Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive 12
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Vital articles. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Add Mircea Eliade
His contributions to historiography and philosophy of religion are highly important and influential. 151.42.197.224 (talk) 15:52, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Add Sundar Pichai
Should be listed at this level already Dawid2009 (talk) 11:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Add "Cielito Lindo"
This is (along with "La Cucaracha") one of the most recognizable songs in all of Latino Culture. The problem is that no one knows the name of the song. It is the Ay yi yi yi song to most English speakers, but if you are serenaded by a Mariachi band, you might be disappointed if they don't play this song.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support
- Support--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that it's very popular and notable, and should be considered to be vital. I realized that "Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be)" is another very recognizable song that's not listed in the Music section. We are currently at quota on specific musical works. Do you have an idea of what should be replaced when Cielito Lindo is added? --Makkool (talk) 10:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Nedo was notoriously the better and more successful fencer of the two.
- Support
- As nom. 87.241.33.18 (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
The Stadiums section in the Sports, games, and recreation section is currently at 9/10 stadiums. I propose we add the Panathenaic Stadium, located in Athens, Greece. The current structure was built in 144 AD by the Athenian Senator Herodes Atticus but the site was used for the Panathenaic Games for centuries before that. The only stadium in the world built entirely of marble, it is on par in seating capacity with the other stadiums listed: it once seated 80,000 people, roughly on par with the Maracanã Stadium and the Wembley Stadium. It was largely abandoned with the rise of Christianity in the 4th century but was excavated and refurbished in 1869. The first modern Olympic games were held there in 1896.
Support:
Add Kalaripayattu
The Martial arts section in Sports, games, and recreation is currently at 57/60 articles. I propose we add Kalaripayattu -- I once made a list of 16 martial arts when designing a video game, and Kalaripayattu is the only one on that list that isn't currently listed as vital. India's most famous martial art, it is unusual from other martial arts in that weapons are trained with before bare fists, and it incorporates tantric healing practices as well. It comes up in searches as the oldest martial art in the world[1][2], although this may just be because Indian martial arts are among the oldest martial arts as Kalaripayattu itself did not come about until around the 12th century[3]. So I also propose we add the Indian martial arts article as vital.
Support:
Jurists
In 2021, this edit moved jurists from the "People/Miscellaneous" to the "People/Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists" section. As far as I can tell this broke the link in the talk page infobox for every person in that category. Could someone please fix these, its been broken for 2 years.
Also, the Law enforcement section needs some work, its overwhelmingly american, and doesn't really fit into the Misc section since most are high level government officials or outright politicians (like Beria).
Swap: remove Abd al-Rahman ibn Abd Allah al-Ghafiqi, add Sayf al-Dawla
Al-Ghafiqi is notable only because the Battle of Tours is notable. Otherwise he is not an exceptional military figure, and was one of many Muslim commanders involved in the conquest of al-Andalus and the invasions into France. Sayf al-Dawla on the other hand is to this day one of the best known medieval Arab leaders, played an important role in several processes, from the collapse of the Abbasid empire to the Byzantine Reconquist and the rise of Bedouin and Shi'ism in Syria, was renowned for his military prowess, and assembled a brilliant court with such culturally significant figures as al-Mutanabbi. Constantine ✍ 15:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Cutting politicians and leaders down to quota
Politicians and leaders is at least 100 over quota. We need to figure out how to get it down to size. One exercise I think we need to do is look at which offices...
- ...get the full set
- ...get the full set except for people who fail the lettuce test
- ...get some but not all
- ...only get the most exceptional or transformational
pbp 16:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Don't think any office exists that the lettuce test doesn’t apply to. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
High School Musical in level-5
Good morning! I have an important question - why is an article about High School Musical removed from the list of 50 thousand must-haves in all sections of Wikipedia? The film has a high profile among the Disney projects of the 2000s - for example, it was included in the Guinness Book of Records as the first television film, whose nine songs from the soundtrack hit the Billboard Hot 100 chart. In addition, this trilogy is unique in that the wild popularity of the first two parts led to the release of High School Musical 3: Senior Year in theaters. --MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- Films are currently slightly overquota, and anti-recentism is also a factor to some extent. I undid its addition to re-add Steamboat Willie, which I consider more important for its copyright drama alone. But if you can identify less important films that it should replace, then, sure.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- @LaukkuTheGreit In your opinion, does the idea of introduction require careful discussion? Moreover, this project has grown into a large media franchise with foreign television adaptations, a concert tour, ice shows and school productions. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Swap Egyptian mongoose for Indian grey mongoose
Mongoose is Vital-4. We currently list two types of mongooses at Vital-5: The Meerkat and the Egyptian mongoose. I only noticed this because I looked up meerkats; I didn't realize they were a type of mongoose. When I think of "mongoose", I think of the mongoose of Rikki-Tikki-Tavi, the cobra-fighting mongoose of Rudyard Kipling's short story. He is an Indian grey mongoose. So, to me that is the most well-known type of mongoose besides the meerkat, and deserves to be vital. This swap will be beneficial for several other reasons. For one, the Egyptian mongoose article is currently in better shape than the Indian grey mongoose article, so the Indian grey mongoose article needs work in comparison. Also, since meerkats and Egyptian mongooses are both from Africa, replacing one of them with an Asian mongoose will make our list broader (at least, mongoose-wise). Lastly, Indian grey mongoose receives around twice the views of Egyptian mongoose: 6,484 views of Indian grey mongoose compared to 3,221 views of Egyptian mongoose in the past 30 days.
Support:
- As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Neutral:
- The Egyptian mongoose's range covers most of sub-Saharan Africa and also northeastern Africa and a little bit of Turkey and Spain, which is larger than the Indian grey mongoose's range, which is only the Indian subcontinent. Adding the Indian grey mongoose is better for geographical diversity, but either way, they are both pretty equal. And a single children's story, even if it's written by Rudyard Kipling, shouldn't be the deciding argument. Mucube (talk • contribs) 21:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Add Carlo Ancelotti
I was amazed to see that he was not a Level 5; he is arguably a Level 4 (greatest-ever manager)? 78.18.228.191 (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Per his blp, is regarded as the greatest football manager in history (should be a level 4 candidate). Aszx5000 (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Onwa (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC) subjective opinion and no actual reason given. --Onwa (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Remove "Scarborough Fair (ballad)"
- (discussion split from section above and below) I am only familiar with the Simon & Garfunkel version of "Scarborough Fair" and find it hard to believe that this song has greater cultural significance than either of these two. "Que Sera, Sera" is not the focal song of a culture like "Cielito Lindo" is for the Mexican Culture. There is no situation I would find myself in where it would be important to a culture to present Que Sera, Sera, whereas Cielito Lindo is actually a song that serves as an international representation of a nation. It is as if in order for Mariachi bands to serve as ambassadors of their culture it is imperative that they present this song to any audience. It is more like "Auld Lang Syne" or a national anthem, whereas its performance is an imperative national or international presentation.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support
- Support--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. czar 02:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Hyaenodonta, Amphicyonidae, and Amphicyon
Hyaenodonta is a highly notable order of carnivorous mammals that were at their prime at the Eocene and Oligocene, establishing themselves as some of the top mammalian predators to have ever existed, most notably with Hyaenodon but also with Miocene genera such as Hyainailouros, Megistotherium, and the late surviving Dissopsalis. Although the order had seen an early extinction in the Oligocene along with Nimravidae in North America and were past their prime as a result of global cooling events, they still existed in Eurasia as evident by the middle and late Miocene hyainailourine Hyainailouros and Dissopsalis. They also continued to thrive in Africa as some of the sole apex predators of Africa that could grow to exceptional sizes as evident by the Miocene Megistotherium and Simbakubwa. While Hyaenodon is the "mascot" genus of Hyaenodonta due to its success from the Eocene up to the early Miocene, it alone does not completely represent all hyaenodonts, especially those that lived by the middle-late Miocene before all went extinct (it should not be removed as a vital article however). They are also relatively popular fossil taxons to research in recent decades.
Amphicyonidae is also a highly notable extinct carnivoran family because it represents the longest-spanning and most diverse extinct carnivoran family to have existed, ranging from early "New World" amphicyonids like Daphoenus and Gustafsonia plus the "Old World" Cynodictis of the Eocene when Hyaenodonta and Oxyaenodonta used to rule as the top apex predators of the Old World continents and North America to highly diverse "Old World" genera (Amphicyoninae and Thaumastocyoninae) of the Miocene that dominated top predatory niches along with hemicyonine ursids, barbourofeline nimravids, hyaenids, felids, and hyainailourines and spread from Eurasia to Africa and North America, filling predatory niches have today have no identical modern equivalents. The family for this reason also became highly popular for Eurasian paleontologists studying the Neogene, especially since the family collapsed largely as a result of events of or relating to the Vallesian Crisis of Europe, which drove many mammalian genera to extinction in Eurasia. By extension, Amphicyon, the type genus, should also be a vital article because not only is it the type genus of its own subfamily and family but it is one of the most successful amphicyonids in the already successful family in the early-middle Miocene, managing to survive up to the late Miocene as some of the last amphicyonids to exist.
If successful, I will likely suggest more notable mammalian paleontological genera/subfamilies/families/orders to vital article nominations. I know that the biology, animals category of level-5 articles is at its exact capacity, but fossil mammals are relatively underrepresented, especially ironically those of the Cenezoic era, so having these three pages I nominated as vital articles would be a good start. More to possibly come soon. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom (I suppose I should've said this earlier). --PrimalMustelid 20:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Goalpost
The Sports equipment section is currently at 27/30 articles. I propose we add Goal (sports), aka Goalpost, as Vital-5. They are one of the most pieces of sports equipment across multiple sports such as football/soccer, basketball, hockey, and American football.
- Support
- As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Per nom. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Agree. 31.187.2.237 (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Too niche in my opinion. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
Remove Kwanyama dialect and Ndonga dialect
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not very important compared to the other languages that are listed. This will also fix the over-quota we have for the specific languages section. Mucube (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support
- Support removing Ndonga dialect --Thi Edit. (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC) --Thi (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support czar 03:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support there are too many languages listed; this will allow space for other pages. VT-ALM (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose for Kwanyama. It is a national language in two countries, Angola and Namibia. Ndonga can go, as it is mutually intelligible with Kwanyama any way, but I'd use caution removing African languages, as they are underrepresented. --Makkool (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Add Fedora Linux and Arch Linux
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 rather popular Linux distributions. We have a lot of Windows versions listed, so we need some Linux distributions listed too. Mucube (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support
- Support. Arch, at least, is as significant as Debian. Makes no sense to include the latter without the former. 〜 Festucalex • talk 03:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Although yes, this is a niche area in the PC market. This is ONLY niche in the PC market. Ask any devloper that isn't working with PCs and they'll tell you that this is the oppsite of niche. Imo we should also add Gentoo Linux and GNU — Preceding unsigned comment added by LJFIN2 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- @LJFIN2: I'm not sure about Gentoo Linux, but I am nothing short of aghast that GNU isn't there. I'm opening a new proposal. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support They hold a lot of market share and are used very widely. VT-ALM (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose. We're already adding Debian and Ubuntu, the two largest distros by market share, and top importance in their field. czar 03:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. Already a niche area. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:39, 2 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.
- (discussion split from 2 sections above) If we are adding another song based on Latin roots, I would prefer "Llorando se fue", as both "La Cucaracha" and "Cielito Lindo" originate in Mexico (and of those, "La Cucaracha" is probably the more iconic), while "Llorando se fue" originates in South America, which is entirely unrepresented. BD2412 T 04:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think I could put "Llorando se fue" on the same level as "Don't Cry for Me Argentina", which I should probably also nominate.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- "Don't Cry for Me Argentina" is just another Andrew Lloyd Webber musical number. It has no actual connection to South American arts and culture, other than the setting of the musical, and would therefore expand the overrepresentation of music from the United States. BD2412 T 16:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- United States?? That's a bit of a stretch. -Roxy the dog 16:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- For England, then, which is even more over-represented. BD2412 T 16:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- User:BD2412, The performers and audience at a Tango Show I saw in Buenos Aires over the Holidays interacted as if "Por una Cabeza" is a cultural masterpiece and a classic. Is that a better candidate?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- "Don't Cry for Me Argentina" is just another Andrew Lloyd Webber musical number. It has no actual connection to South American arts and culture, other than the setting of the musical, and would therefore expand the overrepresentation of music from the United States. BD2412 T 16:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think I could put "Llorando se fue" on the same level as "Don't Cry for Me Argentina", which I should probably also nominate.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support
- Support--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - song and its covers topped the charts in multiple countries in Europe, as well as in the US, got parodied in the Falklands war, and continues to resound across the airwaves on a regular basis to this day. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- 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)
- 〜 Festucalex • talk 08:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose --Thi (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- OpposeVT-ALM (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
Remove some American TV shows
The category is 220/90 (244%) overbudget. Some slimming down is needed. Please add more proposals as you see necessary. 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps we could again try to use the system to drastically trim sections which I proposed when it was thought there were way too many video games? It saw some success, although limited due to very few voters.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- @LaukkuTheGreit: Let's see what Czar thinks. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- For drastic slimming, I think a consensus slate of batch removals would be the best way to test whether there is interest in drastic slimming. Otherwise the approach below of one at a time is a fine place to start. czar 12:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Czar: I don't like batch removals because they easily become WP:TRAINWRECKs. We need to innovate a new smooth mechanism if we're ever going to rescue VIT5 from its current sorry state. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- For drastic slimming, I think a consensus slate of batch removals would be the best way to test whether there is interest in drastic slimming. Otherwise the approach below of one at a time is a fine place to start. czar 12:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- @LaukkuTheGreit: Let's see what Czar thinks. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Remove children's programs, mainly those from basic cable channels, that have little influence apart from those that are long-running and have a strong impact on society. CrisBalboa1 (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- @CrisBalboa1: Like what? Make specific proposals and we'll vote on them. 〜 Festucalex • talk 03:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Dexter's Laboratory
- Ed, Edd n Eddy
- Batman: The Animated Series, the main topic is better than this
- Courage the Cowardly Dog
- Gravity Falls
- I would like to name another few but some are long-running, spawned spin-offs, or a supporting character appears in a another show. CrisBalboa1 (talk) 09:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- @CrisBalboa1: Just added them downstairs. 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- @CrisBalboa1: Like what? Make specific proposals and we'll vote on them. 〜 Festucalex • talk 03:55, 10 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 already have Star Trek in VIT4, which is sufficient.
- Support
- Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Makkool (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support - overly redundant at this stage. The vit 4 listing is sufficient. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
I would like to make people aware of a few things. Star Trek article itself is in listed at level 4, it's not completely unreasonable to increase its coverage here, even with a bit of overlap. Star Trek is about the franchise overall these two are about the 2 main series. The argument that there is overlap does make sense though.
My main issue I was going to bring up, seems no longer relevant after doing some digging. I saw Spock and Captain Kirk were listed at level 5, my issue was it would be odd to list 2 character's from a show but have issue with the show itself. Although Spock still has VA listed on the talk page, it looks like they have been removed from the list, they are not listed among fictional characters any more, the VA template should be removed from Spock's talk page.
Although this is probably the wrong thread to bring this up now I've noticed Spock and Kirk may have been deleted, but I've started so I'll finish. I don't hate the 2 Star Trek shows being listed, I would understand arguments both ways. If one has problem with overlap and redundancy, What seems like much worse overlap and redundancy are half the articles in fictional character have much less forgivable overlap. Indiana Jones character in addition to movie/series, Sonic the Hedgehog character in addition to game/series, same with Homer Simpson, Mario, Hannibal Lector, Spongebob, HAL 9000, Lara Croft, Goku, Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader, Pikachu, Charlie Brown and more in literature, Bilbo and Gandalf, Iago, Dr Watson, Captain Ahab, Big Brother and many more all have character articles in addition to series/book/movie/game/show/franchise articles. The main reason these are overlooked or not noticed, is that are not listed next to the parent article, they are listed far away from it, so go unnoticed. Do we really need Sonic game AND character, Lara Croft AND Tomb Raider, Spongebob series AND character, Dr Who series AND character, seems like worse to me at least compared to Star Trek articles, only as they're listed next to each other like I said.
Carlwev 18:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Carlwev: Don't get me wrong, I don't hate those shows, either. As a matter of fact, the laptop on which I'm writing this has several ST:TOS and ST:TNG stickers on it. Big fan. I just don't think they should be on the VIT list, especially with the extremely bloated state that the TV shows category is in. As for the examples you mentioned, since you've looked into this, I suggest you open up a new nested request (like this one) at the bottom of this talk page. 〜 Festucalex • talk 18:33, 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.
- Support
- Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Makkool (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Remove The Fairly OddParents
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
- Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Makkool (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Remove Lizzie McGuire
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
- Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Makkool (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support Gizza (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Remove Regular Show
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
- Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Makkool (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Remove The Hills (TV series)
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
- Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Makkool (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Remove Six Feet Under (TV series)
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
- Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Makkool (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Remove NCIS (TV series)
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
- Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Makkool (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- oppose. I agree there should be less american tv shows but NCIS is one of the most popular things on Tv LJFIN2 (talk)
- Discuss
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Support
- Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Makkool (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose, respectfully. One of the most notable entries in the genre of competition television series. Paintspot Infez (talk) 07:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
Remove La Reina del Sur (TV series)
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
- Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Makkool (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Remove Dexter's Laboratory
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
- Support as proposer: CrisBalboa1 11:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added here by Festucalex)
- 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Makkool (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Remove Ed, Edd n Eddy
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
- Support as proposer: CrisBalboa1 11:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added here by Festucalex)
- 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Makkool (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 09:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Remove Batman: The Animated Series
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
- Support as proposer: CrisBalboa1 11:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added here by Festucalex)
- 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Makkool (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 09:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Remove Courage the Cowardly Dog
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
- Support as proposer: CrisBalboa1 11:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added here by Festucalex)
- 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Makkool (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 09:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Remove Drake & Josh
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
- Support as proposer: I originally wanted to add this before but I thought a minor supporting character appeared in a future Nickelodeon sitcom. Despite this, I changed my mind and I added it regardless of my initial thought. CrisBalboa1 (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- 〜 Festucalex • talk 03:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Makkool (talk) 05:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Remove Chappelle's Show
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, and most people, know the main star, but not his show.
- Support
- Support as proposer: CrisBalboa1 (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Makkool (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add some chronic illnesses
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are many diseases that do not cause death but result in disability or low quality of life. These diseases are often overlooked especially when they don't cause symptoms visible to the outside. For the sake of neutrality more chronic illnesses should be included
- Atrial fibrillation
- Ulcerative colitis
- Crohn's disease
- Hyperthyroidism
- Hypothyroidism
- Chronic pain
- Atopic dermatitis
- Endometriosis
- Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder
- Chronic fatigue syndrome
- Support
- Support as proposer: LJFIN2 09:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added here by Festucalex)
- Strong Support 〜 Festucalex • talk 08:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support The person who loves reading (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add some video games
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.
- Red Dead Redemption 2
- The Last of Us
- The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
- The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
- Mass Effect 2
- Uncharted
- Batman: Arkham
-- Mehdi7njr (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- Support as proposer: Mehdi7njr (talk · contribs) 14:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added by Festucalex)
- I support the addition of the first three or four, but the last three I would oppose. I recently tried adding the first two myself, before they were removed as the quota was met. To be specific, the first three won several major awards, and have been described by modern sources as having a major influence of how video games are now and how they will be in the future; willing to cite if needed. NSNW (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- @NSNW: Yes, please cite. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think some individual franchise subentries could be removed to compensate, in particular Super Metroid, Metroid Prime and Monkey Island 1. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think that would be appropriate. NSNW (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support The Last of Us --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- No reason is given for the addition of these specific games, and we're only 3 games below budget. Those must be chosen carefully. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Skyrim, Batman: Arkham and Mass Effect 2 --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose all. Hard to see why any of these are particularly vital to an encyclopedia. DFlhb (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose - Oppose all. Subjective list by one user, no specific reason for these games. VT-ALM (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
Add Dwarfism
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 this isn't listed anywhere. A decent argument could be made for level 4. The condition is very well known and visible despite being statistically fairly rare, which may or may not be an argument against level 4. For better or for worse, the condition has been of interest to science, mythology, fiction and entertainment for centuries. I would imagine the topic to be a genuine area of scientific interest/research and general reader interest as well.
- Support
- Support as nom. Carlwev 17:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Makes sense. Giagantism should also be added LJFIN2 (talk)
- Support --Thi (talk) 09:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- 〜 Festucalex • talk 20:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Remove almost all Individual animals
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've already discussed that topic, which got under radar during a period of blatant inactivity on this project. Coming back at it for round 2 : I don't think any of the 96 individual animals on the current list are warrant to be on the Biological and health sciences listing, and I don't think most of them should be on the list at all. So I advocate for the complete removal of the section, and the creation of an at most 10 slots section about famous animals in People, Miscellaneous, comprising only of :
- Laika ;
- Jumbo ;
- Balto ;
- Dolly (sheep) ;
- Bucephalus
and whatever the sports community decides were the most important bucking bulls, racehorses and mascots of all time. Lonesome George is a tricky subject, as it is the only one with any relation to the subject, but I think he should go as well. For the rest, this is not the place for someone's pet, for meme animals, for mid-century movie animal actors - especially when those movies aren't listed themselves, for sport-related articles, for mascots barely known outside of their field, for "Celebrity Cows", for random pandas, for animals about which a non-listed movie was made, for enslaved and tortured orcas, for 7 individual bucking bulls or for a very old clam. All of those have nothing to do on a biology-related list. So, I formally suggest the complete removal from the Vital article list of :
Bubbles
Crystal the Monkey- Ham
- Harambe
- Jiggs
- J. Fred Muggs
Koko- Oliver
- Travis
- Bruno
- Bart the Bear
- Bart the Bear 2
- Brody the Bear
- Hercules
- Pedals
- Winnipeg
- Elsa the lioness
- Grumpy Cat
- Lil Bub
- Killing of Cecil the lion
- Maru
- Mike the Tiger
- Morris the Cat
- Bodacious
- Bushwacker
- Bruiser
- Dillinger
- Little Yellow Jacket
- Oscar
- Red Rock
- Big Bertha
- Brookview Tony Charity
- Lily Flagg
- Ralphie the Buffalo
- Ratón
- Hope
- Keiko
- Lolita
- Shamu
- Tilikum
- Winter
Blondi
Chaser- Hachikō
- Pal
- Rin Tin Tin
- Terry
- Togo
- Uga
- Topsy
- Black Caviar
- Byerley Turk
- Citation
- Darley Arabian
- Eclipse
- Frankel
- Godolphin Arabian
- Kelso
- Kincsem
- Man o' War
- Native Dancer
- Nearco
- Northern Dancer
- Phar Lap
- Pretty Polly
-
Seabiscuit 
Secretariat- Sunday Silence
- Zenyatta
- Arkle
- Dan Patch
- Desert Orchid
- Figure
- Golden Miller
- Hambletonian 10
- Red Rum
- Bamboo Harvester
- Incitatus
- Marengo
- Midnight
- Scamper
- Trigger
- Andre the Seal
- Bei Bei
- Cher Ami
- Dolly
- Jimmy (raven)
- Lonesome George
- Ming (clam)
- Number 16
- Punxsutawney Phil
- Tuan Tuan and Yuan Yuan
- Support
- Support as nom. Larrayal (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support except for Secretariat, who is one of the most famous racehorses of all time. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Didn't realize Man o' War was also on the list of proposed removals—leave him as a Vital article too (considered possibly the greatest racehorse). --SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support all except for Phar Lap who is arguably the most iconic racehorse of all time. We should have more animal species. Gizza (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support with exceptions, see below 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support with exceptions, see below NSNW (talk · contribs) 04:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC) (vote added by Festucalex)
- Support with the exceptions (not sure all of those are needed, by it seems like a happy compromise) and Seabiscuit, who is also a very very famous horse and former featured article. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support with exceptions. --Thi (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support LJFIN2 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support as stated. VT-ALM (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
- We're gonna have to manage this lest it turn into a WP:TRAINWRECK. Here I will create a list of animals for people who agree but think some must be kept. Feel free to add to this list and vote on each entry individually: 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Balto (proposer: Larrayal) (PASSED)
(Larrayal) (Thi) 
(Festucalex) (Lorax) (Purplebackpack89)
- Keep Bucephalus (proposer: Larrayal) (PASSED)
- (Larrayal) (Thi) (Festucalex) (Purplebackpack89) (SilverTiger12)
- Keep Dolly (sheep) (proposer: Larrayal) (PASSED)
- (Larrayal) (Thi) (Festucalex) (Lorax) (Purplebackpack89)
- Keep Grumpy Cat (proposer: Festucalex) (FAILED)
- (Festucalex) (Lorax) (Larrayal)
- Keep Hachikō (proposer: Thi) (PASSED)
- (Thi) (Festucalex) (Lorax) (Larrayal)
- Keep Jumbo (proposer: Larrayal) (PASSED)
- (Larrayal) (Thi) (Festucalex) (Purplebackpack89)
- Add Knut (polar bear) (proposer: Festucalex) (not in list, should be added) (FAILED)
- Keep Koko (gorilla) (proposer: Festucalex) (PASSED)
- (Festucalex) (Thi) (Larrayal) (Lorax) (Purplebackpack89)
- Keep Laika (proposer: Larrayal) (PASSED)
- (Larrayal) (Thi) (Festucalex) (Lorax) (Purplebackpack89) (SilverTiger12)
- Keep Lonesome George (proposer: Thi) (TIE = PASSED)
- (Thi) (Festucalex) (Larrayal) (Purplebackpack89)
- Keep Man o' War (proposer: SilverTiger12) (PASSED)
- Keep Phar Lap (proposer: DaGizza) (PASSED)
- Keep Punxsutawney Phil (proposer: Festucalex) (PASSED)
- Keep Rin Tin Tin (proposer: Thi) (PASSED)
- (Thi) (Festucalex) (Purplebackpack89)
- Keep Seabiscuit (proposer: Iskandar323) (PASSED)
- Keep Secretariat (horse) (proposer: SilverTiger12) (PASSED)
- Keep Tilikum (orca) (proposer: NSNW) (FAILED)
- (NSNW) (Festucalex) (Larrayal) (Purplebackpack89) (SilverTiger12)
- Keep Balto (proposer: Larrayal) (PASSED)
Remove soul patch and handlebar moustache
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.
Under facial hair, there are a few articles listed. Beard and moustache are listed at level 4, which makes sense to me, and I get the idea of expanding on the area here, but soul patch and handlebar moustache articles just seem very very unvital to me. There is a Human Hair template, with many many articles, why these 2 were picked out of all the potential ones available I don't know. For example, I just noticed we do not list anywhere, Eyebrow, Body hair, or Pubic hair. Off topic, but we also don't list Eyelash, but we list the common eyelash cosmetic, mascara? which also seems odd to me. The listed hairstyles also seems a bit odd to me too, may discus this later. Sideburns and goatee, seem slightly more significant, but not by a giant margin though.
- Support
- Support as nom. Carlwev 16:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Strong Support 〜 Festucalex • talk 16:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support, should be removed VT-ALM (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Lorax (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Post-1945 American political removals
There are SIXTY-EIGHT American politicians from the post-1945 era, including FIFTY-FOUR who never served as President. Even though there are one or two notable omissions (Robert Taft?), there seems to be a lot of bloat here. pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Remove Edward Brooke
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.
Does he have the prominence or notoriety to be on this list? He was the first black Senator since the 17th Amendment, but not the first overall pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Remove John Dingell
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What is his significance other than being a Congressman (one of 435) for a bazillion years? He was never Speaker or party leader. He never ran for the Presidency or even a governorship. He wasn’t even chair of Appropriations or Ways and Means pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Lorax (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Remove Orrin Hatch
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What is his significance other than being a Senator for a bazillion years? He was never majority leader and he never sought out executive office. He doesn’t hold the record, even for a Republican, because Chuck Grassley recently beat him out. pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Remove George J. Mitchell
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.
Too obscure to be on this list. pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Remove Edmund Muskie
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.
Too obscure to be on this list. pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support VT-ALM (talk) 11:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Because he promoted the 1960s environmental movement in America, he no doubt should be kept rather than removed from the list. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
Remove Donald Rumsfeld
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.
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Colin Powell (under military) already represent the War on Terror pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- Oppose
- Rumsfeld had a very significant career and was pivotal to the Iraq War. I think he's significant enough to warrant VIT5. 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose --Thi (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Opposed VT-ALM (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
Remove Richard Russell Jr.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Do we need Russell, Helms, Wallace AND Thurmond? How many racist Southern conservative Democrats or ex-Democrats do we need, anyway? pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Lorax (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Remove Ted Stevens
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As with Hatch, what’s his significance other than being 1 of 100 for a bazillion years? pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Lorax (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
It's one of the oldest musical themes in European music, used by over 150 composers. I'm not sure what to replace it with, but Avenue Q popped up as a rather recent topic.
- Support
- as proposal --Makkool (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discussion
Remove James Goldsmith
An average unremembered financier from the 70s with a few minor tabloid scandals—nowhere near vital in my opinion. 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Remove Sarah Palin
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 currently have the three women who have run for Vice-President on a major party ticket (we also have Hillary Clinton). Geraldine Ferraro was the first. Kamala Harris was the one that won. Is Sarah Palin as significant as those two? pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- A bit of recentism here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Iskandar323 (talk) 06:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- I think there's at least an argument Palin should be here. I'm not sure how strongly I believe it but I figured I'd state it. I think it's relatively fair to regard Palin as having ushered in the Tea Party era and, ultimately, Trump. During and immediately after the 2008 campaign, Palin's views were largely regarded as extreme—she was very socially conservative, at a time when many thought that the GOP would have to soften it's social conservatism in order to continue to be electorally competitive. On the campaign trail, she made inflammatory comments on Obama (the "palling around with terrorists" line) while also developing a reputation for ... let's say "bending" the truth. Post-campaign, she coined the phrase "death panel", which became a common conspiracy-theorist critique of the Affordable Care Act. (Extreme comments regarding Obama, false statements, and conspiracy theories? I swear that reminds me of someone ....) When the Tea Party had its first ever national convention, who was the keynote speaker? You guessed it, Sarah Palin.Before you go thinking that this is all my original research, consider that these connections are noted in reliable sources. PBS Newshour did an episode on her calling her a "Pre-Trump" (PBS: "A Serial Liar": How Sarah Palin Ushered in the "Post-Truth" Political Era in Which Trump Has Thrived). And other institutional media sources have noted the connection, as well. Again, I'm a narrow oppose vote here, but, whether by her actions or not, Sarah Palin was—though we didn't know it at the time—a pretty strong preview of what the Republican Party would become. In light of her candidacy—being the first woman on the Republican Party's presidential ticket—and her relationship to the Tea Party, Trump, death panels, and the Bridge to Nowhere, I think she probably deserves a spot here, alongside Geraldine Ferraro.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
Remove Gould Belt
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.
Astronomical formation, not particularly notable for anything.
- Support
- Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 20:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nom. VT-ALM (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nom. The person who loves reading (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
As suggested above by Czar and Aszx5000.
- Support
- Support as proposer. 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- per Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5#Add Felipe VI czar 12:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
- Coment Maybe remove Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Albert II, Prince of Monaco and Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg? And policians, remove Jean-Marie Le Pen and Marine Le Pen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.27.89.221 (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Remove Konrad Kujau
I can't see why a guy who forged a bunch of Nazi memorabilia and documents is vital. If anything is to be marked vital about this guy, it's his "opus magnum", the Hitler Diaries. And for the record, I don't think it should be. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support Lorax (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discussion
Rules changes
The purpose of this discussion page is to select 50,000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles.
Any article currently on this list may be challenged. The discussion is open to the following rules:
- Any discussion must run at least two weeks before being closed
- Any discussion must have at least four total votes before being closed
- Any article with at least 55% support for inclusion will be retained
- Any article with at least 55% opposition for inclusion will be removed
- 14 days ago: 03:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Why are these rules different from Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles#Introduction? Here 3:2, 4:3 or 5:4 votes cause change, whereas there 2/3rd votes are required.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Level 5 should be aligned with Level 3/4 (which seem the same). Many of these discussions are going on too long and the debate is too disjointed. The list is also incredibly long and the auto-archiving should be set at circa 90 days (max). Also, should an entry on this list not require a notice to be left on the talk page of the article in question? It might help participation. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
International Flags in Level 5 History National flags
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 suggest we add International flags to the National flags part of History, renaming it flags (or something else.) Vital Articles Grammar (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support
- Support as proposer Vital Articles Grammar (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC) (vote added by Festucalex)
- Support. --Thi (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Punctuated equilibrium
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.
Punctuated equilibrium belongs under biology>basics because it's a very important theory in evolutionary biology. It provides a more fleshed-out explanation of evolution then other theories and it's taught in nearly every university level course on evolution. --LJFIN2 (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Support
- Support as proposer: LJFIN2 (talk · contribs) 13:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added by Festucalex)
- Strong support, Surprised this isn't in here already. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose. Would want to see a swap, given the size of the evolutionary biology category. This topic, while important within its field, seems less vital than the topics already included. czar 02:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose [7] --Thi (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Barney and Betty Hill incident in the Pseudoscientists section of Miscellaneous people should not be in this list because the title implies it is about the event and not the couple. I suggest that you may move it to another non-People category or just remove it. Or change the title of the article by removing the 'incident' so that it could imply it is just the couple, though they are not notable because they are only known for one event. CrisBalboa1 (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- Support as proposer: CrisBalboa1 11:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added here by Festucalex)
- Support The person who loves reading (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Support removal
- I'd support removing entirely. VIT5 needs serious slimming down, and a UFO hoax just doesn't fit the bill of vital articles, in my view. 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support removal --Thi (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is an important Nordic drama and in the Nordic noir genre and is adapted in some countries. If The Bridge is not good enough, you can nominate a better program like The Killing. CrisBalboa1 (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- Support as proposer: CrisBalboa1 11:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added here by Festucalex)
- Support --Thi (talk) 09:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- We are extremely overbudget when it comes to TV shows (450/260, which is almost 175%). I think we shouldn't add any more until we whittle down that category sufficiently. 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- I was going to add it later but I feel that this genre might need attention. We'll just wait and see when we cut down on the number of American shows or just ignore the discussion add suggest it again. CrisBalboa1 (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo at the Literature section covers Nordic noir enough. --Makkool (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- I understand and I did not know it is a Nordic noir, but thank you for your opposition I was attempting add it to represent the genre in a visual sense. If you all oppose my nomination, that is all fine, it is what it is. CrisBalboa1 (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
Remove Armour of the Kelly gang
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 Ned Kelly is already on the VA5 list, this minor subtopic of his exploits is redundant and unnecessary. Still very cool though.
- Support
- Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support agree with nom. Carlwev 20:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support --LJFIN2 (talk) 10:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nom. The person who loves reading (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Jijiga
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 city of half a million is as significant as the others already on the list. It's the capital of the Somali region, and played an important part in the Ogaden War (see Battle of Jijiga). 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Swap Adama for Jijiga --Thi (talk) 10:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Bahir Dar feels like an equally-strong add, but we are over-quota in East African cities. I would Support only, if we could cut enough space for both. --Makkool (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe we could swap Adama for Jijiga? 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Agree, it doesn't seem as notable as others. --Makkool (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe we could swap Adama for Jijiga? 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- czar 15:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion
Remove Girly girl and Tomboy
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 marginal articles and definitely do not belong in the Stages of life category. the Sexuality and gender category already contains relevant articles such as gender identity, non-binary gender, and third gender. 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- czar 15:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- Support removal of Girly girl only per Thi. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose removal of Tomboy --Thi (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Thi: At least you'll agree that it shouldn't be in the "stages of life" category? It looks extremely out of place there. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- It fits under Role: [8]. --Thi (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Thi: At least you'll agree that it shouldn't be in the "stages of life" category? It looks extremely out of place there. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Per Thi. If needed, move them to "role" category. --Onwa (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Sudanese transition to democracy is a failed process that ended in 2019, shortly after it began, and shows absolutely no sign of resuming. There's no reason for it to be marked vital. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 10:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- czar 15:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- Support. A failed process as proposer said. At this moment that even regressed into a civil war. I can't see the article as remarkable before, and now is even less vital. --Onwa (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Synthetic media
AI field of growing importance. The article provides a wide overview from deepfakes to GANs to Stable Diffusion, the last of which has caused quite the stir in art communities.[9][10][11] I'd place it under "Artificial intelligence concepts" in Technology; even if not all synthetic media are necessarily by AI they overwhelmingly are so.
- Support
- As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support The person who loves reading (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Feels like an emerging, and notable, term to cover many emerging, and notable, sub-terms. Not sure that it has been around long enough to be a true Level 5 (i.e. an enduring concept for all time) yet. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per 78.18 czar 02:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
- [12][13] No consensus (or any responses) yet, but I might try again later, or if the technology removals pass (making the section below quota) boldly add it myself.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 17:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not closing this one yet because of an ongoing merge request. 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Remove Moors murders
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 they are in history section? Dawid2009 (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- Support as proposer: Dawid2009 (talk · contribs) 07:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added here by Festucalex)
- 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support The person who loves reading (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Interested in an answer below but parking here for now czar 23:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Support - not really on the level of other such things that make the level 5 cut, like Jack the Ripper, that have become murder legends of global renown. This would probably be level 6, if that ever gains existence. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- Please don't give anyone any ideas 😬 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Why they are in history section?
They're roughly the British equivalent to the Manson murders, and we count Charles Manson as Vital 5. (Not clearly opposing, but this is very much a big-deal in 20th-century British history, which just means 'is being a huge deal in the recent-but-not-that-recent criminal history of a major enwiki market a v5 criterion'.) Vaticidalprophet 03:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)- Why doesn't the article make a claim to this extent? czar 23:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Vaticidalprophet: I'm also interested in an answer. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry -- I don't have this page watched, so missed it. The Moors murders article was the subject of probably one of the biggest single-article firestorms in the project's entire history, which understandably impacted its coverage. I'll see if there's a good place to slot in a description of its impact without reawakening sleeping dogs. Vaticidalprophet 22:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Vaticidalprophet: I'm also interested in an answer. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Why doesn't the article make a claim to this extent? czar 23:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Remove Louis de Wohl
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Only notable for a brief, failed stint as an MI5 astrologer. While absolutely hilarious, this doesn't make him VIT5 material.
- Support
- Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- Per proposer, not really notable. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support The person who loves reading (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Not "highest importance" in the topic's field. No assertion in the article's lede section of the topic's enduring importance or essentialness in its category. Not vital. czar 15:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Averroes
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.
Massive polymath of the Medieval period who should be sitting alongside Avicenna. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- Support as nominator. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Strong support. His theory of the unity of the intellect alone has been massively influential (hell, one could say Wikipedia itself is influenced by it). His contributions to the revival of Aristotelianism and his medical discoveries add even more weight to his vitality. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Truth be told, perhaps he's higher than level 5, but first things first I guess? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Onwa (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC) Of course, I'm even wondering why this biography wasn't even listed before.
- Oppose
- Discuss
Averroes is listed at levels 4 and 5, in the section of Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists. --Thi (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- Whoops. I didn't realise the vital projects elements on talk page could be nested inside the WikiProject banner shells, and I also checked the level 4, but I was looking under post-classical scientists. Won't happen again! Iskandar323 (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Iskandar323: You'll be glad to know that Nardog very kindly wrote this ultra-useful script upon my request a few months ago. This would have prevented this error. 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Add Wagner Group and/or Yevgeny Prigozhin
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 knowledgable on much of Russian politics, so not sure what I could suggest for a removal, but this feels especially prescient considering recent events. 86.15.115.180 (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- Support as proposer: 86.15.115.180 (talk · contribs) 21:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC) (vote added by Festucalex)
- Oppose
- Oppose per WP:RECENTISM. 〜 Festucalex • talk 21:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per Festuc.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 06:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per Festucalex. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- czar 23:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Too recent. --Onwa (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
Add Paramilitary and Private Military Company
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 War and Military section is quite under quota. These two seem like reasonable additions. Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society_and_social_sciences/Politics_and_economics#War_and_military_(123/150_articles) 86.15.115.180 (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- Support as proposer: 86.15.115.180 (talk · contribs) 22:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC) (vote added by Festucalex)
- czar 23:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Support, these are very natural fits to the section and clearly vital topics. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Timbre and Accidental (music), remove Flat (music) and Sharp (music)
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 Music basics section is currently full but Timbre is a glaring omission in my opinion. To make room, I propose replacing flat and sharp with Accidental (music) which more broadly covers the ideas of both and more, especially in the context of music notation. Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Arts#Music_(805/800_articles)
- Support
- Support as proposer: 86.15.115.180 (talk · contribs) 00:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [reply]
- Support--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 06:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Support—very good proposal. 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Support per well-reasoned proposal. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- czar 23:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Remove Libertarian socialism
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've now spent months researching this topic and I've come to the conclusion that it is absolutely not a vital subject to an encyclopedia. The term "libertarian socialism" initially started as a synonym for anarchism, but since the 1960s, it has evolved into a much more broadly-defined umbrella term that exists mainly to group anarchism together with other socialist tendencies that anarchists are sympathetic to. I've found more scholarly research on obscure micro-ideologies cooked up by randoms nobody has heard of than I have on this. To say it's a vital subject is to say it exists in some clearly-defined form. But it's just a macro-subject that is only notable because of its claim to encompass other, more clearly notable subjects (such as anarchist communism and anarcho-syndicalism). It is not vital in and of itself. --10:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- Support as proposer. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed, the topic is almost excessively covered by Anarchist communism and Anarcho-syndicalism alone, much less Libertarian socialism. Not to mention that Marxism–Leninism, which was at once the governing ideology of half the world, isn't on the list. I propose that as a swap. 〜 Festucalex • talk 12:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- This article should be redirected, per its talk page. czar 23:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Support - redundant to Anarchism and Marxism (as is Anarchist communism and Anarcho-syndicalism) - remove them all! Iskandar323 (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Politics and government section is currently over-capacity by 13 entries. These two articles strike me as candidates for quick and easy removal. Almost every single article listed under Ideology and political theory have some level of global scope and importance. These two are the only entries of "X in Y" in the entire list. The only argument I could think of for keeping them is US-centrism, which it's safe to say I strongly disagree with.
- Support
- Support as proposer. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- czar 23:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- 〜 Festucalex • talk 01:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Support - 1000%. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Weak support. US social and political movements tend to have influence over the Western countries, so they are therefore relevant topics, but given the nature of the remaining articles of the section (almost all of them are more general and not country-specific) and the overquota, they should be removed. --Onwa (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Since America is currently the largest country (in GDP), and its military is the strongest (with some significant problems) on earth, and non-US news media report political news from US more frequently than any other country (excluding the one that a medium belongs to), these two articles definitely should be kept.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
Remove Big History
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.
Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#General (25 articles)
"Big" topic perhaps but by no means an essential topic of general history. Not "highest importance" in the topic's field. czar 00:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- Nom czar 00:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yum 〜 Festucalex • talk 01:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Support - literally never heard of the term. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Is a novelty and a non-conventional way to "read" the human history, but I don't think this is a core and vital article. --Onwa (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Strong oppose. I'm almost certainly going to be in the minority here, but I just can't agree with its removal. Big History is a very important field, combining the disciplines of physics and history in order to communicate the story of the universe as a whole. It has been particularly influential in scientific education and as a way of understanding the place of humanity in history. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Would you have a citation for that latter claim? Didn't see such a claim in the article, which is fairly self-promotional for what should be an academic topic. czar 00:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion
- I can't help but think that this is just Chronology of the universe by a different name. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Remove British fascism
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 sure why this is considered a vital topic, to be honest. For one, British fascism isn't really distinct enough from other forms of fascism to warrant being considered vital. But also, it was (is?) a failed movement. Unlike Nazism, Falangism, Italian fascism, Legionarism, etc. British fascism never took power, nor did it even really come close, famously getting beaten back in the Battle of Cable Street. Even within the British far-right, Strasserism has had more long-term influence than Mosleyite fascism has.
- Support
- Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Support - pretty marginal in history, all things considered. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Support--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Replace Islamofascism with Islamic fundamentalism
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.
"Islamofascism" doesn't appear to be an actual ideology, more of a buzzword used by Americans during the so-called War on Terror. At best, it's used in order to compare contemporary Islamic fundamentalism with classical fascism, but if that's all it is, why is it considered a vital topic instead the actual ideology that it's talking about? I'd say Islamic fundamentalism is clearly a more vital topic than "Islamofascism".
- Support
- Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Support - the former is a niche term: the second a key theme of the early 21st century. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Support--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Valve Corporation, remove Meredith Corporation
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.
Add Valve Corporation for its contributions to the evolution of video gaming, with releases such as Half-life, Counter-Strike, Dota and Team Fortress, etc. etc., as well as the Steam platform. Remove Meredith Corporation, because ??? What even is this? Seems like a fairly random washed up 20th century US media group that didn't survive the advent of the 21st century. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- Support as nominator. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Support Meredith's article's pageviews and count of language versions aren't impressive in comparison, not to mention the company is now defunct. Glancing at the article, I can't see much specific lasting influence on the world other than the stuff it owned (which admittedly appears to be quite a lot). Just because something owned much or had a large readership at some point in history doesn't mean it's still important today.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 12:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Support Valve has had a pretty global influence, Steam alone was a game-changer for PC gaming around the world. But I can't say I've ever heard of Meredith, its subsidiaries seem to be more noteworthy than the corporation itself. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Onwa (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC) Per Grnrchst and LaukkuTheGreit. A quick search in Google Trends shows that Valve Corp. have had a higher and lot more global interested readership than Meredith Corp.
- Oppose
- Discuss
Move hydroponics, olericulture, and vertical farms to Horticulture category
It seems horticultural topics, i.e. hydroponics, olericulture, vertical farms, etc., are listed in agriculture science rather than horticulture. Why? Satin66Flower (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- Support as proposer: Satin66Flower (talk · contribs) 05:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC) (vote added by Festucalex)
- Oppose
- Discuss
- @Satin66Flower: Why should they be in horticulture rather than agriculture? 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Because horticulture is their scientific home. I have no problem with a plant science category that includes all the plant crops equally. Satin66Flower (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Add fossil families
I wasn't aware of the decision to remove stuff from the animal list until today. While I agree on principle with the removal of most taxa (safe for Castoroides due to its common representation in popular media in recent years) ; I have however to insist that this list does not reflect the quality on research on a general taxon, but the interest the general public would have toward it. It is still my belief that the general public is first interested on genera, then on families, and not the other way around. Pinging @PrimalMustelid as he may have an interest in it too.
So, with seven removed mammal taxa, I'd propose we should replace them by :
- Protoceratidae, to replace Synthetoceras
- Amphicyonidae, not Amphicyoninae or Amphicyon, per the (correct) narrative that led to the removal of all previous genera ;
- Hipparion (no use of more than one new taxa of equidae since most of that information should be in the Equidae and Evolution of horses articles) ;
- Borophaginae ;
- Dinomyidae, to replace Castoroides (not directly, but I regretted not including Josephoartigasia in the first list, and I think it is the best way to go) ;
- Notoungulata ;
- Litopterna.
As a corollary, no change should be made without prior consensus for now since we are under the quota to WP:BOLD, specially if it's for adding stuff you're working on. There is still much more cleansing to do in that section though.
- Support
- Support as nom. Larrayal (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
- @Larrayal: Pinging is done using
{{Ping}}, not a simple @. I'll ping him for you: @PrimalMustelid 〜 Festucalex • talk 22:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC) - Still remaining on support, but something I want to address is that I think Amphicyon as a genus is also worth featuring as a vital article, as not only is it the most well-known amphicyonid genus in both the public perception and academic circles (it's the type genus, go figure), but it has a long and extensive taxonomic history that goes back as far as 1836 (the fourth fossil carnivoran genus to be erected ever, next to Megantereon, Machairodus, and Agnotherium), during a critical time in paleontology when amongst the first Miocene fauna and deposits were described in France and Germany (Although Agnotherium was the first amphicyonid genus, it was considered a synonym for Amphicyon and became overshadowed, moreso in the modern day because Amphicyon is more important in paleoecological contexts and more subcomplete fossils). PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Fruits and vegetables
I have been going through the hierarchical lists regarding food and eating. Yes there is one good article on vegetables, yet only mention of fruit juices and fruit in pies. But if I wasn't looking, I would have missed them with all the old standards of meat, dairy and grain. As a diabetic and a retired horticultural professional, Wikipedia has only minimal poorly organized articles about the modern plant based diet. I recognize it is my responsibility also, but I can't even see a place to start, the lack of equity for plant based foods is overwhelming. Satin66Flower (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Satin66Flower: Can you please provide specific proposals? What exactly should be removed and added? 〜 Festucalex • talk 18:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I see now how some things are organized. I was looking at a few stubs in horticulture and could not find their home. Orchards and apples are not in horticulture (yet, they are horticulture), so I looked in food, not there either.
- Now I know products from domestic animals and grains are in the food section. Products from domesticated plants remain in the plant biology section. My proposal would be to move all the information, separated as edible fruits and vegetables, from Plant Biology to Food in Everyday Life. This information is separated from the lists of plant families, that contains mostly ornamental plants (trees, shrubs, and flowers) and forest products (I did not look thoroughly). There seems to be much deeper coverage of plant families in articles than seems to be represented in the Plant Biology hierarchical outline. I expect this was decided long ago, but it makes no real sense to me.
- I am willing to participate in this reorganization, if it is deemed appropriate. Satin66Flower (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- I need more time to review the hierarchical outline under vital articles. In my mind and preliminary review, there seem to be many inconsistencies, this may be my problem as a new user. Let me follow all the leads and I may have a proposal in time. Thanks. Satin66Flower (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Satin66Flower: Very well. 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- I have reviewed the fruit and vegetable question more thoroughly. My previous assumptions appear correct. There is a note and a link to the animal section and plant section of Biology and Health Sciences, stating that the details for food are in the Biology and Health Sciences section. The sections on food from animals no longer exists in Biology & Health. I expect someone moved them, I believe logically, to the Food section of Everyday life. I propose that level 4 fruit, level 5 fruit, level 4 vegetables and level 5 vegetable sections be moved to the Food section of Everyday life from the plant section of Biology & Health. Satin66Flower (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Satin66Flower: Very well. 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Remove Thalassocnus, Doedicurus, Tamandua, Add Glyptodon, Two-toed sloth, Megalonyx
I do not believe that it is necessary to have Thalassocnus or Doedicurus at this high of a vital article level, as neither are type species of their respective clades and have little importance overall. I would also remove the Tamandua as we already have an anteater at vital article.
I would reorganize this to:
- Anteater
- Armadillo
- Giant armadillo
- Glyptodon
Doedicurus(possibly, but I believe Glyptodon has more importance)
- Sloth
AFH (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- Support as proposer AFH (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC) (vote added by Festucalex)
- Support as proposed VT-ALM (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support as proposed - seems well thought out. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support replacement of Doedicurus and Thalassocnus.Larrayal (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose replacement of Tamandua by Megalonyx. Larrayal (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss
Homes and gardens
Gardens are somewhat hidden under agriculture categories. Certainly the history is there and the relationships to commercial horticulture are obvious, but it seems more related to the home and the home landscape. That is where the gardeners use the concepts and activities of gardening. Garden design and its relatives fit pretty well in the design categories. Satin66Flower (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- Oppose
- Discuss
- Where should this be moved? VT-ALM (talk) 11:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- I am new to editing on Wikipedia and new to the system regarding vital articles.
- I was looking into a linked home for a couple of horticulture stubs, so I went to the hierarchical list of vital articles to see where to start. I found Garden as a level 3 under Agriculture under Technology. This was the highest level link for "Horticulture information", I looked at the article and it was about commercial Gardens/Parks (really tourism). No real relation to Agriculture. I followed links to gardens and gardening and found better articles but not vital articles. This same article - Garden (level 3) - is listed under Level 4 Buildings and Infrastructure under Agriculture under Technology (I don't think commercial public gardens/parks have anything to do with agriculture infrastructure). Gardening is also listed under level 4 Technology, Agriculture and Forms (I assume that means a form of agriculture, gardening was a form of agriculture 50 to 100 years ago, but not today, commercial agriculture is much more advanced). The article - Garden (level 3) is also listed under level 5 Technology, Agriculture, Forms, with 6 level 5 articles about different types of commercial public gardens/parks. The level 4 Gardening article remains under level 5 Technology, Agriculture, Forms, no enhancements.
- In my mind, gardening is a home based activity and gardens are tourism.
- So I would move Garden and Gardens to Level 5 Tourism, under Recreation and Tourism, under Entertainment, under Everyday Life.
- I have seen two choices for Gardening. The first is close to Tourism. Gardening is clearly identified in the article Activity Participation (I think level 5) under Hobby (level 4) under Entertainment and Leisure, under Entertainment, under Everyday Life.
- I prefer that Gardening become a level 3 article under Home (level 2), under Home Living, under Everyday Life. This is because Gardening has a long history as an integral part of a home and human survival. In addition, articles on Yards, Lawns and Houseplants are located here. The subject - Gardening - has many Wikipedia articles linked to it. I think this is the best way to link to hobby farms as well as suburban and city gardening styles without being "a form of agriculture". I think this is also the best location for pets and urban animal husbandry.
- My thoughts for now. Thanks. Satin66Flower (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)