Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Racial groups missing

It appears we don't list white people or black people, and possibly a bunch of other ethnic groups. Where should they be added? Sdkb (talk) 06:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

To Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences, either to anthropology or sociology/Society sections. The white/black duality is the classic one and so I support both of the above terms. Worth noting that Mongoloid is already under Society, as is Negroid and the Caucasian race, all subset of Race topic - this is probably where the two terms you added should go. Asian people is not listed here yet. Through one issue to discuss is whether we need two articles that are to some degree very similar (ex. white people ts the Caucasian race). One is more about the social aspects and the other is more about biological ones, but the overlap is big, and I could see some people arguing we have room for one but not both concepts. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Race categories like those we already list are historical and not used in modern language. It would be better to replace them with modern terms like "white people", "black people", "asian people" etc. --Makkool (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree with those above. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I just added "White people" and "Black people" to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences#Ethnic groups, hoping that is the right place. Since that group is not complete, more articles can be added there. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

FWIHW, IMO we should have separated section for racial names from Biological anthropology perspective and from Folk taxonomy perspective, both are important. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think biological differences between different races is a widely studied topic nowadays? C933103 (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Digital divide

Add Digital divide to society topics? Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

social or technology? C933103 (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Sexual abuse

I'd like to suggest sexual abuse as a vital article. (I've never been to these pages before, so I don't know how it works; forgive me if this is misplaced or malformed.) 92.24.246.11 (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Subcultures

So a third of it is dominated by subcultures. Not sure if this is far inclusion. Might be worth splitting subcultures to their own section, including them under sociology is very arbitrary. In either way, I'd suggest:

• removal of Pickup artist (minor) Also higher level concepts missing that should be added here are dating, Courtship and Intimate relationship, but they are all vital 4 already. Shouldn't they be added here, or are they present at another Vital 5 subpage and I missed them?
• removal of Preppy - not well known outside US, where it is limited only to a part of the country
• removal of Riot grrrl and Straight edge - I think it's enough to keep Punk subculture
• why is Skinhead listed under youth subculture, unlike punks and such? Just a technical note it should be moved one level up in the listing
• removal of Greaser (subculture) - IMHO not as famous as hippie and others which are known internationally.
• removal of Mod (subculture) - ditto.
• to add: Otaku

Thoughts? Anyone feels we should vote on any of those? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Most of these are my additions, and I'm ok with them being trimmed. Otaku is already covered by Geek and Anime and manga fandom, and I would replace either one with it instead of adding it out right. --Makkool (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I think "pickup artist" should be moved to under sex-related topics. C933103 (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Dating, Courtship and Intimate relationship are listed in Everyday life. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Generations

I think we should add all entries from Template:Generations sidebar here. As far as I can tell neither is listed here, and those are big concepts (Millennials, Baby boomers, etc.). That's 7 articles. And Generation should be level 4 vital at least, I guess I'll go to V4 talk page and propose adding it there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I support adding the articles for specific generations. Sdkb (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Support from me as well. --Makkool (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Support --Thi (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the new Generation Alpha entry in the template is sufficiently vital yet.C933103 (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Remove United Microelectronics Corporation

Not insignificant, but having TSMC should be enough. Among semiconductor foundries, we don't list the slightly larger GlobalFoundries. feminist (talk) | free Hong Kong 14:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator. feminist (talk) | free Hong Kong 14:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove 3dfx Interactive, Creative Technology, NortonLifeLock, and Unisys

These are, simply put, among the least significant technology companies on the list. Creative Technology is a niche computer audio company and is IMO less significant than Realtek. As for NortonLifeLock, it's much preferable to make Antivirus software a good article rather than a specific software provider. feminist (talk) | free Hong Kong 14:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator. feminist (talk) | free Hong Kong 14:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
3. Support removal of these. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Any of them plays a vital role in history of computing. For instance, from 1996 to 1999 most people who played 3A PC games used Voodoo cards, whose chipsets were developed by 3dfx, and Glide, which was developed by that company, was a very popular 3D API then. Creative once developed the de facto audio card standard. And Unisys has been a major mainframe company.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose as reasons mentioned by others. C933103 (talk) 09:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

At least some of these have historical significance. 3dfx's article says it was a pioneer in the field (my understanding is that its Voodoo card popularised 3D acceleration), and Creative's SoundBlaster series likewise was massively important, "the de facto standard" in fact, for personal computers during the early nineties.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 06:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Swap Taobao for MercadoLibre

Considering that Taobao's parent Alibaba Group is already listed, we can have some geographical diversity among ecommerce retailers.

Support

1. As nominator. feminist (+) 09:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Trim the "Specific currency" list

I think the current list of 32 currencies is a bit too long and some of these aren't really that vital?

The current list:

1. Australian dollar
2. Bitcoin
3. Brazilian real
4. Canadian dollar
5. Danish krone
6. Euro (Level 4)
7. Hong Kong dollar
8. Indonesian rupiah
9. Israeli new shekel
10. Japanese yen (Level 4)
11. New Taiwan dollar
12. New Zealand dollar
13. Nigerian naira
14. Norwegian krone
15. Peso
    1. Mexican peso
    2. Philippine peso
16. Polish złoty
17. Pound sterling (Level 4)
18. Renminbi (Level 4)
19. Russian ruble
20. Rupee
    1. Indian rupee
21. Saudi riyal
22. Singapore dollar
23. South African rand
24. South Korean won
25. Swedish krona
26. Swiss franc
27. Turkish lira
28. United Arab Emirates dirham
29. United States dollar (Level 4)

My personal suggestion of trimmed list:

1. Australian dollar
2. Bitcoin
3. Brazilian real
4. CFA franc
5. Euro (Level 4)
6. Japanese yen (Level 4)
7. Nigerian naira
8. Mexican peso
9. Pound sterling (Level 4)
10. Renminbi (Level 4)
11. Russian ruble
12. Indian rupee
13. South African rand
14. Special drawing rights
15. Swiss franc
16. Turkish lira
17. United States dollar (Level 4)

Anyone are welcomed to vote for or against inclusion or exclusion of any currency into the list. C933103 (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I have went ahead and made the changes. Further changes are possible if someone have other opinions. C933103 (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I have added Canadian Dollar back after realizing it is fifth most traded currency in the world C933103 (talk) 08:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Add Union Pacific Railroad

The second largest US railroad today and one of great historical importance. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam

It is considered "High importance" by Wikipedia's Human Rights project. It is often at the centre of discussions on whether Islam's understanding of Human Rights is compatible with a Western understanding.

Support

1. As nom. --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
2. Though I've read the lede only, the article is no doubt vital at this level due to the fact that the declaration is widely acknowledged as an Islamic response to the UDHR.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Added.C933103 (talk) 09:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed

Prague Process, under International law, is a disambiguation page. Can someone who knows which Prague Process is intended please make this fix. Cheers! BD2412 T 06:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Add Buchanan v. Warley

Support

1. As nom. It is no doubt vital at this level because it prevented the Southern United States from implementing South African–style apartheid during the Progressive Era. according to David Bernstein and Ilya Somin, despite wide support among White Southerners [1] --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Fatah

Proposal to add Fatah to the "Political parties" subsection.

Support

1. Support as nominator --MarioGom (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

One of the most notable organizations in the Middle East, specially in the second half of 20th century. --MarioGom (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

How many languages and tribes should be included on the level 5?

In my opinion number of lanugages and tribes included to the level 5 (when language is level 1 article and tribe is level 4 article), could be veeeeeeeerrrrryyyyyy bigg. I would like point that we list Dolly Pentreath who is less notable than Cornish language. What do you guys think? Dawid2009 (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Remove mass media companies

These are not particularly significant in contrast to the cultural significance of the media franchises they own. I added them, but I feel that they are a magnitude less important than what we have under the Companies section.

Support removal

1. As nominator. feminist (talk) | free Hong Kong 14:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose removal

Discuss

• Note that those company entries have been moved into under the company section.C933103 (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Add Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

It as important as covid-19.--Here's 28 and did I make a mess? 04:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator.--Here's 28 and did I make a mess? 04:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Are you sure you want to have it despite coronavirus and COVID-19 are both listed already? C933103 (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

National flags: a can of POV worms

Isn't the category just the ultimate can of worms/Pandora's box? This category just seems hugely subjective, with a general over-layering of inherited notability, with more 'important' countries, by proxy, being considered to have more 'vital' flags. What was specifically avoided by having all countries ranked level 5 in Geography is instead being played out here. As soon as a category emerged for national flags, it was pretty obviously going to be a slippery slope to having every modern national flag put forward for entry, and with good reason. So what now? A handful of national flags are going to be level 5 and the rest level 6 ... ? I can see good reasons, for a neutrality perspective, to have all national flags at the same vitality rating, one way or another. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Plants, fungi, and other organisms

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Plants for the list of topics in this category.

Note that while I would rather both vital-3 articles and vital-4 articles of plants/fungi/etc. with scientific names be both bold and italicized for styling purposes, the bot will automatically update this every day so only vital-3 articles are bold and italicized, while vital-4 is always just bold. Furthermore, the bot will update the article names to their main name, e.g. I had "English yew" and the bot replaced with "Taxus baccata", which then was incorrectly not-italicized, nor alphabetical. LightProof1995 (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Crime articles discussion by SnowFire

It seems like the "voting" process is very underused here so I'm not sure it's worth having a vote when it's never going to attract 5 votes one way or the other... but... I question much of the "Crimes against international law" section. A lot of the items there are obscure topics that almost never come up - the crime of aggression is something that's essentially only been prosecuted once, after World War II. And of course the Nuremberg Trials are correctly VA5 (no complaints there!) but that was a one-off, and any future crimes of aggression that are actually prosecuted will almost certainly also be one-off events. Basically, it's not really a common thing to worry about. In the same way, specific instances of various bad stuff may well be VA5, but the legal crime to be hauled in front of the International Court of Justice may not be a VA5, because that just doesn't happen very often (aka Apartheid is a VA, crime of apartheid should not be really). I think Crime of aggression, Crime of apartheid, Crucifixion (really? as a crime?), Human branding (the stuff of cable TV), Brainwashing, and Mutilation can all go. Forced displacement, Enforced disappearance, Crimes against humanity, Sex trafficking, Wartime sexual violence, and War of aggression can stay. It'd free up space for other stuff. Thoughts? SnowFire (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Add Robert Rauschenberg

Exemplifies 50s assemblage, wildly influential for pop art.

Support

1. I am the nominator. 160.72.238.66 (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

2. Support - Rauschenberg is in many ways responsible for contemporary mixed media art, took painting into a three-dimensional direction much like Pollock, Sam Gilliam, and others --19h00s (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• Article is placed at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Artists, musicians, and composers#Visual artists. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Add Faith Ringgold

Among the most influential 20th century American painters, spearheaded the rise in contemporary African American quilting, widely recognized as one of the precursors to contemporary Black figurative art, widely acclaimed and collected by critics and major museums.

Support

1. I am the nominator. 19h00s (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• Article is placed at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Artists, musicians, and composers#Visual artists. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Add Olaf Scholz

Current chancellor of Germany, former vice-chancellor under Merkel and finance minister. The section for post-war Germany is embarrassingly short anyway and needs expansions beyond chancellors (like Hans-Dietrich Genscher, Franz Josef Strauss or Joschka Fischer. Ideally West Germany and Unified Germany should be combined, East Germany also needs to get represented (at a minimum Walter Ulbricht, Erich Honecker, Günter Schabowski and Erich Mielke). France has 14 entries, Russia 23, the UK a ridiculous 29, and Germany a combined 9. jonas (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Nominator. jonas (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

FWIW, East Germany is represented...it is listed under Eastern Europe, for rather obvious reasons. pbp 04:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Article is placed at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Politicians and leaders. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Remove Lucina da Costa Gomez-Matheeuws

I noticed Lucina da Costa Gomez-Matheeuws is listed as a Level 5 article. She was indeed the first prime minister of Netherlands Antilles, however it was ad interim and she only served as place holder for 10 days. The article is a stub and will most likely never be expanded to Start, because the overall notability is limited. I propose to remove her from the list.KittenKlub (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Nominator KittenKlub (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• Article is placed at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Politicians and leaders. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Add Efraïn Jonckheer

Founder of the Democratic Party which used to be the dominant party. Served as the second Prime Minister of the Netherlands Antilles. Served for 14 years and headed 4 cabinets. Continued his career as Minister Plenipotentiary and two ambassadorships for the Netherlands. Still record holder of number of years as head state in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. KittenKlub (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Nominator KittenKlub (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• Article is placed at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Politicians and leaders. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Add Betico Croes

Aruban political activist who led the movement for autonomy of Aruba. He is revered is Aruba and called "Libertador" (Liberator). KittenKlub (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Nominator KittenKlub (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• Article is placed at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Politicians and leaders. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Replace Lady Godiva with Constance Markievicz

Lady Godiva is a slightly shadowy figure. If people are concerned about reducing the number of women then I suggest including Constance Markievicz, the first woman to be elected to the UK House of Commons, who fought in the Irish Easter Rising. PatGallacher (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Article is placed at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Military personnel, revolutionaries, and activists#Rebels, revolutionaries and activists. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Add Immanuel Velikovsky

Add him to pseudoscientists, love him or loathe him he is a significant figure in the history of pseudoscience, probably more significant than some others in this section. PatGallacher (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Discuss

• Article is in Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Miscellaneous. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Move Coat of Arms and National Flag from Politic and economic

Vexillology and Heraldry are both in the history section. Coat of Arms and National Flag are both clearly subsets of these topics, and should be moved to be nested under them. This will improve standardization and navigation, and eliminate the clunky "Heraldry and Vexillology" section from the Warfare header. Fritzmann (message me) 17:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Articles are in Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#Auxiliary sciences of history. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• I disagree with the removal of Flags and coat of arms. It was in fact against consensus, fairly there were at least eight users (along with me) who supported (some of) Coat of Arms and Flags at this level ([2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8]), very few who supported drastic cut and no one who supported Flag of USA or Flag of China without discussion. It is nothing like WP:OWN by few people who never did anything in that projet earlier for six years (in contrast to others who were analysing all levels 5-1 with 50'000-10 articles for years). Slower process with !voting should be approciate: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5 clearly state Mass deletes of articles should always be preceded by discussion. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: Wow! I was not expecting such a heated response. If you read my proposal, I am not suggesting that we remove National Flags or Coat of Arms, merely move them to a more fitting section. Additionally, I'm not sure why you're bringing up !voting like I'm trying to subvert any processes; I specifically came here in order to generate discussion. If you're hoping to grow the number of people interested in the vital lists rather than cultivating an exclusive club of a select handful of people, I don't feel like this kind of response will achieve that goal. I think it might be a better use of my time creating content than arguing about its importance here. Fritzmann (message me) 00:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fritzmann2002: I specifically came here in order to generate discussion - I did not directed that my above message to you (I already, corrected my technial mistake and I am sorry for that error, misunderstanding). I directed that to few users who wrongly decided about mass removals of national flags and coat of arms, yet archived all those previous discussions. In light of your point I do not have any problem to move vexillology and heraldry into history section but non-collaborative was decidion of other 1-2 users who removed all CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)400 flags and coat of arms despite fact at least eight users supported flags and coat of arms and there were even compromisal proposals to remove most instead all of them, not mention to fact we are well under quota at history section (thought not in society where coat of arms and flags were putted previously). Dawid2009 (talk) 12:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC), Dawid2009 (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Note that, Union Jack is still listed as a vital articles, hence not all flags are removed, just that "Flags of [Countries X]" are all removed due to lack of significance of them merely being flag of some significant countries. By the same principle, I think articles like Star and crescent, Hammer and sickle, and White flag can be included like this and are of much higher symbolic value than just individual countries' flag. C933103 (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

If so some of the national flags which were removed should be readded to history sectio as soon a possible. It is not my idea there are just TWO users who have agreed eah other that every single national flag except JAck Union should be removed and it is nit my idea there are at least eight users who support presene of national flags (I already showed diffs above), now you collaborate against consensus or too fastly try force your own consenuus when clearly there was not enough discussion about it. FWIHW almost every random flag of country which is listed at the level 3 has more pageviews than White Flag which you support here. Multiple flag which have been removed gets several times more pageviews than all those flags put together which you now support keeping here!! This whole process is ridiculous against WP:Carefull and almost WP:Own. I was participant of VA for over 5 years. Now I feel it was waste of time when I see new users who wanto to own this page. I added all national flags and coat of arms here, I suggested compromise to readd at least 10% of them when all of them were removed but you still argue that every single flag should be removed, even Flag of USA which had 15 mln views for last few years, you support White Flag despite fat there are many National Flags with more views and pagewatchers who people care about. You do not accept any compromie and are not opened for discussion. I do not know what to say and I am disapointed.... Especially that even after readding 10% of national flags you still could nominate them more properly for removal and we are so much under quota at hitory section. Cheers. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, "popular" and "more people read this" doesn't mean those articles can, or even capable of, reaching Featured Article status, which is the list's goal. I frequently visit national flag articles, but mostly just for reference of their color HEX codes and such, which isn't really something appropriate for the purpose of improving the article itself into an Featured Article. Most national flags also didn't have much to write about to warrant enough material for their article becoming an FA, even with best effort to gather data about them, in contrast, unlike for example white flag.

I am not necessarily against re-addition of stars and stripe or other notable national flags, but not for a blanket argument of "This is a flag of a populous nation and many people read its page so it's significant". The flag itself must also be *vital* #in its own weight#, not merely by association of being connected to a powerful/large country. Else it would be like adding Top 100 page view wikipedia article each year into the list, which mostly consists of popular culture artists. C933103 (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I have readded some ntional flags per Mass deletes of articles should always be preceded by discussion. Additions AND removals to sections that are complete or nearly complete should be discussed. Sections that are at 98% or more of their capacity have been tagged as "complete" below. at the leaad. We are way under quota at history section. You are talking about Top 100 page view wikipedia article each year what is straw man and you do not know what to say. National flags are common for centuries in print sources, as somethign important for identity of plenty people around the world, unlike other recognisable/popular things. We coudl as well say that adding National Flag of USA is like adding Wikipedia:Articles with the most references because of W:VA/L5 constain 50 000 articles, meanwhile only CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)580 articles have more than 400 references (most of them are not based on print sources because of not every book is findable on the Interent), 580 is 0.008934% of all articles on English Wikipedia so I am pretty sure it is difficult to find well sourced like Flag of UFA (173 references) if 99.991065% has less than 580. Anyway I not only readded national flags to section where we are uner quota. I also made nominations for removal those flags even thougj I strongly oppose that itself. Plese, wait properly at leat 90 dahys what other people think, instead again revert me. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

1. This list is not meant to be a list of best article in the Wikipedia now. It is meant to be a list of article that should become best in Wikipedia.
2. This amount of reference being used in such an article seems to indicate the phenomenon of over-citation.
3. Popularity =\= worthy of inclusion, else we are gonna have many movies and pop stars and music and sports and politican articles than what we currently have.
4. Can you at least remove duplicated entries like doubling of "coat of arms" and "Union Jack" and such after the addition C933103 (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Can you at least remove duplicated entries like doubling of "coat of arms" and "Union Jack" and such after the addition -Ok, I already did that here Dawid2009 (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Vexillology is a pretty obscure terms, and frankly, coats of arms are historiucal trivia. I'd support keeping national flag - weakly - and removing the other terms, including heraldy (more historical trivia). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Replace Normandy landings with Operation Overlord

The Landings covers just the 6th June (D-day). Overlord is both the landings and the subsequent followup and the battles that establish the Western Allies foothold in Europe and start the German retreat from occupied France. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Support

Oppose

'Discuss

• Article is in Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#20th century. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Add Iran-Contra affair

A major scandal that happened during the Reagan administration, almost got Reagan impeached. Vortex4020 (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Article is in Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#20th century. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.Vortex4020 (talk) 03:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Add Siege of Mariupol

• Article is in Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#21st century. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Support, as nominator. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Help requested: Can you explain to everyone what a "Level 5 Vital History Article" is? 90% of editors probably have no idea what that means.

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 12:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I was the first to propose this promotion. A "Level 5 Vital Article" is one that is somewhat important to a branch of knowledge. Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Support

This topic received a lot of coverage from the Associated Press and many other very reliable sources. Also, notability is NOT temporary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Add Hawaiʻi Volcanoes National Park

A World Heritage Site that's home to two other vital articles Kīlauea and Mauna Loa easily as important as other parks on the list like Mount Rainier National Park and Tweedsmuir South Provincial Park Tai123.123 (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. Tai123.123 (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• Article is placed at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Physical. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Add Tanjung Selor, Mamuju, Gorontalo, Pangkal Pinang, Tanjung Pinang, Manokwari, Banjarbaru and Sofifi

• Tanjung Selor: provincial capital of North Kalimantan, both de facto and de jure.
• Mamuju: provincial capital of West Sulawesi, both de facto and de jure.
• Gorontalo: Biggest city and capital of Gorontalo province, both de facto and de jure.
• Pangkal Pinang: Biggest city and capital of Bangka Belitung Islands province, both de facto and de jure.
• Tanjung Pinang: Capital city of Riau Islands province
• Manokwari: Provincial capital of West Papua province, both de facto and de jure.
• Banjarbaru: De facto seat of South Kalimantan governor
• Sofifi: De facto & de jure provincial capital of North Maluku

Majority of biggest cities in province & provincial capitals are vital articles, I dont see any reason why some provincial capital dont get the same status. If suggested to remove some cities in exchange, i propose remove Kediri, Cilegon, Cimahi, Pekalongan, Probolinggo, Sukabumi and Tegal. Some sure are big cities, but provincial capital are more notable politically even if it's smaller, and some of these are just random Javanese cities that are relatively small and less relevant than their respective provincial capital. Nyanardsan (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom Nyanardsan (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Support swapping all except Sofifi. The city is newly developed only for administrative capital purposes and does not have any importance besides that. Besides that point, I like this proposal as it makes the list less Java-centric. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose the notion "provincial capital are more notable politically even if it's smaller"C933103 (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

   Apologies but just to clarify, do you support the addition of those cities itself or not?

   I think you got wrong impression on this proposal. My main argument is many main cities of many provinces in Indonesia dont have themselves registered as vital article while secondary and tertiary cities in Java that are particularly less notable (they are neither seat of governor nor economic center of their respective provinces) are included. Nyanardsan (talk) 10:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

• Article is placed at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Cities. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Add Marimba

The marimba is currently one of the most popular soloistic percussion instruments, only rivaled by the drumset, snare drum, and timpani. It is an important part of Latin American, African, and modern Japanese music, and is an integral part of academic percussion studies and percussion ensembles.[9][10][11] I don't know what musical instrument would need to be removed (perhaps the dhol, which really should be swapped with the tabla anyway), but the marimba definitely needs to be added no matter what. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. [nom]
2. Support --Thi (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• Article is placed at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts#Music. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Remove Bass violin

The bass violin was a Baroque era instrument that remains relatively rare. As simply the ancestor to the cello, a Level 4 vital article, I doubt it needs a place on this list. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Discuss

• Article is placed at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts#Music. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal on removing most of the olympic games from the list

In general, most olympic games in themselves are not really *that* notable, just a few weeks of global competition events, and have limited consequences outside those few weeks, with a few exceptions.

In addition, the sports category is now 15+% over quota, with the current 56 in the list taken up ~12% of the quota.

Furthermore, the Olympics now take up 56 out of 64 articles of all sports international competition. Which I think is greatly distorted representation and too out of proportion (Although there are also some other international competitions listed under other categories).

Hence I suggest removing all 31 Summer Olympic events and 25 Winter Olympic events, except 1896 Athens, 1936 Berlin, 1980 Moscow, for their historical values.

Separately, I would suggest adding Tank biathlon as a motorized sports, Futsal as an indoor sports, Military sports as a type of sport participated by military personnel, Military World Games as a sport competition among them, and Mind Sports Olympiad as a mind sport competition, into the list, after relieving the quota a bit by the removals. C933103 (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Articles are placed at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life/Sports, games and recreation. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Why are the two events listed more significant than any one Olympic Games? pbp 23:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  They have continuous notability among their respective field, unlike each individual Olympics which are often held and forgot C933103 (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  Olympic Games "often forgot"? Really? I don't think that's a supportable claim... pbp 02:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  What do a random people, let say you, remember specifically about, e.g., 1976 Olympics? C933103 (talk) 08:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  That it cost lots and lots of money, threatened the solvency of Montreal, Quebec and Canada, and influenced the next generation of Olympic bids. pbp 00:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  The first two clauses seem generally true for most Olympics nowadays, and the last part is only notable to Olympics itself. C933103 (talk) 09:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Olympic games should not automatically be notable, but certain ones can still be notable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed, and my suggested list of notable Olympics to be retained are: 1896 Athens, 1936 Berlin, 1980 Moscow. C933103 (talk) 09:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Swap: reorganisation of dogs

Following on from a level 4 proposal, I propose to reorganise the dog varieties listed at Dogs (59 articles), the individual dogs listed at Dogs (9 articles) and the canines listed at Canines (20 articles).

• First I propose to reduce the dog breeds and types listed at Dogs (59 articles), reducing that list to 33 entries. As with the level 4 proposal, the purpose of this reorganisation is to remove the dog breeds and instead focus on dog types that the breeds and varieties fall within. I propose the list be:

1. Free-ranging dog
   1. African village dog
   2. Pye-dog
   3. Street dog
2. Gun dog (Level 4)
   1. Pointing dog
   2. Retriever
   3. Setter
   4. Spaniel
   5. Water dog
3. Herding dog (Level 4)
   1. Collie
4. Hound (Level 4)
   1. Scent hound
      1. Basset
      2. Coonhound
      3. Foxhound
   2. Sighthound
      1. Greyhound → the only breed retained, given there is a significant industry attached to them
5. Livestock guardian dog (Level 4)
6. Mastiff (Level 4)
   1. Bulldog type
7. Mongrel
   1. Dog crossbreed
8. Spitz (Level 4)
   1. Husky
   2. Laika (dog type)
9. Terrier (Level 4)
   1. Bull-type terriers
   2. Fell Terrier
   3. Fox terrier
10. Toy dog
    1. Bichon

• Then I propose to drastically cut the number of individual dogs listed at Dogs (9 articles) to one, being:

1. Laika → the only dog listed with globally significant (if tragic) achievements

• Finally I propose to increase the number of canines listed at Canines (20 articles) to 34 to include several species, a couple of hybrids and one genus (Canis) currently omitted. I propose the list be:

1. African wild dog
2. African wolf
3. Bat-eared fox
4. Bush dog
5. Canidae (Level 4)
6. Caninae
7. Canis
8. Coyote (Level 4)
9. Coywolf
10. Dhole
11. Dire wolf
12. Dog (Level 3)
13. Dingo (Level 4)
14. Ethiopian wolf
15. Falkland Islands wolf
16. Fox (Level 4)
    1. Crab-eating fox
    2. Gray fox
    3. South American fox
    4. Vulpes
       1. Arctic fox
       2. Fennec fox
       3. Red fox
17. Jackal (Level 4)
    1. Black-backed jackal
    2. Golden jackal
    3. Side-striped jackal
18. Maned wolf
19. Raccoon dog
20. Red wolf
21. Short-eared dog
22. South American fox
23. Wolf (Level 4)
24. Wolfdog

These changes will reduce the overall number of dog articles listed from 88 to 68. Pinging participants in the level 4 discussion: @Thi, William Harris, Atsme, SMcCandlish, Rreagan007, and DaGizza:.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cavalryman (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC).
2. Support. However, I've several amendments to the list to give :
3. Support with changes:
   • - Keep Balto, Hachikō and Rin Tin Tin with Laika, for now, waiting for an opportunity to put the Individual animals in another section (Most of them have little to do in a zoological section anyway, except maybe Lonesome George) ;
   • - Change the Nyctereutes link to Common raccoon dog (it's the most frequented article) ;
   • - Remove Coywolf from the list (there's good chances Red wolves are actually coywolves, hence it would be redundant with an expansion of the Red wolf article) ;
   • - Keep the newly added foxes and jackals relatively few, particularly if they are obscure species (I don't have any particular thoughts on the choice here, except maybe on the Crab-eating fox and Side-striped jackal ;
   • - Remove Caninae from the list (it's redundant with Canidae, as it involves all existing species of canids ;
   • - Add in Other carnivora Bear dog ;
   • - Remove the redundant South American fox (You put it twice). Larrayal (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
4. Support as proposed. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
5. Support with changes: I can agree with most if not all of what Larrayal said, and would also remove Wolfdog along with Coywolf (and note that we don't include Coydog). We don't need articles on random hybrids being listed as globally significant articles. I would also add Poodle as a dog sub-type, like Bichon and Collie; there are probably several others of this sort to add: classifications that are groups/types of breeds, not individual breeds. I agree that bio articles on individual dogs aren't really zoology subjects, but whether to do something about that probably depends on whether individual gorillas, cats, horses, etc., etc. are also classified in this system under zoology.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

On that topic, I'm about to propose (when the canid rework will be finished) to displace them to their own fields (hence historically significant animals such as Laika in the History section, sport animals in the Sport section, actor animals in the Movie or the Actor section, and memes and the like in the Sociology section), but I'm waiting for this canid discussion to be finished first. For now, they should be kept at a minimum (preferably, below 40-50) and envisaged as something that will soon be displaced to other sections. It's still a long way to go, we still need the sociology rework to remove the universities and the coats of arm for it to go correctly, hopefully it will be done relatively soon. I should have removed them myself this summer when I was doing massive edits on the list, but I was a bit afraid of the backlash for such an unilateral decision. Now is probably the time. Larrayal (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

1. Support', but if there is one breed not mention that I would like kept it would be German shepherd. German shepherds are the most commonly used dog in K9 units and perform a wide variety of tasks in the military, feature heavily in cinema, are one of the most intelligent breeds, and have strong ties to Germany's national image in the first half of the 20th century. I think it warrants inclusion at least as much as Greyhound. Fritzmann (message me) 17:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• Articles are placed at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Animals. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Pi Puppis

I suggest replacing this little-studied star in the list with the more interesting Zeta Puppis. Praemonitus (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC) Article is placed at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Astronomy. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Remove Magnetic ring spinning

I am not familiar with this but the article description doesn't make it seems like vital. C933103 (talk) 09:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom C933103 (talk) 09:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
2. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

It appears that this is already removed and I did not read the list before voting. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Article is placed at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Industry. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The "Specific transportation systems" section is far too biased towards mass transit systems

We have 65 rapid transit articles, 21 articles on other railways (and 14 of those are on high-speed rail, so more bias), and a mere seven non-rail articles. While admittedly we have a few more articles on transport companies in Society and social sciences/Politic and economic, this is still a parlous state of affairs. One problem however is that when I think of more deserving candidate I'm generally thinking of historically important things like First transcontinental railroad and Liverpool and Manchester Railway - where do they go? The rapid transit section definitely needs trimming though, and at the very least some North American rail operators added to the transport companies section. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Eldomtom: Agreed. I propose cutting rapid transit to 32 articles. I kept TransJakarta because it's the only bus rapid transit listed.

Africa (1 article)

1. Cairo Metro

Americas (5 articles)

1. Mexico City Metro
2. São Paulo Metro
3. Toronto subway
4. Chicago "L"
5. New York City Subway (Level 4)

Asia (14 articles)

1. TransJakarta
2. Mass Rapid Transit
3. Taipei Metro
4. Beijing Subway
5. Chongqing Rail Transit
6. Guangzhou Metro
7. MTR
8. Shanghai Metro
9. Shenzhen Metro
10. Delhi Metro
11. Osaka Metro
12. Tokyo Metropolitan Bureau of Transportation
13. Tokyo Metro
14. Seoul Metropolitan Subway

Europe (12 articles)

1. Istanbul Metro
2. Kyiv Metro
3. Vienna U-Bahn
4. Paris Métro
5. Berlin U-Bahn
6. Milan Metro
7. Moscow Metro
8. Copenhagen Metro
9. Stockholm metro
10. Barcelona Metro
11. Madrid Metro
12. London Underground (Level 4)

First transcontinental railroad and Liverpool and Manchester Railway should probably go under Railway lines. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Articles are placed at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Transportation. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Five British removals

As noted above, there's a postwar bloat of British politicians. There's long been a consensus in favor of all monarchs and PMs, so I'm proposing removing four non-monarchs and non-PMs.

• These articles are placed at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Politicians and leaders. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Remove Mark Drakeford

Never was PM and I'm not seeing anything significant enough to warrant inclusion on this list. We don't typically list First Ministers of Wales and Scotland pbp 05:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

1. pbp 05:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
2. Support. Curbon7 (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Remove Alex Salmond

Never was PM and I'm not seeing anything significant enough to warrant inclusion on this list. We don't typically list First Ministers of Wales and Scotland pbp 05:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

1. pbp 05:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

1. Oppose Not saying every Scottish First Minister should be on this list, but he is a fairly important figure. Maybe we should add Nicola Sturgeon as well. PatGallacher (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
2. Oppose Salmond was a significant enough figure to be left in for now. Curbon7 (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Remove Keir Starmer

Would be notable if he became PM but oppo leader generally isn't notable enough. pbp 05:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

1. pbp 05:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
2. Support Not yet significant enough in this position. Curbon7 (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

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

---

Remove Prince George of Cambridge

We have QE2 and six of her family who never were monarch. His grandfather, grandmother and father all are listed. Potentially notable when he becomes Prince of Wales but that won't happen until Charles dies. pbp 05:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

1. pbp 05:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Support I agree. PatGallacher (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex

We have QE2 and six of her family who never were monarches. His father, mother, and brother all are listed. Unlikely to ever become monarch or Prince of Wales. pbp 05:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

1. pbp 05:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Support I agree. PatGallacher (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Support - does not seem 'vital' in any way beyond a very narrow and Eurocentric perspective. Kazamzam (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2022 (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.

Omission of Arizona State University

Was looking at the Culture/Education subsection and quite surprised not to see it here. Even if I'm an ASU product, one would think one of the largest universities in the United States would be here. (University of Central Florida might also make sense...) Bringing it up here as the section is generally over quota. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

If any edit is to be made to that section, it will be to remove universities, and not to add new ones. Larrayal (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Target Count is at 50050 -- Which 50 do we take away?

My vote is for History to go from 3,300 to 3,250 as an easy solution, as History is currently at 3,092 so we wouldn't have to decide to take anything away, but also there are already a lot of History articles so it doesn't feel like we're reducing the count of a category that's harder to write about and therefore not attracting as many general editors, but I'm open to thoughts/discussion. We should try to have a consensus of 5+ votes & 66.7%+ consensus after 15+ days. LightProof1995 (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Basics and Measurements, from 400 to 350, and remove the "science and technology in country" stuff. Their subject is far too wide and a bit off-topic to warrant a place there ; it's basically an history of science section, a section far longer and far better suited in the History section. I'll have the history section filled up this week if needed. Post-classic and Early modern history might need a few more articles. Larrayal (talk) 03:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, "science in countries" does seem to be quite a bad set of low quality, ego-swinging articles for a select group of smug countries. Worth letting go. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree we can take those 14 "science of countries" articles out. That would leave us with 349, but looking through that category just now, I came up with 3 I would add, so I don't recommend we reduce it from 400 to 350. Maybe 25 from Basics and Measurement, and 25 from another category? Also if anyone disapproves of me removing the "science of countries" articles from the list, speak up here in the next several days, haha LightProof1995 (talk) 05:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The "Science in technology and countries" articles have been removed and the count of "Basics and Measurement" reduced from 400 to 375. LightProof1995 (talk) 06:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Sports swap: Remove Robert Parish, add Nikola Jokic

Nikola Jokic has two MVPs and Robert Parish has none. Robert Parish holds the record for most NBA games but there's no other rationale for having him on the list; he's not a Top 10 center ever or even close. pbp 03:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Support

pbp 03:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

60 redirects, 8 dabs

Hi WP:VA. FYI, I've come across 60 redirect pages and 8 disambiguation pages among VA5 articles. The 8 dabs are: End time, Yamagata, Gulistan, Controller (computing), Planter, Egyptian law, Hailufeng, and Niacin. The 60 redirects are listed at PagePile 44570. Thought you'd like to know. Cheers, Levivich 19:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Great Biology Section clean-up

I wholeheartedly agree with the new change, removing that god-awful header system for good. Please debate it if you want to put it up again, and do not restore the old version, it's so much easier to see everything like this. Now that I'm sure that this post will not be buried into this crappy system that nobody uses anymore once again, I've recently got some feedback from the Paleobiology community for the Biology list. As everyone knows, I've overviewed this list filling exactly last year. There's a few important reforms to do with it.

• First off, removing most of the Individual animals articles, and sending the rest to the relevant sections. As such, if the Sport section wants to keep individual racing horses or bucking bulls, it will have to make place for them. Same goes for the art and/or actor section for animal actors, if they are really relevant. A few chosen historically-relevant individual animals will be sent to the still unfilled History section, in relevant subsections : Balto, Laika, Bucephalus, Marengo. Lonesome George will be kept in the turtle section. Additionally, what aren't good reason to be on this list : being a meme, being a giant panda, being a specific university sports team mascot, being "the greatest North American show cow of all time", killing a bunch of spanish people and somehow getting away with it, being Hitler's pet, or being executed.
• Secondly, move every 420 articles about fossil genera and evolutions from the Zoology section to the Biology section. This point might be more controversial. Move all fossil plant taxa there as well. Fossil hominids are already here, and it would save some space for an apparently necessary review of the Zoology and Paleontology section. This will probably depend on estimations about the level of completeness of both Anatomy and morphology subsections. The paleontology section would probably have a hard cap of 600 articles.
• Thirdly, reopen those sections to edit without prior discussions for a short time (approximately between two weeks and a month), as various editors have expressed reserves about the choices that were made, which could be resolved by facilitating those sections edition, by temporarily removing the excruciating votes that nobody takes part in anymore.

Larrayal (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, especially with the "no votes" part. I tried to propose it in the past but got so much friction at something that should be obviously apparent. Consensus is far better than votes. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

BOLD removal of section headers

Let me go on record that I oppose removal the BOLD removal of section headers by Crane and Dawid. It should have been discussed first and a consensus reached. pbp 03:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Support removal

1. Support removal. Those sections are extremely difficult to read and understand, they massively clutter the page, the discussions taking place on it tends to get extremely quickly buried, there is not enough activity to warrant organizing it like that, it is way more easy to read the page and to understand what the latest message are, it discouraged people from proposing editions due to lack of visibility and readability whose consequence was that discussions stalled for months, the use of WP:BOLD here being justified by the incredibly low activity on the wikiproject partly caused by the section headers. I want to see what is the latest discussion ongoing at first glance. Nobody was using them anyway anymore. Overall, a pretty good thing. Larrayal (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
2. Obvious. Disclaimer: I'm the one who initiated removing these headers. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose removal

pbp 03:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Remove Heraldry

Suggested for removal by @Piotrus: below. I disagree. Heraldry has less language versions than Vexillology anyway. On that basic I think we should have even at least two specific National Cot of Arms (For example Great Seal of the United States or Coat of Arms of China)

Support

Oppose

Strong Oppose— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] •

• Oppose pbp 15:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for the Heraldry article, not necessarily for the coat of arms, as they are numerous and quite niche. Larrayal (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

[[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Discuss

• Article is in Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#Auxiliary sciences of history. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Replace Domnall mac Ailpín, Constantine III of Scotland, Macbeth, King of Scotland and Margaret, Maid of Norway with Malcolm III of Scotland, William the Lion, Alexander II of Scotland and Alexander III of Scotland

The current choice of Scottish monarchs prior to the Wars of Independence seems strange. Kenneth MacAlpin and David I of Scotland are OK, but the others are rather obscure or minor figures. I suggest four more important alternatives (although this might be a way of reducing the number of biographies). PatGallacher (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Discuss

Suggestions for additions to Eukaryote section

We in the lichen task force would like to suggest some possible lichen-based additions for the Eukaryote section. Lecanorales is the largest order of lichenized fungi, with more than 5500 species. Parmeliaceae is the largest family with more than 2700 species in 71 genera. Usnea is probably the genus of lichens most often noticed by non-lichenologists. And several individual species might be worth including: Evernia prunastri (aka Oak Moss) which once was used to powder wigs and is now widely used both by the perfume industry and for pollution monitoring; Lobaria pulmonaria, also used both in pollution monitoring and medically; Pseudevernia furfuracea, once used to stuff the body cavities of mummies and in various medical treatments; Cladonia rangiferina (aka Reindeer Moss), principal forage for reindeer herds, and a key species in the alpine tundra; and Cetraria islandica, which used as a food source in the past. MeegsC (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to add anything yourself on the Eukaryote section, the plant and fungi section is still at roughly 500 entries from being completed, so any help on filling these would be more, more than welcome. Entries don't have to be discussed until 95% of the sections have been filled. Larrayal (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I've done so! MeegsC (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Increase Mathematics count by 25 or 50

And add Metric tensor, Differentiable manifold, Lie group, Algebraic structure, Mathematical structure, Map (mathematics)

I remember someone on here said they felt the Math section was lacking some more general ideas -- I think these three articles may be some of them.

Support increase in count and/or all additions:

1. As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Support specific additions:

Oppose additions:

Discussion:

We already took out 25 from Basics and Measurement, and brought the count from 50,050 to 50,025. We could increase the count back to 50,050, but I'd rather try to gain consensus on how to both increase the Math count but also to decrease some other sections so the total is 50,000. Since there are already over 50,025 Math articles, to add these we'd actually need to increase the count by 50. LightProof1995 (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Note: I have added 50 to the Mathematics count by taking 100 from the Biology and Anatomy and Physiology section (as it was farthest from target), and distributing the remaining 25 to Culture (since it is so over), making the target count now 50,000. If anyone opposes this count swap or has alternate suggestions please speak up here. I've also added the above additions. LightProof1995 (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

remove Top Gun, The Figurine, Universal Classic Monsters, Marvel Cinematic Universe, Grease (film), The Adventures of Prince Achmed, Breakfast at Tiffany's (film)

These movies are not vital and many great movies can be replaced. Mehdi7njr (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

- Audrey Hepburn's role as Holly Golightly in Breakfast at Tiffany's is considered one of the most iconic images of 20th century American cinema; the film has been preserved in the National Film Registry.

- The Adventures of Prince Achmed is the oldest surviving animated feature film in the world.

-Top Gun, also added to the National Film Registry, the highest grossing domestic movie of 1986, soundtrack is one of the most popular film soundtracks to date and has been certified platinum nine times.

-Grease was the highest-grossing musical film ever at its release, best-selling soundtrack, preserved in the NFR, etc.

I could go on. What are you basing this argument on? Kazamzam (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Without suggestions to replace these with I don't see a point in removal.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 15:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Although, since films are 1 over quota (201 of 200), we can potentially remove one film without need for replacement.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 15:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Wild Strawberries (film), Cinema Paradiso, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Aliens (film), Stalker (1979 film), Forrest Gump, Late Spring, The Leopard (1963 film), Come and See

personally i think these movies are more important and essential and should be replaced. do you think any film in the National Film Registry Should be here? Mehdi7njr (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't, but you're not making any argument to remove these films and add others beyond 'well I think these are more important and better'. That does not pass muster. Make an argument based on the merits, or lack thereof, of the films and we can find consensus on what to keep/remove/add. Kazamzam (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• For good or ill, the MCU needs to be retained. pbp 18:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• I agree, re: the MCU. It is much bigger than any one film. BD2412 T 19:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose all far better choices to remove in order to meet the quota. Curbon7 (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose except Terminator II. If we want to get that section done with the easiest is to just remove it, since The Terminator is already in the Vitals. Larrayal (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Remove Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves, Catherine Howard and Catherine Parr

This list is biased in favour of royals who are of romantic rather than real historical importance, but including all six of Henry VIII's wives strikes me as a blatant example. The first two, as the most important, might just about pass muster. PatGallacher (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Article is placed at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Politicians and leaders. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

You, if you hadn't removed the section headers, you wouldn't have to place these notices... pbp 15:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• Cleaves and Howard are easy drops IMO. Parr probably as well. Seymour you can take or leave. Aragon and Boleyn should stay. pbp 14:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• I entirely agree with this. Larrayal (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support, but keep Boleyn and Aragorn. Curbon7 (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
  • This proposal appears to have been carried. PatGallacher (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

"Eukaryotes"

The labeling of the "Eucaryotes" section is a bit of a nonsense. All plants are eukaryotes. So is nearly everything else on this list (fungi, lichens, algae, etc.) except for the Prokaryotes article and the tiny handful of things listed under "Archaea" and "Bacteria". Perhaps "OTHER Eukaryotes", with the Prokaryotes (Bacteria and Archaea) listed separately as such? MeegsC (talk) 07:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, you can modify the labeling of the sections and the numbers of sections yourself as much as you please, I don't think anyone will have to say to anything done to the section, specially if it makes them actually more accurate. Larrayal (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Add Yuzuru Hanyu to figure skaters

• First male single skater to have completed the career Super Slam, having won all major senior and junior titles, and also the first in 66 years to win back-to-back Olympic titles.
• Youngest and first ever winter sports athlete to receive the People's Honor Award by the Prime Minister of Japan, and the first figure skater across all disciplines to be nominated for a Laureus Sports Award, listed at ESPN 100, and winning in the category Most valuable skater of the year at the inaugural ISU Awards by the International Skating Union.
• Most-talked athlete across all sports at the 2018 Pyeongchang Olympics by twitter's database, and widely regarded by analysts as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, figure skater in history.

His biography page should definitely be elevated to Level 5 of vital 'figure skater' articles at least, but it may also satisfy criteria of Level 4 at this point, considering his worldwide popularity (almost popstar-like status in East Asia), large impact on sports journalism in Japan, and presence on the Olympic Channel, especially over the last 4-5 years. Henni147 (talk) 09:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Support - Yuzuru Hanyu is definitely one of the best figure skaters in history and easily merits Level 4, if not Level 5. That his page is already at GA is a big plus. Kazamzam (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Add Combat

I propose we add the Combat article to the Politics and economics section.

Support:

1. As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 03:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose:

Discussion: EDIT: I added this to Interpersonal relations so it wouldn't be over quota. I felt it was a better match for it anyway, as "combat" doesn't necessarily mean "war." Combat could be between siblings... LightProof1995 (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Remove systolic geometry from Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics

I'm not sure how systolic geometry ended up on this list--as a fan of this topic, I can admit that it's fairly narrow and obscure. There are much larger and more productive research areas in geometry and topology that are not currently on the list, such as geometric group theory and symplectic geometry. --platypeanArchcow (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I Support both the removal and the additions

EDIT: See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_8#Mathematics_%22vital%22_articles%21%3F and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_10#Increase_Mathematics_count_by_25_or_50

I think based on these discussions we probably just need to increase the Math count by at least another 100. PlaypeanArchcow and 67.198.37.16, if I increased the count by another 100 (or another number you two can propose/estimate), do you two think you could fill it up to the point where systolic geometry would belong? Maybe we can start with 50 and see how it goes? LightProof1995 (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC) LightProof1995 (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Remove "Internet in countries" from technology section

The "Science and technology in counturies" section that recently agreed to remove from the science: basic and measurement list was moved there from the Technology list. On the technology list there are still some articles that in my opinion are less vital than "science and technology in countries", with example being "internet in countries". Thus I propose removing the even less vital "Internet in countries" articles from the technology vital article list. C933103 (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with that. Larrayal (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Me too LightProof1995 (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks like C933103 did this for us, and I confirmed the Vital tags have been removed from the talk pages too. Thanks C933103! LightProof1995 (talk) 06:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Add Consumer

I propose we add the basic economic concept of a Consumer to the Politics and economics section.

Support:

1. As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
2. We're a bit over-quota for Politics and economics, but I think this is what we would generally consider to be vital. Curbon7 (talk) 05:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose:

Discussion:

Add Liz Truss

Since we already have all British prime ministers since way back, it seems logical to add her. PatGallacher (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Support:

1. As nom. PatGallacher (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
2. pbp 23:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
3. Every time Britain has a new PM, news media on earth cover him non-trivially.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Too soon for now but maybe in the future. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
   • How soon is too soon? Canning only lasted 4 months, Goderich only lasted 5 months. PatGallacher (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

     My vote here is not a comment on those twos inclusion. If they did something extremely significant in that short period then they might still be worth including, but if not then we could take them out. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

     • She's already presided over the death and funeral of a monarch pbp 23:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

2. Oppose. She had a half-life as a PM, none of her policies are gonna stay, and this isn't the list of the most calamitous politicians. There's hundred of more relevant figures we should focus on instead. And I wouldn't be stranger to removing Addington or Goderich if there was consensus that their mandate weren't consequential enough to warrant an inclusion too. Larrayal (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
3. Oppose. She's gone now, what else? —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 07:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
4. Oppose, flash in the pan, now. Hyperbolick (talk) 11:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Discuss:

• Comment: At this rate she'll be gone in a few months. I'm treating the current term more like an unfortunate interregnum. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Quite possibly, but we still have some short-lasting PMs from a while back, e.g. Addington, Goderich. PatGallacher (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oddly prescient, @Iskandar323: pbp 20:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• I suggest we now add Rishi Sunak. PatGallacher (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

remove Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson

Not vital just as O. J. Simpson who is already on the list. If someone like Darya Dugina is currently called into question for merge/deleton due to fame caused Aleksandr Dugin or due to one event then how these two people are vital among 0.008% articles?; especially Ron Goldman? Dawid2009 (talk) 08:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Support - maybe for a Level 3 or 4 but these do not seem to merit Level 5 inclusion. Kazamzam (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Support - The comment above seems a bit confused, but although this was a high-profile case, putting all three involved at level 5 seems like recentism and American bias. PatGallacher (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support Not really what we would consider vital, especially seeing as we already have OJ listed. Curbon7 (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose for these reasons:

1. Their high view counts in the past 30 days, at 34,565 views for Ron Goldman, and 75,464 views for Nicole Brown -- both are more than high enough for Vital-5.

2. The Miscellenaeous People section is under quota, not over quota, and the entire list is still under quota.

3. The sub-sections they are in, Socialites and Victims, are at a coherent 40/40 and 10/10 counts, respectively. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support not really independently vital if O.J. is listed. pbp 20:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. What's their significance in the first place? As murder victims? Surely not as an actress and a waiter. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion:

If the problem is that OJ is listed, along with the murder case and both of the victims, why don't we swap OJ with Randy Moss, who has a respectable 86,902 views in the past 30 days, and was the first listed here: "https://clutchpoints.com/updating-and-ranking-the-50-greatest-nfl-players-of-all-time/" not on our Vitals list? Note 86,902 views is still less than O.J.'s 233,864 views, but 233,864 views is less than the 127194+75465+34565=237,224 views of the murder case+the two victims, which are all currently listed as Vital-5, and OJ is #47 on the list I reference here, vs. Moss's ranking at #24. Gale Sayers is listed at #22 and has 31,980 views in the past 30 days. View counts are not always the best indicators of vitality, but they are strong indicators. More-recent activity can affect view count within the past 30 days, e.g. Cam Newton has 219,424 views in the past 30 days, and the difference between Moss's and Sayers' view counts could be due to that as well -- Sayers played up to 1971, while Moss played up to 2012. LightProof1995 (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The "Top 50 NFL players" list I link here actually says they listed OJ further down on the list just because of the murders, so this actually doesn't help determine his vitality in regards to his football record. Maybe someone who knows football better than me can comment on Randy Moss? #25 on the NFL players list, Jack Lambert, is on our vitals list, and has far less views (17,037) than Randy Moss in the past 30 days. LightProof1995 (talk) 06:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think we should take these two articles out when they are in sections that are not at or over quota and this is Vital-5 unless a swap is proposed to fill the Socialite and Victims sections. LightProof1995 (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Although as a general rule I would be cautious about doing a straight removal, not a swap, in a section which is not over quota, there are exceptions e.g. it was recently agreed that including all 6 of Henry VIII's wives was overdoing it, 4 were removed. PatGallacher (talk) 10:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I propose, since it has been decided to take them out, to replace them with Casualties of the September 11 attacks for Victims, and Gloria Vanderbilt for Socialites. View counts in past 30 days are 66,334 and 106,520, respectively. LightProof1995 (talk) 06:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed; there's nothing wrong with just removing. Up to others with good ideas to propose better articles, but it's sometimes plain obvious when articles don't belong. DFlhb (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

These articles have now been swapped for Gloria Vanderbilt and Casualties of the September 11 attacks. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Remove "Television in countries" articles

We removed 14 "Science and technology in (some country)" articles (Here: , per this discussion: ), and then 10 "Internet in (some country)" articles (Here: , per this discussion: ). The reasoning behind the removals was the specific "science and technology" articles on the countries seemed self-centered and unnecessary. Should we remove the "Television in countries" articles, listed under the way-over-quota Culture section, as well?

Support:

1. As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

References/Links:

Add Voss to 20th century fiction in Arts

Support:

1. As nom. Voss is one of Australia's most important works of fiction, and one of the reasons why Patrick White was awarded the 1973 Nobel Prize for literature. Neuroxic (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I will expand the count of Fictional works by 25. It makes sense after going through the list and considering your proposal and reasoning. LightProof1995 (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Voss has now been added, along with My Brilliant Career, and the Fictional works target count increased to an even 500, bringing the Literature target count to an even 1000 since it was at 990/975 :) LightProof1995 (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Add science wars or Sokal affair

An important event in modern philosophy of science.

Support:

as nom LarstonMarston (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Add Rishi Sunak

Because he is now the PM of Britain, and the fact that he is of Indian descent shocked India more than Britain, since India was once a colony of the British Empire, he is absolutely vital at this level.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
2. See my previous comments about Liz Truss. PatGallacher (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
3. pbp 16:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Hopefully this one will be more than an anecdote at Trivial Pursuit, however it's still too early, and the Tories are in too much tempest to deem him as a Vital article, unless there's exterior factors playing too. Larrayal (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
2. Oppose til Jan 1 2023 -- making formal my view in the discussion section below. Hyperbolick (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
3. Oppose: too early. --Onwa (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
4. czar 20:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

• Just on very recent history, would suggest it can't hurt to wait two months on this. Perhaps 2023. Hyperbolick (talk) 11:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
• I think this is a form of WP:RECENT if there ever were one. If Rishi Sunak slips on a banana peel in front of Downing Street tomorrow morning and dies, will his 4 day tenure be enough to warrant a VA? I agree with User:Hyperbolick that it would not hurt to wait. (Disclaimer: if Rishi Sunak slips on a banana peel in front of Downing Street tomorrow morning and dies, I had nothing to do with it.) Kazamzam (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
• Even if he dies tomorrow, he will still be the first Asian British Prime Minister and I believe also the wealthiest prime minister ever pbp 23:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Only wealthiest by inflation. Churchill was wealthy when a pound was real money. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Remove Kuomintang in Burma

Not a particularly significant part of history. It's also positioned in an odd place. Mucube (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support czar 20:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Swap Jia Xian for Su Song

Jia Xian described Pascal's triangle centuries before Pascal, but that was the only thing he ever did. I suggest we replace him with Su Song, whose achievements are much more impressive. Mucube (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Support:

1. Support per your reasoning and comparing the articles. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Remove John and Lorena Bobbitt

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 topic is interesting, but it's definitely not important enough to be a vital article. Mucube (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support We already have Sada Abe as similar topic. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
• SUpport This is not something that needs to be preserved for posterity. 78.18.10.8 (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support czar 20:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Support LarstonMarston (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

1. Support. Chop them off. Snip snip. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion:

I removed the article. LightProof1995 (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2022 (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 Live Earth

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 just seems to be your average benefit concert. Definitely not important enough to be a vital article. Mucube (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Seems too insignificant. Definitely telling how far you have to scroll in search results to read anything about it. LarstonMarston (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Should never have been a vital article. 78.18.10.8 (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
3. czar 20:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
4. Support -- Thanks for this. Let's swap in World Wildlife Fund. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
5. Support --Thi (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion:

I've made the swap for WWF. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2022 (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 WinRAR

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

---

Not significant enough to be a vital article. Even in the file archiver space, it seems like 7-Zip is more significant. Mucube (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Support:

1. Support. Not "highest importance" in its field. No assertion of its enduring importance or essentialness in its category. Not vital. czar 05:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Oppose -- WinRAR has more view counts than 7-zip: 47,712 views compared to 7-zip's 24,820. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

1. @LightProof1995: I'm not proposing to swap WinRAR for 7-Zip; I think both of the them are too insignificant to be added. Mucube (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

   Oh I see... I still oppose removing this though. They both have high view counts, and I feel I've used both of these tools. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

   @LightProof1995: Just because you've used something doesn't mean that it should be vital. Lasting importance should be our measure for vitalness, not view counts. Mucube (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2022 (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 out two Russian ballet articles, swap in Haka

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.

---

While adjusting the counts, I noticed we are over quota both for the Arts section (at 3316/3300), and Performing arts (at 203/200). The Arts sections target can't be changed due to needing to match the History target of 3300. I just spent some time readjusting the target counts within the Arts section as well to fit Voss (novel) in, mentioned above. The Maori dance Haka cannot currently be added without adding to counts that can't be changed and are over quota, but it is obviously vital. I believe Russian ballet, which is listed here, encompasses both its subcategory articles of Ballet Russes and Bolshoi Ballet well enough to where we could take those out, and swap Haka in. This would both be reducing the over-quota counts while also adding Haka. Note that currently the Russian ballet article mentions both Ballet Russes and Bolshoi Ballet, and has an entire section on Ballet Russes (even though that company was mainly in Paris), but probably needs an entire section for Bolshoi Ballet as well because of this swap.

Support:

1. As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Support. It makes sense, reduces the over-quota and the Western bias (that is also plaguing the other categories). --Onwa (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
3. Makes sense. 03:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mucube (talk • contribs)
4. czar 20:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
5. Support --Thi (talk) 10:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
6. Support good swap. Gizza (talk • voy) 05:33, 5 December 2022 (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 John Tyler 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.

---

We’re over quota on politicians, especially American ones, and he’s not particularly significant pbp 21:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 21:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Not nearly significant enough to be a vital article. Mucube (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
3. czar 20:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2022 (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.

Remove George Sutherland

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’re over quota on politicians, especially American ones, and he’s not particularly significant pbp 21:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 21:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Not every Supreme Court justice needs to be a vital article. Mucube (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
3. czar 20:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2022 (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.

Remove Richard Bass

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.

---

Richard Bass is not a major notable figure in mountaineering (almost unknown outside of the US, and even in the US would never come close to Ed Viesturs, arguably the most important-ever US mountaineer, and possibly a Level 4/5 candidate). This article is a great resource for the greatest mountaineers, Eight-thousander, and rightly has the other Level-5 entries, Reinhold Messner, and Gerlinde Kaltenbrunner. The mountaineering Level-5 list should probably also have Edurne Pasaban (first female to do all 14), and Jerzy Kukuczka (2nd male after Messner, but also a major figure in mountaineering history). But in no way would Richard "Dick" Bass ever rank amongst even the top 100 mountaineers in history. 78.18.10.8 (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support czar 20:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support Mucube (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support per your argument. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support --Thi (talk) 11:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Silly this person got added. The suggestions should also be added, Edune (first woman to climb all 14 biggest) and Jerry (only second to Messier as a legend of Himalayan climbing). 176.61.10.79 (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion:

I removed the article and swapped it for Edurne Pasaban. 78.18.249.143 (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2022 (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 Steph Davis

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.

---

Steph Davis is not an internationally famous Leve-5 type female mountaineer (despite her very promotional type article). This article is a good resource for the greatest female rock climbers, List of first ascents (sport climbing), and rightly includes Level-5 candidate Lynn Hill. Steph Davis appears nowhere on this (nor on any serious list of top 1/2 female climbers. The woman who is comparable to Lynn Hill is Josune Bereziartu (who appears a lot on the first female ascents article and should replace Steph Davis). 78.18.10.8 (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support czar 20:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support Mucube (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support a swap for Josune Bereziartu. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support . No way Steph Davis wound make the top 5 female climbers of all time. The big-3 are Lynn Hill, Josune Bereziartu, and Catherine Desteville. 176.61.10.79 (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion:

I removed the article and swapped it for Josune Bereziartu. 78.18.249.143 (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2022 (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 Wolfgang Güllich

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 Wikipedia article for Wolfgang Güllich is very poor (thinking about upgrading it), but as the lede in the Chris Sharma article notes, the three greatest modern sport rock climbers are Wolfgang Gullich (1980s), Chris Sharma (already a Level-5) (1990-2010s), and then Adam Ondra (already a Level-5) (post-2010). 78.18.10.8 (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. That list of three refers to the modern record-setters but the L5 question is which the "all-time" set. czar 20:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

In the list of “all-time” greatest rock climbers, it is Gullich, Sharma and Ondra. There is another group of 4-5 just outside this list (Moffatt, le Menestral brothers, Huber, Edlinger and Kauk). Of these three, Gullich achieved the greatest increase in rock climbing grades of any other climber in history. 78.18.243.8 (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

This is National Geographic on Gullich, Sharma, Ondra. 78.18.243.8 (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The World’s Most Famous Rock Climbers, includes Gullich (there are other such lists online). Also highlights that Catherine Destivelle and Janja Garnbret should probably also be Wikipedia Level-5 articles as well. 78.18.243.8 (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

If it is appropriate, I have reached out to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climbing#Level-5 Vital Articles to contribute; I do think taht the overall Level-5 "climbing and mountaineering" list needs fuller consideration (per my submissions above at Richard Bass and Steph Davis). 78.18.243.8 (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Gullich is probably the most important rock climber (more so than Ondra). Gullich and Sharma were the Jack Nicholas and Tiger Woods of their eras (and like Jack, Gullich set more records than Sharma). 31.187.2.138 (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support, Gullich is *the* greatest rock climber of all time (over Adam Ondra and Chris Sharma who are both Level5 d). 2001:BB6:24BB:D500:11CB:DD12:B5CF:589B (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support Gullich was probably the most important rock climber of all time (most new grade milestones, revolutionised training). 93.240.251.250 (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• Agree. Per nom. Seems more important than other accepted L5s. 31.187.2.209 (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion:

I have cleaned up the Wolfgang Güllich article a lot now, so hopefully, it is clearer that he is probably the leading overall rock climber of modern times (even more so than Sharma and Ondra). I have also cleaned up the Catherine Destivelle article who is also a clear Level 5 candidate. 78.18.249.143 (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Most of the Level five climbing biographies are also ranked as Top by the WikiProject Climbing (e.g. Lynn Hill, Alex Honnold, Chris Sharma, Adam Ondra, Reinhold Messner, Josune Bereziartu); none except Potter are "Mid" (he is proposed for Removal below). Catherine Destivelle is also ranked a "Top" (and proposed for Add below). The outstanding omissions are Wolfgang Gullich (who is a borderline Level 4 with Messner), and Walter Bonatti (a definite Level five), and Riccardo Cassin (probably a Level five). 78.18.228.191 (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I added Wolfgang Gullich to the list. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 15:15, 25 January 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 Nanhai 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.

---

I don't see anything in the article that would make it significant enough to be a vital article. Mucube (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support czar 20:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support per your analysis. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support --Thi (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

1. Support --Makkool (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2022 (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 Li Zicheng

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 was a very important peasant rebel during the Ming–Qing transition. At his peak, he controlled almost all of Northern China. Mucube (talk) 05:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. I learned the existence of this man during the second academic year of junior high school. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Isn't he already listed? He's tagged as a level 5 VA. pbp 14:17, 26 January 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 EHLLAPI

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.

---

EHLLAPI is some random API for the IBM 3270 PC, which is not a vital article. Definitely not significant enough to be a vital article. Mucube (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support czar 20:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
• Common sense Support. Let's swap this one out for gzip, which you propose below. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support --Thi (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
• Agree. Not an L5 topic. 31.187.2.209 (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 02:11, 21 January 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 Logo (programming language)

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 most significant thing I can find about Logo is that it used turtle graphics. Not important enough to be a vital article. Mucube (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Mucube (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
2. I'm familiar with this. Logo is most famous as a learning toy, in which children could use a toy turtle to learn programming concepts. It's interesting but not a high-importance topic within computing history. czar 20:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
3. Support. Fairly significant as a didactic tool, but not significant enough to keep the vital slot. Polyphemus Goode (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

1. Agree. Per nom. With passing of time, Logo was a niche language (distinctive in its niche), but not L5 level. 31.187.2.209 (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose because I don't think you've recommended anything else to swap in that makes sense, after going through all your other proposals -- I have general opposition to the Technology section being anything except for a coherent 3,150 articles. This article also has a respectable 11,856 view counts in the past 30 days. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

   Not everything needs to be a swap. Most of these are just reassessment of listings someone added one day. czar 08:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@LightProof1995: I've proposed adding Alipay. Mucube (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2022 (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.

Replace RAR (file format) with gzip

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.

---

gzip is used much more than RAR. Mucube (talk) 04:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose removing RAR file format. Support adding gzip if it is a swap for EHLLAPI, which you propose removing above. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose swap and remove RAR. Not "highest importance" in its field or essential to its category. No assertion of its enduring importance in its article. Neither vital. czar 05:29, 30 November 2022 (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 Recuva

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.

---

Definitely not significant enough to be a vital article. Mucube (talk) 04:41, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

1. Support a swap of this for Microsoft Edge, which you propose below. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Support. Not "highest importance" in its field or essential to its category. No assertion of its enduring importance in its article. Not vital. czar 05:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
3. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2022 (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 Safari (web browser)

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 usage share of Safari is only second to Google Chrome. We have Opera and Internet Explorer listed, so we should have Safari listed too. Mucube (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC) Support:

Support LarstonMarston (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Support Let's swap this one in for mIRC, which you propose below. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
2. Support --Makkool (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Usage is currently #3, not #2. Not essential to its category. No assertion of its enduring importance in its article. Not vital. czar 05:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
   1. Safari is important because, unlike something like Edge, it has existed for a long time and originated WebKit. Mucube (talk • contribs) 00:21, 23 December 2022 (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 Amstrad CPC

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

---

Not that significant in computing history. Even in its era, the Commodore 64 outsold it by a large margin. Mucube (talk) 04:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC) Support:

1. Support removing this and swapping in Debian or .NET, which you've also brought up, but I oppose anything that makes the Technology section not equal a coherent 3,150 articles. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Support. Not essential to its category. No assertion of its enduring importance in its article. Not vital. czar 05:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Support --Makkool (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
5. Agree. Was overshadowed by C64 (or ZXSpectrum); not historically as important. 31.187.2.209 (talk) 20:09, 18 January 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 Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)

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.

---

As noted in the article, "The MRT is the second oldest, busiest, and most comprehensive metro system in Southeast Asia." Mucube (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC) Support:

1. Support swapping this in for Gas-guzzler, which you propose below. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
3. Support --Makkool (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 02:12, 21 January 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 Advanced SCSI Programming Interface

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.

---

Yet another random API. It was made by Adaptec, which is not a vital article, so this API should not be vital too. Mucube (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Support:

1. Common sense Support replacing this and Timex Sinclair 1000 with Ubuntu and Samsung Galaxy. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Support with no swap needed. czar 05:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
3. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:08, 3 December 2022 (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 Mile high club

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.

---

Do we really need this to be a vital article? Mucube (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Note: we are 39 articles over the 100 article quota for Sexuality and gender. Mucube (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

1. Support LarstonMarston (talk) 03:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
3. Support czar 05:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
4. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
5. Support --Thi (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2022 (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 mIRC

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 already have Internet Relay Chat listed, so we don't need this. Mucube (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Support:

1. Common sense Support. Let's swap this one out for Safari (web browser), as you propose above. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Support with no swap needed. czar 05:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Support --Makkool (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2022 (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 Microsoft Edge

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.

---

Microsoft Edge is very popular, ranking 2nd or 3rd in browser market share. We have less used browsers like Opera listed, so we should have Edge too. Mucube (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Support LarstonMarston (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Support swapping Recuva out and this in. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Support --Makkool (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Important but not essential to its category, given existing coverage. No swap needed. czar 05:29, 30 November 2022 (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 Debian and Ubuntu

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.

---

Debian and Ubuntu are both very popular Linux distributions. We already have most of the Windows versions listed, so we should have some Linux distributions too. Mucube (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Support:

1. Support swapping Ubuntu and Samsung Galaxy in, and Advanced SCSI Programming Interface and Timex Sinclair 1000 out. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Support with no swap rationale needed. Highest importance in their field. And the list of Windows versions is definitely overkill. czar 05:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
3. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
5. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2022 (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 Timex Sinclair 1000

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 not particularly significant in computing history. It also seems that it didn't sell very well. Mucube (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Support:

1. Support replacing this and Advanced SCSI Programming Interface with Ubuntu and Samsung Galaxy. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Support with no swap needed czar 05:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
3. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:11, 3 December 2022 (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 Samsung Galaxy

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.

---

More than two billion Samsung Galaxy devices have been sold. I think that's enough for the article to be listed. Mucube (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Support:

1. Support swapping this and Ubuntu in, and swapping Advanced SCSI Programming Interface and Timex Sinclair 1000 out. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Support --Makkool (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2022 (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 Gas-guzzler

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 term "gas-guzzler" doesn't seem that vital to me. "Internal combustion vehicle" is definitely an acceptable vital article, but the phrase "gas-guzzler" isn't. Mucube (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose because of the environmental importance of the phrase, unless you have a swap in mind? Preferably of an environment-related tech?

EDIT: You have made such a proposal -- I Support swapping this out for the Singapore MRT. LightProof1995 (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Not "highest importance" in its field. No assertion of its enduring importance or essentialness in its category. Not vital. czar 05:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Gas-guzzler was redirected to Fuel economy in automobiles after an AfD. Which article should replace Gas-guzzler, Fuel economy in automobiles or Singapore MRT? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support --Thi (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
• Agree. More of a term/slang than an enduring topic; not L5. 31.187.2.209 (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Per nom. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 15:56, 19 January 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 Visual Basic .NET

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.

---

Almost no one uses it nowadays. It's also not very important in computing history, unlike some of the other programming languages we have listed, like Fortran and BASIC. (In fact, Visual Basic .NET is derived from Visual Basic which was derived from BASIC.) Mucube (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Support:

1. Support. Either swapping for .NET as suggested below or freeing up the slot for another language. (Smalltalk or Modula-3 are really historically important, if you want suggestions!) Polyphemus Goode (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Support. Not "highest importance" in its field. No assertion of its enduring importance or essentialness in its category. Not vital. czar 05:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Strong Oppose. My job is for a particular software used worldwide, and it involves coding in VB.NET. LightProof1995 (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

1. @LightProof1995: What about replacing Visual Basic .NET with .NET? Visual Basic .NET is a component of .NET. Mucube (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

   I agree .NET should be added, but given my experience with VB.NET, I still disagree VB.NET should be removed. Note I don't think I am a minority programmer using VB.NET -- I'm a newer software developer, not one that's been doing the same thing for 20 years. My previous job used C#. Whatever we decide, we should have an exact 3,150 technology articles listed. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2022 (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 Bibliotheca Alexandrina

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 not a particularly significant library. Even among Francophone libraries, it is only the sixth largest. Mucube (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. No assertion of its enduring importance or essentialness in its category. Not vital. czar 05:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The library is famous for its architecture. --Thi (talk) 11:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Thi --Makkool (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2022 (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 St. Patrick's Cathedral (Midtown 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.

---

Not a very important church. There are tens, if not hundreds of other historic churches in New York City, so why should this one be listed? Mucube (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Support:

1. Support Changing my vote to neutral per the discussion below. LightProof1995 (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

• St. Patrick's is probably the most famous and recognizable church in NYC, not to mention the seat of the archdiocese itself; it is not an exaggerations to say that it's one of the most recognizable churches in the United States. It is the largest Gothic Revival Catholic cathedral in North America (not just the US) and the article itself is a high-quality one (GA status, high importance), which is a larger goal of the VA project. Also I'm surprised that covering "only" 2.8 million Catholics would be considered a point against it given that's equal to, for comparison, the entire population of Albania. Strong support for keeping it listed in agreement with Czar below. Kazamzam (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
• Per Kazamzam --Makkool (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

• To answer your question, this is easily the most famous church in New York, the seat of the archdiocese, and a national landmark. If any church from New York should be included, it'd be this one. czar 08:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is the seat of the Archdiocese of New York, but the archdiocese only covers about 2.8 million Catholics. Yes, it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, but there are thousands and thousands of other listings in New York City alone. And yes, it is a New York City designated landmark, but there are about 37,000 other designated landmarks. Mucube (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: A diocesan cathedral, as the seat of the local bishop, is always an important church regardless of the size of the diocese or the building itself. All diocesan cathedrals in the United States have pages on Wikipedia. Being listed on the National Register of Historic Places also marks its significance and it has been determined over and over again that buildings so listed are worthy of articles on Wikipedia. National Register of Historic Places listings in Manhattan reveals that there are multiple pages on Wikipedia devoted to these properties just in this borough. The cathedral has also been declared a National Historic Landmark, and locally, as a New York City Landmark. Finally, there are multiple Catholic churches in Archdiocese of New York, as well as other denominations, that have pages on Wikipedia.

This proposal is absurd. Farragutful (talk) 11:09, 8 January 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 Female sex tourism

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.

---

Redundant to Sex tourism. Also, we are way over-quota on sexuality and gender articles. Mucube (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

1. Support LarstonMarston (talk) 03:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
3. Support czar 05:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
4. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:31, 2 December 2022 (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 Monosexuality

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.

---

Doesn't look particularly significant to me. We're way over-quota on sexuality and gender articles. Mucube (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

1. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Support czar 05:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
3. Support LarstonMarston (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
5. Support --Thi (talk) 11:14, 3 December 2022 (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 Sex swing

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.

---

Doesn't look particularly significant to me. And as noted many times before, we're way over-quota on sexuality and gender. Mucube (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

1. Support LarstonMarston (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
3. Support czar 05:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
4. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
5. Support --Thi (talk) 11:15, 3 December 2022 (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.

On adding Ian Stevenson

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.

---

LightProof1995 has just added Ian Stevenson, a fringe scientist, as a Level-5 vital article. Should we remove it or should we keep it? Mucube (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello :) First of all, I will write here what I told you on my Talk Page when you removed the article and I added him back:

For Vital-5, per the FAQ here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Frequently_Asked_Questions, we don't have to obtain consensus in the Talk page discussion for adding articles to categories under quota, with a possible exception for if they are 98% complete, and even then it's usually going to be okay. The Scientists, inventors, and mathematicians quota is at 1112/1150, or 96.6% complete. If we enforced all additions for articles added to categories below quota, we'll never reach 50,000.

Second of all, just because the science is "fringe" or an "alternative view", doesn't mean it isn't vital, e.g. Anti-vaxxers and Alternative medicine are both Vital-4. And among "fringe" or "alternative" scientists, Dr. Ian Stevenson is easily #1. He should've been added a long time ago. He's certainly more vital than a number of people listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/People/Miscellaneous#Pseudoscientists_(40_articles), a section which is also under-quota, but I put him in the Scientists section because he did years of work in psychiatry and people's personalities outside of the reincarnation research and this is the section where psychiatrists go, but if others feel he's better in the pseudoscientist section, then that's understandable and I'm neutral about that, lol LightProof1995 (talk) 06:54, 27 November 2022 (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 Villanova University

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're way over-quota on education articles and Villanova University doesn't seem particularly important. Mucube (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

1. Support czar 05:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
3. Support pbp 15:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
4. Agree. There are other more important global universities not yet L5. Remove to make room. 31.187.2.209 (talk) 20:16, 18 January 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 Records of the Grand Historian

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.

---

Shocked that it's not been added yet. To quote the article: "The Records has been called a 'foundational text in Chinese civilization'." Mucube (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Kazamzam (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
3. Support --Makkool (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Agree. Same as BoH. 31.187.2.209 (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
5. Support --Thi (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

1. We have the Book of Han listed, so we should have the Records of the Grand Historian listed. As noted in the article, the Book of Han was modeled after the Records.

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 MIDI file

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 a redirect to MIDI. It's completely redundant to the MIDI article, which is already listed. Mucube (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
3. --LarstonMarston (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
4. Support czar 05:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
5. Support --Thi (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
6. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2022 (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.

Remove Liquefied natural gas terminal

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.

---

Redundant to Liquefied natural gas. Mucube (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

1. Support czar 05:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Support LarstonMarston (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Support Thanks for suggesting this :) LightProof1995 (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2022 (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 Monique Wittig

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

---

A pretty notable radical feminist theorist. Given that we already have radical feminists like Andrea Dworkin and Shulamith Firestone, I think we should have her too. LarstonMarston (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2022 (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 Windows 98

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 way too many Windows versions listed and Windows 98 isn't particularly important. To quote the article: "Most of its improvements were cosmetic or designed to improve the user experience." Mucube (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
2. Support czar 03:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Win98 was commercially more successful than Win95 (was sold even more copies worldwide) and was the first to use the Windows Driver Model, thus it definitely must be kept. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
2. Oppose, see below for reasoning. Vital Articles Grammar (talk) 04:54, 4 January 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 Windows 9x

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.

---

Covered adequately by Windows 95. The two other Windows 9x versions were Windows 95 and Windows Me, both of which are not very important. Mucube (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Category is oversubscribed and Win95 is sufficient. czar 03:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This series was once extremely popular among home computer users. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
2. Oppose, since Windows 9x is an overview article, keep it and remove the others instead. Vital Articles Grammar (talk) 04:53, 4 January 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.

Remove Glide (API)

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

---

Not particularly important. It looks like it was popular for a bit during the late 1990s and then was superseded by Direct3D and OpenGL. Mucube (talk) 03:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Not "highest importance" in its field or essential to its category. No assertion of its enduring importance in its article. czar 03:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Because Glide was once all the rage among PC game programmers, it definitely should be kept. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
   1. Sure, it might have been popular with gamers for a bit. But being popular with gamers for just a few years durign the late 1990s doesn't seem like a good enough reason for being a vital article. Mucube (talk · contribs) 05:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
      1. It is still vital because during the late 1990s there were 3 major 3d APIs for PCs: Direct3D, OpenGL and Glide. --RekishiEJ (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
         1. It was only one of the major graphics APIs for a few years, which is not vital enough for inclusion. Mucube (talk · contribs) 05:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Remove Plaster of Paris

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 a redirect to plaster, and is completely redundant to it. Mucube (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

1. Support LarstonMarston (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
2. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Support czar 03:22, 7 December 2022 (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 gonzo pornography

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

---

I don't think this is important enough to be in VA. LarstonMarston (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

1. Support as nom LarstonMarston (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
2. Support czar 03:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
3. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Agree. Per nom. 31.187.2.209 (talk) 20:18, 18 January 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 Interslavic

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

---

Not very important. I feel like we're over-representing constructed languages, because basically no one except language nerds use them. I think we should keep Esperanto and maybe Lojban and remove the rest. Mucube (talk) 05:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

1. Support - agree with the reasoning. Gizza (talk • voy) 05:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
2. Support czar 03:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
3. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Support --Makkool (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
5. Support --Thi (talk) 18:58, 25 January 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 Capital (radio network)

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 journalism and mass media section is way over-quota and Capital isn't particularly significant. It only has twelve stations. Compare that to the hundreds of stations owned by iHeartMedia, which isn't listed. Mucube (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

1. Support --Thi (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
2. Support --LarstonMarston (talk) 04:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
3. Support czar 03:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Agree. Not L5, clearly. 31.187.2.209 (talk) 20:19, 18 January 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 Escagraph

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.

---

For those who do not know, "escagraph" means writing stuff on food. Definitely not important enough to be a vital article. Also, we are two articles over-quota on general language articles. Mucube (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

1. Support LarstonMarston (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
2. Support czar 03:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
3. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
5. Agree. Per nom. 31.187.2.209 (talk) 20:05, 18 January 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 Frisian languages

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

---

Only spoken by around 500,000 people, which is nothing compared to the other languages families that are listed. Mucube (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. They are the languages on the European mainland most closely related to English. That is what arguably makes Frisian vital despite the low numbers of people speaking it. Gizza (talk • voy) 02:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
2. Agree with Gizza. They're notable languages as a living close relatives to English, and thus they're vital for English-language Wikipedia. --Makkool (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Oppose The next entry notes that other language groups are included with far fewer speakers, so saying there are only 500,000 isn't much of an argument.Brianyoumans (talk) 00:38, 5 January 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 Dean Potter, replace with Catherine Destivelle

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 my entries above to remove Steph Davis, remove Richard Bass, and add Wolfgang Gullich, the Level 5 for Climbing & Mountaineering needs tidying up.

Dean Potter was a good and notable US climber but would never appear in any "all-time" list of world rock climbers. He does not feature in the "list of most important rock climbing ascents" (because he never set a new grade standard in rock climbing), and he does not appear in the "list of most important events in rock climbing history" (as none of his climbs were notable on that scale). Catherine Destivelle is the stand-out female climber in history (with Lynn Hill, who is rightly Level 5), and features prominently on both lists. 78.18.249.143 (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Here is a Climbing article on: "The 50 Greatest Climbing Achievements…By Americans in the Last 25 Years" (written in 2017, two years after Potter's death). He does not even make this list (and it is not a "world" list), but it does have several entries for the three existing US climber Level 5s, Chris Sharma, Lynn Hill and Alex Honnold. I think Potter's real notability is linked to BASE Jumping, but I am not sure he would rank as a Level 5 for that category (i.e like Felix Baumgartner, the Level 5 for BASE). 78.18.249.143 (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support, Dean Potter should never have been a Level5 (must have been some overzealous US editors). Destivelle is should be a Level5 (an equivalent to Lynn Hill). 2001:BB6:24BB:D500:11CB:DD12:B5CF:589B (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support I agree Dean Potter's fame seems to be more due to the fact he died in a BASE Jumping accident, and just as you say, it's not enough to rank him as a vital BASE Jumper. Also Catherine is amazing and deserves it. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support Pötter was not an important climber in rock climbing history. He was more of a ‘celebrity climber’ in his day. Destivelle is probably the most important female climber, with Lynn, in all history. 93.240.251.250 (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

1. Agree. Dean Potter is obviously not L5, Desteville looks a solid L5. Correct head-to-head. 31.187.2.209 (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Dean Potter is only ranked as "Mid" by the Wikipedia Climbing Project per Talk:Dean Potter. Most of the Level five climbing biographies are also ranked as Top by the WPCP (e.g. Lynn Hill, Alex Honnold, Chris Sharma, Adam Ondra, Reinhold Messner, Josune Bereziartu); none except Potter are "Mid". Catherine Destivelle is also ranked a "Top". The omissions are Wolfgang Gullich (who is proposed to Add above), and Walter Bonatti (a definite Level five), and Riccardo Cassin (probably a Level five). 78.18.228.191 (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I removed Dean Potter and replaced with Catherine Destivelle. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 14:47, 25 January 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 Chicago Sun-Times

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 journalism and mass media section is way over-quota and we already have Chicago Tribune listed, which has a circulation twice that of the Chicago Sun-Times. Mucube (talk • contribs) 23:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

1. Support per your analysis, thanks for suggesting this :) LightProof1995 (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
2. Support Lorax (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
3. Support. Per nom. 31.187.2.209 (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 18:59, 25 January 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 Academy of Russian Television

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 so unimportant that it doesn't even have an article yet. The article on Russian Wikipedia doesn't provide anything that would make it the Academy of Russian Television important enough to be vital. Mucube (talk • contribs) 23:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

1. Support --Thi (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
2. Support --Makkool (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
3. Support I was considering just taking this out just because it is a red link, which has been done by others before with no objections. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Support Lorax (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
5. Support per above Multifarious Ailurophile (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
6. Support per nom. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 16:00, 19 January 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 Graham Hughes

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.

---

Subject is categorized as an explorer for having travelled to most countries without flying. If not trivial, then merely peripheral to vital explorers. (Previously proposed in 2018.) — HTGS (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)~

Support

1. Support --Makkool (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
2. Support. Per nom. More like travel trivia than something of longer-term importance. Also, these trivia records get beaten, and thus the trivia fame is temporary.78.18.228.191 (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
3. Agree, travel trivia, not L5. 31.187.2.209 (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

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 Field handball for Fives

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.

---

Field handball is a minor version of the sport that has not had a single tournament since 1966 and has been played relatively little in the past. Fives has many tournaments annually, is played internationally, and has around several thousand players. Multifarious Ailurophile (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Support:

1. as nom Multifarious Ailurophile (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
2. Support per nom LightProof1995 (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
3. Support dropping Field Handball, but not sure about adding Fives (is it really Level 5?). 78.18.228.191 (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   I think that there is no harm, and if the community decided that there is a better alternative, it will be swapped. All the same, field handball shouldn't be on there, so it's an improvement - Fives is fairly historically significant in England, and is an important part of public school culture. Multifarious Ailurophile (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

4. Support per above 185.69.236.69 (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Against:

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 villain

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

---

A noun that is much more frequently used than antihero (has more Bing search hits), yet is currently not included, unlike the latter.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per LaukkuTheGreit's comment below, villain is already covered by Antagonist. A villain is not distinct enough from an antagonist to merit both being included (especially when Arts is over quota). OliveYouBean (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
2. Voting against as well.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
4. Per above. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

Of note is that Antagonist is listed. Arts section is slightly overquota so Villain could be considered sufficiently covered by it. Their pageviews are comparable: [12] --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 12:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

An antagonist does not have to be a villain, and a villain can be a protagonist, so villain is not a sub-topic of antagonist.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:12, 27 January 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.

Good article reassessment for Limousin cattle

Limousin cattle has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Add Walter Bonatti

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 most glaring omission for the Mountaineering & Climbing is of Walter Bonatti. Bonatti and Reinhold Messner are the two greatest mountainerrs in history. For his obituary, here is The Guardian: Chris Bonington calls him 'among the greatest of all time', and the New York Times: Walter Bonatti, one of the world’s greatest mountaineers. In the climbing world, here is The British Mountaineering Council In a tribute one of his many admirers, Reinhold Messner, said, "Bonatti was one of the greatest mountaineers in history. A google of Bonatti will yield many sources (general and climbing-focused) calling him "greatest mountaineers in history" (and some saying "the greatest"). 78.18.228.191 (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
2. Support. Bonatti, and Messner, should be Level 4 (Hillary and Norgay are not really Level 4s, they are the climbing equivalent of BLP1Es). 31.187.2.16 (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
3. +1. Bonatti and Messner are the real lever fours of climbing. 151.95.18.160 (talk) 06:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
4. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:31, 2 April 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.