, streaming, social media). She's already on par with Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson, and Madonna. On the other hand, Barbra Streisand is a hugely successful entertainer, but her cultural impact is less than that of her peers such as Aretha Franklin and Tina Turner. She's still not on the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame despite her multi-decade-long career. Bluesatellite (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
7. Support removal Streisand has sold many albums but there is not much cultural impact. Other biographies cover traditional pop and musical. --Thi (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
8. Support addition and removal. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
9. Support removal. Gizza (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
10. Per Bluesatellite. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
11. Support addition, we have too few female pop artists at this level. I'd also add Rihanna. Vileplume (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not nearly as influential as the other musicians, as of now. She still has a long career going forward, let's wait and see. The Blue Rider 14:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

   User:The Blue Rider, She managed to pull of Time Person of the Year.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

   Hmm, I can't help but be reticent to add BPLs to VT4 or higher levels. Plus, the Time Person of the Year is very clearly americentric and to a lesser extent eurocentric so not sure how worthy such designation is. The Blue Rider 11:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

   User:The Blue Rider, are you talking about WP:BLPs?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

   Yeah, ops. The Blue Rider 22:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

   Streisand is also alive, to be fair. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

2. Oppose addition. I would add Rihanna instead who is the second best-selling female musical artists of all time behind only Madonna. Taylor is currently fourth behind Mariah Carey too. And if you read the legacy sections of Rihanna and Taylor Swift (both well referenced) it seems clear to me that Rihanna has been the more influential figure. Gizza (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Taylor Swift literally has a separate article about her Legacy (Cultural impact of Taylor Swift), which Rihanna doesn't have. Even, Beyoncé is far more influential than Rihanna (see Cultural impact of Beyoncé). "Second best-selling female artist" claim is debatable because Rihanna's record sales consist of predominantly digital tracks than actual "album". If we considered 1 album = 10 digital tracks as per RIAA, then "album artists" such as Mariah Carey and Celine Dion are still more successful than Rihanna. Bluesatellite (talk) 05:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Add Manhattan

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.

---

Manhattan is currently at Level 5 with ~300k monthly views. We currently have multiple places on Level 4 which are all located in Manhattan, but have less page views: Empire State Building (~140k), Columbia University (~100k), Brooklyn Bridge (~95k; partially in Brooklyn), Broadway theatre (~60k), Central Park (~70k), New York Stock Exchange (~50k), Metropolitan Museum of Art (~45k), Museum of Modern Art (~30k), American Museum of Natural History (~20k), New York Public Library (~10k). It would make sense to feature Manhattan at Level 4 as well. --Kammerer55 (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

There are also some Level 5 objects located in Manhattan: World Trade Center (1973–2001), Grand Central Terminal, Chrysler Building, Rockefeller Center, and probably some other. --Kammerer55 (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --Kammerer55 (talk) 04:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. World-level famous region, more famous than quite a few cities we hafve here. I'd mildly prefer a swamp for some other US location, however. Weak support for the addition, would change to a strong support for a swap. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support nomination is self explanatory.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Yeah I think both Manhattan and Brooklyn, the addition of which failed in 2021–22, pass the bar here. In compensation there are two U.S. city removal proposals that are currently passing. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

   User:J947 what other VA subjects are located in Brooklyn other than the Brooklyn Bridge?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

5. I'm good with swapping this in and swapping NY Public Library out. Would urge others to do the same. starship.paint (RUN) 08:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
6. Per above (and responses below). NYC is Level 3, so Manhattan at Level 4 makes sense (and it has an extraordinary density of notable buildings and structures). Aszx5000 (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
7. NYC is already listed at level 3 and I think it would make sense to list Manhattan since that's the core of the city. If you asked me if I would support listing Capitol Hill, my answer would be no since it would mean that it and Washington, DC would be at the same level. Since NYC is one level higher, this addition makes sense. Interstellarity (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
8. Considering that Central Park  4 is VA4. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Seems straight-up VA5 to me, and I'm American pbp 04:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

   Let me get this straight: Sacramento was removed, San Jose is up for removal, Pittsburgh is up for removal, Columbus, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Memphis, Portland were never on the VA4 list in the first place, but New York City is vital enough to get TWO VA4 slots? (Three if Brooklyn is also added) That makes no sense in the slightest. pbp 12:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

   I think the point is the high number of vital topics in this specific region make it worthy of VA consideration. Do any of the cities you mentioned have similar concentration of vital topics?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

   Conversely, if New York City itself is listed, doesn't that imply at least a little coverage of the buildings of New York? And we may have gone a tad overboard with the buildings and landmarks of New York City: is a single building in New York more vital than the entire city of Portland, Oregon? pbp 16:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

   I agree regarding too many NYC buildings at this level. Please see discussion above about demoting New York Public Library  5 to level 5. Kammerer55 (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

   I do concede that although at VA5, this is a common request, at VA4 I don't see any other sub regions.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

   @Purplebackpack89 IMHO more non-Americans would've heard of Manhattan than about any of the cities listed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

   the same can be said for Hollywood. Regardless of how many people have heard of them, Manhattan is still a part of New York City and Hollywood is still a part of LA. The crux of my argument is that we shouldn't have boroughs and neighborhoods at VA4 pbp 13:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

   Oddly, I wouldn't be opposed to adding Hollywood just because of the cultural significance. It seems to me "Hollywood" is generally considered more of a distinct entity, while "Manhattan" is often synonymous with NYC (even if that is erroneous). Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

2. Per pbp. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose per pbp; too niche of a designation. The Blue Rider 15:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose per pbp. NYC is sufficient at this level. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

   Just to clarify, New York City  3 is listed at level 3, so Manhattan, as its important aspect, might deserve level 4 spot. Kammerer55 (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

5. Oppose agree with pbp about the overlap and redundancy with NYC. Better to get coverage of another city instead. Don't agree with adding the most famous parts of L3 cities to L4. Otherwise we will be adding parts of London, Paris and Tokyo (among other cities) too instead of cities covering different parts of the world. Gizza (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

   Oppose per pbp. Would rather have another city than Manhattan here. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC). Moved to Support. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Add Facsimile

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

---

Support

1. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - redundant to Printmaking at this level. I would say that manuscript is higher priority, which is not even Level 5 yet. Gizza (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose Too specific. --Thi (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Not an enduring technology; already (almost) gone. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Add Samuel P. Huntington

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

---

Support

1. As nom. Because it is he that introduced the term "Clash of Civilizations", which has been widely used worldwide, shaped American views on civilian-military relations, political development, and comparative government and he is the second most frequently cited author on college syllabi for political science courses, according to the Open Syllabus Project, he no doubt should be added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Not as vital as Henry Kissinger or the invasion of Ukraine, for example. --Thi (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Level 5 is sufficient, not at level 4 (per Thi examples). Aszx5000 (talk)
3. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Add Ningbo

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.

---

Contains the world's busiest port by cargo tonnage, and is the only one of the 15 sub-provincial municipalities of China which we do not currently list at level 4. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Per nominator. The Blue Rider 09:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
3. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Easily (although the Shanghai area is already chocker with cities). J947 ‡ ^edits 21:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. Gizza (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Analyzing the vital article lists (Level 4)

I think it would be helpful to have a discussion every year or two regarding how we are doing with the vital articles. Some questions we could ponder include: have the lists gotten better or worse with time? What are some ways the lists have improved and ways the list has worsened with time? How is the current process of adding and removing articles? Do you think there should be stricter or more lenient requirements or keep the requirements as is? This list has been around since 2006 which is a long time (17 years) and it has gone through many changes since its inception. Levels 1-3 have been pretty stable and haven't seen a lot of proposals for addition or removal recently. I've seen it more frequently in years past, but the discussion nowadays seems to be about the list itself. Levels 4 and 5 have seen more rapid changes throughout the years due to the large number of articles within it. You can always go back to the history section and see how the list evolved. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. What do you think? Interstellarity (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Add Women's history or swap with Women's sports

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.

---

Dawid2009 (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Makes sense to me. Ping Dawid2009 so they can support as nom. Wonder if this should be menioned at WT:WOMEN or such for more input? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Also makes sense to me (keep both). Aszx5000 (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

   To clarify, support having both as Level 4. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

3. Strong support of adding women's history. The Blue Rider 01:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Support addition; oppose removal. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Support addition; oppose removal. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 09:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
6. Support addition; oppose removal. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add Lord's prayer

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

---

We are far too much under quota in religon section to not add this article which is described in almost every Wikipedia edition and is fundamentally aspect of everyday life for billions people around the world— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawid2009 (talk • contribs) 21:09, October 24, 2023 (UTC)-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Nom.
2. surprised nominator not listed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Lorax (talk) 05:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Support - per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Interstellarity (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
7. Classic prayer billions still know. V4, surely. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Opppose

Discuss

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

Add White people  5 and Black people  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.

---

We have Ethnic groups (31 articles) but we don't list those key concepts at V4? Asian people is not even V5? Those are very common concepts, for better or worse. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Covered by Race (human categorization). --Thi (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose I would support adding human skin color instead of white people, black people, brown people, Asian people, etc. which is a biological concept in addition to having social and racial ramifications. Gizza (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Most people in the world are neither white nor black. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but this nomination feels America/Euro-centric. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Addressing Redundant Clades in “Organisms”

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.

---

Three animal clades are represented at both the family and order level:

Cypriniformes  4 & Cyprinidae  5

Characiformes  4 & Characidae  5

Procellariiformes  4 & Procellariidae  5

While I think it’s ultimately worth reassessing whether any of these categories warrant inclusion in level 4, dealing with the redundancy now will probably be less controversial and would simplify any future decisions.

I’m in favor of keeping the orders. They’re broader in scope than the families, contain a greater number of “vital” species (the albatross, a level 4 subject, is a procellariiform but not a procellariid), and the articles themselves are about as well-written. The removal itself shouldn't cause any issues; I suspect that anyone searching for something like “Characidae” is going to understand the topic well enough to find what they’re looking for.

Remove Cyprinidae

Support

1. As nominator --User:Marchantiophyta 19:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 03:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Yeah, these can go to VA5. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Characidae

Support

1. As nominator --User:Marchantiophyta 19:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 03:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Yeah, these can go to VA5. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Procellariidae

Support

1. As nominator --User:Marchantiophyta 19:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 03:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Yeah, these can go to VA5. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Swap: Replace Astacus astacus  5 with Crayfish  4

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.

---

Crayfish are freshwater crustaceans in the infraorder Astacidea. They probably belong in level 4 given that they’re well-known, reasonably common, and a distinctive element of the culinary traditions of Eurasia, Oceania, and the Americas. Lobster  4, Crab  4, and Shrimp  4 are broadly similar high-level crustacean taxa.

Astacus astacus is a common European crayfish. It’s not especially noteworthy as a species or even as a crayfish. Any reason to include it in level 4 would be equally (and almost always more) applicable to crayfish in general.

Support

1. As nominator --User:Marchantiophyta 1:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 03:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Lorax (talk) 04:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
6. Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
7. Support since I was born in New Orleans where this is a staple of the seafood boil.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
8. Support, assuming astacus astacus goes to level 5. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

   That's the plan - it's relevant enough to still have a claim to vitality and there's room for it there. Marchantiophyta (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add Hamlet (place)  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 general concept compared to City  2, Town  4, and Village  4. Interstellarity (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

   Support. Bit hit and miss as to whether this is a term well-used on a country-to-country basis, but IMO the usage of the term should be less important to the article in question than the concept itself. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

   Sorry – thought this was VA5. I don't think this is significant enough for VA4. J947 ‡ ^edits 07:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Hamlet is a rare municipal designation in the U.S. I rarely visit hamlets. I don't know of one in Cook County, Illinois.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
2. J947 ‡ ^edits 07:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Not a common enough label for Level 4. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

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

Making vital articles accessible in mobile view

I think it is way past time for the vital articles to be accessible in mobile view. I find that scrolling to the articles on mobile is very difficult. I think we need to have a better system at organizing vital articles in mobile view. What do you think? Interstellarity (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Add Sacramento, California

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.

---

California should not have fewer cities than Texas. It's either this or we cut Austin, which is in the top ten as of the most recent estimate. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
2. pbp 12:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Sacramento is the capital of California and, frankly, not much more. Austin is not just the capital of Texas, it's also home to the headquarters of some of the largest tech companies and more of a cultural hub. There's a reason why Austin gets multiple intercontinental flights whereas Sacramento has none. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Cut cities from Texas then. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Sacramento is fine at L5. I am happy with the current distribution of Californian cities on the list: Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco. Interstellarity (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
4. I think that listing more Texan cities than Californian cities (counting Silicon Valley, they're the same) is better than shoehorning Sacramento in where it doesn't really belong. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
5. Per above. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
6. Per above. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
7. czar 18:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

1. Looking back at this, I'd rather swap Silicon Valley with San Jose. Cities are more vital than regions, and SJ is one of only eleven (twelve including Brooklyn) American cities to ever pass the million mark. Sacramento is no more vital than San Jose. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

   Hard disagree on this one, considering that American cities are mostly suburban. Once you leave its downtown core, nothing really separates San Jose from Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Milpitas, etc. Far more non-Americans have heard of Silicon Valley than San Jose. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

   I think I'd support this, FWIW, though doubt it'd pass per feminist. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

   It's mostly ... I don't think San Jose is really distinguishable from the rest of Silicon Valley, so I don't think it should be highlighted separately at this level. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Add Cancún  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.

---

Consistently one of the most popular tourist destinations for North Americans and Europeans. As an international tourist destination, it has completely taken over Acapulco  5 in importance, so it doesn't make sense for us to list Acapulco but not Cancún.

Support

1. As nominator. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

1. Although I was a supporter, since this failed about 2 months ago, I think we should wait at least 6 months. Would you consider withdrawing this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

   Fine, let's remove Acapulco then. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 07:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Remove Eskişehir

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.

---

Nothing in this start-class city's article (Turkey's) suggest it is particularly vital. Short history section, nothing stands out from economy or history.

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Support. Population of <1m with barely any global recognition/notability. A level 5, but not 4. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Support, but suggest addition of another Turkish city. An odd inclusion, in that listing Konya (Turkey's 7th most populous city) or Diyarbakır (capital of Kurdistan) would make much more sense; or even Kayseri or Samsun (most important Black Sea port). One of Konya or Diyarbakır should be added in compensation for this removal. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Per J947. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. You really need to stop using the class assessment of an article as an indicator of vitality. It's a college town; it has three universities. It's also a railroad town; important for transportation between Ankara and Istanbul. It's one the biggest industrial hubs in Turkey; it produces sugar, textiles, bricks, cement, chemicals, processed meerschaum, railway and agricultural equipment and aircrafts. The Blue Rider 09:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

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

The Blue Rider, this requires 5 supports to pass, please vacate your close. J947 ‡ ^edits 20:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Add Metropolitan area and/or Urban area

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

---

I think it would make sense to list both or one of these two since these two overlap. We already list Rural area, but not Urban area. I don't think City is enough to cover these topics since definitions of a city vary. I am opening these in the same discussion because I think it is worth considering since I couldn't find a discussion regarding these. Interstellarity (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support adding only Metropolitan area as an important missing general concept. Urban area seems to be already well covered by City, Town, Suburb and Urbanization. (This is different from Rural area which seems to cover more concepts than just Village.) --Kammerer55 (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support metropolitan area which is a pretty vital concept. But urban area I oppose as indeed basically just city (though often significantly different to the city proper). J947 ‡ ^edits 07:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support MA per Kammerer55.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Support MA. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

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

Add Pterodactylus

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.

---

What do you think about it to be added? Dawid2009 (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support --Thi (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
2. Support Iskandar323 (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
3. Support. The most prominent of the pterosaurs. The Blue Rider ✉ 10:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC) 21:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I think Pterosaur is enough at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I agree with Rreagan007 -- Marchantiophyta 21:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Rreagan007. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

1. Important for popular culture too as one of the iconic dinos, although I see that both articles say this, and Rreagan007 makes a valid point about possible redundancy. I was going to support but on second thought, I'll be neutral, since Pterosaur's cultural section is larger, and well, those are very similar topics. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Move Biathlon  4 under winter sports

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.

---

Currently biathlon is listed under shooting sports. It is that, of course, but biathlon is a part of the Winter Olympics and most people would probably expect to find it under winter sports.

Support

1. As nom. --Makkool (talk) 08:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

There is no separate section for winter sports at level 4. --Thi (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Requested move 15 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved per snowball clause . (closed by non-admin page mover) – Hilst [talk] 23:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

---

• Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People → Wikipedia:Vital people

– I think it would make sense for this page to be called Vital people. Vital people is a much shorter form of the level 4 vital articles regarding biographies. We have people at three levels of this page and it makes sense for this one to be the landing page for the people, not too big and not too small similar to how level 3 of vital articles is not titled Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3. Similar to how we used to have Core biographies, I think having the vital people as a subproject to the existing vital articles makes sense since we can prioritize Wikipedia’s most important biographies. Interstellarity (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• What about the people that are other levels? Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  That’s a good question. In level 3, titled Vital articles, we list people, but we list other stuff. I don’t make it makes sense to change that article’s title. On level 5, the list is divided by what their occupation is. I could support something like Wikipedia:Vital people/Politicians and leaders. I’m just brainstorming so that we can figure out what the best ways to title our lists are. Interstellarity (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I feel like having vital articles of people under a different project page would create more confusion to readers than any benefit the move will bring. Also I don't think RM is the right process for this, but that's a more procedural matter. feminist🩸 (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose The redirect is sufficient pbp 03:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a bad idea on multiple levels. First of all, this is still a part of the Vital Articles project, so why would we want to hide that? Second, the proposed title is presumptuous and possibly insulting anyway. The word "articles" in "vital articles" is an important one - it's vital encyclopedia articles, not a presumptuous ranking of the topics themselves. Ranking which people are vital and which are not is not in scope for Wikipedia. If we had to spin this off as a separate thing, it'd be "Vital biographies" not "Vital people", but per above, this is a bad idea anyway - biographies are articles, so better to keep it under one roof. SnowFire (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose it it difficult to know what other topics like cities etc we would have "vital" pages for and what level. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose The current name is not problematic, and the new name has several issues. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose --Thi (talk) 10:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Add President of the United States

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 of the most well-known political offices in the world, with several officeholders at VA4 and even two at VA3. It is rated Top-Importance by WikiProject United States.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
2. POTUS is the world's highest-ranked political office. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Agree that the article is vital at this level. Jusdafax (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Support. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
5. I try to combat US/Western sysbias as I see it, but POTUS is the most important office in the word. We can find room for it at V4. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

   Worth noting that as far as I can see this is the only article of its type listed at VA5. No Prime Minister of India, Emperor of China, nor Roman emperor. Probably a mistake, but worth considering here. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

   I would probably support adding those at VA5. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

   It might be the most important office currently, but the US hegemony is quickly dissipating and it didn't last that long. The Blue Rider 13:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

6. Support, and I'm not American. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not sure we should be listing any political offices at this level. King  5 would surely be a better candidate as well. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
2. The article is about the position itself not the people who hold it and I fail to see how it is level 4 vitality. Not an particularly encyclopedic topic either. The Blue Rider 01:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose Where would we draw the line and which other leader positions past and present would we include? Many of the possibly feasible ones are not even level 5, British monarch, emperor of Japan, president of China, Roman emperor. and many many more. I would need more convincing and like more discussion about other leader positions.  Carlwev  13:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Carlwev and the Blue Rider mainly. Hard to argue that this is more vital than Monarchy of the United Kingdom and a number of similar articles, noting that this list shouldn't be recentist and therefore the highest political positions of various nations and empires would have to be added for balance. Gizza (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
5. Oppose per above comments. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
6. czar 18:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

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

Replace space capsule with spacecraft

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.

---

Being new to the vital articles concept, I'm seeking consensus that space capsule is less vital than the more general topic spacecraft. Thanks! (sdsds - talk) 22:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. This swap seems uncontroversial. There's no need to expedite the swap though. Is there some standard period for comments? (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 22:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Support well-reasoned.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Support More general concepts should be listed first, unless someone comes with a good counterargument.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
4. Per nom Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
5. Support per above. --Thi (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
6. Support  Carlwev  17:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

A thing to note is that Spacecraft  4 isn't yet listed on level 5.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Add Jacksonville, Florida

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

---

Per discussion above. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The Jacksonville metro area is significantly smaller than either Tampa or Orlando. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Didn't realise quite how much a beneficiary it was of the city-proper distinction: its metro area lies at just 2.025 million per citypopulation.de. Less than Kansas City or Indianapolis. Not quite there IMO. Even Orlando is probably preferable. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Per above. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Not the first U.S. city (or even Florida city) I would add. J947 makes a good point about comparing city proper and metro populations. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
5. czar 18:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
6. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Per above. Interstellarity (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

1. Looking back at this, Jacksonville is significantly less vital than Tampa and Orlando. In addition to them, the metro areas of Portland, Sacramento, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Columbus, Indianapolis, and Hampton Roads are all larger and are not listed. Based on V5 representation, the U.S. could probably handle a few more additions anyway. Vileplume (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Add Optometry

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

---

We are currently under quota for Biology and health sciences, and optometry feels just as important as a health care profession as Physical therapy and Radiation therapy, both of which are at V4.

Support

1. As nominator. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 13:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Support good find. While ophthalmology is also added at this level, I think having both is reasonable. Note that eye is Level 3 vital. Gizza (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Support lots of people interact with Optometrists regularily Lorax (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
4. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 06:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
5. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Remove Pittsburgh

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.

---

Pennsylvania is already covered when we list Pennsylvania and Philadelphia. Interstellarity (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Per Interstellarity. — The Blue Rider 09:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Per nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Support I grew up in Buffalo, which use to be one of the 10 largest cities in the country, where US Presidents Grover Cleveland and Millard Fillmore both started their political careers. It is no longer a VA4 level important city either.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Support - per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
7. czar 18:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'm just not convinced by the nominator's rationale. Philadelphia is literally on the other side of the state (a state with more than 10 million people). There was a time when Pittsburgh was one of the ten largest cities in the country. It's traditionally the center of America's steel and ketchup industries. pbp 16:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose Pittsburgh is significant historically if perhaps not as important contemporarily. It was a major industrial center for much of the 19th and 20th century. I feel like there are other U.S. cities which could be removed instead. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
3. I’d rather remove Baltimore. Too close to Washington and not too much present-day importance. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Per pbp. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
5. Pittsburgh is still pretty important. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Weak oppose – I'd rather remove Pennsylvania, and also think that Pittsburgh is probably of greater importance than Baltimore. J947 † ^edits 03:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

   Count me neutral. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

1. FWIW, Buffalo entered the top 10 in the 1860 census and was also in in 1900 and 1910, Pittsburgh entered in 1910 and exited in 1950.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

2. I lived there for 10 years, but it is not that special. And US is overrepresented. That said, maybe there are other US cities to cut first? Like Presidentman said. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Add Coordinated Universal Time, remove Flood control in the Netherlands

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.

---

UTC is one of the most important things about time zones, it received about 100,000 views past 30 days and is high importance in the Time WikiProject. The technology section is currently the most overbudgeted section so I'd like to remove something, maybe Dead reckoning?

I think we should remove Flood control in the Netherlands because Flood control is already VA4 and something like this would be more suitable for VA5.

I would also like to add Greenwich mean time aswell but given its overbudgetness, I won't do that for now.

Support

1. as nom 115.188.126.180 (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Support. Not 100% sold on CUT being V4, but flood control in the Netherlands is not V4. V5 will will be good enough for this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support adding UTC, since it is an important universal concept, though not sure about removing flood control. Generally, I think that Technology deserves larger quota which can be taken from Geography or from 872 organisms in Biology. (Especially since the species are dying out, and technology is developing.) Oppose promoting Greenwich mean time, since it now has only historical significance as a precursor of UTC, otherwise it's just another regional time zone, and the article actually has less views than Eastern Time Zone. --Kammerer55 (talk) 07:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Support add-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal of Flood control in the Netherlands. The Zuiderzee Works and Delta Works are together one of the Wonders of the Modern World and to be honest, as an engineering marvel, are in the top half of that wonder list with likes of the Panama Canal. Listing flood control in the Netherlands instead of the Zuiderzee Works and Delta Works separately saves us a space for another article. Gizza (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal per above. --Thi (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

• I highly recommend you to chose a specific removal, otherwise people will !vote, «???» is not a valid removal. The Blue Rider 22:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. The broader topic to add at this level would be Time standard, which covers both Coordinated Universal Time and Greenwich Mean Time (as well as other time standards. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'd support this as well 115.188.126.180 (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  Time standard article seems too technical. --Kammerer55 (talk) 07:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Swap: add Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in place of Greek Orthodox Church

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

---

It is legitimate to have a Greek Orthodox article, but we currently have the wrong one.

Greek Orthodox Church is a blurry notion, is unorganized, is defined as a rite and customs shared by several church bodies. It is a start-class article, was a dab page not too long ago, and frankly can't be better.

On the other hand, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople is the organized church that defines Orthodoxy since the 4th century. Most people who visit a "Greek Orthodox" church in the world probably go to a building of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (incl. e.g. the Americas, Australia and Western Europe). It is also a much better article, B-class, about which there is actually something to say.

@Purplebackpack89, Susmuffin, Carlwev, Rreagan007, DaGizza, Presidentman, 力, Dimadick, and Headbomb: courtesy ping participants in this past discussion. Place Clichy (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Place Clichy (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 09:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Gizza (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Greek Orthodox Church is the broadest version we have. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose As noted in the article, "Greek Orthodox Church" refers to several denominations, not just the Patriarchate of Constantinople. I would prefer the broad concept article. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

   The Greek Orthodox Church does not exist. There are several church bodies, and church buildings, which are Greek and Orthodox. Broad concepts articles are e.g. Byzantine Rite, the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, or Koine Greek. We can't hope for a broad concept article on something which does not exist. A set list is not vital. Place Clichy (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

To answer the correct point that the Ecumenical Patriarchate is just one of several Greek Orthodox church bodies albeit the most senior, I'd like to point that the article has a section on Present-day autocephalous churches previously under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which include e.g. the Church of Greece. That's why, despite its position of Primus inter pares among several independent churches, it still has a universal character and a universal reach that make this article vital. Place Clichy (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Add Cultural heritage

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.

---

High culture is underrepresented. Cultural heritage is definition needed for UNESCO (listed at this level) just as nation is definition needed for United Nations. It is also vital as subject of Oral tradition which is on higher levels. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Support per above. Specific cases of cultural heritage are listed but not the overarching concept, which is a subject of discussion nowadays. Gizza (talk) 00:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
4. It is. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Support per above. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 09:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
7. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add William G. Morgan

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.

---

Currently we have no Volleyball  4 representative on this list: we have a biathlete, a rower, two speed skaters, but no volleyballer. Volleyball is a very prominent sport – according to our article on sport it's the 5th most popular in the world. It's not so much a professional sport but more of a common amateur sport, so it would make sense to list not a famous volleyball player but someone like William G. Morgan  5, the inventor of volleyball. We already list James Naismith  4, the inventor of basketball – a less widely played sport.

This addition failed to pass in early 2019, 2021, and 2022. Nomination made on behalf of Dawid2009; I won't be voting. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Support, having re-read the nom, this is a good case and switching my !vote. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Weakly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Invented the sport but it is a rather obscure figure. The Blue Rider 21:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Not known outside the specific context. --Thi (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Volleyball only has 2 of the 149/150 people at level 5. Of those people only 2 (James Naismith  4 and Pierre de Coubertin  4). -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

   Oppose per above; only 2 entries at level 5. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

   No, there are 8. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

4. czar 18:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

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