Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive 11

< Wikipedia talk:Vital articles | Level/5
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Festucalex in topic American military removals
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

American Football adds and removals

Latest comment: 1 year ago66 comments12 people in discussion

It may be necessary to remove one to add one in this category since American Football is at quota, but I would say Warren Moon was more important than Doug Flutie. Flutie was a Heisman Trophy winner so he had the more notable college career. Flutie had 3 Grey Cup and 3 Grey Cup Most Valuable Player, while Moon had 5 GCs and 2 GCMVPs. The difference was that Warren Moon was an elite 9-time Pro Bowl quarterback versus 1-time for Flutie. Thus, Moon is a Pro Football HOFer and a Canadian Football HOFer, while Flutie is a Canadian Football HOFer and College Football HOFer. You could describe Moon as the first great black NFL quarterback depending on how high you want to set the bar on great. The current list has no black quarterbacks. Moon made it clear that a black quarterback could be a perennial star and paved the way for many blacks to play quarterback. Flutie may have paved the way for short guys (I would put a smiley emoji here to signify a joke but will go with :-). P.S. there are a bunch of Pro Football HOFers who I would include on this list over Flutie, but Moon is possibly the best.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

P.S. off the top of my head Joe Gilliam with 2 Super Bowls as a backup to Terry Bradshaw, then Doug Williams (quarterback) (First NFL 1st round African American QB) with a Super Bowl championship and MVP were great stories. Neither achieved Pro Bowl status. I don't know who the first black quarterback was to become a Pro Bowler, but I am pretty sure Moon was the first to become a perennial. Warren Moon (1988–1995, 1997) and Randall Cunningham (1988–1990, 1998) were the first star black quarterbacks to my recollection, but Moon's franchise record setting 1984 season ( 3,338 yards) may have paved the way for Randall Cunningham to enter the league as a quarterback in 1985. Moon was probably the first black quarterback to be the NFL's highest paid player. Just guessing--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
P.S. WP articles prior to Moon's success show complete rosters back to the 1981 Pro Bowl. They then skip a year and show no black quarterbacks until you get back to James "Shack" Harris (the first black player to start a season at quarterback in the history of pro football) who was on the 1975 Pro Bowl roster and got a Super Bowl ring as an administrator after he retired.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
P.P.S IMO, Even for short guys (guys too short to claim to be rightly listed as 6 feet tall) like Kyler Murray and Russell Wilson I think Moon was a more important trailblazer.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
P.P.P.S I am 5'8" and change myself, but you should note that all other all-time great quarterbacks listed here are at least 6'1".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:08, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
P.P.P.P.S. I am going with Moon for his cultural impact. There are still a bunch of players from National Football League 100th Anniversary All-Time Team list and its finalists who might be considered better football players than either Moon or Flutie. However, when I was growing up (I graduated high school a full year before Moon started his NFL career when Doug Williams and Vince Evans were the best black QBs) black guys were considered too athletic and not cerebral enough to be great quarterbacks. It is difficult to quantify Moon's impact, but it was greater than Flutie's.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Fixed it. Thanks. Cbl62 (talk) 04:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
        • Regarding lists. I am not sure Vital article and best players are the same thing. Moon was not one of the 100 greatest players. The reason over 1/3 of the players on the list are quarterbacks is because quarterback is the most important position. It is probably the case that nearly a third of MVPs are quarterbacks. My point is that there was never a black star NFL quarterback until Moon and Cunningham rose to that level. James "Shack" Harris made one Pro Bowl, more interceptions than touchdowns, barely 8K yards passing, 67 career passer rating. Doug Williams (quarterback) had more longevity, with nearly 17k yards, but still only 69 passer rating. His Super Bowl MVP year was a season he was mostly a backup (starting only 2 regular season games). I can't deny winning a Super Bowl as MVP is a monumental thing, but Doug Williams was not a great QB. His best qualifying season was a 77.4 passer rating. There were no great black QBs for me as a kid. Moon had a career rating over 80, many big Pro Bowl seasons and true Hall of Fame numbers. Moon had 6 yardage totals higher than Williams' best. The knock against Moon was what seems (quick tally of the record of the teams he was on, assuming he was the QB) to be a 1-7 playoff record. He was like a Dominique in basketball. Moon and Cunningham, to a lesser extent, issued in an era where blacks could be the star QBs. If only he could have had some playoff success he would have probably been remembered in this way. WP Vitality is different than greatness.
      • Quarterbacks are over-represented with about one-third of the vital list made up of players at that position. Doug Flutie, Kurt Warner, and Joe Namath should all be removed IMO. Cbl62 (talk)

Add Moon

NOT PASSED
not enough support and discussion stale for two months now. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Support
  1. Per nom above. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Moon was a great player, but he is not one of the all-time greats -- doesn't make the top 100 picked by either the NFL or Sporting News. And the list is already over-populated with quarterbacks. Cbl62 (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
  2. Agree with Cbl62. Moon was not one of the 50 greatest (or most important) players of all time. Also agree that the list is currently over-populated with quarterbacks, and players from other positions are under-represented. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
  3. Doesn't scream "vital article" to me pbp 14:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
  4. czar 20:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. WP vitality is different than greatness. There was never a black quarterback to make multiple Pro Bowls before Moon made 9 of them. He was the first elite star quarterback. I grew up in an era where the star quarterbacks were all white. My family moved to Orchard Park, NY the same year the Bills did. We had O.J. as a black role model when he busted 2000, but my favorite QBs growing up were white (Stabler and Tarkenton). There were no great black QBs until Moon. Vitality ≠ greatness. If he had even one great playoff run like Williams did, he would be legendary.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I disagree. If we are limited to 40 players (which I think is way too low BTW, and below limits for baseball, basketball and even hockey!), we ought to be choosing people who are the all-time greats. I agree that quarterbacks, running backs, and wide receivers are naturally going to be somewhat over-represented, but reserving 35% of the total for QBs is too much IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The 40 limit does not seem to be an oversight-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Maybe not an oversight, but unjust. Football is by far the most popular sport in the largest English-speaking country. I would support a proposal to increase football's representation to at least 55, the same limit applicable to baseball. Cbl62 (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
You would have to identify other quotas to reduce to get 15 more for Football. You also have to think of English WP as an encyclopedia representing all places where information is sought in the English language. Beyond North American borders, not much information is sought about Gridiron football in any English speaking country. Basketball and baseball are everywhere. Ice Hockey is popular throughout Europe. I can't really think of a pitch to chop 15 out of other quotas to give them to football. If level 5 ever gets expanded to 100,000, then football needs to be aggressive before other subjects get use to having certain allotments.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:58, 16 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 Flutie

PASSED
removed. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Support
  1. Per nom above. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  2. He's a great player and beloved by many but not one of the top 50 most important players in the history of the game. Cbl62 (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
  3. Doesn't scream "vital article" to me pbp 14:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
  4. czar 20:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Presumably got consideration for being the "No. 1 CFL player of the modern era", according to a TSN panel. [1]—Bagumba (talk) 01:52, 15 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 Night Train Lane

PASSED
consensus to add. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Support
  1. One of the most dominant players in the history of the game. Shocked that he's not already included. Cbl62 (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
  2. This will lessen the recentism.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
  3. Agree, this one should have already been on there. One of the all-time greats. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
  4. czar 20:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Jim Parker

NOT PASSED
last comment was over two months ago; close as no consensus. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Support
  1. One of the first black superstars in the 1950s and 1960s. Consistently ranked as one of the greatest players of all time: #32 on the NFL's all time list (The Top 100: NFL's Greatest Players) and #24 on the Sporting News list of the 100 greatest players of all time. Also deserves consideration as offensive lineman are way under-represented on the vital list. Cbl62 (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The 50th anniversary team (selected in 1969) was limited to choosing only one offensive tackle and chose a white player from the 1920s. Parker was included on the 75th anniversary team. And on the 100th anniversary team, he was one of only two offensive linemen to be unanimously selected. Also The Spooring News rated him as the 24th greatest player of all time at any position. Cbl62 (talk) 06:01, 18 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 Ray Guy

PASSED
consensus to remove. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Support
  1. Play limited to special teams. Articles is not great quality (C class). So many others who are more vital. Cbl62 (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
  2. Remove, not a vital topic, there are more "impactful" players, and to deal with the over quota of biographies. --Onwa (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
  3. czar 20:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 10:58, 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 Kurt Warner

NOT PASSED
not enough support, and discussion stale for two months now. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Support
  1. The list is over-populated by quarterbacks (14/40) in comparison to other positions. Warner does not rank with the other 13, and room should be made for other position players. Cbl62 (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
    He is the only one of the 40 whom I have met and whose wife I have met, and he has an incredible story of persistence, I have a tough time giving him more credit for his story of persistence than the odds that many other underprivileged athletes overcame. Although a 2x-MVP, his excellence was brief (barely 10K passing yards).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
  2. Definitely not an all-timer. pbp 19:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
  3. czar 20:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I misread his infobox. I saw 10k yards and did not realize it was his Arena League stats. He did not do too much outside of the Greatest Show on Turf years, but those were stellar. He engineered the greatest 3-year run in NFL history marked by his 2x-MVP and an MVP runner-up. In addition, career regular season 93.7 passer rating 65.5% completion percentage were impressive. Career post season passer rating 102.8 and 66.5 are what make him a legend. 9-4 post season record.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  2. Bringing the Cardinals to the Super Bowl and nearly winning it is as impressive as winning two Super Bowls on most other teams. Somarain (talk) 00:46, 19 November 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 Joe Namath

PASSED
consensus to remove. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Support
  1. Beloved by New York Jets fans, but not one of the 50 most important players in the history of the game. He's not included in any of the top players of all time lists. Cbl62 (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
  2. Great college player, came into the league with a ton of hype, and mostly failed to live up to it. Even the Super Bowl III was mostly fueled by the dominant Jet defense, not Namath. A career 50% completion percentage, 173 career TD's vs. 220 INTs. By far the worst player ever enshrined in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, and the only QB ever enshrined in the Hall who lost more game than he won as a starting QB. Probably would not have made the Hall at all if he had played his career somewhere outside of New York City. Take away the SB-III win and the NYC-fueled media hype and all you have is basically a super-charged Joe Ferguson. Definitely not one of the 50 greatest (or most important) players of all-time. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
  3. By putting it in terms of Fergy, I see I am being fooled by blue ink. Not important enough based on his performance. I bet if there had been Google in those days, he would have measured as the Anna Kournikova of his sport in terms of search rankings versus great players in the sport up to a decade after retirement.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
  4. czar 20:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I am not in a hurry to remove Namath. This is an example of a player whose vitality exceeds his skill. Joe Namath is such a sex symbol and personality that his vitality exceeds his skill. He was a very, very big personality. He has a lot of numbers. I'd say he had at least 4 great AFL seasons and at least 3 great NFL season. He also has a national championship and a Super Bowl. I'd prefer to wait and see what happens after Warner and maybe Flutie are resolved. Also, Namath played before the protected QBs and thus his career is a bit shorter than more recent players.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:12, 15 November 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.

Add Gino Marchetti

ADDED
Added czar 01:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Support
  1. The list has a recent bias. This is the only player on the 50th, 75th and 100th anniversary teams not on the list.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
  2. A worthy addition. Consistently rated as one of the greatest in NFL history. Cbl62 (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
  3. czar 20:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
  4. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Basketball adds and removals

Latest comment: 1 year ago63 comments8 people in discussion

Add Bob McAdoo

NOT PASSED
not enough support, and discussion stale for weeks now. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

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

I admit I am being a bit parochial, but this is a serious nom.

Support
  1. 2x scoring champ, MVP and 2x NBA Champ who is the last player to average 30/15 for an NBA season. This shifts from a 21st century subject to a 1970s beast.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
  2. McAdoo was very successful in the NBA (MVP, 2 time champion, three time scoring leader, NBA 75th Anniversary Team), the EuroLeague (2 time champion, scoring leader, final four MVP, 50 Greatest EuroLeague Contributors), Italy (2 time champion, 1 time cup winner) and college (College Hall of Fame) while also being in the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame. I don't agree with remove Pau Gasol to fit McAdoo but he does have a much more overall significant career that Robert Parish. Alvaldi (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Bobby Mac is among the Top 60 NBA players but not the Top 60 most vital basketball (inc. college, int'l, WNBA, etc.) players pbp 19:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
  2. czar 20:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Discuss
  • McAdoo was named to both the NBA 75th Anniversary Team and one of the 50 Greatest EuroLeague Contributors as well as being in the College Basketball Hall of Fame so he has a fairly decent case. I just don't agree with removing Pau Gasol in favor of him. Another American player, such as Robert Parish, might be a better target for replacement. Alvaldi (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Vs. Parish, hmm. I think McAdoo was the better player (Parish never 1st team All-NBA, never MVP, never even led the league in anything), but Parish longevity and longevity as a starter have some value. Not sure I want to make the rm Parish nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • @TonyTheTiger: Make the case for why McAdoo is more vital than Jokic. pbp 23:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
    • User:Purplebackpackonthetrail At the current point of his career, Jokic has not eclipsed McAdoo. I do expect that 3-5 years from now, he may. Here are my differences:
      1. Looking at Basketballreference.com has Jokic at a 46.5% HOF probability based on current career accomplishments, whereas McAdoo ended at 98.6%. I think Jokic just needs a few of additional above average seasons to get there.
      2. Jokic has 2 MVPs to McAdoo's 1. However, people forget how great McAdoos best years were. Through 7 seasons McAdoo's 4 best season were each better than Jokic's in terms of win shares (similarity scores at BR.com on Jokic page). Nikola Jokić: [15.6, 15.2, 11.8, 10.7, 9.8, 9.7, 6.7] McAdoo [17.8, 15.3, 12.3, 10.9, 9.6, 5.8, 3.8]. So through his first 7 seasons Jokic is behind McAdoo.
      3. McAdoo has 2 championships although McAdoo won his championships in his 10th & 13th seasons.
      4. McAdoo was 50 Greatest EuroLeague Contributors and a College Hall of Fame player.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
    • P.S. I think McAdoo is one of the small market stars who would be viewed differently by history if he had played in an era with national level sports reporting like CNN and ESPN popularized in the 1980s and fantasy sports to necessitate the fair analysis of talent. No young person today would believe his first 7 years outranking Jokic's statistically (due to the MVP count).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:05, 11 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 Pau Gasol

NOT PASSED
not enough support, and discussion stale for two months now. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Support
  1. Not an the 75th Anniversary team. Gasol was never great enough to be first team all-NBA let alone be a league MVP. Only once was he even at an AS Game starter level, whereas at his peak McAdoo started 3 in a row. Just not a high enough peak to keep McAdoo off the list.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The argument is way too American/NBA-centric in my opinion as Gasol is one of the greatest European players of all time and was a major player on the international stage. A three-time Olympic medalist, FIBA World Cup winner and MVP, three-time FIBA EuroBasket winner and MVP and seven-time FIBA EuroBasket medalist. He also won eight major individual European awards during his career. Outside of the international stage, he was a three time Liga ACB winner in his four seasons in the league and the 2001 Liga ACB finals MVP. He was also the second best player on three straight NBA finals team where he won two championships. Alvaldi (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
  2. Spain is a big basketball country and we need at least one Spanish basketball player on this list. pbp 13:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
  3. czar 20:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Discuss

TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:14, 16 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 Nikola Jokic

NOT PASSED
not enough support, and discussion stale for two months now. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2023 (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.

Nikola Jokic won the last two MVPs. Robert Parish never won the MVP award and, other than having played the most games, has a very weak case for being on here. pbp 20:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 20:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I have split your Parish/Jokic nomination, because I would rather see Parish replaced by McAdoo (above), 13-time WNBA All-Star Sue Bird or 2-time WNBA MVP Elena Delle Donne until Jokic either wins some championships (league or international tournaments) or demonstrates at least a decade of NBA excellence.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Discussion
  1. Also might prefer Brittney Griner.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:04, 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 Robert Parish

PASSED
consensus to remove.78.18.228.191 (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2023 (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.

Nikola Jokic won the last two MVPs. Robert Parish never won the MVP award and, other than having played the most games, has a very weak case for being on here. pbp 20:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 20:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  2. Longevity leads to stats that might be overemphasized. He was never the best player at his position in the sport.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  3. czar 05:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
  5. Support While Parish was a very good player, Bob McAdoo for one has a much more significant career overall considering his achivements on both sides of the Atlantic. Alvaldi (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Lenny Wilkens, remove Jerry Sloan

REMOVED
Consensus only to remove Sloan; not to add Wilkens czar 01:15, 10 April 2023 (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.

Lenny Wilkens is in the Hall of Fame as a player, Jerry Sloan isn't. Lenny Wilkens has more coaching victories than Jerry Sloan. Lenny Wilkens won a title, Sloan didn't. (Sloan is the only one of the six NBA head coaches we have on here to NOT win a title) pbp 20:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 20:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  2. Support removinging Jerry Sloan. The list is already very American centric with only two of the 25 individuals coming from outside the United States. While Sloan was an accomplished coach, there are others out there who have had way more significant coaching careers. Alvaldi (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
  3. Support removing Sloan.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support removing Sloan. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose adding Lenny Wilkens. There are already 23 individuals from the United States on the list and I'm not sure Wilkens is more significant than for instance Pedro Ferrándiz who won four Euroleague and 12 Spanish championships, Sergio Scariolo who has had great success with the Spanish national team, Greek coach Dušan Ivković who as a very impressive repertoire or Rubén Magnano who guided Argentine to the 2004 Olympic Gold and won several national championships, just to name a few. Alvaldi (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Phog Allen, remove ???

NOT PASSED
not enough support, and discussion stale for weeks now. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

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

It surprised me that we had six NCAA men's coaches (and two women's coaches) and the Phog wasn't one of them. He won an NCAA championship and two Helms (pre-NCAA) championships, is at the head of an immense coaching tree that includes Adolph Rupp and Dean Smith (BTW, Rupp is arguably another bad omission), and was involved in the creation of the NCAA tournament and the Olympic basketball tournament Possible removals:

  • Harry Statham (didn't do what he did at a major school)
  • One of the NBA commissioners. We have all five, and, IMO, David Stern and maybe Larry O'Brien are the only one with an air-tight inclusion case. Podoloff was a hockey man, not a basketball man; Eddie Gottlieb is arguably a better choice for the early years of the NBA. Kennedy and O'Brien didn't accomplish a whole helluvalot (except for the NBA-ABA merger) and the jury is still out on Adam Silver. pbp 20:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Support
Oppose
  1. Oppose. While I agree with removing most of the NBA commissioners (honestly, Stern should be the only one kept) and Harry Statham, I disagree with adding another American coach as the rest of the world is vastly underrepresented on this list. Alvaldi (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Sue Bird

ADDED
Added czar 01:15, 10 April 2023 (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.

This is an example of how hard vital article list are going to be to maintain. When leagues create all-time lists (WNBA and NBA anniversary list), they expand. I.e., a 50th anniversary list includes 50 players and a 75 anniversary list includes 75. Vital article list are different. As time passes the number of great players expands, but our list does not. 5 years ago when this list was made, she was on the outside looking in. Now that she is a 4x-WNBA champion, 5x-Olympic gold medalist, 5x-FIBA world cup champion, 2x-NCAA champion, 5x-EuroLeague Champion, and 13x-WNBA All-star. Although she has no MVPs, she has won the USA basketball Female Athlete of the Year, which is essentially an Olympics MVP award for Olympic years.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Support
  1. I think now she is among the 60 most vital.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
  2. Support – Hyperbolick (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
  3. Support Alvaldi (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
  4. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Maurice Podoloff

REMOVED
Consensus to remove czar 02:45, 10 January 2023 (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.

Was a hockey man and an arena manager. Eddie Gottlieb is a better guy for the early years of the BAA and NBA pbp 19:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 20:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
  2. Nothing vital about this article.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  3. Support Alvaldi (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 12:23, 23 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 J. Walter Kennedy

REMOVED
Consensus to remove czar 02:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

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

We don't have every MLB commissioner, why should we have all the NBA commissioners? The case for NBA commissioners except for Stern and O'Brien is weak. pbp 19:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 20:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
  2. Nothing vital about this article.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  3. Support Alvaldi (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 12:23, 23 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 Adam Silver

REMOVED
Consensus to remove czar 02:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

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

We don't have every MLB commissioner, why should we have all the NBA commissioners? The case for NBA commissioners except for Stern and O'Brien is weak. pbp 19:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 20:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
  2. He has not done much yet that makes him vital.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  3. Support for now. Alvaldi (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 12:23, 23 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 Cyrix and 3dfx Interactive

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments5 people in discussion
REMOVED
Removed, per 55% czar 01:15, 10 April 2023 (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.

They are both long-dead electronics companies that don't seem to hold much significance. Mucube (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support czar 20:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
  2. Agree. They are notable (why they have WP articles), but not at L5 level (ie more of a footnote in history, than a chapter). 31.187.2.209 (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support. Per nom, not Level 5s. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose, since Cyrix's legacy does exist and should not be ignored, and 3dfx once played a vital role in computer gaming. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:46, 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 Liu Yuan (Han Zhao)

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments5 people in discussion
REMOVED
Removed, per 55% czar 01:15, 10 April 2023 (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.

He was the founding emperor of a dynasty, sure, but a rather insignificant one. All of the other Sixteen Kingdoms rulers aren't listed, so why should he be? Mucube (talk) 05:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
Discuss

Liu Yuan was the person who overthrew the Western Jin. However, Liu Yuan was not the primary reason for the Western Jin's fall: the War of the Eight Princes was. Liu Yuan just happened to be at the right place, at the right time, and with the right army. Also, the dynasty he founded, the Former Zhao, was rather small and lasted for only 25 years. Also, as LightProof1995 has pointed out, the Politicians and leaders section is over-quota. Mucube (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

hmmmm. Perhaps swapping Fu Jian with Liu Yuan is a good idea? This period of Chinese is quite important, after all. Mucube (talk • contribs) 05:17, 27 February 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 Lawrence Ferlinghetti

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments5 people in discussion
REMOVED
Removed, per 55% czar 01:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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

We're way oversubscribed on late modern writers, especially from the US. This bio is not a high-importance topic by his field (poetry). czar 20:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Support

  1. czar 20:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
  2. Mucube (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  3. Support per your reasoning on the quotas. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  4. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose A well-known poet. --Thi (talk) 11:06, 3 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.

Add History of Central Africa, History of East Africa, and History of Southern Africa as well as Genetic history of Africa

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Presently, the History of Africa, History of North Africa and History of West Africa are listed under Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#History by continent and region (43 articles). I propose that the History of Central Africa, History of East Africa, and History of Southern Africa as well as the Genetic history of Africa be added. Daniel Power of God (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I've added the articles. LightProof1995 (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Remove Shunde District

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments6 people in discussion
REMOVED
Removed, per 55% czar 01:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Not a particularly important place. There are hundreds of other county-level divisions in Guangdong, so why should this one be listed? Mucube (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

  1. Support per your analysis. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
  3. Support --Makkool (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  4. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:45, 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.

Remove Changshu

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments6 people in discussion
REMOVED
Removed, per 55% czar 01:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Not particularly significant. The most important thing about this place I can find is that there is lots of agriculture. Mucube (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

  1. Support per your analysis. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
  3. Support --Makkool (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  4. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:45, 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.

Remove Shijingshan District

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments6 people in discussion
REMOVED
Removed, per 55% czar 01:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Not a very important part of Beijing. Mucube (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  1. Support --Thi (talk) 11:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
  2. Support --Makkool (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  3. Support Excellent proposal, thanks :) LightProof1995 (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  4. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:43, 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.

Remove Fengtai District

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments6 people in discussion
REMOVED
Removed, per 55% czar 01:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Not a very important part of Beijing. Mucube (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  1. Support --Thi (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
  2. Support --Makkool (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  3. Support Excellent proposal, thanks :) LightProof1995 (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  4. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:42, 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.

Remove Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments6 people in discussion
REMOVED
Removed, per 55% czar 01:15, 10 April 2023 (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.

Definitely not important enough to be a vital article. Mucube (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support with apologies to the B-vital squad czar 05:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
  3. Support --Makkool (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
  4. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose This article has 48,516 view counts -- more than all other essays listed combined. The Liberal Imagination only has 407 views in the past 30 days and was added as Vital by someone who was autopatrolling, not that I'm suggesting we remove that one, just pointing it out. LightProof1995 (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
    The vital article list should be based on lasting importance, not view counts. Explain to me why a random eight-year-old girl's letter to the editor has enough lasting importance to be among the world's most important 50,000 things. Mucube (talk • contribs) 05:13, 27 February 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 Serial (podcast)

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments6 people in discussion
REMOVED
Removed, per 55% czar 01:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Not particularly important. The journalism and mass media section is about 300 articles over-quota. Mucube (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support --Thi (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
  2. Support czar 03:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
  3. Support, and I'd suggest removing JRE while we're at it. No need to have individual podcasts, if Podcast itself is listed for the first time at this level. --Makkool (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
    1. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I added target counts to the Journalism and Mass media section a couple of days ago -- It is only Television that is over quota. Also this podcast looks pretty cool, even important. LightProof1995 (talk) 00:36, 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.

Remove Fiji National University

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments5 people in discussion
REMOVED
Removed, per 55% czar 01:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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

It's not an important university, and we are over-quota on education articles. Mucube (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  1. Support czar 03:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
  3. Agree. Not a globally important university; not L5. 31.187.2.209 (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:37, 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.

Remove Electric Daisy Carnival and Tomorrowland (festival)

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments5 people in discussion
REMOVED
Removed, per 55% czar 01:15, 10 April 2023 (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.

They're not super important and we are over-quota on culture articles. Mucube (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  1. Support czar 03:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
  3. Oppose EDC rules!! I assume Tomorrowland does too. LightProof1995 (talk) 00:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  4. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:37, 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.

Remove Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments5 people in discussion
REMOVED
Removed, per 55% czar 01:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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

We are over-quota on education articles and both of the articles are covered by Bachelor's degree. Mucube (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  1. Support czar 03:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
  2. Support you're right LightProof1995 (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  3. Support Lorax (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:37, 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.

Remove Moldovan language

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments6 people in discussion
REMOVED
Removed, per 55% czar 01:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Support
  1. "Moldovan" is officially recognized by the Moldova government as a synonym for Romanian. Mucube (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
  2. Support After considering, I'd say remove. --Makkool (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support Removal LightProof1995 (talk) 07:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I added Moldovan to the list one time, along with other languages with official recognition. My reasoning was that it's official status in Moldova made it vital. But I agree that's it's really just a synonym, so it doesn't justify a place on the list with other specific languages. --Makkool (talk) 11:18, 26 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: Remove Frederick III, German Emperor, add Frederick William IV of Prussia

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments5 people in discussion
SWAPPED
Swapped, per 55% czar 01:15, 10 April 2023 (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.

Frederick III was ruler of Germany for a few months. FW4 was ruler of Prussia for 17-21 years, depending if you count the years he was incapacitated pbp 16:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 16:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
  2. Support. Both arguments. 2001:BB6:24BB:D500:11CB:DD12:B5CF:589B (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
  3. Support. I'm teaching history in Germany - Frederick III is really unimportant. If a German history book mentions him at all, it is as a crown prince in his father's shadow. Frederick William IV is immensely important, not least as the king who suppressed the Revolution of 1848. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Frederick III's premature death when he was such a celebrated leader is exactly what makes him vital. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Television section is way over-quota

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The number of articles in the television section is almost twice the quota. I know basically nothing about television, so hopefully I can bring the television section to the attention of someone who knows more than me about television. Mucube (talk • contribs) 00:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I have looked into it, not as thoroughly as it should be done with a serious assessment, but my impression is there is nothing much to trim, for example most shows listed are very influential for the history of television and for popular culture in general. Maybe it's the current quota for television being too low for a medium which had such a huge impact on human society. 151.61.27.72 (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
All the other sections in the Culture sublist are over-quota as well, so I'm not sure where we would find slots for making the television quota higher. Maybe we should have a discussion across the whole Level 5 about what the quotas for each category should be, and find space for keeping all the television articles listed. Or maybe we have just been overly ambitious, and we could be more strict about what's vital in the TV section. Level 4 has 17 TV articles, and Level 5 has 461 - that's an 2700 % increase. --Makkool (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
As someone who has adjusted the target counts and added target counts to sections that didn't have them yet, I can confirm we are just going to have to take out a bunch of the TV shows listed. I already just increased the target count of the Culture section overall from 1675 to 1750 by taking some counts from other sections e.g. Math. Even though I added 75 to the target count, when I added target counts to the remaining sections in "Journalism and Mass media", I ended up having to decrease the Television target counts from 315 to 260: "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Society_and_social_sciences/Culture&diff=1130473791&oldid=1130469552". It seems the original target count of the Television section was 240. Also note even though the target was at 1675, the sum of the targets was 1725, so I actually only added 25 more. Still, I added them all to "Journalism and mass media", which the TV section falls under, and the TV section target count still went down. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Remove BBC World News

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments6 people in discussion
REMOVED
Removed, per 55% czar 01:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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

The television section is way over-quota and listing the BBC World News article is redundant to the main BBC article. Mucube (talk • contribs) 00:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

  1. Support It seems "BBC World News" is going to merge into "BBC News" anyway. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  2. Support per above Multifarious Ailurophile (talk) 12:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:35, 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.

About some United States Supreme Court cases

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There used to be more such cases in the Level 5 list, yet there are now gone (e.g. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District and Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.). May other editors tell why? I'm so surprised when I read the talk page of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, discovering that it is no longer regarded vital at this level, and more cases are no longer included in the list. RekishiEJ (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@RekishiEJ: Methinks that all but the biggest SCOTUS decisions lack vitality outside the United States, and that the number of SCOTUS decisions was unbalanced relative to the number of court cases from other countries. pbp 16:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Swap: add SimCity, remove SimCity (1989 video game)

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments5 people in discussion
SWAPPED
Swapped, per 55% czar 01:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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

I prefer a wider overview over listing the individual game.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 14:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  3. Support great proposal :) LightProof1995 (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The first SimCity was ground-breaking as one of the first city planning sims. The rest of the games in the series don't have the same level of notability. (I'm in the opinion that individual games or movies are almost always more vital than series articles.) --Makkool (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)'
SimCity 1989 is listed in the Library of Congress's game canon, which further supports it's inclusion. --Makkool (talk) 10:14, 14 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.

Return Street Fighter II that was removed without discussion

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments4 people in discussion
REPLACED
Replaced in January czar 01:15, 10 April 2023 (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.

SF2 is one of the most notable video games released in the 1990's, and a ground-breaking title in arcade games of that decade and fighting games of all time. --Makkool (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Support

  1. As nom. --Makkool (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support swap for Street Fighter LightProof1995 (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support swap for Street Fighter--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. We already have Street Fighter. That should be IMO swapped out if SF2 is to be added.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 19:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
    1. I agree - swap, if this gets enough support. --Makkool (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
      1. Clarifying my vote explicitly to Oppose unless Street Fighter is removed--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Discuss:

Everyone who was involved with the initial bold swap has now agreed Street Fighter II is a better choice if we are to only have one, so I've made the swap. LightProof1995 (talk) 07:04, 12 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 Rishi Sunak (revisiting this topic)

Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments9 people in discussion
ADDED
Added, per 55% czar 01:15, 10 April 2023 (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.

When Rishi Sunak took office, there was a discussion on whether or not to add him, as we have most other British prime ministers. The discussion was closed as no consensus. Several people wanted to see if his prime ministry made it to 2023 before adding him. It now has. pbp 16:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 16:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support, yes, now it is time. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
  5. Yes. 31.187.2.16 (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support. --LJFIN2 (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Onwa (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC) current overquota of politicians (2457/2300) and over representation of UK politicians over other European leaders (27 of 100 from Western Europe or 160 from Europe overall). However, if this biography is still considered "important" and "vital", please swap it for other British politician. --Onwa (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
  2. There's just not enough space for every PM. Not clear why Sunak should go in over e.g. Sanna Marin (longer tenure, also a demographic first, decision to abandon neutrality and join NATO happened on her watch) or Fumio Kishida (longer tenure). I don't think either of those make the bar, and I don't think Sunak does either. List overall is already too Anglosphere heavy and I'd support thinning out the UK PMs and thickening up rest-of-world coverage. Polyphemus Goode (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Discuss

@Onwa: You might want to check out the removals I proposed below pbp 02:47, 5 February 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 Mark Drakeford (revisiting this topic)

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments6 people in discussion
REMOVED
Removed, per 55% czar 01:15, 10 April 2023 (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.

When Sunik was nominated for addition, there was concern that this should be balanced by a British removal, maybe more than one because politicians is over quota. 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. In 2022, was nominated for removal, vote was 2-0 before going stale. pbp 03:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 03:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
  2. --Makkool (talk) 10:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
  3. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
  4. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
  5. Polyphemus Goode (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Keir Starmer (revisiting this topic)

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments8 people in discussion
REMOVED
Removed, per 55% czar 01:15, 10 April 2023 (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.

When Sunik was nominated for addition, there was concern that this should be balanced by a British removal, maybe more than one because politicians is over quota. Would be notable if he became PM for longer than a lettuce head but oppo leader generally isn't notable enough. In 2022, was nominated for removal, vote was 2-0 before going stale. pbp 03:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 03:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
  2. --Makkool (talk) 10:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
  3. Onwa (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC) per nom.
  4. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC) per nom.
  5. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
  6. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
  7. Polyphemus Goode (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Louis Antoine, Duke of Angoulême and Henri, Count of Chambord

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments5 people in discussion
REMOVED
Removed, per 55% czar 01:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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

We're over quota on politicians and we applied the head of lettuce test to Liz Truss. I suggest we do that to these two French noblemen as well. Their claim to being monarch is tenuous (hence why they aren't called Louis XIX or whatever in their article titles) and the time they held claim to the monarchy is comically short, in one case, a mere twenty minutes. pbp 03:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 03:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
  2. These two are hardly even relevant in French history, let alone world history. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
  3. Only reigning for twenty minutes is obviously not enough to be listed. Mucube (talk • contribs) 22:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
  4. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

American football coaching/business adds and deletes

Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments7 people in discussion

Add Nick Saban

ADDED
Added czar 01:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Support

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.

Remove Roger Goodell

REMOVED
Removed czar 01:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Support

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.

January 6 attack formatted incorrectly

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Under the United States section of the 21st century history section, it appears that the January 6 United States Capitol attack and Aftermath of the January 6 United States Capitol attack articles are listed as subsections to the 2017 Las Vegas shooting article. Could someone fix this? TheAmazingRaspberry (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks like this was fixed czar 02:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

About Sergei Makarov

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/People/Sports_figures includes this internal link, however it is a now disambiguation page. I want to fix it but am unsure whether it refers to a right winger or a defenceman. I guess it refers to the former, but still want to hear what other editors think.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

It is the right winger (the VA template was added to their TP in 2018). Aszx5000 (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Replace Prolog with Rust or Ruby

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments5 people in discussion
REMOVED
No activity in several months. Consensus to remove Prolog but not for swap. czar 23:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

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

It seems like Prolog is just another one of those old, outdated, and obscure programming languages. I suggest we replace it with either with Rust or Ruby, which are much more popular. Mucube (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Prolog's very different to just about every other language (that it hasn't directly influenced). From a million-mile-high perspective, Python/Ruby/JS/Lua all share basically the same design and programming paradigm, but Prolog definitely doesn't. I think there's diversity value in keeping it on the list, but I appreciate that that argument also goes for a whole bunch of other languages that aren't currently included (e.g., there's no representative from the Forth/stack-based school). Polyphemus Goode (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Remove Prolog with no swap. 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)
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 Hachiōji with Chiyoda, Tokyo

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments5 people in discussion
REPLACED
Replaced, per 55% support czar 23:54, 23 April 2023 (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.

Hachiōji is not a particularly significant part of Tokyo. I suggest we replace it with Chiyoda, which is much more significant, being the location of the Imperial Palace, National Diet, Prime Minister's Official Residence, Supreme Court, and many other government ministries and agencies. Mucube (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

  1. Strong Support I've studied Tokyo's districts before and agree with your analysis. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
  3. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support. czar 02:47, 10 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.

Add WeChat Pay and Alipay

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments5 people in discussion
ADDED
Added Alipay, per 55% (incl. nom). No consensus for WeChat Pay. czar 23:54, 23 April 2023 (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.

WeChat Pay and Alipay are both extremely popular in China, as anyone who has spent at least an hour in China can attest. The number of people who use these services far outnumber PayPal, which is listed here. (In 2021, WeChat Pay had 900 million users. In June 2020, Alipay had over 1.3 billion users. In 2022, PayPal only had 432 million active accounts.) Mucube (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Support
  1. Add Alipay, not WeChat Pay. If truly the largest mobile payments platform, then vital to the field. Agreed that WeChat is sufficiently covered. czar 05:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
  2. Add Alipay, (WeChat is already Level 5); Alipay is world's largest platform (bigger than PayPal). 78.18.228.191 (talk) 11:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. Agree. AliPay is bigger than PayPal. 31.187.2.237 (talk) 20:52, 28 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.

Add Minato, Tokyo

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
NO CONSENSUS
No activity in several months. czar 23:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

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

We have many of Beijing's districts listed (Chaoyang District, Dongcheng District, Haidian District, etc.), so we should have some of Tokyo's special wards too. I think that we should add Minato, because many large companies have their headquarters in Minato (Honda, Mitsubishi Motors, NEC, Nikon, Sony, Fujitsu and the foreign headquarters of Apple and Goldman Sachs), and basically every country with an embassy in Japan has it in Minato (see Minato, Tokyo#Diplomatic missions. Also, Keio University is located in Minato. Mucube (talk) 04:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you if we keep Beijing's districts, we should have some of Tokyo's. I feel we could only have 2 or 3 for each city. Most or all of the sub-districts of Manila seem to be relevant enough to keep even if we take out a couple of Beijing's. LightProof1995 (talk) 00:15, 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 Pudong

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments5 people in discussion
ADDED
Added, per 55% (incl. nom) czar 23:54, 23 April 2023 (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.

Since we have a lot of Beijing's districts listed, we should have some of Shanghai's districts too. We should add Pudong because it's home to the Lujiazui, which includes the Oriental Pearl Tower, Shanghai World Financial Center, and Shanghai Tower, all of which are one of Shanghai's iconic landmarks. Also in Pudong are The Bund, the Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park (which has been called China's Silicon Valley), the Shanghai Pudong International Airport, and Disneyland. Mucube (talk) 05:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support --Thi (talk) 11:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Sichuanese

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments5 people in discussion
ADDED
Added, per 55% (incl. nom) czar 23:54, 23 April 2023 (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.

Surprised that it hasn't been added yet. According to the article, it is spoken by about 120 million people, ahead of languages like Vietnamese and Korean. Mucube (talk) 05:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  1. Support --Makkool (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  3. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:38, 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.

Add Mongolic languages

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion
NO CONSENSUS
No activity in several months and not enough support to action. czar 23:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Support
  1. We have Tungusic, with about 75,000 native speakers, and even Altaic, which is only a proposed language family, listed, so we should have Mongolic, with more than 5.7 million speakers, listed. Mucube (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
  2. Support I'd say we should add this. --Makkool (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

The language section is over because a lot of the articles are double-listed from levels 2-4 and, I think, bloating the category. We should clear out some of these and then see what the numbers are. Kazamzam (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The articles from previous levels are supposed to be listed here as well. --Makkool (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm undecided, but the Mongolian language is already listed in specific languages. Would that be enough cover it? And so far no Tungusic languages are covered in specific languages though. It's a significant language family despite a smaller number of speakers. --Makkool (talk) 18:48, 25 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: Remove Japonic and Koreanic languages, add Na-Dene and Australian Aboriginal languages

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
NO CONSENSUS
No activity in several months and not enough support to action. czar 23:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

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

I doesn't really make sense keeping Japonic and Koreanic languages in the language families sections, as we already list Japanese and Korean. Na-Dene and Pama-Nyungan would be good additions to increase North-American and Australian representation. --Makkool (talk) 11:12, 25 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 bisexual pornography, add lesbian erotica

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments6 people in discussion
REPLACED
Replaced, per 55% support Makkool (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2023 (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.

Feel like one of these is self-evidently more important. LarstonMarston (talk) 04:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom LarstonMarston (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  2. Support as aficionado Kazamzam (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
  3. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
  4. Ilya O. Sarvar (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Lesbian pornography is currently a redirect to Lesbian erotica. @LarstonMarston: would you change tthe nomination? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

changed it. LarstonMarston (talk) 15:59, 12 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 Bondage rigger, add Adolescent sexuality

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion
DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:40, 29 May 2023 (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.

Bondage rigger is just someone who applies bondage, while adolescent sexuality is a broad important topic.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
  2. Support makes sense. --Onwa (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
  3. 〜 Festucalex • talk 12:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support The person who loves reading (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add César Vallejo and Mario Benedetti

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments6 people in discussion
DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 20:43, 8 June 2023 (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.

Two very important Latin American poets are missing.

As for César Vallejo, the article states «he is considered one of the great poetic innovators of the 20th century in any language», and he's been defined as «the greatest universal poet since Dante» and «the greatest twentieth-century poet in any language».

Mario Benedetti «is considered one of Latin America's most important writers of the latter half of the 20th century». 151.61.24.119 (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support --Thi (talk) 12:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
  2. Support Mucube (talk • contribs) 22:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  3. Support only if I can take out some of the poets with less than 100 views in the past 30 days since we are over quota -- there seem to be a superfluous amount of obscure Brazilian and Russian ones listed. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  4. Strong Support 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support The person who loves reading (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
  1. @Czar: Can you implement this one?
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 Pekalongan, Probolinggo, Cirebon, Cimahi, Kediri (city), Sukabumi, Tasikmalaya, Tegal AND Add Pangkal Pinang, Tanjung Pinang, Banjarbaru, Gorontalo (city), Sorong

Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments7 people in discussion
DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:58, 29 May 2023 (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.

Why? For one, the current list doesnt make any sense. All of the proposed removals are random Javanese cities that have little significant compared to its big industrial center/capital city. As my previous proposal was largely ignored, I will explain now my reasoning in details for each cities.

Removal

  • Pekalongan: Significantly smaller than Semarang which is the capital of the province and less significant politically. The reasoning that it is the most important port of the province is doubted as there are handful of bigger industrial ports within the province's coast such as Tanjung Emas in Semarang and Batang Port.
  • Probolinggo: Compared to capital of the province, Surabaya, the influence of the city both economically and politically for the province in general is far smaller. For one, it is not even the second largest city of the province (that goes to Malang). Compared to Surabaya which is the second largest city in the country and gateway to Madura and also Eastern Indonesia in general and Malang which is 12th largest city in the country and historically important, there's little reason to include Probolinggo in the list.
  • Cirebon: West Java has numbers of cities that are far more important such as Bandung which is the capital city, Bogor which is historically and culturally important and also part of Jakarta metropolitan area, and also Depok and Bekasi which are part of Jakarta metropolitan area and hosts significant industries. Similar reasoning with Probolinggo's removal.
  • Cimahi: Same reasoning with above, relatively small city within the province.
  • Kediri: While could be argued historically important, it has small population relative to other cities within the province (East Java) and compared to Surabaya, still far less important. Similar reasoning with Probolinggo.
  • Sukabumi: Same reasoning with Cimahi and Cirebon, relatively little importance compared to other cities in West Java
  • Tasikmalaya: Again, another one from West Java. Relatively little importance compared to likes of Bandung, Bogor, Bekasi, Depok. We have enough of important cities from West Java.
  • Tegal: Relatively less important city for East Java, similar reasoning as others. Relatively small economy by Javanese city standart.

Addition

  • Pangkal Pinang: Largest city of Bangka Belitung Province, most economically and politically important administrative division in the province.
  • Tanjung Pinang: Governance center and capital of Riau Islands hence politically important, historically important when it comes to Malay history.
  • Banjarbaru: Capital of the province hence politically important. Major government institutions of the province are located in the city.
  • Gorontalo: Largest city and capital of Gorontalo province, economic and education center of the province. Important port for northern part of Sulawesi and Minahasan peninsula.
  • Sorong: Economically important city for the Bird Head Peninsula region, major industrial center for West Papua in general. Third largest city in the island behind Jayapura and Port Moresby. Also now capital of newly-formed province of Southwest Papua.

That's all of my reasoning. Thank you Nyanardsan (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Support
  1. Reasonable points, I support this swap. --Makkool (talk) 10:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
  3. Support 〜 Festucalex • talk 08:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  4. Disagree, replace them with the more significant place you listed in the same province. I don’t know much about Indonesia though, so if you could contrast the difference between provinces, then maybe. Vital Articles Grammar (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
@Vital Articles Grammar
Most of those important places I listed in the same province are already in the list so there's pretty much nothing to argue there. There's underrepresentation of non-Javanese provinces here too and that should be tackled (Bangka Belitung, Gorontalo, and West Papua/Southwest Papua do not have any city listed in vital article as of now, there are other provinces too but they dont have city/having city status yet so its a misnomer to add them here). Since we are talking here city-wise, not province-wise, the importance of the provinces are not to be discussed here but the city instead. Nyanardsan (talk) 06:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
In that case Support. Thanks for clarifying things. Vital Articles Grammar (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
  1. Support The person who loves reading (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I've added 25 to the target counts of Southeast Asian cities, taken from the Western Asia cities section which was at 161/200 articles. Now it is at 161/175 articles while Southeast Asian cities are at 153/155 articles. While the entire section on Cities is 30 over, the sections that are over-quota are the Western and African sections, not Southeast Asia. Therefore, we no longer have to necessarily reduce the number of cities listed when making proposals in the Southeast Asian cities section. Therefore, currently I Oppose removing all the cities you propose removing except for Probolinggo and Tegal, which I Support removing. I also Support the additions of all cities you propose as adding although it should be noted Sorong is already listed. Tegal I am okay with removing only because it is redundant with Pekalongan -- both were Dutch ports known for sugar and are close to each other. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@LightProof1995: Can you please link to the discussion about changing the target counts? Thank you. Vital Articles Grammar (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Hey @Vital Articles Grammar, I'm not sure who set the original target counts for cities. Unlike adding or removing articles, setting target counts isn't nearly as regulated, so the discussion is here.
Since we are close to 50,000, we can assume for categories people are most passionate about, the number of articles in there quotas is somewhat close to what it will end up being. So that's why I went ahead and moved 25 from "Western Asia" to "Southeast Asia" when Western was at 161/200, while Southern was at 153/130.
However, we can go ahead and analyze all view counts with the Geography section for confirmation those are good targets. We can also compare the populations of each area to determine the targets.
For starters, Southeast Asia has close to double the population of Western Asia: 669 million people[1] compared to 363 million people[2]. So we can move more target counts from Western Asia to Southeast Asia, and they should at least be equal.
Africa's target of 200 I think covers the cities in it I'd consider vital.
I was going to say America's target of 360 may be over, but then I saw Europe's target of 435.
Asia's population is 57% of the world population[3], and currently has a target of 880, which is 45.8% of the 1920 total location-specific articles -- not a difference big enough I feel it needs to be changed.
So overall I think setting both Western Asia and Southeast Asia to 165 articles each is best for now. This also means I Oppose all proposed removals but Support all proposed additions. LightProof1995 (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC) LightProof1995 (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=southeast+asia+population
  2. ^ https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=western+asia+population, https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=western+asia+population+plus+iran+population
  3. ^ https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=asia+population
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 "All I Want for Christmas Is You"

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments7 people in discussion
NOT DONE
Not done, per 55% opposing votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:31, 29 May 2023 (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.

Now that we are in the digital download and streaming subscription era of music, we have very hard data on what the most demanded songs of the Christmas season are. Each of the last 4 holiday seasons, "All I Want for Christmas Is You" been number 1 on the 2019, 2020, 2021, and List of Billboard Hot 100 number ones of 2022. Since there are 10 Xmas slots, I would think about removing either "Good King Wenceslas" or "Santa Lucia".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Support

  1. As nom. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
  2. Yes, surprised this wasn't already on the list. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. Makes sense --LJFIN2 (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. We're oversubscribed in music and doesn't reach the level of others in the overrepresented subcategory. czar 02:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  3. 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
  4. Oppose The person who loves reading (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Add Sorani

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
DONE
Done WP:BOLDly by Makkool 〜 Festucalex • talk 20:46, 8 June 2023 (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.

Native language for 8 mln people. For this level it is enough. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  • I agree in principle with this. We already list Kurdish language though, and we are over the quota for specific languages. We would need to free a few slots first, as we would need to list Kurmanji along with Sorani under Kurdish. --Makkool (talk) 10:47, 7 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 Northern Sotho language

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion
NOT DONE
Not done, per 55% opposing votes (incl. proposer) 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:53, 6 May 2023 (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.

Another quite popular language Dawid2009 (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
  1. Oppose - articles are not added based on "popularity" and 4 million speakers isn't terribly noteworthy on its own. Maybe it should be added but you need a much better argument than this. Kazamzam (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per above czar 02:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  3. 〜 Festucalex • talk 12:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Rwanda-Rundi

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments5 people in discussion
NOT DONE
Not done, per 55% opposing votes (incl. proposer). The person who loves reading (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2023 (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.

20 milion speakers. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support We have the space for it now, which was the reason I opposed before. We list other languages with multiple varieties like Hindustani and Ovambo, so Rwanda-Rundi fits as well. --Makkool (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We already list both Rundi and Kinyarwanda, which are two standardized varieties of Rwanda-Rundi. --Makkool (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per above czar 02:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  3. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  4. Oppose The person who loves reading (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
  • There were some slots available in specific languages and I went ahead and added this to the list. We can always remove it, if we don't agree to keep it and need to free up space for some other more vital article. --Makkool (talk) 07:25, 1 May 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 Alemannic German

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion
NOT DONE
Not done, per 55% opposing votes (incl. proposer) 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Not sos ure about it but I do nomination. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
  1. Oppose If we would include it, we would have to take in Bavarian German and possible other varieties too, and we wouldn't have the space. --Makkool (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  2. Oppose czar 02:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  3. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add hardware bug

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion
NOT DONE
Not done, per 55% opposing votes (incl. proposer). The person who loves reading (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2023 (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.

Now that software bug is included its hardware counterpart should be added as well.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Not the same importance in field as software bug. czar 02:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  2. per Czar 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  3. The person who loves reading (talk) 00:58, 29 May 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.

Arts–Architecture–Specific Structures Proposals

Latest comment: 1 year ago83 comments14 people in discussion

We are over-quota on both the Arts section and the Specific Structures section under Architecture. There are a number of Structures here I don't think are vital compared to some that are not listed. I'm proposing removals and additions below—all proposals are independent of each other, although since I've wanted others to try to keep proposals to where they still match the target counts once they are all implemented, I'll do the same here (just know all proposals are still independent/we don't have to add/remove exactly what I suggest).

Remove TWA Flight Center

REMOVED
Removed, per 55% czar 01:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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

We already have JFK Airport listed under technology along with a dozen other airports. This also reduces Western bias.

Support:

  1. As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
  2. Agree --Makkool (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. Per nom, just not on the same level. 31.187.2.209 (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support. Is really part of JFK; excessive US-focus. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
  5. Not important. Mucube (talk • contribs) 23:08, 28 February 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 Santiago de Compostela Cathedral

REMOVED
Removed 122.59.183.243 (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

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

We already have Camino de Santiago listed. To list them both is redundant, as the cathedral is a part of the pilgrimage routes. The Camino article also receives way more views than the cathedral article–59,079 views in the last 30 days compared to the cathedral's 7,471 views. This also reduces Western bias.

Support:

  1. As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
  2. Agree --Makkool (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support. czar 02:47, 10 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.

Swap Paris meridian for Greenwich Observatory

DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

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

I don't think the Paris meridian should be listed over the Greenwich one when the International Reference Meridian is based on the Greenwich meridian.

Support:

  1. As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
  2. Agree, head-to-head, Greenwich is a stronger candidate than Paris. 31.187.2.209 (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support. Greenwich is definitely more important than Paris. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  5. Definitely. Basically no one uses the Paris meridian today. Mucube (talk • contribs) 23:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
  6. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Isn't Coordinated Universal Time the target this thread is actually discussing, not the observatory? UTC is the in-use successor to Greenwich Mean Time. I can support removing Paris but I'd add UTC before Greenwich Observatory. czar 15:09, 15 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.

Swap out Mudéjar architecture of Aragon, Swap in Rock-cut architecture (under Styles)

SWAPPED
Swapped, per 55% czar 01:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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

I was going to move the Mudéjar architecture article to under the Architecture/Styles section, but decided it would be better to remove it altogether and put Rock-cut architecture under styles instead. The Mudéjar architecture article only has 254 views in the past 30 days, and refers to architecture seen only in one city in Spain. Rock-cut architecture is much more broad and includes Indian rock-cut architecture such as stepwells, along with other locations around the world such as the Cliff Palace, the Mogao Caves, Petra, and the Lalibela churches.

Support:

  1. As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
  2. Agree. On a head-to-head, makes sense. 31.187.2.209 (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
  4. Definitely. Broader is better. Mucube (talk • contribs) 23:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion: Should Mudéjar architecture of Aragon be merged into Mudéjar architecture, and that be listed as vital somewhere? Note both Spanish Gothic architecture and Spanish Renaissance architecture are listed, and Mudéjar style spanned both Medieval and Renaissance eras. LightProof1995 (talk) 09:40, 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.

Add Nazca Lines

ADDED
Added 122.59.183.243 (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2023 (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.

This will reduce the Western bias by adding a South America article (Of the 32 Americas specific structures listed, only 2 are in South America). The Nazca Lines are a very unique architectural work of Pre-Columbian art. They've inspired a lot of speculation on their construction, similar to The Pyramids. Views of Nazca Lines in the past 30 days: 57,463.

Support:

  1. As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
  2. Agreed, culturally significant, deserves to be in the list Lorax (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. Agree --Makkool (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  4. Agreed, highly significant. 31.187.2.209 (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support. Another UNESCO top site. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  7. Onwa (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
  8. Support--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 12:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
  9. Definitely vital. Mucube (talk • contribs) 23:08, 28 February 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 Kensington Palace and Hampton Court Palace

REMOVED
Removed 122.59.183.243 (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2023 (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.

This will reduce the Western bias by removing some articles I'd consider superfluous English royal residences that don't particularly deserve to be listed here over other British royal residences such as Sandringham House, Clarence House, and Balmoral Castle.

Support:

  1. As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
  2. Agree --Makkool (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support. czar 02:47, 10 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.

Add Ishtar Gate

ADDED
Added, per 55% czar 01:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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

The Ishtar Gate was one of the 8 main gates of Babylon, which was also known for wonders such as the Hanging Gardens and the Tower of Babel. Many replicas of it exist although the original was so massive there is no exact replica of the entire original structure, only facades or segments of the gate. Since Tower of Babel is already listed under Philosophy, so I think Ishtar Gate is the better choice if we are to add another Babylon structure instead of Etemenanki due to the redundancy of having both Etemenanki and Tower of Babel listed (Etemenanki is suspected to have inspired the Tower of Babel legend). Views of Ishtar Gate in the past 30 days: 18,923.

Support:

  1. As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
  2. Agree --Makkool (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. Agree. Per nom. 31.187.2.209 (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 12:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Discuss

What wrong with adding Etemananki? Something inspiring something else isn't really redundant. Plus, the Tower of Babel was only a myth, not a real structure. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with adding Ishtar Gate, but I don't think that Etemenanki is redundant to the Tower of Babel. Mucube (talk • contribs) 23:08, 28 February 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 Brihadisvara Temple

ADDED
Added, per 55% czar 01:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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

We have zero examples of Dravidian architecture on the list. While there are several great options, I’m choosing this temple because it is famous for both its engineering along with its architecture. A symbol of Tamil Nadu, adding this temple will reduce the Western bias. Views of Brihadisvara Temple in the past 30 days: 68,569.

Support:

  1. As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
  2. Agree --Makkool (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. Agree Multifarious Ailurophile (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support. Major UNESCO site. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Discuss

I think that adding Ranganathaswamy Temple, Srirangam might be better since it is more than three times larger in area and it is also in Tamil Nadu. It was also built by the Chola Empire, but hundreds of years earlier. Mucube (talk • contribs) 23:08, 28 February 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 Newgrange

ADDED
Added, per 55% czar 01:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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

I wanted to suggest we add an Irish structure since we have so many in the United Kingdom but zero in Ireland. The world’s largest passage tomb, Newgrange is older than both Stonehenge and The Pyramids. It’s one of Ireland's most famous archeological sites along with the Hill of Tara. Views of Newgrange in past 30 days: 25,829.

Support:

  1. As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support. Per nom. Really surprised this was not Level 5, and is probably one of the most important structures in Europe from that era. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. Agree Makkool (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  4. Absolutely. Great spot by nom, highly significant site. 31.187.2.209 (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support Looks like a very important archeological site. Mucube (talk • contribs) 22:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Discussion

Newgrange is one of only three UNESCO sites on the whole Ireland island, the other two being: Giant's Causeway (a Level 5 for physical, and in Northern Ireland), and Skellig Michael, another Level 5 possibility? Is Wikipedia Level 5 reconciled with the UNESCO List? This might be an exercise worth doing? Certainly, sites that are not on the UNESCO list may indicate they are not really Level 5 (unless there is some controversy around their non-inclusion on UNESCO). 78.18.228.191 (talk) 12:20, 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 Cathedral of Christ the Saviour

REMOVED
Removed, per 55% czar 01:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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

We already have the iconic cathedral of Moscow: St. Basil's Cathedral. The general consensus seems to be to list one cathedral per city (see proposal on removing St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York, above). The Cathedral of Christ the Saviour may be the largest in Moscow, but is is also very new, being built 1995-2000. (The original was demolished on purpose to be replaced by a Soviet palace, but that was never built and they rebuilt this church when the Soviet Union collapsed.) Removing this may also reduce Western bias (unless Newgrange replaces it, but a swap for Newgrange I feel is good since we have zero Irish structures and nine Russian ones.).

Support:

  1. As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  2. Agree Makkool (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support. Not even UNESCO (and not the original). 78.18.228.191 (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 19:04, 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 Kazan Cathedral, St. Petersburg

REMOVED
Removed 122.59.183.243 (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

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

I'm not sure why this one is listed. It's not the largest cathedral in St. Petersburg, that is St. Isaac's Cathedral, which is not listed even though I'd also consider it to be St. Petersburg's most iconic cathedral. Compare their view counts: St. Isaac's has 4,590 in the past 30 days compared to this cathedral's at 1,895. We also already have three other structures in St. Petersburg listed.

Support:

  1. As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom; although the Our Lady of Kazan could be a Level 5? 78.18.228.191 (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support. czar 02:47, 10 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.

Add Tokyo Skytree

ADDED
Added, per 55% czar 01:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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

It's now been the world's tallest observation tower for over ten years. Note CN Tower and Ostankino Tower are listed, which also have also held the record but are shorter (and in Ostankino Tower's case, held the record for less time) than Tokyo Skytree. Adding this will also reduce Western bias. Views of Tokyo Skytree in past 30 days: 47,496.

Support
  1. As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  2. Per nom. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
  4. Being the world's tallest tower for ten years is certainly enough for vitality. Mucube (talk • contribs) 23:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Comment on this: The only reason I haven't added some of these articles as vital (Newgrange, Ishtar Gate, Nazca Lines, etc.) is because we are over quota and there haven't been enough votes to remove some of the other articles. Specifically, we need at least 4 votes to remove an article. I would go ahead and remove Cathedral of Christ the Savior and TWA Flight Center and add others in, but it didn't feel right to remove the Cathedral of Christ the Savior but not the Kazan Cathedral in St. Petersburg, which is obviously less vital. So I was waiting for that one, at least, to receive 4 votes for removal. LightProof1995 (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Move Lalibela to Geography/Cities section, add Rock-Hewn Churches, Lalibela here

DONE
Swapped, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:25, 5 May 2023 (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.

Comparing/reading through the two articles, I believe the Rock-Hewn Churches is one meant to be here. It needs work, and the article on Lalibela itself has to be too focused on the history/demographics of the city to sufficiently cover the religious/cultural/architectural significance of the churches. I'm proposing just moving Lalibela over to the Cities section instead of swapping it out -- I went through the target counts of the Cities section before and I feel Africa's target is under quota (See my analysis in the Indonesian cities proposals above -- I initially felt Africa's target counts were okay until I saw the target counts of the other continents.).

Support:

  1. As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support add, Oppose move. To me, it doesn't seem to be a vital topic as a city on it's own. Besides, we are over-quota in East African cities. So I would just remove Lalibela. --Makkool (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support swap --Thi (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support Add Rock-Hewn Churches, Lalibela, Remove Lalibela. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:17, 28 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.

Add Felipe VI

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments5 people in discussion
NOT DONE
Not done, per 55% opposing votes (incl. proposer) 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:51, 6 May 2023 (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.

Is the current king of Spain. 77.27.88.152 (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

support
oppose
  1. Oppose. Too soon (and nothing yet that would make him Level 5). Aszx5000 (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Not "highest importance" in its field. No assertion of its enduring importance or essentialness in its category. Not vital. czar 02:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  3. 〜 Festucalex • talk 03:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
discuss
  1. Coment For example, in Netherlands is the current king Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands and he has 1 year (of reign) more than Felipe VI, @User:Aszx5000 @User:Czar 77.27.89.221 (talk) 06:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
    I'd support removing that one as well czar 13:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
    So would I. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:13, 13 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.

Religious Figures to add

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments6 people in discussion
NOT DONE
Not done, per 55% opposing votes (incl. proposer). The person who loves reading (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2023 (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.

@RekishiEJ wanted me to propose some additions to the Religious figures section. They are as follows:

Alexandre de Rhodes

Drogön Chögyal Phagpa

Francisco de Pina

Machig Labdrön

Vajradhara

However, the Target count of Religious Figures currently is at 500/500. Should we increase the target count to 505 and add these articles as vital? (Or maybe a different target count, like 525?)

Support:

Oppose:

  1. Oppose They don't seem to be notable enough to be listed on this level. De Rhodes and de Pina seem to be more vital as linguists than religious figures, so should they be listed with social scientists rather? (along with Mesrop Mashtots, the creator of the Armenian alphabet for example). Also Vajradhara is a mythical/disputed figure, so he should be listed in the Religion section along with Moses and other Old Testament characters. --Makkool (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. No strong rationale given; moving stale nomination along. czar 13:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  3. 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
  4. The person who loves reading (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I'm currently unsure of where we can get the target counts from, but as I go down the list and continue updating the counts, maybe something will make sense, and if so I'll support these additions at that point. I feel this vote should be focused more on whether the articles mentioned should be vital or not, and not whether they'll mess up the target counts. LightProof1995 (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Looking at Drogön Chögyal Phagpa, he arguably has as much case in politics as he does in religion. pbp 03:01, 10 February 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 Philosopher

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
DONE
Procedural removal by Makkool. 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:18, 5 May 2023 (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.

This has been redirected to a section of Philosophy. ForeverStamp (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Went ahead and removed it. If it's an article that was changed into a redirect, I think you can take it out without discussion. --Makkool (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Ok, I wasn't sure what the rules on that are. --ForeverStamp (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move Saint Marinus from Politicians to Religious figures

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments5 people in discussion
DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

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

The article doesn't really seem to be about holding any political title or office pbp 14:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 14:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support. czar 02:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
  5. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

American military removals

Latest comment: 1 year ago42 comments8 people in discussion

We have 71 American military figures, including Native Americans but excluding people like George Washington, Andrew Jackson and Dwight Eisenhower who are listed elsewhere. That's too many, especially since the section is over quota. pbp 02:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Remove Patrick Cleburne

DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

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

We have too many American Civil War figures, over a dozen, and he's not really that significant. I doubt he's in anybody's list of the 10 most significant Confederate generals. pbp 02:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 19:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  2. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support. czar 02:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support. Lorax (talk) 00:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  6. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:12, 28 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.

Remove Robert A. McClure

DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

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

We have too many American World War II figures, over a dozen, and he's not really that significant. pbp 02:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 19:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support. czar 02:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  4. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:12, 28 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.

Remove Frank Merrill

DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

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

We have too many American World War II figures, over a dozen, and he's not really that significant. pbp 02:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 19:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  2. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support. czar 02:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support. Lorax (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  6. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:12, 28 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.

Remove Jim Mattis, Pat Tillman, Janis Karpinski and Tommy Franks

DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes. The person who loves reading (talk) 01:04, 29 May 2023 (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.

How many figures from Afghanistan/Iraq/War on Terror do we need, exactly? David Petraeus is sufficient enough to represent the War on Terror. pbp 02:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 02:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support. czar 02:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support The person who loves reading (talk) 01:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  1. I'd support removing Janis Karpinski and Tommy Franks, but not Jim Mattis and Pat Tillman. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:10, 28 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.

Remove John Boyd (military strategist)

DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes. The person who loves reading (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2023 (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.

Is he vital enough or well-known enough for this level? pbp 12:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 12:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support The person who loves reading (talk) 01:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Because he wrote a book about aerial combat that has been quite influential worldwide, and was instrumental in the development of F-15 and F-16, he is no doubt vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:25, 15 May 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 Richard J. Meadows

DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 20:48, 8 June 2023 (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.

Is he vital enough or well-known enough for this level? pbp 12:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 12:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support The person who loves reading (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Because nowadays special forces are considered vital in military powers, and Meadows was instrumental in the founding of the U.S. Army Special Forces, he no doubt should not be removed. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Basshunter

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion
NOT DONE
Not done, per 55% opposing votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:41, 26 May 2023 (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.

Basshunter is one of the greatest Swedish musicians. He was the first Swedish artist who achieved commercial success in the United Kingdom since ABBA (level-4 vital article) and his work influenced Avicii music (level-5 vital article). Eurohunter (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as proposer: Eurohunter (talk · contribs) 13:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added by Festucalex)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Not "highest importance" in its field. No assertion of its enduring importance or essentialness in its category. Not vital. czar 02:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  2. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  3. 〜 Festucalex • talk 03:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Tunguska event and maybe replace

Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments7 people in discussion
DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

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

I don't know where to put this but it has high importance on WikiProject Russia and mid importance on most of the other WikiProjects listed. In 74 languages and currently rated B-Class. 115.188.131.12 (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom 115.188.131.12 (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
  2. Largest impact event in Earth's recorded history czar 02:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  3. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support Lorax (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
  5. support LJFIN2 (talk) LJFIN2 (talk) 03:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  7. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
  1. In what category would this go, Czar? I wanted to close it, but couldn't figure it out. 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
    Somewhere in Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Earth science, perhaps under Air? czar 13:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
    @Czar: Just added it to 5/History/20th Century/Asia/Northern Asia. feel free to change that if inappropriate. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:49, 3 May 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 Thanos (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion
NOT DONE
Not done, per 55% opposing votes (incl. nom) 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:20, 18 May 2023 (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.

Thanos is part of the biggest movie franchise ever and has had extensive coverage over the last 5+ years with critical acclaim. I know there's a chance of recency bias, but things have been pretty consistently positive towards the character since 2018. The article has also recently become a GA. -- ZooBlazertalk 07:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Not "highest importance" in its field. No assertion of its enduring importance or essentialness in its category. Not vital. czar 02:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  3. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove 8 of the sorting algorithms from the mathematics section

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments6 people in discussion
DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:23, 1 May 2023 (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.

Quicksort and bubble sort are the only sorting algorithms that are widely used. Bucket sort, Gnome sort, Heapsort, Insertion sort, Merge sort, Radix sort, Selection sort, and Shellsort don't belong here nor is there any need for this list to have ten sorting algorithms. I have some ideas of other algorithms that are more vital but that should be a separate thread LJFIN2 (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support as stated. If we want to get into bikeshedding, I'd actually drop bubble sort as well (it's primarily didactic and not actually seriously used except in specific situations where it's known that it won't hit its (very frequent) bad cases, much like insertion sort), and keep merge sort (I had the impression it was the go-to stable sorting algorithm and so was actually quite widely used) and maybe one of radix or bucket sort (because they're non-comparison sorts). But ten articles on specific algorithms, plus sorting algorithm to make eleven, is quite clearly excessive coverage for this topic and which could be better spent elsewhere. Polyphemus Goode (talk) 10:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
    in my mind bubble was the go-to algroithum if people just needed to sort a small list that I said it should stay maybe I was wrong. ~~~ LJFIN2 (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support per above czar 02:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  5. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by LJFIN2 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 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.

Add Pomegranate juice

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments5 people in discussion
NOT DONE
Not done, per 55% opposing votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:24, 1 May 2023 (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.

Pomegranate juice it has been viewed over 8,715 times in 60 days. Catfurball (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Not "highest importance" in its field. No assertion of its enduring importance or essentialness in its category. Not vital. czar 02:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  2. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
  4. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Add Cherry juice

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments6 people in discussion
NOT DONE
Not done, per 55% opposing votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:24, 1 May 2023 (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.

Cherry juice it has been view over 6,168 times in 60 days. Catfurball (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Not "highest importance" in its field. No assertion of its enduring importance or essentialness in its category. Not vital. czar 02:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  2. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Lorax (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
  5. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Add Midlife crisis

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments5 people in discussion
NOT DONE
Not done, per 55% opposing votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:09, 5 May 2023 (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.

Everyday Life/Stages of Life has 14 out of 15 alloted articles. I think Midlife crisis would be a good fit for the 15th article. According to it's topic page 23% of people self report having had one so that would make it a vital topic.LJFIN2 (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support per nom. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Not "highest importance" in its field. No assertion of its enduring importance or essentialness in its category. Not vital. czar 02:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  2. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Remove OSI model

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion
DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

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

The OSI model has some historical relevance, but not significant enough to warrant being a vital article. Probably its widest application today is serving as a way to miseducate students about how to design good protocols. Protocol Wars § Legacy puts its relevance as being contested, and I think that is being kind to it. We could re-use the slot for something else - I would say not even a computing or networking article, looking at the section counts, since they're over-represented. Polyphemus Goode (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. As proposer Polyphemus Goode (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
  2. Only the TCP/IP model is used anymore LJFIN2 (talk)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
  4. 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Hannibal Hamlin and Alexander Stephens

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion
DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:47, 14 May 2023 (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.

They were Vice-Presidents, one of a country of dubious existence, at a time when the Vice-Presidency was a rather unimportant office. Figures like William Seward and Judah P. Benjamin are more influential from the Civil War era. Stephens gave the oft-read Cornerstone Speech but has little notability otherwise pbp 06:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 06:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support both Lorax (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments3 people in discussion
DONE
Done, procedural since the article is now a redirect. 〜 Festucalex • talk 16:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Per the AfD, this article is almost completely synthetic in scope. Even the most narrow of its possible scopes is an umbrella that encompasses the Kronstadt rebellion (another level-5 VA) and the Bolshevik–Makhnovist conflict. There are many aspects of the Russian Revolution and Civil War more deserving of being VA than this. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support as proposer. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
  3. The article is now a redirect to Russian_Civil_War#Anti-Bolshevik_movement, thus the article definitely must go.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

  1. This could now be closed, as the article no longer exists. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:50, 28 May 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 everyone in Body Modification category

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion
DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:55, 8 June 2023 (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.

Those are:

While it's expressive and fun (and sometimes horrifying), it's just too niche for VIT. 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support with possible exception for Walter Yeo. I am not an expert here, so if it’s the case that early reconstructive surgeries are covered by better articles in other categories then please also remove Yeo. — HTGS (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support The person who loves reading (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove World Ocean

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
DONE
Technical removal done by Makkool 〜 Festucalex • talk 18:16, 11 May 2023 (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.

This article was merged into Ocean, and thus has no business being in Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Physical.

Support
  1. Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  1. Went ahead and removed it. If an article was changed into a redirect, I think you can take it out without discussion. --Makkool (talk) 18:04, 11 May 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 Warbah Island

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion
DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

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

A small, uninhabited desert island of no particular importance.

Support
  1. Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support --Makkool (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support The person who loves reading (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove unremarkable Caspian islands

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
DONE
100% support. The person who loves reading (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2023 (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.

12 uninhabited and unremarkable islands in the Caspian Sea. They are:

Support
  1. Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support LJFIN2 (talk)
  3. Support --Makkool (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support The person who loves reading (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add GNU Project

Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments4 people in discussion
DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

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

The GNU Project is one of the most significant projects in computing history, and the GNU coreutils are the backbone of modern computing. GNU practically defined an era and brought the concept of open-source software into its modern shape. It belongs in VIT5 (if not VIT4 with Linux itself). Hell, GNU even has an asteroid named after it. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  2. No doubt LJFIN2 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support Lorax (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support The person who loves reading (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  1. I think you meant to link to GNU instead — Preceding unsigned comment added by LJFIN2 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
    @LJFIN2: No, I indeed meant the GNU Project, not the software suite. That's why I said The GNU Project is one of the most significant projects in computing history. The GNU Project article is more encompassing of the topic. 〜 Festucalex • talk 08:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
    oh, ok LJFIN2 (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
    @LJFIN2: By the way, please vote on the other proposals. This wikiproject needs more participation. 〜 Festucalex • talk 08:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
    I look at all the proposals but most of them are over things I don't have opinions on. I only feel confortable voting on things that I know enough about to judge LJFIN2 (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move Psychosis, Delusion, and Hallucination from Mental Disorders to Symptoms and Signs

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments5 people in discussion
DISCUSSION MOVED
This is a VIT4 discussion, and was thus moved to its appropriate place. 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:03, 2 June 2023 (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.

psychosis is better understood as a symptom rather then it's own condition seeing that it's not a stand alone diagnosis but instead part of an other dignosis.

Also it really doesn't belong under mental disorders considering that psychosis isn't always a symptom of a mental disorder it can also be caused by an injury of the brain, drug use, medication side effects, or a medical condition. It belongs much more in Symptoms and Signs LJFIN2 (talk)


Support
  1. Support as proposer: LJFIN2 11:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added here by Festucalex)
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  3. This jives with my understanding. — HTGS (talk) 01:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support The person who loves reading (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  1. I just realized those are VIT4 articles, not VIT5. How do we proceed? 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
    1. The discussion to move the articles should be done on that level's talk page. --Makkool (talk) 11:41, 31 May 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 some fossil taxons

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion
DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 12:14, 8 June 2023 (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.

Those taxons are, in practice, not well-known and aren't well-researched enough to be considered vital. There are other fossil taxons from the Paleogene-Quaternary that need higher prioritization, such as Hyaenodonta, Nimravidae (most basal feliform family known from the Eocene), Amphicyonidae, Amphicyon, Anchitheriinae (including Anchitherium the first dispersing equid immigrant from early Miocene North America into Eurasia), Hipparion (unfortunately we don't have a Hipparionini page so we should go with Hipparion, important equid group that dispersed and diversified in Eurasia and Africa during the late Miocene), Borophagus, etc, so removing taxons that are less "vital" to paleontology overall would more easily allow for replacements with more important taxons. Here's what I propose to be removed so far (we should prioritize featuring fossil families/subfamilies primarily over fossil genera unless they're well-researched):

  • Darwinius (basal primate, caught initial attention to the public but has since waned in research and importance)
  • Kubanochoerus (not well-known outside of unusual features, probably more important taxons such as Listriodon)
  • Castoroides (other than size, it doesn't really prove to be highly important to North American paleontology)
  • Miracinonyx (recently denounced as a convergent form to Acinonyx, only recently researched more rigorously)
  • Pelorovis (there's a lot of fossil Bovidae to potentially choose from which makes this tricky, but I wouldn't consider it "vital" enough to have such a title).
  • Cranioceras (Ok let's be honest, this genus has barely any research to its name unfortunately).
  • Synthetoceras (Also not well-prioritized in paleontology to be considered vital, at most its family Protoceratidae should be marked as such instead).

Again, it's a bit tricky to determine what isn't considered "vital" enough as a level 5 vital article, but I think we should prioritize those that are well-researched enough in recent decades because they have good reason to be. For instance, when logged in on ResearchGate, searching "hipparion" will get you a whopping 60 pages worth of research articles, which makes since they were always used as markers of the late Miocene since the 19th century and have important paleoecological contexts since the Hipparionini tribe (likely Cormohipparion) migrated from North America to the Old World continents and greatly diversified. In comparison, the fossil taxons I listed and likely others barely have much research articles to their name that would indicate overall high importance. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as proposer: PrimalMustelid 04:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added here by Festucalex)
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support The person who loves reading (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Ambrose E. Burnside

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion
DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:26, 7 June 2023 (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.

Is he vital enough for this level? Is being the founding President of the NRA enough for this list? I get that he was also a general, but a rather disastrous one at that pbp 12:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 12:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support The person who loves reading (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support. Doesn't cut the mustard as a general. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Data type

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion
DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Probably more vital than Type conversion which is already on the list. Dawid2009 (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as proposer: Dawid2009 (talk · contribs) 07:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added here by Festucalex)
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support The person who loves reading (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
  4. Supoort LJFIN2 (talk)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Cowboy

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion
DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 12:17, 8 June 2023 (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.

Cowboys are an internationally famous stereotype. I don't think they need more of an introduction.

Support
  1. Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
  2. sure LJFIN2 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support The person who loves reading (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Palestine Liberation Organization

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments5 people in discussion
DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:51, 7 June 2023 (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.

One of the most notable organizations of the 20th century.

Support
  1. Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 12:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
  2. 100% --Grnrchst (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support - significant impact in multiple countries across the Levant and further abroad. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support The person who loves reading (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support - unlikely that a history of the 20th century would omit mention. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Good article reassessment for History of Singapore

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
DONE
Delisted per consensus 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:41, 7 June 2023 (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.

History of Singapore 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) 21:18, 30 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_11&oldid=1159596061"