Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Remove most customary units (with quota change)

The following discussion is closed. 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 this has several moving parts, I wouldn't want to make the change boldly. I'd like to propose the following though:

• Remove all or most individual customary units from Science Basics
  • This would leave only scientific ones (metric/SI or natural)
• Move the customary unit systems to Culture, along with units people explicitly ask to keep
• Reduce the quota for Basics and Measurement to 300, and add 100 slots to Philosophy & Religion

On the last point, I can give more details if you want, but I've already brainstormed a lot of articles missing from Religion & Philosophy.

Support

1. Support as nom. Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. All units of measurement should be kept in one place. Scattering them around to different sections just makes keeping track of them more difficult. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

   That's not a bad point, and I'm not super-wedded to moving things to Culture.

   How do you feel about the other steps though? The main thing for me would be cutting back on the individual units (especially non-scientific ones). Listing them out seems like pretty trivial filler when other sections could use the slots. Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

   There probably are some units of measurement that could be cut. Even in the metric units there seem to be some unnecessary ones. Metre and Kilometre are clearly vital, but do we really need to list Centimetre, Decimetre, Millimetre, Micrometre, Nanometre, Picometre, and Femtometre all separately? Rreagan007 (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

   Exactly, the more you look at it, the more unbalanced it seems: individual units take up 275 articles, and the whole Basics list is just 377 articles. Plus for now, it would only take cutting ~25% of the units to free up 100 slots.

   Obviously, anything that's Lv4 and base units should be left alone, but should I put a big list of proposed removals here? Or would everyone trust my judgment if we agree a bulk removal is needed? I can pace it over weeks in batches so others can revert or partly recover a removal they disagree with. Zar2gar1 (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

   Probably should wait a little while to see if more people chime in with their thoughts. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

2. Oppose pbp 20:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

   Just to get a precise read on the consensus, are you opposed to the proposal on all points?

   Or would you partially support some steps and just oppose the combination? Or would you support some other way of cutting the units back some? Zar2gar1 (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

   I'm opposed to the proposal as titled at the top...I don't want most customary units to be removed from the encyclopedia. pbp 04:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

   Not from the encyclopedia, just from the VA list. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

I think you should just start putting through batches of removes. If you put a list like Centimetre, Decimetre, Millimetre, Micrometre, Nanometre, Picometre, and Femtometre up for removal, I could not imagine they would all be opposed. Some will get removed. Just take your time and go through the process. You may not get 100 removed, but maybe you get 50 then you can come back to the quota issue.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

That - is an excellent idea! Thanks for the suggestion. I may still group them as sub-proposals, but I'll avoid the quota discussion for now. I was just surprised how quickly this proposal bogged down. Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

In general, I think units aren't typically vital – at least, we don't need 275 of them. I think we list over 50% of the units which have articles on this list. That's just weird. J947 † ^edits 22:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Remove Decimetre, Picometre, Femtometre, Nanometre and Micrometre

These are minor units of measurement that are not important enough to be listed. Pinging TonyTheTiger and Zar2gar1 from an above discussion.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support all although I suspect micrometre at least will garner opposition. (If the nom doesn't mind, I've taken the liberties of moving this under the previous discussion to give context and bundling in nanometre too, 1/1000 of a micrometre.) J947 † ^edits 22:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support the first three, which are not widely used; oppose removal of nanometre and micrometre, which are significant units in (small) science. Curbon7 (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support all, thanks for kicking this off too. Became busy, but I'll probably start up some others in the coming days. Zar2gar1 (talk) 09:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Support the first three, oppose removal of nanometre and micrometre, as per Curbon7. --Kammerer55 (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Support the first three, oppose removal of nanometre and micrometre, as above. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
7. Support removing the first three. Gizza (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
8. Support removing the first three, oppose removing micrometre and nanometre. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 08:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
9. Support the first three, oppose removal of nanometre and micrometre. starship.paint (RUN) 08:35, 26 November 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 Police state, probably at VA5 somewhere

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

---

Also a pretty historically important form of authoritarian government. Seems like we're still missing A LOT or core content!

Support

1. Support as nom. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Weak support. A relatively important concept in poliscience, and media. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nom and Piotrus. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:27, 20 November 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 Klavdiya Shulzhenko, Add Viktor Tsoi

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

---

Tsoi is one of the most popular and influential musicians in the history of Russian music, a pioneer of Russian pop music, founder of Kino (which, to be fair, is listed as a vital article, but then there's no rule that individual musicians from a band can't be listed - it would be insanity to not list both John Lennon and Beatles as vital) isn't here. Meanwhile, Klavdiya Shulzhenko's article doesn't demonstrate at all why she is vital. Only argument I could possibly have for her vitality is that she sang for the Soviet army during WW2, and was named People's Artist of the USSR, but there have been many artists throughout history that performed during wartime, and many artists named as People's Artists...

Support

1. as nom Jaguarnik (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Surprised he wasn't here already. Totalibe (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

1. Well, her article is clearly in a very bad state and thus its hard to comprove her potential vitality solely through that mean. The Blue Rider 21:01, 22 October 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 Serekunda

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

---

An African city I missed for the previous section. It is the largest city in The Gambia. We usually add the largest cities of countries, and I see no reason to not add this one.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Per QuicoleJr. Serekunda is the largest city of Gambia by a long shot, ~400k population compared to Brikama, the 2nd largest, with ~80k. This agglomerate of people inevitably turns the city into the economic and cultural hub of the country. The Blue Rider 23:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Totalibe (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Per nom and TBR. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Weak support, though its proximity to Banjul probably limits its importance. J947 † ^edits 23:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Support per above. Gizza (talk) 05:00, 23 November 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.

Combining sections of Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Politicians and leaders

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

---

I think it would be helpful to combine sections of the following two lists of vital articles. In the History list, there are sections for Prehistory, Ancient history, Post-classical history, Early modern period, 19th century, 20th century, and 21st century. I think it would be best to combine 19th century, 20th century, and 21st century into one section for Late modern period. In the Politicians list, there are sections for Ancient, Post-classical, Early modern, Late modern, and Post-1945. I think combining the Late modern and Post-1945 would be helpful. My reasoning for doing so is because at level 2, there are articles for the time periods of history: Prehistory, Ancient, Post-classical, Early modern, and Late modern. I think to keep the lists as consistent as possible, it would be a good way to organize the list better. Please let me know your comments below. Interstellarity (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

They are split up for a reason. The sections would be way too big if those were combined. It would be nearly impossible to read, especially on mobile. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

What do you think about removing some articles in each section to merge the sections? That way, each section has about the same number of articles in it. Interstellarity (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

We should not be removing articles from the list just so that we can merge it. Besides, these were very different time periods. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Post-1945 history is more also known as "contemporary history" and I think this is useful to keep separate from late modern history. Late modern history was still an era of gunpowder empire; contemporary history, the atomic era, is qualitatively different, and the history here is more than dense enough to be separated. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

That’s clear to me. I made a minor change in renaming post-1945 to Contemporary. I don’t expect that change to be controversial since it refers to the same time period for the Politicians page. I was thinking that the History page could be split similarly into Prehistory, Ancient, Post-classical, Early modern, Late modern, and Contemporary rather than certain centuries like 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. Please let me know what you think of this change. Based on your comments above, I think it would be better than combining Late modern from 1800 to the present. Late modern could encompass the history events of 1800 to 1945, while contemporary can encompass the events since 1945. Interstellarity (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323, @QuicoleJR: I wanted to make a note here that I am in the process of putting events that happened prior to 1945 in the Late modern section. This is not an easy task and I am hoping that while I can some of the work, it would be much more helpful if I get help from other folks. Interstellarity (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that moving to a late modern/contemporary split is superior to a century by century basis, not least because pre- and post-WII is a very standard split, and 21st-century alone is a very diminutive time period. But wait ... does contemporary history not exist at level-2? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: Contemporary history can be defined as a part of Late modern history or it can be separate from that period. I tried adding it to level 2, but failed due to space constraints. I am trying to put the events prior to 1945 in the late modern period section and sort the articles alphabetically especially since I put the 21st century articles in the contemporary section. I started the task, but I was hoping someone can help out with finishing it up so that it is better since I don't want to spend hours on the computer doing it. I need breaks from the computer once in a while. Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 21:39, 24 October 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 Fictional characters (Spock, Gandalf, Monkey D. Luffy)

The following discussion is closed. 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 a ton of stuff at V5 that can be described as "important but next to nobody has heard about them". Sure, we need to be "serious". But I think we have major gaps in popculture coverage. Fictional characters are currently at (122/130 articles) If we list Godzilla, The Doctor (from Doctor Who), Indiana Jones, Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader, as well as some more questionable characters we might discuss for removal (Zatoichi, The Yellow Kid, Green Hornet) I think we can list the following:

Gandalf

IMHO the most popculture-famous character from LoTR. I'll ping resident LoTR expert User:Chiswick Chap in case they'd disagree. (Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Popular pages lists Gandalf as second most viewed character page, after Gollum, which is a bit suprising to me, but I still think Gandalf is more vital then Gollum, and on the same level as Luke Skywalker or Indiana Jones when it comes to measuring fictional character impact and popualrity). Btw, we list Bilbo Baggins under 'literature', but Bilbo has only half the page views of Gandalf. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Agree. FWIW, Gandalf gets nearly twice as many Ghits and over twice as many Scholar hits as Gollum. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support One of the most famous wizards in fiction.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support: Bit of a legend, and something of an archetype. Even Dumbledore is sort of a Gandalf. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Support He is one of the mort famous wizards of all time, and has been referenced many times in popular culture. I would guess that the only reason Gollum is beating him in pageviews is because of the recent videogame starring him. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
6. Support per above. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
7. Support per above. Jusdafax (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Spock

We seem to agree above that Star Trek is very influential. I'd argue that Spock is the most iconic character from that franchise, although Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek/Popular pages lists him after James T. Kirk and Leonard McCoy. Feel free to disagree, but I think that Spock with Vulcan salute and such is more iconic and vital than the other two. Although maybe we should have a vote on Kirk as well? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Support: In many ways outshines some of the other lead characters in terms of recognizability. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
3. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. Jusdafax (talk) 01:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Support per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Monkey D. Luffy

In our list of fictional characters we list just four anime characters outside video games: Hello Kitty, Naruto Uzumaki, Goku and Sailor Moon (character). Setting aside the question to what degree this part of our list is American-centric (Superhero media is 18 American comic book characters plus Sailor Moon..., sigh, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters/Popular pages lists Monkey D. Luffy as the most popular character page (and List of One Piece characters is #1). Naruto Uzumaki is just #397. (that ranking isn't everything - Grand Admiral Thrawn and Ashoka from Star Wars are in Top 10, while Luke Skywalker Darth Vader is 15 is ~300. So take those numbers with a grain of salt. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)) I am not arguing that we should swap/remve Naruto now, but I think it is pretty clear when it comes to anime/manga shonen titles, Luffy is more vital than Naruto Uzumaki. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Support: Yes. Lead character is one of the longest lived continuous mangas. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Kind of want to wait until season 2 of the live action series becomes official, think that would mark a true entrée into broader culture. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Add The Chicks (formerly/better known as The Dixie Chicks)

The following discussion is closed. 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 would have trouble believing that there is any non-VA band or artist with two or three better selling albums than the 13xplatinum Wide Open Spaces, and its followups the 11x platinum Fly and 6x platinum Home by The Chicks when they were known as The Dixie Chicks.

Above, in the Faith Hill nom, I mentioned that the weekest numerical cases in Country at VA are inspiring acts and the rest are approximately peers with Hill. However, I consider these gals to be of superior vitality to all of them.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Success in music aside, the backlash to their opposition to the invasion of Iraq made international news and was a key example of mid-2000s USian jingoism. Absolutely vital country music band. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
3. support adding Lorax (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
4. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 10:01, 27 November 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.

Accidental removal?

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

---

@Interstellarity: in this edit you (accidentally?) removed a bunch of articles, was this intentional? 115.188.113.184 (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I was trying to consolidate sections. Instead of sections for 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries, I organized the articles in Late modern (events before 1945) and Contemporary (after 1945). I wasn't finished sorting the articles, so I am hoping that someone could complete it for me. Interstellarity (talk) 21:56, 29 October 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 several small U.S. cities

The following discussion is closed. 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 am still trying to understand what vitality means. Cities are over quota (2,024/2,000) and Americas (384/360 articles) accounts for the entire amount, most of that is North America (229/210 articles). Does the United States really need 160 cities? The following is a list of many of the smallest (in population) cities in the United States that are neither state capitals nor the largest city in their state.

1. Allentown, Pennsylvania (125,845 2020 census population, 72 interwikis)
2. Lowell, Massachusetts (115,554, 71 interwikis)
3. Erie, Pennsylvania (94,831, 67 interwikis)
4. Syracuse, New York (148,620, 81 interwikis)
5. Dayton, Ohio (137,644, 75 interwikis)
6. Duluth, Minnesota (86,697, 74 interwikis)
7. Salem, Massachusetts (44,480, 67 interwikis)
8. St. Augustine, Florida (14,329, 59 interwikis)
9. Tuskegee, Alabama (9,395, 56 interwikis)
10. Cambridge, Massachusetts (118,403, 87 interwikis)
11. New Haven, Connecticut (135,081, 91 interwikis)
12. Savannah, Georgia (147,780, 74 interwikis)
13. Fairbanks, Alaska (95,655, 85 interwikis)
14. Palm Springs, California (44,575, 66 interwikis)
15. Atlantic City, New Jersey (38,497 population, 71 interwikis)

Support

1. Support all but Cambridge, New Haven, Tuskegee, Atlantic City and Savannah as nom. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

   Also excluding St. Augustine as noted below.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

2. Support Allentown, Lowell, Erie, Duluth, New Haven, Fairbanks and Palm Springs. Undecided on Syracruse, St. Augustine, Tuskegee. Oppose the rest. Totalibe (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support all except the bellow mentioned. The Blue Rider 10:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support all except Salem, St. Augustine, Syracuse and Tuskegee. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Support all, nothing I can think of makes them vital. A century to three of history, small size, regional signiciance and nothing else. Salem witch trials are V5, that's about all that we need to include. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

   @Piotrus: In St. Augustine's case, it's 458. Did you read my argument below? pbp 17:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

   @Purplebackpack89 Yes, but I am not convinced. Regarding St. A, yes, it has lenghty history, but it is very much regional in importance. US needs a 24 quota cut, and I don't see why this entry is more vital than anything else we are keeping, although I would seriously consider such a swap argument "delete X not this one" if you can make it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal of Savannah, St. Augustine, and Salem. They have historical/cultural importance. I would also note that this list is supposed to be tailored to the English Wikipedia, and there are a large number of English speakers and English Wikipedia readers in the U.S. who will likely have more interest in articles on U.S. cities than cities in other places of comparable size, so size alone isn't a great metric for which cities should be listed. If anything, there should be more U.S. cities on this list, not fewer. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

   That's most certainly not true, the vital article project isn't supposed to be tailored to any demographic. The Blue Rider 10:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

   So you think we're creating a universal list of articles here that applies as much to the Spanish Wikipedia or the Chinese Wikipedia as it does to the English Wikipedia? Rreagan007 (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

   Yes. J947 † ^edits 21:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

   Well I disagree. Level 3 and 4 explicitly state that the lists are tailored to the English Wikipedia and the Meta-Wiki lists are the ones that apply to all Wikipedias. If you want to work on a 50k list for all Wikipedias, I suggest you go start one on Meta-Wiki. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

2. Oppose all, partly on procedure When people find that a section of the VA5 is over quota, they always say "let's cut something from the United States!", but they invariably focus on things like cities where the United States isn't particular outsized relative to everything else. American cities only represent 8% of the cities list. The bloat of American cities is much less than the bloat of American activists or entertainment personalities. Also, there are so many cities in this proposal and they are vital for different reasons so it's likely this will end in a giant clusterfuck. pbp 18:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

   Comment This is different. I had just researched to find cities smaller than Kansas City, Kansas that were not state capitals or the largest city in their state. Once I saw people against KCK, I decided to post what I found for consideration while all the work was fresh in my mind. It seemed logical given the response to KCK. I assumed cities smaller than it might be considered good candidates for removal.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD)

   I think the U.S. city bloat is nevertheless real. At VA5 there are more American cities than Chinese cities, whereas the opposite is true at VA4. If you think most of these are vital (just as a general remark not to pbp specifically), then that's more a point in favour of increasing the cities quota than anything else. Individual proposals is definitely more the way to go about this though. J947 † ^edits 10:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

3. Oppose per Purplebackpack89. Jusdafax (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose St. Augustine, Salem, Savannah, Syracuse, Lowell and Tuskegee on historical grounds. The Blue Rider 10:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Oppose removal of Salem, St. Augustine, Syracuse and Tuskegee. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Oppose Cambridge, New Haven, Tuskegee, St. Augustine, Atlantic City and Savannah-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
7. Oppose. I really only oppose less than half, but it’s too many in one time. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

   @TonyTheTiger:: Hyperbolick, J947, I and possibly Jusdafax all have voted or commented that it would be better to withdraw this and nominate separately or in small groups. Please listen! pbp 21:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

   User:Purplebackpack89, I have been told that a nomination is not supposed to be withdrawn after anyone other than the nominator has voted support. So there is not much I can do now.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

   If you renominate them all individually and ping everyone, it's fine. It's hardly a withdrawal – it's just formatting it a different way. J947 † ^edits 02:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

   Honestly, it doesn't sound right. I have never seen an add remove withdrawn. But if enough of you guys want to mess up the voting by just opposing everything, you can get there. I don't know what the renomination rules are. I would likely just split this up into the four regions in a renomination.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

8. Oppose all per Hyperbolick. I'd much rather be able to chat about individual ones and I'm worried the likes of Duluth, Minnesota will pass without specific analysis of it. J947 † ^edits 21:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• FYI Africa, South America and Southern Europe are also above quota, all those are made up for by shortfalls elsewhere. Totalibe (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
• Tuskegee was recently nominated for discussion and failed 2-5. The Blue Rider 10:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Can I just say that I detest the fact that we view every state capital and every state's largest city vital. It means that we list 1 city from Utah and 2 from Vermont. We're much better served going by a case-by-case approach.
  It may seem sacrilegious but in many cases where we list 2 cities from a small state the one I want to get rid of would be the capital. Even if we view being a state capital as effective to doubling its population, many still pale in significance to other cities from their states; Rapid City, South Dakota is more significant than Pierre, South Dakota, etc. From someone living in a national capital. J947 † ^edits 05:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment and additional info from PBP

• First off, metro area population might be more informative than central city population. Historical population might be more notable than current population, as several of these (Erie, Allentown, Syracuse, Lowell) are "rust belt" or "frost belt" cities whose population has declined since World War II

Metropolitan areas

1. Allentown, Pennsylvania: 871,229 (68th-largest in USA)
2. Lowell, Cambridge and Salem: Part of Boston metro area. Lowell and Cambridge part of Middlesex County, pop. 1,617,105 (21st-largest county in USA, would be 40th-largest metropolitan area if stand-alone) Salem part of Essex county, pop. 809,829 (78th-largest county in USA, would be 76th-largest metropolitan area if stand-alone)
3. Erie, Pennsylvania: 267,689 (187th-largest in USA)
4. Syracuse, New York: 653,633 (88th-largest in USA)
5. Dayton, Ohio: 812,595 (74th-largest in USA)
6. Duluth, Minnesota: 280,384 (178th-largest in USA)
7. St. Augustine, Florida, part of Jacksonville metro area, also part of St. John's County, pop. 273,425
8. Tuskegee, Alabama: Not part of a metro area, part of Macon County, pop. 19,532
9. New Haven, Connecticut: Part of Hartford metro area, also part of New Haven County, pop. 864,835 (would be 69th-largest metropolitan area if stand-alone)
10. Savannah, Georgia: 418,373 (130th-largest in USA)
11. Fairbanks, Alaska: 95,356 (369th-largest in USA)
12. Palm Springs, California: Part of Riverside metro area, also part of Coachella Valley, pop. 500,000 but varies seasonally
13. Atlantic City, New Jersey: 371,272 (149th-largest in USA)

Highest-ranking on historical U.S. censuses

1. Allentown: 95th (1920)
2. Lowell: 18th (1840)
3. Cambridge: 31st (1880)
4. Salem: 8th (1800)
5. Erie: 72nd (1940)
6. Syracuse: 28th (1850)
7. Dayton: 40th (1940)
8. Duluth: 69th (1910)
9. New Haven: 23rd (1830, 1860)
10. Savannah: 18th (1820)

(St. Augustine, Palm Springs, Tuskegee, Fairbanks, Atlantic City never made the Top 100)

Most of these removals come from the Northeastern United States (the "frost belt" and "rust belt") and, relative to its current or historical population as a percentage of the United States, it will be underrepresented.

Let me also address the vitality of certain cities:

St. Augustine is the oldest city in the entire United States. It predates the Declaration of Independence by two centuries. It predates English colonization of the 13 colonies. It belongs on the VA5 for historical significance

Salem is a city of great historical significance, Witch Trials and all that. In the first few decades of the United States, Salem was one of the countries 10 largest cities.

Savannah is the oldest city in Georgia (almost 300 years old) and was the largest or second-largest city in the state (a state that has over 10 million people but would only have one city on the VA5 if this removal passes). It was Repeatedly in the Top 25 most populous cities (somewhat surprisingly because the South was one of the more rural parts of the country), in the Top 100 for a century

Lowell has historical significance for being the historical center of the American textiles industry, was in the Top 25 most populous cities, and was in the Top 100 for a century

Cambridge, Mass and New Haven, CT are the locations of America's two pre-eminent universities. Both are also incredibly old cities, being first settled in the 1630s. New Haven was in the Top 50 for over a century, and for most of that time was the largest city in Connecticut. Cambridge was in the Top 100 most populous cities for a century.

I proposed Tuskegee for removal and that removal failed

Dayton was in the Top 50 most populous cities for a century, and even by current population, is one of the larger cities proposed for removal. It's also historically been a century of the aerospace industry as it's the hometown of the Wright Bros

Syracuse was in the Top 40 most populous cities for a century, and is the third-largest city in New York (19 million people!) excluding cities in the NYC metro area. It continues to have a population of over 140,000

If Allentown and Erie are removed, Pennsylvania will only have three cities in the VA5 despite being one of the most populous states in the United States for most of the country's history.

Similarly, if Duluth is removed, Minnesota won't have any cities outside of the Minneapolis-St. Paul area

pbp 18:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• User:Purplebackpack89, I decided to sleep on it before responding to this discussion. The defense you are using could have easily been used to support KCK in the add nomination above this since it was in the top 100 from 1890 to 1960. As I have stated, I was not coming after the U.S. because of the quota. In the KCK nomination I noted that I had spent time "calibrating my understanding of what U.S. cities are considered VA5". That was done by assessing what types of smaller cities are among the list. I found that many of the cities smaller than KC were state capitals and/or the largest city in their state. Aside from those cities, which had attributes that KCK did not have, there were more than a handful of cities smaller. These are a list (possilby not exhaustive) of those cities. Please note that this is my first group nomination in which I did not support all of my own nominees. The reason I posted these is that given the current quota situation, there should be some thought put into removing some cities. Since people are expending energy already to consider whether KCK is among those cities deserving of being listed, they are already expending energy in a way that is related to the borderline cases of this list. I don't think this calls for a circle the wagons response to save every city I mentioned. I think the proper response is to consider whether each of these cities would be among the bottom 24 cities in the Americas (384/360 articles) or the bottom 19 in North America (229/210 articles). Although you could justify a response to circle the wagons, now is as good a time as any to come to consensus as to which of these small cities are candidates for removal on that basis. Some of them surely are towards the bottom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
  • User:Jusdafax, this response applies to your blind support of his oppose.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
    • @TonyTheTiger: I respect your desire to clean up the list...BUT...there are too many cities up for removal in one proposal and the cities that are up are too different from each other. Look at the voting right now...we've barely started and it's already nearly impossible to figure out who supports what and who opposes what (That IS one of the advantages of the way I voted: no doubt on my position). I think you'd have better luck with fifteen individual proposals, or several groups of 2-3 similar cities. And, I'm sorry, but I feel you still don't REALLY understand why I and others added these cities to the list in the first place...you're again coming back to "this city is smaller than KCK and KCK isn't vital" and ignoring other factors such as historical significance. I know you're upset that my vote seems kneejerk, but I feel like I put more effort into rationalizing my opposes than you did your supports.
    • On KCK, there's one difference between KCK and most of the cities you've put up for removal: KCK is a suburb of KCMO, whereas many of the cities, like Syracuse and Dayton, are central/core cities. There's an additional knock on KCK that it lacks the historical significance of a Salem, a St. Augustine or a Savannah. Finally, you nominated Dayton and Syracuse which are and have consistently been larger than KCK.
    • Also, looks like I never made the case for Palm Springs or Atlantic City. They are the list as resort destinations. Atlantic City is also rather famously the setting of the board game Monopoly.

pbp 17:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• • • • You have contributed a lot of thought. I think you are demonstrating that these cities are more important than KCK. An argument that a city is a core city does not justify an assessment of whether it should be kept in the light of our quota situation Americas (384/360 articles) North America (229/210 articles). I am very unconvinced that an argument that it has been bigger than KCK and a core city justifies a city place. In other words, I don't believe you could feel that all 15 of these cities are within the most vital 360 Americas cities or the top 210 North American cities. I had considered grouping the cities by region like we list them.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
        • On the suburbs vs core cities, what makes a suburb notable? Also, there are a few Usonian cities I would remove, but few of them are the ones you've nominated. Recall it was I who nominated Tuskegee for removal earlier this year, but it failed, so I don't think we should revisit it for awhile. pbp 20:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
        • Also, I agree with what J said above: "If you think most of these are vital [and I do!], then that's more a point in favour of increasing the cities quota than anything else". While these may be in the lower-tier of Americas (the continent or continents), I think they clear over all the non-city settlements in the cities list, and they clear over all but a handful of non-capitals in Central America or the Caribbean. pbp 20:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
        • Finally, I still feel I need to ask: why one big nomination instead of several smaller ones? pbp 21:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
          • I felt people could handle it. They are all cities. So the consideration is similar. It is not a bunch of unrelated random stuff like considering pre-VA5 VA4 castoffs. It is odd you nominated Tuskegee before and don't want to opine for its removal now.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
            • I think from this discussion it's become quite clear the considerations are quite varied. Even a few of the largely supported removals here I think I would be likely to oppose as by metro area (which as pbp rightly points out is generally the most helpful determiner of population) they are equivalent in importance to many non-nominated cities, without examining individual circumstances closely. It's a trainwreck, and one unlikely to get correct outcomes. I propose that you withdraw this and split it into sub-proposals below.
              This is not to say that this hasn't be a worthwhile discussion – we've reached a pretty helpful depth of discourse – and maybe if the largely American VA user base would have as a primary consideration that the same criteria they use (rightfully!) for U.S. topics may be used for worldwide topics, debate here would become much more constructive. J947 † ^edits 00:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Add Kansas City, Kansas

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

---

Someone above was going through VA4 castoffs from prior to VA5 and mentioned Kansas City, but Kansas City, Missouri (KCMO) is VA5. Kansas City, Kansas is an inner suburb of KCMO and part of the Kansas City metropolitan area, which is a major league sports town. I have trouble believing that this was ever a VA4. However, after calibrating my understanding of what U.S. cities are considered VA5, I think this is in that range. It is slightly larger than Topeka, Kansas (VA5 and a state capital). Most of the VA5 cities that are significantly smaller than it are the most populous city in their state or one of the state capitals, which are all included. Others are known for famous things that make them vital encyclopedic topics. However, in the midwest region, Dayton, Ohio and Duluth, Minnesota are both smaller. Having lived a lot of my life in the northeast area of the country before moving to the midwest, I also took note that Allentown, Pennsylvania, Lowell, Massachusetts, Erie, Pennsylvania, and Syracuse, New York are also VA5. As part of an important metropolitan area, I am seeing if people think this should be added.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose – not sure it makes the cut, so long as there is no increase in the number of cities listed. Suburbs (as Americans call these sorts of cities) are significantly less important per amount of people than stand-alone cities, and Kansas City, Missouri is probably adequate coverage here. J947 † ^edits 07:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

   the current list has a bunch of suburbs.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

2. Per J947. The Blue Rider 14:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Sorry, I know I mentioned it, but I did not realize it was a suburb/lesser entity to Kansas City, Missouri, which is V5. That said, it's interesting to learn that there is Kansas stuff outside Kansas. But that's not vital trivia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Note Independence, Missouri – another suburb of Kansas City – was removed from VA5 in 2020. J947 † ^edits 07:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion that you pointed me to is further evidence that I don't understand vitality. I would have thought that Independence's historical significance would have made it vital. In this case, there are small cities that I overlooked as having more significance than might be relevant for vitality. E.g. Salem, Massachusetts has nothing much going for it but ancient history. I assumed that was important. However the type of importance that Independence had was from an era when Dodge City, Kansas and Tombstone, Arizona were important cities, which might be a clue as to why Indepence is also not vital. I was merely nominating KCK on behalf of an editor above that was trying to get assessments of VA4 removals. I don't much care about this city, but am giving it a chance.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• FYI, Overland Park, Kansas is the largest Kansas City metro area city in Kansas. Kansas is not a particularly populous state, only about three million, so I think Topeka and Wichita are enough. I looked up the Independence, MO discussion that J mentioned and I was neutral but commented, whereas four other people voted oppose. pbp 13:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I just nominated this because User:Piotrus mentioned it above; it is in the range of cities that are big enough, and it is in a major sports market.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
    • User:Purplebackpack89, KCK was in the top 100 from 1890 to 1960 often if not every year (like a lot of the cities you protect down below)--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
      • @TonyTheTiger: I've addressed that below. a) Was it ever larger than Dayton or Syracuse, and b) KCK is a suburb of KCMO. Dayton, Syracuse, Duluth, Allentown, Erie, and more are core/central cities. pbp 17:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Add Uber and Lyft

The following discussion is closed. 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 list 238 companies.

Support

1. Strong support for Uber/Support for Lyft As nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support Uber only. Uber is international and possibly may become a verb like google something. Influential. Lyft however is just American. Day and night. One company is well known internationally and hence vital, one is regional and hence, not vital. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Uber, oppose Lyft per above. --Kammerer55 (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Uber. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Lyft per my comment above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose Lyft. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Actually, Uber is alraedy V5 (Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

1. I apologize. They were not listed with companies. You can withdraw this nomination since Lyft has no support.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Add Panama Canal Zone

The following discussion is closed. 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 which section it goes in but I believe it to be vital at this level

Support

1. pbp 19:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support – past territories are as vital as current territories. J947 † ^edits 20:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. No rationale for why this niche piece of history is vital, and nothing from the article jumps out. The Canal itself is vital, but its history much less so. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Although my father was born and raised in Panama, I agree that this is a history article. The canal itself is vital (level 4). This article is of personal importance to me, I don't feel it has wide importance.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:28, 15 November 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 The Denver Post

The following discussion is closed. 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 newspaper is not important enough, with nothing in the article showing vitality. It has not had a major impact on the public, and it is not very widely circulated. Its only potential saving grace is that it has won nine Pulitzer Prizes, but three were for editorial cartoons, and winning a lot of Pulitzers does not automatically make a news company vital.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
2. It's not insignificant, but vital, not seeing it. US is over represented in newspaper section, and in my experience this is not a paper that is mentioned internationally like NYT or Washington Post or several others. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Totalibe (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Good proposal, largely unknown newspaper. The Blue Rider 12:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Only 80 spots, and newspapers from Denver don't cut it... J947 ‡ ^edits 10:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Winning 9 Pulitzers is non-trivial.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Remove several modestly notable classic rock bands (discussion restored)

The following discussion is closed. 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 what makes any of these acts vital. I think they are listed here due to having a couple of important classic rock songs.

Roxy Music (discography) (peaked in 1982 with no multiplatinum albums except for a compilation and 2 #1 singles)

Steppenwolf (discography) (no platinum albums and 2 1968 #1 singles)

T. Rex (discography) (only 1 certified album, but 6 early 1970s #1 singles)

Thin Lizzy (discography) (1 multiplatinum album and 1 multiplatinum compilation and 2 1970s #1 singles)

The Pretenders (discography) (no multiplatinum albums except for a compilation and 3 late 70s and 1980s #1 singles)

New Order (discography) (peaked in the late 80s and early 90s with no platinum albums except for compilation, but 18 #1 — mostly indie and dance charts — singles)

Frank Zappa (discography) (no platinum albums and only 1 #1 single).

TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Support all except Thin Lizzy. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support all except Thin Lizzy per Grnrchst. Edit: Apparently Frank Zappa was really important too. Keep him. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC) (updated 22:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC))
4. Support all apart from New Order, Thin Lizzy, per Grnrchst, and Frank Zappa (which I oppose). Frank Zappa's vitality can not be inferred in accolades, platinum albums nor Billboard Hot 100's ranking. He was (and still is) tremendously influential, not only to other bands but to the whole pop and rock genres. Also, if there is a way to merge both Joy Division and New Order, I would be in favour of that. — The Blue Rider 18:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Support other than Zappa, New Order, Thin Lizzy Since this was mistakenly closed earlier, I will vote here to clarify I support the removal of the others I did not mention in my oppose vote. Totalibe (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Support removing all other than Zappa. SnowFire (talk) 06:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removing Thin Lizzy. That they're the only one on this list that has gone multiplatinum demonstrates their relative vitality. They're an incredibly important act in the history of Irish rock music, not only due to their music but the composition of the band's membership. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose removing Frank Zappa and New Order. I hate Zappa, but I feel like removing him would be too much. He's all over rock history. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose Removing Frank Zappa My knowledge of rock is superficial but I've heard of him by name a lot on the Internet.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose Removing Frank Zappa Essentially my view is the same as LaukkuTheGreit's. I have never heard of the other bands/artists, but I did hear of Zappa. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Oppose removing Frank Zappa, New Order and Thin Lizzy. I think this argument goes to show that measuring importance solely in terms of sales is flawed, as both Zappa and also New Order have been highly influential in their respective fields. As more on Frank Zappa has already been covered here, I'm going to focus on New Order, which had a very big influence on synthpop and on popularizing electronic music. Blue Monday in particular as a single went on to have a very long-term impact, and while their album sales weren't as massive speaking, Power, Corruption & Lies (the single Blue Monday was from) had enough of a longer lasting cultural impact to be featured on a UK postage stamp. I should probably note that this was actually before their commercial peak which was around the late 80s-early 90s, which does demonstrate a long-running influence. I do kind of sympathize with the comment about merging Joy Division and New Order (New Order was formed by ex-JD members after Ian Curtis' suicide), but I don't think there's anyway to do that (I think New Order may even be more influential than its predecessor). As for Thin Lizzy, oppose per Grnrchst, this time actually on sales grounds. --Totalibe (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
6. Oppose Removing Frank Zappa per LaukkuTheGreit. SnowFire (talk) 06:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

1. Is it really a valid argument in terms of keeping a subject to say "because I have heard of him"?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

   No, it is not a valid argument but there is not much you can do. — The Blue Rider 19:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

   Well "no platinum albums and only 1 #1 single" isn't the best argument for removal either. Sales are an overly narrow measure of influence on the world, cultural impact can be achieved in other ways too. There's a subsection of musicians influenced by Zappa and whole article about Frank Zappa in popular culture, indicating to me he's a rather well-known and thus notable figure. His article also gets the most pageviews out of the removal candidates.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 20:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

   I also agree that the nominator's argument is lacking. Your supportive argument is now pretty well justified in my opinion :) — The Blue Rider 20:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Does it matter that the Pretenders are the only band of the bunch fronted by a woman, before this was really a thing? Hyperbolick (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

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

New Order clarification

Restoring back from archive due to a dispute regarding whether to remove New Order by myself and The Blue Rider. When I closed the above, I saw 4 clear votes to remove New Order (TonyTheTiger, Grnrchst, QuicoleJR, SnowFire), 3 clear votes to keep New Order (The Blue Rider, Totalibe, Tabu Makiadi), and there are 2 unclear votes from LaukkuTheGreit and Piotrus. I discounted Piotrus and LaukkuTheGreit as having no opinion on New Order (knowledge of rock is superficial ... never heard of the other bands/artists. Thus, 4-3 to remove, 57% to remove is above the 55% threshold to remove (Any article with at least 55% opposition for inclusion will be removed. The Blue Rider though, interprets this result as no consensus (There was no consensus to remove New Order! It was 4-3). So, did I close it wrongly? Feel free to weigh in. Though, it would definitely help if Piotrus and LaukkuTheGreit could explicitly say if they did not vote on New Order, or if they want to keep New Order, or remove New Order, would make things clearer. starship.paint (RUN) 14:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I did not vote on New Order.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 15:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

If you both agree the count was 4-3, 57%>55%, which is currently considered consensus.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

How is 4-3 passable?? 3 * 100/7=42,8%. You don't count the people that didn't explicitly vote support or oppose for the total pool. Ah. Still, it's stupid that this count as consensus. The Blue Rider 17:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

User:The Blue Rider The current rule is 55%. Above at #Increase passing hurdle from 55%, there is discussion about how high to move the passing hurdle rate. Feel free to get involved in that discussion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

P.S. currently 6 of 7 current voters agree to move the hurdle so that 4-3 fails. So it likely will move to a level that 4-3 fails pretty soon.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

P.S.S. User:The Blue Rider, right now it is only 4-3 to eliminate 3-2, which you might find comical.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Can't check right now but I am pretty certain that at least one comment was edited explicitly to oppose New Order's removal after I gave my rationale, and that would imply others may also change assuming they have not seen it. Totalibe (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Remove Realm of New Zealand

The following discussion is closed. 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 is redundant on the list, since everything in the realm is already listed at VA. It does not have nearly enough vitality as a concept to overcome that.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Far too niche a designation to be vital at this level. J947 † ^edits 19:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Per nominator. The Blue Rider 18:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Per nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The realm consists of New Zealand  4, Cook Islands  4, Niue  4, Ross Dependency  5 and Tokelau  5. I think as a uniting aspect of three level-4 notions it deserves to be on level 5. Also, we have a very similar notion of Danish Realm  5 consisting of Denmark  4, Greenland  4 and Faroe Islands  4, so the two realms should either be removed or stay together. --Kammerer55 (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

   There is also a similar notion of Kingdom of the Netherlands  5 consisting of Netherlands  3, Aruba  5, Curaçao  5 and Sint Maarten  5, but this is probably slightly more significant than both Realm of New Zealand and Danish Realm, since Netherlands is itself on level 3. Kammerer55 (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

   I'm not sure I support the inclusion of any of these over a city from each country, but – as some do – it's worth pointing out that NZ's realm is by a fair way the least important of the three. It's more of an afterthought than anything else – Niue and the Cooks are basically independent; while Tokelau has a population of 1,500 (and the Antarctic claims tags along). J947 ‡ ^edits 07:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Swap: Add AI boom in History, remove Cuddie Springs

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

---

AI boom: This will have profound long-lasting consequences. I listed some effects of current AI developments at my attempt to add Synthetic media (which stalled because of an ongoing merge proposal).

Cuddie Springs: Niche topic, we don't even list Australian megafauna which the site provided information on. Only 2 other language versions, few pageviews which have trended downwards over the years, only 18 mainspace articles linking to it, fewer than 30 page watchers, not vital, no one cares.

Support

1. As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Re: addition. We are living in it. It is vital. As for removal - sure, niche concept, just two interwikis. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Per nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

On a related note, I just noticed ChatGPT was added without discussion by a user with a low edit count. It might be too specific and too recent, with a strong possibility of being superseded in the fast pace of AI advancement. GPT-2 and GPT-3 were more groundbreaking, but ChatGPT became more famous and directly influential due to its availability. Broader articles such as Large language model, OpenAI, Transformer (machine learning model), Synthetic media and Generative artificial intelligence should be given priority in my opinion, or at least ChatGPT shouldn't be listed without also some of them.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I might support adding ChatGPT BUT I also support automatic removals of any changes done without discussion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I would rather ChatGPT than AI boom at this stage, mainly because our article on the latter seems a bit new and ill-viewed to my mind. Happy to revisit latter if/when the general AI boom (as we've termed it) receives a popular moniker. J947 † ^edits 09:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree, the subject is rather hard to evaluate from a broader perspective as it stands. Totalibe (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Add Wall Street

The following discussion is closed. 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 have been attempting to get VA expanded so that sublocal regions can be included more systematically, but it does not look like VA is going to expand anytime soon. So here goes. This is one of the most important Metonyms I know.

Support

1. Support as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
2. pbp 20:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support. While I understand that the New York Stock Exchange is already considered vital, Wall Street is widely known for more than just the stock exchange. Its name is basically shorthand for 1980s-style American capitalist excess. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nom and discussion, similarly to how Hollywood, Los Angeles is also a VT5 article, even though it's primarily known as the metonym for the film industry, not as the neighborhood. Also, the nominated article has a very good Importance section. --Kammerer55 (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
5. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 05:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose on the basis that New York Stock Exchange is already a VT4 (the proposal is to add the street). — The Blue Rider 19:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

1. I'd support except that what is realistically famous is Financial District, Manhattan. It is just called Wall Street. Our article is confusing somewhat here. Unlike Broadway, here the correctly famous concept does not have the famous name. Ugh. Well, I guess I'd not oppose at least. Wall Street is famous. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:33, 29 October 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.

Removal of New Zealand's regions without 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.

---

14 of the 17 regions of New Zealand were removed without discussion by J947. I'm sympathetic to the change, we do list way too many unimportant regions from some countries, but this should be properly discussed before.

The following regions were removed:

1. Regions of New Zealand
2. Northland Region
3. Waikato
4. Gisborne District
5. Hawke's Bay
6. Taranaki
7. King Country
8. Manawatū-Whanganui
9. Wellington Region
10. Tasman District
11. Marlborough District
12. West Coast Region
13. Otago
14. Southland Region

The Blue Rider 23:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support all except the below mentioned. The Blue Rider 23:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
2. See below for my explanation – it was carefully considered, despite what the edit summary suggests! J947 † ^edits 00:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support removing all except Regions of New Zealand: New Zealand is a small country both in terms of area and population. It's smaller in either area and/or population than many U.S. states or even L.A. County pbp 17:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

   Would you please respond to my 2nd paragraph on why I don't think articles like Regions of New Zealand are vital? All articles like it cover in practice are basically delineating the structure of their country's first-level subdivisions, which is not a vital topic in almost all cases. J947 † ^edits 23:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

   I have struck my support of regions of New Zealand pbp 16:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

4. Support removal. I can't see most regions being vital. Some famous ones, like most (not all...) US states, yes. Regions of New Zealand that nobody outside the country heard about? Not vital. That said, I strongly oppose any removal or additions without discussion here, and I say they should be automaticlaly reverted on sight. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Support per discussion. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Support removing the above except for Otago, Waikato and Hawke's Bay, which are all well known outside of New Zealand too. Gizza (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Gisborne District and Otago due their history, Waikato on economic and historical grounds, Wellington because of its administrative and geological importance and West Coast Region for its geology. The Blue Rider 23:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose Otago, Waikato and Hawke's Bay, which are all well known outside of New Zealand too. Gizza (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Right, I'll collect a few somewhat disparate thoughts here:

1. It looks to me like regions has been a forgotten area of VA5. In many countries we take an all-or-nothing approach which doesn't make a whole lot of sense: for example, we list all 36 states of Nigeria but zero Kenyan or Tanzanian first-level subdivisions. We list 40 Irish subdivisions but only 16 German. It's stuck in the position it was first filled up, with no regard for importance of specific areas in many parts of the world. That needs to change – this was an attempt to do so in the region I'm most cognizant of.
2. This is one of the only areas of VA that lists lists. For example, Departments of the Republic of the Congo is listed as a compromise between not representing the little Congo at all and listing all 12 departments. With rare exceptions such as U.S. state where the designation actually carries some vitality, that is something which I detest. It is not the categorisation of areas that is usually vital, but rather its actual contents. To pick one at random, Bouenza Department is a much much more vital topic than Departments of the Republic of the Congo.
3. The decision to list subdivisions or not should be made in combination with cities and physical geography to a greater extent, IMO. If we could only list 50,000 articles on Wikipedia, we wouldn't tolerate much redundancy.
4. New Zealand is and was over-represented at VA5 significantly. NZ had 17 regions, Germany 16. Moreover, regions in New Zealand sometimes function more as technical entities than popularly recognised and important ones. They have few elected officials; NZ isn't federal; a federal country with 5 million people (that is, by the way, not a whole lot) would likely merit more regions on the list than NZ. Almost all the regions are, however, firmly ensconced in the public mind (basically all except Manawatū-Whanganui I guess).
5. I'm a Kiwi. I should probably be listened to as to the importance of these regions. (I also think I added some of these in the first place in the VA5's infancy.) West Coast Region and particularly Gisborne are small and unimportant, even by NZ standards. Wellington Region is IMO covered adequately by the city article. I am planning to propose that Hamilton, New Zealand and Dunedin be swapped for Waikato and Otago, which are indeed two important regions. That's a pretty straightforward improvement in my mind that I was planning to discuss here.
6. That makes 8 region + city articles on NZ, + New Zealand and Realm of New Zealand (the latter of which can probably be removed). That's still a big overrepresentation of 5 million, but it's a lot better. If more should be removed, Auckland Region's probably first to be cut – mostly included because Auckland probably deserves more than one article at this level – then Canterbury Region, which has a fairly big overlap with Christchurch but is of great import on its own right – then Bay of Plenty Region, which is a nice combination of Tauranga and Rotorua but not overwhelmingly vital.

That's my reasoning as to this change – I hope it make sense – and my opinions on the section overall. I hope they make sense. It's definitely something that should be looked at, but somewhat tough to do because assessing the vitality of subnational entities, unlike cities, pretty much requires someone from the region to help determine what's needed. I can tell you right now that checking the subtopics of each region that happen to have their own article does not really work. J947 † ^edits 00:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the category is too inconsistent and some entries are incredulous. I also saw you were a New Zealander, so I figure your decision wasn't random, but nevertheless this should be discussed and I'm glad you explained your reasoning. The Blue Rider 09:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• VA5 has been around 6 years now. Most stuff that is listed probably is deserving of a discussion. In my 4 discussions to expand VA5, one of the big complaints is the lack of stability of VA5. Can we stop unilateral changes. Let's hash things out.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the all-or-nothing approach with regions is very arbitrary and problematic. It is probably due to the history early fast expansion and just choosing some countries which get lucky and all of its regions included while others get none. Unfair and not a reflection of vitality. Gizza (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Add Hoist (device)

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

---

Hoists have been an important technological device used for lifting things for a long time. I was checking in on level 5 vital articles for Technology, and was pretty shocked when I saw it not just off the list, but unassessed. It's a topic which is highly integrated through the means of similar level 4 and 5 vital articles, such as Jack (device), Pulley, Ratchet (device), and Winch, and is just as prevalent in my eyes. Hoists can operate through various means and is a pretty unique and revolutionary technology that isn't currently represented, to my knowledge.

Support

1. As nominator. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 10:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support, besides its own merits, the Technology section is really imbalanced towards computers and software. Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Weak support. This may not be "sexy" but I concur such everyday life background tech is generally pretty vital, and often forgotten and underrepresented. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 12:00, 5 December 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.

Add Cover art, Eustace Tilley, Willie Gillis, Alfred E. Neuman

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

---

Cover art is a broad topic of artwork that is on the outside of any published work. Eustace Tilley is the mascot of The New Yorker who has appeared on the cover every anniversary issue since 1925 except 2017, Alfred E. Neuman is the mascot associated with Mad (magazine) since 1954 appearing on most covers since the 1950s, Willie Gillis is a Norman Rockwell creation that was the subject of 11 World War II The Saturday Evening Post covers.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support cover art - we see it all around us.--=_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support cover art. The rest is pretty niche however (though certainly meriting strong articles). J947 † ^edits 00:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Cover art is important, the same can't be said about the rest. The Blue Rider 21:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Support cover art, oppose the rest. Cover art is a very important concept, but these mascots are not vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Eustace Tilley - no interwikis, suggesting no impact outside US. Oppose Willie Gillis - also not convinced how this is vital. Abstain on Alfred E. Neuman, 10 interwikis suggest more global impact, but still pretty niche. Mad (magazine) is V5, that's fine, but are other things associated with it vital? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

   User:Piotrus, if you are basing this on interwikis, keep in mind that Eustace Tilley was created from a redirect yesterday.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

   I could base it on this too. It is hard to imagine vital topics that did not exist until now. (Hard, but not impossible, yes). Still, I don't see how a recurring motif in a magazine's cover is vital. It seems trivial to me, I am afraid. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

1. Full disclosure: I am the primary author of Tilley and Gillis.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Thank you for improving/starting those articles :) Also, thanks for pointing out the topic of magazines. Some sf ones are missing from vital... Asimov's Science Fiction, anyone? Some others... The concept of Pulp magazine... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Add Willemstad

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

---

Curacao is one of the most populous political divisions of the Lesser Antilles, and the most populous of the Dutch Caribbean. Additionally, it has the second-highest population of the cities in the Leeward Antilles and the Lesser Antilles as a whole. Also, the city is home to the oldest surviving synagogue in the Americas, and lastly, the city center has been designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Nomination
2. Support per nom. Certainly a lot more vital than many of the Caribbean national capitals we list simply by virtue of being national capitals. (You're correct to come here to propose this addition, for the record, but I'm pretty sure the bot will automatically change the counts for you. And there's no way you're getting blocked! :) ) J947 † ^edits 22:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Interstellarity (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add Hug

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

---

An act of endearment that, according to the article, is "found in virtually all human communities". Tabu Makiadi (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Vital human behavior, I concur. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
3. How was this never added? QuicoleJR (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support, easily deserves a spot in Everyday Life. Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Per nominator. The Blue Rider 21:46, 15 November 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.

Removes Sears from retailers, add Schwarz Gruppe

The following discussion is closed. 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 found the Schwarz Gruppe looking at a ranking of retailers. It has €154.1 billion in revenues versus $13.8 billion for Sears, so there's little comparison. Sears is more generally below par versus the other level-5 entries here, which generally have minimum c. $30bn or €30bn in revenues. This particular omission, as well as the mismatched size of Sears, is fairly glaring.

Support

1. Support as nom. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Recentism. Sears is not a large company now but was one of the largest retailers in the world 50-100 years ago. It and rival Montgomery Ward created many retailing practices pbp 11:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose Although no longer prominent, Sears was the Amazon (company) of its day. Although not first, they popularized the mail order catalogue that made mail order a prominent form of commerce. I was born in 1965. The town I lived in from 1969 to 1973 (Fredonia, New York) had a plaza with a storefront that amounted to nothing but a small booth with a couple of catalogues where you could go to thumb the multi-hundred page catalog of items to buy rather than drive 50 miles to a store location in the big city (Buffalo, New York). Now you go on your phone and bounce around pages to make purchases.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose, same reasons. Vitality is in the history. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
4. This may be hyperbole, but my opinion is that Sears is one of the most important companies ever; their late 19th/early 20th century mail-order catalog is the progenitor of consumerism as we know it today. Curbon7 (talk) 19:11, 30 November 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.

move The Birds of America  5

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

---

The Birds of America should be moved from Reference works subsection of the Specific works of literature section to Other media subsection of the Specific works of visual art section to be alongside Kunstformen der Natur because it is similarly vital for its illustrations and not its text.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

1. No objections. Just do it with an edit summary? @TonyTheTiger: --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
2. @TonyTheTiger: - go ahead, mate. starship.paint (RUN) 06:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Comment I should have added before closing: This move was proposed because of opinions of User:Johnbod a WP:WPVA regular and User:Cobblet a WP:VA participant at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts#Notable_watercolor_and_colored_pencil_works. So there were 4 people other than the nominator in support of this move.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Swap The Muppet Show with The Muppets (and move it to Characters in Arts after swap? Or just add The Muppets?)

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

---

OK! When I was planning this discussion, I did not notice that "The Muppets" article is written to be more about the characters. Now that I know that, I can see why The Muppet Show was chosen despite only being a small part in the Muppets' story. Granted, the Muppets are probably more vital than The Muppet Show, but as someone who moved Aladdin and Cinderella to specific literatures because those articles were 100% written about the stories, I feel like having The Muppets under TV programs would be a case of forcing a square peg into a round hole. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support swap and move. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• Unlike the other discussions, I'm going to hold my vote for now. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 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 Miracle on Ice

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

---

In the words of User:Piotrus this was a global event with international cultural impact.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support As nominator.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Weak support. Arguably the most important singular event in the history of ice hockey. If we have room for one historical event from major sports, then I support adding it. If we have another ice hokey event on the list, I'd prefer a swap. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per Piotrus. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per above. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Possibly even level 4. Curbon7 (talk) 01:47, 19 November 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.

Discuss

• In terms of other singular events in sporting history, I think the Blood in the Water match might be worth considering for inclusion as well. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  If you proposed that, I would support it. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  @TonyTheTiger Ping in case you'd like tp propose that (I'd weakly support again...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  User:Piotrus, Whereas, I remember where I was when the Miracle on Ice happened, I have never heard of this other event and feel the person who mentioned it (User:Grnrchst) should nominate it.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• @QuicoleJR and Grnrchst: - this passes, but where shall we add it to? Go ahead if you are sure. starship.paint (RUN) 14:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
  • User:Starship.paint Why not under 1980 Winter Olympics at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life/Sports, games and recreation?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
    • @TonyTheTiger: done. Though I see we are massively over quota there. starship.paint (RUN) 03:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Remove Murder of George Floyd

The following discussion is closed. 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 list Murder of George Floyd and George Floyd protests at level 5. I think that's still one article too many (note George Floyd is about to be removed per discussion still open above, at 5:0). The murder in itself is important only for sparking the protests. The latter are important, but considering the US-centric and recent status of them, one article should do. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Support Flyod does not deserve overrepresentation if someone like Dua Lipa/Demi Lovato are discussed to drop at this level. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support. The protest article adequately covers this topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
4. The more important article about the protests is enough to comprehend the lesser article about the murder. The Blue Rider 12:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Support per nom.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The Murder sparked the protest, led to important trials, led to memorials, and more.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Significant enough that listing two articles related to the events at this level is reasonable honestly. Totalibe (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

• I was already eager to jump on the recentism, americentrism, androcentrism and all the other -ism party, but then I came across the Memorials to George Floyd page, which is a blue-link minefield for George Floyd's memorials-related articles: George Floyd and Anti-Racist Street Art database, Commitment March: Get Your Knee Off Our Necks, 8 minutes 46 seconds, George Floyd Square, I can't breathe, Bust of George Floyd, George Floyd mural (Portland, Oregon). All the bills, acts, trials were a consequence of the protests not the murder, though the same can't be said about memorials and I am not aware of any other murder of this significance in that regard. The question now is whether this memorials are enough for the murder's vitality. I am on the fence. — The Blue Rider 00:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• User:Dawid2009, please clarify the relevance of the Dua Lipa/Demi Lovato add-remove to this discussion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

One is social activist the [one of] other is the singer so proper comprassion can not be made but George Flyod is not so notable to deserve overrepresentation at this level especially if talks on level 5 raised to point that we should be strict at singers (if we can not make both then wehy George Flyod need to has three articles along with his bio, yes these unmeasurable comprassions are not fair to discuss but I have in mind just the ballance). Dawid2009 (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. My point is that he does not deserve 2+ articles. Perhaps using Tony's logic his bio would be better kept over 'murder of' and 'protests of' (since his life led to the muder which let to etc.), although my preference is for 'protests' as the most important aftermath. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

We have TV show franchises with 2 articles, looking only at current discussions we have Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (British game show) and Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (American game show); Nominations for Star Trek: The Original Series and Star Trek: The Next Generation are on their way to joining VA4 Star Trek. It is not logical that a death that changed the world needs to give up its spot so we can have 2 extra Star Trek articles.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd support having just one WWtBaM entry. But, first things first, let's not confuse world with US. GF seems to have left a mark on American history, but not the world's. I wouldn't mind bumping his sole article to V4, perhaps, on the same level as Star Trek. But overall, his life, death and protests are really the same phenomena, whereas different ST TV series have quite a different identity. Apples and oranges, of course. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I thought that I had seen coverage of international protests.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

There were some, due to anti-colonial dimension in some countries (see List of monuments and memorials removed during the George Floyd protests). But the movement is not global like MeToo or such, and it is primarly a US-history event. In either case, I'd support having the protest article at V4, but I stand by my view that his biography and murder of are unncessary duplicates for a Vital list. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• User:Dawid2009, Thanks for the response. It would be helpful if you would educate people considering my nomination of this opinion. Presenting it in the discussion there would be appropriate.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• FYI both Murder of George Floyd and George Floyd protests appear to be entirely missing from the list, regardless of any talk page discussion. Totalibe (talk) 13:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Totalibe What links here confirms this, which is surprising, because I don't think I dreamed that they were on that list and suggested their inclusion if they were not present. But given the structure of the vital 5 (subpages) I don't feel like checking who removed them (since I can't recall what subpage they were at). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  • this diff by User:Interstellarity looks like a major reorg. Not sure what was going on.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

    I hope they'll comment here. This "fix" obviously broke a bunch of stuff, since in it numerous article where clearly removed without any discusion (not just the two listed above, but others too, for example 2008 Universal Studios fire or Mexican drug war - the former is likely not vital, the latter, sigh). Given the scope of this I assume this edit was just a mistake since all entries were simply removed as far as I can tell, but really, I am really leaning towards suggesting that all Vital pages need to be protected and can be edited only by admins, since the number of edits related to adding or removing things without discussion here is ridcolous. While some of us try to discuss, others seem to feel that they can add or remove whatever they want without any consultation. This is also why some folks elsewhere dismiss Vital project as inferior to DYKs or GAs/FAs (recalling recent comments by SandyGeograia that you might have also seen...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

    Interstellarity, this section has been in disarray for a whole month. It is better to do this in your sandbox in the future so that if you give up halfway through the list doesn't become a mess. Please make the effort to finish this now and double-check, triple-check you haven't accidentally removed any articles, otherwise we'll have to do a brute rollback of the change. J947 ‡ ^edits 10:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

    • Apparently, User:Interstellarity has also done a whammy on the geography section too. Should we investigate this as general vandalism against the WP:VA?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

      I think it would be better to assume good faith on my part rather than call my edits vandalism. Vandalism is intentionally editing Wikipedia in order to damage Wikipedia. I don't want to damage Wikipedia. I want what is best for the project. I apologize for my lack of edit summaries. What I was trying to do here is to restructure the page so that events before 1945 go into the Late modern section while events after that period go into the Contemporary section. The headings before said 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries and I think restructuring the articles as Late modern and Contemporary would be a better way of organizing the page. I try not to remove articles without gaining consensus first. If anything is removed, it was an accident. From now on, I will work on the pages in my userspace and then once I work on it for a little bit, discuss it and implement it. I hope you understand what my intentions are because I really want to help improve the list. Interstellarity (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

      @Interstellarity Per AGF, I am perfectly happy with your explanation. Being bold is fine, but we have to be careful, as clearly this example demonstrates sometimes we can make a mess despite best intentions. I suggest discusing any kind of restructuring here first, then double checking that all works later. And yes, detailed edit summaries for such edits are always good. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

      Piotrus is right. As for this, you have three days to fix up the history section or I'm reverting the change. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

      I agree with both of you. From now on, I will discuss major changes to the list like additions and removals, and restructurings. As for minor changes, like spelling and grammar, I'm fine doing without discussion. I think a good rule to follow would be to open up a discussion if I'm not sure what to do. Please feel free to revert my changes or improve on what I did. You don't have to wait three days before you revert, you can revert now if you wish. I think WP:CAREFUL and WP:BRD are good guidelines to follow in this case. I look forward to working with you in a collaborative manner and hopefully resolve things here. Interstellarity (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• What we really need is a single overarching article covering all of these topics. BD2412 T 14:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Split talk page

The following discussion is closed. 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've seen a recent upsurge in participation in this talk page, which has brought some very good discussion but also some problems. One of the big issues is that the talk page has rapidly ballooned in size beyond legibility. The talk page is (at the time of writing) almost 800,000 bytes long - over ten times longer than the 75 KB limit recommended at WP:TALKCOND - as the acceleration of new discussions opening has outpaced our capacity to close old ones. It hasn't really been a manageable size since August/September. It has grown so long that some discussions are going unnoticed, with some cases of duplicate discussions being opened, just because this page is too long to easily parse. This also means that people with more specific areas of interest can't easily participate in discussion, as they would need to filter through a lot of other discussions in order to find the ones they want to participate in. I personally haven't participated in over a week just because I can't keep track of anything on here any more, there's just too many threads. It's even been causing some loading and rendering issues in my browser.

I'm going to propose the rather drastic change of splitting this talk page into subpages, based on the subject matter of each vital articles section. So for example, we would have a unique talk page for artists, musicians, and composers separated from the unique talk page for history. After such a split, these talk pages would then take over management of each individual vital category, while this talk page could be reserved for over-arching matters regarding procedure, quotas, broader changes, etc. I understand that this is a huge proposal which would be quite disruptive in the early days/weeks of implementation, so I want to make sure we establish as broad a consensus as we can on it if we are to proceed. If there's broad disagreement with this proposal, I hope we can discuss other ways to help bring this talk page's length down to a more manageable size.

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Somewhat support, but there is no need to have too many subpages. No need to just focus on artists, musicians, composers, just have one page for (1) People (target: 15,000). Then (2) History and Geography (target: 8,500), (3) Arts, Philosophy, Religion, Everyday life, Recreation, Society and Social sciences (target: 11,200), (4) Science, Technology, Mathematics. (target: 15,300) starship.paint (RUN) 13:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

   I would also support this counter-proposal. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

3. Support If we ever move to have dedicated discussion pages for each discussion with transclusion, we should remerge to one unified discussion page.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support the idea of splitting, but do not think that splitting into too many sections is necessary at this point, since it might be hard to track. I like the above proposal about splitting into 4 subpages instead, at least as a first step. --Kammerer55 (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Starship.paint counter-proposal. The Blue Rider 17:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Support Starship's split pbp 20:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
7. Support Starship's proposal. 4 is about right I think, and I'm surprised just how easily it can be split that way – the categories are pretty damn clearcut. I'm always worried about what will happen when participation here declines back down again, but we can probably just find a way to transclude the subpages onto this page if they are of manageable length. It also means that we can keep this talkpage reserved for meta and quota discussions, which have got a bit lost amidst all these proposals.
   I think we can start thinking about two subissues this raises, as it looks like it's passing (thank heavens): (1) should we have archives for each subpage, or continue using this page's archives? (2) within each talk subpage, should we have headers for each section of VA5 like this? J947 ‡ ^edits 21:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
8. Support Starship’s proposal - it provides the best balance between too many pages and too few pages that clog up the page. Interstellarity (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
9. Support with caveats: Better living through modularity, but I do have 2 concerns. The minor one is just to make sure we have a plan first, so it's a smooth change and we aren't surprised by follow-on issues like J947 mentioned. The major one, which I keep coming back to, is that until Level 5 really stablizes (probably 5/10+ years from now), voting on individual articles simply may not scale well at this level. We can get into process discussions with a cleaner talk-page after a split though. Zar2gar1 (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• Just noticed that @J947 had already highlighted this issue above. I hadn't noticed this until now... because the talk page is too damn long. Pinging discussion contributors @J947: @TonyTheTiger: @Piotrus: @TonyTheTiger: @The Blue Rider: @Zar2gar1: do you support the proposal to split the talk page into sub-sections? --Grnrchst (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Discussion at the very beginning of the project. We have exceeded expectations! J947 ‡ ^edits 21:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Given that this talk page has somehow blown up by about 100KB in 24 hours, this change might need to be expedited. I'm committed to implementing Starship.paint's proposal if the consensus doesn't falter in the next 5–6 days. J947 ‡ ^edits 10:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  Is it necessary to wait that long? Can we just apply WP:SNOWBALL as an emergency measure? I don't see any other discussion on this page with such clear consensus. --Kammerer55 (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  It's a big change that's worth letting people know about. Many VA regulars only come along every week or month or so. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Names for the subpages

The topic split discussed above: (1) People; (2) History and Geography; (3) Arts, Philosophy, Religion, Everyday life, Recreation, Society and Social sciences; (4) Science, Technology, Mathematics.

Just to continue on this discussion, what would be the names for the subpages? Is "Arts, Philosophy, Religion, Everyday life, Recreation, Society and Social sciences" fine, or is it too long? Can it be just "Society", for example? Can "Science, Technology, Mathematics" be just "Science and Technology"? --Kammerer55 (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Another way is just to use numbers for the subpages like in Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/1, Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/2 etc. and then just explain in the heading which topics are included in each discussion. Any suggestions? Kammerer55 (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Subpage archives

J947's first question above: "(1) should we have archives for each subpage, or continue using this page's archives?" --Kammerer55 (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we can just use the same archive for all subpages. Then it won't matter that much, if we reconfigure the subpages in the future, or if we merge them together again (if the participation declines). Basically, the split would only help us to sort out current/ongoing discussions but would not affect the mechanics and history that much. Or is there any downside of using a single archive? --Kammerer55 (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Cross-navigation

The subpages would probably need to contain cross-navigation links, so just posting here how it might look like:

General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography Society STEM

General People History & Geography Society Science & Technology

--Kammerer55 (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

That looks good to me. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I like these headers but I don't understand some of the naming, for example, why is mathematics not included? Why do biological, health sciences and physical sciences get branded as "Sciences" and not social sciences? Why is "Society" chosen as the encompassing name? The Blue Rider 11:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind that I moved your comment to this section. --Kammerer55 (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Here, I just wanted to use most representative names to save up on space and make it look nicer. If we use the full names in the navigation buttons, then it would look like the following:

General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography Society STEM

General People History & Geography Arts, Philosophy, Religion, Everyday life, Recreation, Society & Social sciences Science, Technology, Mathematics

Do you have any other suggestions? --Kammerer55 (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, just to clarify, this is not a new or fixed grouping of all level 5 vital articles. This is just to better organize the talk page, so the names are approximate, and the grouping can be also changed later as needed. Kammerer55 (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Sections in each subpage

J947's second question above: "(2) within each talk subpage, should we have headers for each section of VA5 like this?" In that system, all nominations inside a talk page were further divided between the corresponding sections, each section corresponding to a separate Vital list subpage. --Kammerer55 (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@J947, what was your own experience with that system? Was it helpful? I guess the difference is that you cannot click "Add topic" with that system and need to manually edit all sections, right? --Kammerer55 (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the main benefit was having a link to the appropriate section of VA, which is necessary to access to put each addition/removal in context but can be arduous to find. Another boon would be that it would be easy to see what discussions we have on American television at the moment without having half a dozen separate discussions about it like we do currently. That problem, however, is already mitigated by the splitting into 4 pages. Yes, I'd like it, but it isn't strictly necessary or a proper game-changer. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually, we've just made a template {{VA link|article name}} which automatically links to the proper VA-page (and hopefully it would soon link to the proper section as well): for example, {{VA link|Brooklyn}} produces Brooklyn  5. (See discussion at VA3-page.) Hopefully, people start using it in their nominations. (The template seems to also work fine even in headers.) We can also probably make other templates with similar functionality tailored to particular use cases, if needed. Kammerer55 (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Another option would be to make a bot that automatically adds links to the proper pages/sections under each header containing an article link. Kammerer55 (talk) 07:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

That certainly helps for removals. J947 ‡ ^edits 07:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding American TV discussions, maybe we could just encourage people to create umbrella headers when there are many nominations/discussions on the same topic and then use them for all subsequent nominations. However, I think we can deal with that after the split on the ad hoc basis for individual subpages. Kammerer55 (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Remove Saybrook Colony

The following discussion is closed. 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 colony showed up, struggled a bit, and then got merged into a more successful colony. How is it at all vital?

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support. Seems like pretty minor historical trivia. I can't imagine how this is vital? Feel free to enlighten me with a ping. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Per Piotrus. The Blue Rider 12:57, 25 November 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 Warhammer 40,000

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

---

Spin-off from board game discussions above (since it's ~3 weeks, I am doing this in a new section). There seem to be an argeement that we should list something related to the franchise, but my initial suggestion for the original game (Warhammer Fantasy) seems to be not that popular, with man folks suggesting that the sf "40K" version which became more popular should be considered instead. Fair enough, here we go. Pinging participants of that discussion: @Grnrchst, Totalibe, Dawid2009, SnowFire, and J947: PS. For folks who don't know about WH40K and want to hear why it is vital: #5 on Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Popular pages, plus to explain J947's comment "To not have any Warhammer at this level is glaring": just read The Guardian on How Games Workshop grew to become more profitable than Google (Games Workshop is the company that owns Warhammer franchise). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support Ok Dawid2009 (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Totalibe (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
5. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:59, 23 November 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.

Move George Washington Gale Ferris Jr. to inventors and engineers, remove everyone else in Amusement park people

The following discussion is closed. 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 may be missing something, but these are all relatively obscure turn-of-the-century businesspeople and engineers. It's a stretch to refer to them as entertainers in the first place. Given how this is the most over-quota section of people, we could remove these articles.

1. John C. Allen
2. Harry C. Baker
3. Gustav Dentzel
4. George Washington Gale Ferris Jr.
5. Marcus Illions
6. Frederick Ingersoll
7. Walter Knott
8. Charles I. D. Looff
9. John A. Miller
10. Angus G. Wynne

Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabu Makiadi (talk • contribs) 22:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
2. I'd move Ferris to engineers, Knott to businessmen, and delete the rest. pbp 13:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support unless I am missing something. If one of these people invented or designed the first roller coaster or carousel.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support what pbp says (apparently Walter Knott invented the boysenberry). By pageviews Angus G. Wynne is the only other entry who comes close to being vital, but I don't think even he should be included. There are a few sections like this scattered about the place of relative obscurities. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Support. Wynne has just two interwikis. I never even heard of boysenberry, and even a google just gives me fruit... V6 material, perhaps, but not V5. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

   I assure you that in not hearing of boysenberries you are on your own. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

   I also never heard of this fruit before. The Blue Rider 10:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

   Is my life a lie? Boysenberry icecream is delicious. J947 ‡ ^edits 10:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add Mae Jemison and Margaret Hamilton

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

---

Grnrchst started the conversation above about the lack of women scientists, and already has a good list of who should be added. I would like to offer two more additions.

First, Mae Jemison, the first African-American woman to travel into space, and an inductee into the International Space Hall of Fame.

Second, Margaret Hamilton, who wrote the software for the Apollo program ultimately resulting in the successful landing on the moon. It is astonishing to me that someone so influential in computer science that she is credited with the invention of the word "software engineering" and who changed it from a discipline that few respected to a very well-respected discipline has not been included. Jaguarnik (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Nom.
2. Support on both counts. The absence of Margaret Hamilton in particular seems like a pretty massive oversight. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Hamilton; weak support Jemison. J947 ‡ ^edits 10:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

1. I've realized that Jemison, with her primary claim to fame being astronaut and not a scientist or mathematician, would be filed under "Explorers". However, "Space Explorers" has already filled its quota of 60. If it's necessary to switch Jemison with an article already on the list, I would propose switching out either Andriyan Nikolaev or Edgar Mitchell. Also, per Zar2gar1, I have boldy added Margaret Hamilton to the list of Scientists, Inventors, and Mathematicians. Jaguarnik (talk) 21:41, 21 September 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.