Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Quota changes for criminals

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

---

I've mentioned before that I think the quotas currently set for the criminals section is rather odd, giving far too undue a weight to common murderers. Currently the quota for murderers is set at 51, which is as much as those given to assassins, war criminals and terrorists combined. While some of the murderers listed are likely vital for the encyclopedia, due to how their actions affected certain communities and popular consciousness, I think giving such weight to them that they outweigh people responsible for literally changing the course of world history and devastating entire nations is kind of baffling. Additionally, the makeup of this category is such that it is dominated by people from the United States, who make up two-thirds of the entries; whereas the other categories have a more global scope.

As such, I'm proposing that the quota for the murderers category be cut in half to 25; this can then be redistributed to other categories, I recommend giving 7 extra entries to assassins, 12 to war criminals, and 6 to terrorists. I think this would introduce more balance to the category as a whole. I understand that doing this would mean a need to suggest some consequential cuts, which I'll be happy to do at a later date. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Per Grnrchst. — The Blue Rider 09:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Per nom. This seems like it would be a beneficial change. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
4. per nom starship.paint (RUN) 05:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

1. While I support reducing the murderer quota overall, I think reducing by as much as half is likely to cause problems if we don't even discuss possible removals first. I would first suggest prioritizing articles on spree killings over the spree killers themselves, for example as it stands both Marc Lépine and the École Polytechnique massacre are listed in different sections (the latter in history) whereas I only think the latter is really vital. There are some cases such as for especially notable sprees such as the Columbine High School massacre where I think it makes sense to list both but the latter should be prioritized in most cases. I would also suggest cutting the following:

• Gameel Al-Batouti - It doesn't even seem clear if he was a deliberate murderer or not, maybe EgyptAir Flight 990 could be vital but not him personally I don't think.
• Belle Gunness - Doesn't seem to be as well-known or culturally impactful as many of the others on the list, certainly judging by pageviews and interwikis.
• Richard Hauptmann - We already have Lindbergh kidnapping listed.
• Richard Hickock and Perry Edward Smith - These only really seem to be here because of the book they inspired.
• Jane Toppan - like Belle Gunness, this seems to be one of the least well-known or impactful ones listed here.

Alternatively, we could try reducing it to a slightly higher amount, like 35. Totalibe (talk) 16:50, 6 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 Warranty

The following discussion is closed. 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 understand why we have insurance (VA3) and 7 types of insurance listed, but we don't have Warranty listed.

Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Pretty basic concept. V5 at least. (If only it would actually work... sigh :P). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
3. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 12:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Makes sense. Curbon7 (talk) 03:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Could probably be VA4. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
6. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 20:16, 17 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 Rodeo Drive and Mall of America

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

---

Rodeo Drive is one of the most unique luxury shopping districts in the world. Mall of America has been the largest shopping mall in the United States and Western Hemisphere for over 30 years.

Support

1. As nom. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Those are of some importance to the local economy, and also tourist attractions, but I am having trouble seeing them as vital. They are just minor parts of the cities they are located in. Neither article has any serious commentary on those locations impact for the world or even American culture. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
2. per Piotrus. starship.paint (RUN) 04:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Beverly Hills, California would probably be a better add than Rodeo Drive. pbp 01:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Archiving

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

---

Why did both User:lowercase sigmabot III and User:The Blue Rider archive to archive 13 on October 29 and 30 when archive 14 and 15 exist.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The bot is run by User:Σ. I am posting the discussion here so it is centralized.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: Have you mentioned this on Sigma's talk page? @The Blue Rider: please take note of the proper archive pbp 16:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Since there are multiple persons involved I did this in a centralized place. It might be the case that archivers who were not involved in this set of archives might have similar faulty instructions or be impacted in a similar manner. Thus, I tried to ping them both to come here. I will mention this at sigma, but hope he comes here.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• The following is the text of the email I received from Sigma today at 19:32 (UTC): "Counter param is probably set to 13. Ify ou [sic] want it to skip to 15 then you need to change it in the archive template."-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Who knows how to set this counter. I.e., where is it?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  The archive template. Fixed. Clyde _{[trout needed]} 22:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  User:ClydeFranklin, Thx. I am glad someone knows what is going on. I have moved the misarchived content from 13 to 15. I don't know if 15 is now full. Maybe the number should be changed to 16. Also, User:The Blue Rider has uncharacteristically gone a week since he last edited on the day of the archiving (October 30). That seems odd.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  I was simply doing a short wiki-break. I'm aware of archive 14 and 15, I was the one created them. I was using a tool that was automatically archiving to 13, because apparently there was a bytes limit in each archive and 13's wasn't full yet. The Blue Rider 21:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  It is confusing as hell when you archive out of order. I was looking for recently closed/archived discussions and could not find them. Please archive sequentially.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  Bots archive topics based on the last post, not the first post, so this can't be sequential per first post anyway? starship.paint (RUN) 05:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger, The Blue Rider, and Purplebackpack89: - how is archiving going to work given the split L5 pages? starship.paint (RUN) 05:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it's for the best if each subpage has its own archive since that way it's easier to find past discussions. The Blue Rider 10:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to merge the archive even though we split the pages pbp 13:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with merging them in the old archive sequence. I view this solution as temporary. I think in the future discussions will have dedicated pages like GAC, DYK, FAC that we will transclude back on the old unsplit page.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@The Blue Rider, Purplebackpack89, Interstellarity, Starship.paint, QuicoleJR, J947, and Kammerer55: I think we need more consensus here. The Blue Rider wants to split these and seems to be doing that. Purplebackpack89 and I had thought the archives should be merged. Trying to get a few more opinions.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't pay attention to archiving. I am fine with whatever the consensus is here. Interstellarity (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm okay with splitting the archives. starship.paint (RUN) 00:52, 13 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.

PBP sports cleanup

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

---

Swap: Remove Chicago Bulls, add Golden State Warriors

The Warriors are an older franchise and have 7 championships to the Bulls' six. In addition, the Warriors' success spanned multiple eras (championships in 1947, 1956, 1975, 2015, 2017, 2018 and 2022), whereas the Chicago Bulls are a relatively pedestrian team aside from the Michael Jordan (a VA4) era (Another NBA team with multiple championships, the San Antonio Spurs, has a similar problem, as all their championships came under player Tim Duncan and coach Gregg Popovich). As a basketball fan, I can tell you that it's likely the "all-time" Warriors team would win against the "all-time" Bulls team. pbp 15:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 15:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Jordan, Pippen and the Bulls propelled basketball into a global sport. The team's significance goes beyond the 6 championships they won. They were not just ambassadors for their sport; they were representing the United States and increased the country's soft power. Gizza (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

   That's more Jordan himself (already a VA4) than the Bulls as a team... pbp 02:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

2. Oppose Steph Curry is one of the all-time greats, but I don't think his teams are like Michael's. No other player with the Warriors had an era of Championships.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

   @TonyTheTiger: I think you're looking at it bassackwards. If Jordan and Steph are both VAs, consider the Bulls and Warriors WITHOUT them. The sans-Steph Warriors are better and more influential than the sans-Jordan Bulls pbp 20:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

   As a former Knicks season-ticket holder, I can say first-hand that a con-Jordan team will beat everybody every year and a con-Steph team may beat everbody some years.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

   Again, you're boiling this down to Jordan and Steph. Steph's team had, in other eras, Wilt Chamberlain, Rick Barry, Paul Arizin, Neil Johnston, Joe Fulks, Chris Mullin... Excluding the Jordan/Scottie/Rodman era, the players who played for the Bulls get mediocre in a hurry. pbp 16:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

3. Oppose per cultural impact Respublik (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Add stuff from Category:Wikipedia level-unknown vital articles

Per Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles#Category:Wikipedia_level-unknown_vital_articles, those seem to be artifacts of improper addition or removal. Some seem pretty vital. Below are my pics from the stuff I feel I am familiar with. Among other stuff Kansas City and some Tokyo's districts - Shibuya and Shinjuku - struck me as worth discussing too, particularly if they were victims of some stealth removal, but I'll leave it to others to consider nominating them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

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

---

Add CSI (franchise)

Popular TV series. "Five television series make up the CSI franchise: Crime Scene Investigation, Miami, NY, Cyber, and Vegas. All series in total amount to 828 episodes across 38 seasons of television."--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support Groundbreaking.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Influential franchise. The Blue Rider 12:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Object

1. Neutral vote to allow this to be closed as implemented. Respublik (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Add Flash (DC Comics character)

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

---

A popular superhero and popculture icon. "A staple of the comic book DC Universe, the Flash has been adapted to numerous DC films, video games, animated series, and live-action television shows".--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Object

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 Freddy Krueger

The following discussion is closed. 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 iconic film horror villain and a pop culture icon. The character quickly became a pop culture icon going on to appear in toy lines, comic books, books, sneakers, costumes, and video games since his debut. Note: A Nightmare on Elm Street is not vital, either ("The film received critical acclaim upon its release, and has since been considered to be one of the greatest horror films ever made. The film spawned a franchise consisting of six sequels, a television series, a crossover with Friday the 13th, various other merchandise, and a remake of the same name."). An argument could be made we should add both, or add the movie instead of Freddie (I'll proppose movie below). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Object

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 A Nightmare on Elm 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.

---

See above. Nitpick note: this is not a former vital, I am just listing it as an obvious rider on to the topic above.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Object

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 Monty Python and the Holy Grail

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

---

A classic comedy and perhaps one of the most famous if not the most famous non-Hollywood film comedy. Monty Python is V4 and Monty Python's Flying Circus is V5. However, a page view analysis suggests that HG is 3x as popular among our readers as FC ([1] vs [2]), suggesting we should either swap them or list both.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Swap-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
5. --Thi (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Object

Discuss

• All six members of MP are also listed as vital. Do we need all of these guys individually. I am not knowledgeable enough to pick out which are least vital.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  @TonyTheTiger That could be overkill IMHO. I don't recall any by name, but than I don't recall most celebrities by names, just roles. Could look at page views I guess? See if there are significant differences and suggest removing those with lower ones? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Add Popeye

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

---

Popular children animation character and arguably a popculture icon. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Easy support per Piotrus. The Blue Rider 21:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Totalibe (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Object

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 Puzzle & Dragons

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

---

Japanese video game that I did not propose above recently b/c I was confused what the 'unknown-vital' status means and thought, erroneusly, it was vital already. From the article: "It is a commercial success in Japan, where it was downloaded 32 million times by November 2014, and was released in other Asian countries as well as in North America and many European countries. Total worldwide downloads surpassed 50 million by September 2015, and 62 million by October 2017. Puzzle & Dragons is the first mobile game in history to gross $1 billion in revenue, eventually grossing $6 billion by the end of 2017. It was the highest-grossing mobile app of all time up until it was surpassed by Monster Strike in October 2018."--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Object

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 Snoopy

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

---

Peanuts are V4. If so, its iconic Snoopy character should be V5. Charlie Brown is V5. From the Snoopy article: " Since his debut on October 4, 1950, Snoopy has become one of the most recognizable and iconic characters in the comic strip and is considered more famous than Charlie Brown in some countries.". I won't insist on a swap, but for me, at least, this is true.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Wait, he's not already on the list? QuicoleJR (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Snoopy is famous and a vital topic for this international encyclopedia with a pop culture bent.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Snoopy! Influential character, most certainly VT5. The Blue Rider 23:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Support Totalibe (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Object

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 Thor (Marvel Comics)

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

---

Another pretty iconic superhero, although subjetively speaking, I'd rank him as less popular than Wolverine and Flash. In case anyone wants to prioritize, page views are: Flash ~540, Thor ~690, Wolverine ~1350, so maybe I am a bit wrong re Flash vs Thor. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
2. I also support this. He is Marvel Comics' most iconic powerhouse character, and holds a similar position to Superman within this setting. David A (talk) 08:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Since we are likely to remove Green Goblin and Green Hornet, I am okay with including Thor, which the MCU and Chris Hemsworth helped popularize. starship.paint (RUN) 11:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Object

1. He was delisted in 2020 along with Aquaman Daredevil (Marvel Comics character), and Wolverine (character). All are just a cut below the most vital superheroes.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

I think there are better options such as Avengers (comics) or Fantastic Four, both of whom receive more pageviews. Marvel's biggest deal was Spider-Man, not Superman. starship.paint (RUN) 09:27, 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 Tifa Lockhart

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

---

One of the most inconic video games characters, non-American, and classic. Popculture icon. From the article: "Named the pin-up girl of the "cyber generation" by The New York Times, Tifa has been compared to Lara Croft as an example of a strong, independent and attractive female character in video games." Lara Croft is V5. Tifa is not. Granted, page views give Lara a 5:1 advantage over Tifa, but I still think Tifa is a pretty vital video game character. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Object

1. Oppose There are efforts to reduce video game articles, and/or spread out coverage and reduce topics being covered multiple times under different articles. We already list Final Fantasy and Final Fantasy VII, I'm not sure we also need Tifa Lockheart in addition to these, seems like too much. We don't list Link from Zelda, I'm contemplating suggesting removals from characters that also have games/series/franchise also listed, eg Sonic Lara Croft/Tomb Raider, and others. We do not list main characters from Street Fighter like Ryu or from Mortal Kombat like Sub-Zero and we probably won't, but those seem more well known and older and articles get more attention. Carlwev  07:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
3. I don't think Tifa will come in before Cloud Strife. starship.paint (RUN) 06:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Add Wolverine (character)

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

---

Rounding my review of unknown-vitals, another classic superhero. According to our article, " the character became a fan favorite of the increasingly popular X-Men franchise". X-Men are not vital and we probably should discuss their addition too. If we are over quota or whatever, I could see how Flash and Thor might not make the cut but Wolverine is quite vital IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
2. per nom as I support removing Lex Luthor and see this as a swap. 20th Century Fox and Hugh Jackman helped popularise him. Ten films from 2000-2019, including a Wolverine trilogy, and he's coming back in Deadpool 3 next year. starship.paint (RUN) 11:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Object

1. He was delisted in 2020 along with Aquaman Daredevil (Marvel Comics character), and Thor (Marvel Comics). All are just a cut below the most vital superheroes.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

X-Men is already vital, so I think that Wolverine takes a step back to the Fantastic Four. starship.paint (RUN) 09:31, 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 X-Men

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

---

See above. Plus from our article: "it became one of the most recognizable and successful franchises of Marvel Comics... " --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Note: this is not a former vital, I am just listing it as an obvious rider on to the topic above. I'll also note that Magneto, Professor X and Rogue were at former vital list, but I don't think they are as famous. Although I could be wrong. PX's pageviews at 659 arguably put him at similar level as Thor and Flash I guess. Magneto actually gets 876, to my surprise. And Rogue 812, making me even more surprised. Page views are ot everything, of course. If anyone feels they merit discussion, go for it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Object

Discuss

Already listed at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh. Missed that, I keep looking for templates at the top and many vital articles are missing those, sigh. Guess this one can be speedily closed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

What I do to check whether (and where) something is listed is going to the article's "What links here", limit to the Wikipedia mainspace, set to show 500 (max) pages at once and Ctrl+F for "vital". Although Cewbot should nowadays automatically add/remove the VA template to talk pages it has failed to do so with many old removals that were done before the bot was added to the project.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Or you could simply use the VT5's search bar. The Blue Rider 23:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Quota confusion

The following discussion is closed. 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 quota count seems to be out of alignment, with the VA5 frontpage often showing vastly different counts than the respective subpages:

• For "Artists, musicians, and composers", the quota is set to 2,000 on the front page and 2,175 on the sub page;
• For "Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters", the quota is set to 2,000 on the front page and 2,175 on the sub page;
• For "Politicians and leaders", the quota is set to 2,500 on the front page and 2,300 on the sub page;
• For "Sports figures, the quota is set to 1,000 on the front page and 1,200 on the sub page;
• For "Miscellaneous", the quota is set to 1,000 on the front page and 1,200 on the sub page;
• For "Cities", the quota is set to 1,900 on the front page and 2,000 on the sub page;
• For "Politics and economics", the quota is set to 1,600 on the front page and 1,850 on the sub page;
• For "Basics and measurement", the quota is set to 400 on the front page and 375 on the sub page;
• For "Technology", the quota is set to 3,200 on the front page and 3,175 on the sub page.

I have to ask. How did these quotas end up misaligned this way and which is the correct number (i.e. pre-established by consensus)? Right now, it's difficult to even establish what the quotas are when we're discussing them. In some cases, the front page shows a category as under-quota while the sub page shows it as over-quota, or vice versa. We desperately need to re-establish consistency between these two pages, because any discussion about quota counts is just going to be moot otherwise. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Setting quotas with subjective criteria seems especially difficult to me. I've brought it up before (see archives 3 and 8), but this project needs a vitality estimator, i.e. an algorithm that assigns an estimated vitality score to an article based on its statistics (pageviews, amount of links to page, amount of Interwikis, Wikiproject importances, amount of page watchers, with a recentism penalty). The scores could be used to list let's say bottom 500 (or some other number) articles we do list and top 500 we don't. This way we could not only spot various individual junk listings and missed subjects but also observe possible quota imbalances.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not think an algorithm based on stats would work for vitality. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say there are correlations between the stats I mentioned and vitality, although not necessarily 100%. Used right, the estimator would be of more help than harm. It shouldn't be followed blindly, personal judgements would have the final says, but something along its lines needs to be done so we can be sure we haven't missed anything important (like what happened with Ford Model T) or have chaff taking up slots (I should get around to nominate e.g. Fitzwilliam Sonatas for removal sometime). I've already used tools like Massviews to get ideas for removal candidates, but I believe that individually, metrics such as pageviews are too fickle and subject to anomalies, so a combination (such as the median of an article's rankings by the metrics) would be more robust.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

An algorithm along those lines would be very helpful as a first gauge for entries that should be removed / should be added. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Something I want to note: I think we are way too generous to cities... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, the quotas on the front page should be the correct ones, yes? I'll have a go at fixing these up soon. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Interstellarity changed the front page quotas months ago beginning with this edit, I haven't fully checked but I'm pretty sure the subpage quotas were the original ones. Note however that Starship.paint just changed the Technology subquota to mach the main page one. There is a lot of junk in the Technology section (obscure dams and stuff) so I'd rather reallocate some of its quota to where there is demand.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 21:17, 6 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.

Handling discussions that were archived without closure even though a quorum had been achieved

In the last month there has been a lot of back and forth on the autoarchiving deadline (30->75->31->45). There are several past level 5 discussions have been autoarchived before being closed. I propose that they all be closed as the consensus suggested even though they got archived prematurely. Here they are: --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Just adding nominators to get some people's attention.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I support all as long as there is more than one person participating. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Piotrus, I am not sure I understand the condition.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Piotrus, I fear that your support placed here may get overlooked. It might be better placed in the individual sections below.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome to copy my support to all sections below if needed, or just refer the closer to it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Can we just disable bot archiving as it used to be? Manually archive closed discussions and we're left without this problem. This talk page is massive at the moment (we should split it into half and have a Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Old to deal with the overflow IMO) but quick archiving should still not be done without formal closure. J947 † ^edits 05:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I am going to try to keep us on track. Whether we want to auto archive going forward is another discussion which you are free to open. This nomination is an attempt to clean up the errant results of past auto archiving.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

2023 nominations

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

---

1. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_12#Add_Goalpost 3-1 nominated 11 January 2023 by User:LightProof1995
2. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_12#Add_Synthetic_media 3-2 nominated 2 January 2023 by User:LaukkuTheGreit
3. Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive_12#Remove_Thalassocnus,_Doedicurus,_Tamandua,_Add_Glyptodon,_Two-toed_sloth,_Megalonyx 4-0 and 3-1 nominated 12 June 2023 by User:Augustios Paleo

Support

1. As nominator. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
2. For formality. J947 † ^edits 05:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
3. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piotrus (talk • contribs) 02:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC) added by TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC) per 09:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC) comment

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.

2022 nominations

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

---

1. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_10#Swap:_reorganisation_of_dogs 6 votes with some variances most supported 6-0 nominated 21 January 2022 by User:Cavalryman

Support

1. As nominator. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
2. For formality. J947 † ^edits 05:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piotrus (talk • contribs) 02:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC) added by TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC) per 09:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC) comment
4. Support of course. This has unanimous support last time this was discussed, so why are still still talking about this?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
5. Support as it was proposed, same as I did before. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Requesting that original nominator User:Cavalryman, attend this discussion and recast his original nominating vote to give this 4 votes. Then this discussion can be closed as endorsing the archived discussion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Also requesting that he close the discussion summarizing what is added and removed as a result or at least summarize what needs to be added/removed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Alternatively, voting discussants @Larrayal, SilverTiger12, SMcCandlish, and Fritzmann2002: are invited here to summarize what add/remove consensus was missed due to autoarchiving.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

User:CactiStaccingCrane, I am not sure what to make of your comment on the issue. Were the consensuses for change enacted?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

My opinion here is that bot archival time should be equal to the time we have set in the policy. In this case, it's 14 days. Bot archival time is calculated not from the first comment but from the last comment made in the thread. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

User:CactiStaccingCrane, This discussion is about the seeming consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_10#Swap:_reorganisation_of_dogs, that was archived without action. You made a comment at the bottom of that discussion. I believe that many add/remove items were not addressed following the consensus. Does your comment mean that they were done?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh sorry, my brain was bricked when I wrote that response. I'm really sorry. It was made because I was cleaning up this section mess. What happens after that, I don't know. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why this discussion is open. Where the changes from the "Swap: reorganisation of dogs" not actually done?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

User:SMcCandlish you participated in this discussion that seemed to form a consensus that appears to have not been enacted. I am hoping that there might be someone who participated in the discussion that would care to summarize the add/remove consensuses that might have been ignored by autoarchiving.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Kinda what I thought. Yeah, this needs to be fixed. I thought this restructuring had been done already in 2022.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Too lazy to close this one, we will need a true warrior to do this. The Blue Rider 22:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, it bugged me too much not being able to archive this discussion. Done! The Blue Rider 23:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

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

2020 nominations

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

---

1. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_10#Remove_3dfx_Interactive,_Creative_Technology,_NortonLifeLock,_and_Unisys 3-2 nominated 18 November 2020 by User:Feminist

Support

1. As nominator. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piotrus (talk • contribs) 02:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC) added by TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC) per 09:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC) comment

Oppose

Discuss

I seem to recall 4 votes in favour used to be required at this level at some point, and it was still 2/3 required. I don't know if this nomination passed under the rules we had at the time. J947 † ^edits 05:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

User:J947 can you please provide further on this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

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

2019 nominations

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

---

1. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_10#Generations 4-1 nominated 21 November 2019 by User:Piotrus
2. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_9#Board_games please review nominated December 2019 by User:Piotrus
3. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_9#FAQ please review nominated December 2019 by User:Piotrus

Support

1. As nominator. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Yes to generations, but I think the board games ones have largely been enacted / are under discussion in the board games section above. J947 † ^edits 05:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
3. @J947 I totally forgot about that... looking at this - some have been enacted or are under discussion but not all. Card and video game suggestions I made back then are not under current discussion above. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I think 2019 is a bit too old. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

Regarding FAQ: As commented in the archive, I have already carried out the changes to video games (with my voting method) a long time ago, and the current list is so different (down to 101 entries rather than 138) as to make the old discussion no longer really applicable. A formal close at most is needed.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

User:LaukkuTheGreit what about your synthetic media nomination above (2023)?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm a bit on the fence on it, on one hand I'd be fine with it not being added since a) AI boom already has the necessary 4 votes to get in and b) by now Generative artificial intelligence would be the preferable addition since it gets more pageviews.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• User:Piotrus, there is 3-1 support for respecting these 2019 consensuses. Could you please look closely at your nominations here and summarize Add/Remove consensus.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  If you are asking about what I proposed back then:

  • generations: add Generation  4 to V4 (done in the meantime), add to V5 other generations from the template, i.e. Lost Generation  5, Greatest Generation  5, Silent Generation  5, Baby boomers  5, Generation X  5, Millennials  5, Generation Z  5 and Generation Alpha  5. Note this was 3:0 for all but the latter which was 3:1. Quick check with VA links suggests this was all done. So, moving to the next one._{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  • I was counting you as the nominator and thus counted 4-0 and 4-1. I have added all of these.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  • board games: that's a messy discussion with most titles discussed recently. I think I missed proposing to add Puerto Rico (board game), HeroQuest, Hex map, Codenames (board game) I don't see 3:0 supports for anything there. It's messy. The best outcome here really is to ping User:Makkool and ask them to look at the more recent (2023) ongoing discussions related to this, so they can cast their vote again-ish (at Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Society#Board_(tabletop)_game_changes)._{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  • When I first looked at this it seems some had passed. Maybe I was wrong. If no consensus change was missed, then nothing else needs to be done.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  • FAQ: I don't think this was mine?_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  • User:Piotrus, I wasn't sure whether the FAQ section was a continuation of your discussion above or a completely new discussion. The objective here is to determine what past consensuses were not enacted because of auto archiving. Upon further review, I guess User:Headbomb appears to have been the nominator and User:LaukkuTheGreit seemed to be doing a summary. So if either of those discussants could stop by here and help me understand if any subjects achieved a consensus, which was ignored due to auto archiving, that would be great.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

    @TonyTheTiger: There was chaotic brainstorming on which video games to remove above and below the "FAQ" header (which I guess was more like an arbitrary section break), and I practically started an alternative vote in a more organised fashion under the "Voting on video game inclusion using Laukku's method" section, although the votes for it mostly were in the section directly above it. The method I used was described in this discussion, which used to be placed closer to the vote discussion as context before they were archived at very different times. As I said above (perhaps I should've explicitly opposed), the video game changes under FAQ have already been enacted using my method and the discussion is pretty much obsolete.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 19:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

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

2018 nominations

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

---

1. Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive_4#Remove_Espoo_and_Vantaa (Espoo still listed despite this 4-2 consensus) nominated 16 December 2018 by User:Purplebackpack89
2. Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive_3#Remove_Simmias_(explorer) 3 or 4-1 (nominator not explicit) nominated 7 September 2018 by User:力
3. Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive_3#Remove_aXXo 3-2 (counting nominator who did not explicitly support) nominated 7 September 2018 by User:力
4. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_3#Remove_Masami_Hirosaka 3 or 4-1 (nominator not explicit) nominated 7 September 2018 by User:力
5. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_3#Remove_William_Heffelfinger 3-2 (counting nominator who did not explicitly support) nominated 7 September 2018 by User:力
6. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_3#Remove_Bear_Bryant 3-2 nominated 4 September 2018 by User:Purplebackpack89

Support

1. As nominator. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
2. The ones with 4 votes only I think (which includes Simmias and Hirosaka). Although I do think Espoo is vital and might propose its addition soon. J947 † ^edits 05:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piotrus (talk • contribs) 02:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC) added by TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC) per 09:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC) comment

Oppose

1. I think 2018 is too old. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:00, 21 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.

Beleated pre-maturely archived nominations

The following discussion is closed. 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 apologize. I went back throught the archives for research for a forthcoming discussion and found the following uncapped discussions that should have also been listed here.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_9#Remove_Fort_Lauderdale,_Florida 3-1 by User:TimothyBlue 14 March 2020
2. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_9#Remove_Creation_science,_Intelligent_design,_Theistic_evolution,_Young_Earth_creationism 3-1 by User:Darker Dreams 19 July 2021 (5-0 for 3 of the 4 2-3 for ID)

Support

1. As nominator. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

@J947, Piotrus, and QuicoleJR:, are discussants for these years above.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:45, 23 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.

Auto archiving discussions

The following discussion is closed. 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 "Handling discussions that were archived without closure even though a quorum had been achieved" discussion above at 05:07, 21 November 2023 User:J947 mentioned that we should consider disabling the current autoarchive process . I did a little digging. First, recall in that set of discussions, slow closers were the reason for improper archiving because quorum had been reached and auto-archiving delays gave time for closing.

The set of discussions I am posting here are situations where autoarchiving is in conflict with our rules (specifically that all discussions should be accorded 4 voting opinions from discussants). An article about some pop culture topics attract 8-10 voting discussants rapidly. Other topics draw fewer discussants. If we allow autoarchiving to occur before each discussion gets fairly considered, it is our collective fault as voters. However, there is no way to force people to vote on unpopular topics. Previously, some topics sat for a year without being archived before they achieved a quorum. In the past there have been a lot of discussions that have been autoarchived with counts of 3-0, 2-0 and 2-1 while even a 3-2 vote count is considered passing. Let's evaluate our policy on auto archiving and past discussions that have been cut short of quorum that may have changed the project.

@Makkool, Festucalex, J947, RekishiEJ, EchoBlu, TimothyBlue, Purplebackpack89, Larrayal, 160.72.238.66, Rreagan007, Helloimahumanbeing, Starship.paint, Spy-cicle, Feminist, Ealuscerwen, Saturdayopen, Nyanardsan, and Dawid2009: I think misformatted this discussion, which called you to the subpart below and caused you to miss this main issue. You have had discussions reach 3-0, 2-0 and 2-1 before being archived without closure. Is there an appropriate action for archived discussions that were headed to consensus. Since older and newer discussions may merit different treatment and 3-0, 2-0 and 2-1 discussions may merit different treatment, I grouped the past discussions separately. I believe that most people care about their nominations that seem to have gotten ignored. With the prior formatting, only a discussant with an old 2-1 discussion responded to their subpart, but I think people with newer or unopposed discussions may feel differently.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Part #1

Support discontinuation of auto archiving

1. As nominator. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Yes, if we institute a procedure to close as no consensus instead. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Yes, to solicit more input. starship.paint (RUN) 13:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose discontinuation of auto-archiving

Discuss

• User:J947, you mentioned this as an issue. I researched it to see what was going on and you have not been interested. Did I misunderstand you?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Sorry, missed this one. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
• @Carlwev: You have expressed concern about 3-0 votes. You may be interested in this discussion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Part #2a 2023 3-0 discussions

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_12#Replace_Avenue_Q_with_Folia 3-0 by User:Makkool 28 April 2023

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_12#Remove_Willem-Alexander_of_the_Netherlands 3-0 by User:Festucalex 1 May 2023

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Subpage_1/Archive_1#Add_Gwen_Stefani 3-0 by User:TonyTheTiger 27 October 2023

since we currently pass 3-2 decisions we can just pass 3-0 discussions and move on

1. Support as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Yes, if 3-2 passes, then 3-0 has at least the same amount of support. starship.paint (RUN) 13:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

reopen voting for past 3-0 decisions until we get to at least 4 votes

leave past discussions alone (of course you can renominate on a case by case basis)

Discuss

Part #2b 2021 3-0 discussions

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_9#Remove_Pitt_Island 3-0 by User:J947 8 July 2021

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_6#Re-add_Yoshihiro_Togashi 3-0 by User:RekishiEJ 21 July 2021

since we currently pass 3-2 decisions we can just pass 3-0 discussions and move on

1. Support as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Yes, if 3-2 passes, then 3-0 has at least the same amount of support. starship.paint (RUN) 13:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

reopen voting for past 3-0 decisions until we get to at least 4 votes

leave past discussions alone (of course you can renominate on a case by case basis)

Discuss

Part #2c 2020 3-0 discussions

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_9#Add_Inca_architecture 3-0 by User:RekishiEJ 29 May 2020

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_9#Swap_Synthwave_for_Eurodance 3-0 by User:Makkool 1 March 2020 (swapped but Eurodance reverted)

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive 8#Add_Crossover_(fiction)_to_Arts/Literature/Literary_genres/Fiction 2-0 by User:EchoBlu 15 June 2020 (nominator not explicit)

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive 8#Add_Real-time_strategy_to_Strategy_video_game 2-0 by User:EchoBlu 15 June 2020 (nominator not explicit)

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_7#Add_Anne_Applebaum 3-0 by User:TimothyBlue 29 February 2020

since we currently pass 3-2 decisions we can just pass 3-0 discussions and move on

1. Support as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Yes, if 3-2 passes, then 3-0 has at least the same amount of support. starship.paint (RUN) 13:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

reopen voting for past 3-0 decisions until we get to at least 4 votes

leave past discussions alone (of course you can renominate on a case by case basis)

Discuss

Part #2d 2018 and 2019 3-0 discussions

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_4#Remove_Sancho_Panza 3-0 by User:Purplebackpack89 6 April 2019

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_4#Remove_Abraham_van_Helsing 3-0 by User:Purplebackpack89 6 April 2019

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_3#Remove_Tom_Landry 3-0 by User:Purplebackpack89 4 September 2018

since we currently pass 3-2 decisions we can just pass 3-0 discussions and move on

1. Support as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Yes, if 3-2 passes, then 3-0 has at least the same amount of support. starship.paint (RUN) 13:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

reopen voting for past 3-0 decisions until we get to at least 4 votes

leave past discussions alone (of course you can renominate on a case by case basis)

Discuss

Part #3a 2022 and 2023 2-0 discussions

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_12#Remove_Konrad_Kujau 2-0 by User:Festucalex 28 April 2023

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_12#Add_fossil_families 2-0 by User:Larrayal 8 June 2023 (5 of 7 implemented already added)

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_10#Add_Robert_Rauschenberg 2-0 by User:160.72.238.66 26 January 2022

since we currently pass 3-2 decisions and no one opposed before we can just pass 2-0 discussions and move on

reopen voting for past 2-0 decisions until we get to at least 4 votes

1. Support as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nom starship.paint (RUN) 15:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

leave past discussions alone (of course you can renominate on a case by case basis)

Discuss

• User:Starship.paint since you voted on every other 3-0 and 2-0 section, did you overlook this one accidentally?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Part #3b 2021 2-0 discussions

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_9#Add_Hannah_Glasse 2-0 by User:Rreagan007 21 April 2021

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_9#Remove_2019_Samoa_measles_outbreak 2-0 by User:Helloimahumanbeing 14 December 2021

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_6#Add_Pliosauridae 2-0 by User:Starship.paint 22 August 2021 (from a group that seems to have been closely evaluated)

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_6#Add_Belemnoidea 2-0 by User:Starship.paint 24 August 2021 (from a group that seems to have been closely evaluated)

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_6#Add_Meganisoptera_or_Meganeura 2-0 by User:Starship.paint 22 August 2021 (from a group that seems to have been closely evaluated)

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_6#Add_Troy_Baker 2-0 by User:Spy-cicle 9 April 2021

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_6#Add_Shotaro_Ishinomori 2-0 by User:RekishiEJ 21 July 2021

since we currently pass 3-2 decisions and no one opposed before we can just pass 2-0 discussions and move on

reopen voting for past 2-0 decisions until we get to at least 4 votes

1. Support as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nom starship.paint (RUN) 13:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

leave past discussions alone (of course you can renominate on a case by case basis)

Discuss

Part #3c 2019 and 2020 2-0 discussions

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_10#Remove_United_Microelectronics_Corporation 2-0 by User:Feminist 18 November 2020

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_9#Swap_Jimmy_Sham_for_Martin_Lee_or_Anson_Chan 2-0 (for Lee) by User:Feminist 2 May 2020

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_9#Add_Research_Triangle 2-0 by User:Feminist 14 February 2020

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_9#Add_Leiden_and_Haarlem 2-0 by User:Ealuscerwen 5 June 2020

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_9#Add_Arch_of_Titus 2-0 by User:RekishiEJ 29 May 2020

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_9#Swap_Deadpool_with_Black_Panther_(Marvel_Comics) 2-0 by User:Saturdayopen 30 August 2020 (Black Panther (Marvel Comics) is redirected to Black Panther (character) which has been listed)

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_7#Add_Bernard_Bailyn 2-0 by User:TimothyBlue 29 February 2020

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_7#Remove_Józef_Ignacy_Kraszewski 2-0 by User:TimothyBlue 29 February 2020

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_7#Remove_Matrakçı_Nasuh 2-0 by User:TimothyBlue 29 February 2020

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_7#Remove_Bernard_Smith_(art_historian) 2-0 by User:TimothyBlue 29 February 2020

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_9#Remove_webcomics 2-0 by User:Makkool 5 October 2019

since we currently pass 3-2 decisions and no one opposed before we can just pass 2-0 discussions and move on

reopen voting for past 2-0 decisions until we get to at least 4 votes

1. Support as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nom starship.paint (RUN) 13:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

leave past discussions alone (of course you can renominate on a case by case basis)

Discuss

Part #4 2-1 discussions

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_10#Add_Tanjung_Selor,_Mamuju,_Gorontalo,_Pangkal_Pinang,_Tanjung_Pinang,_Manokwari,_Banjarbaru_and_Sofifi 2-1 by User:Nyanardsan 1 May 2021 (4 of 8 already added)

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_9#Swap:_remove_Westmorland,_add_Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt 2-1/2-0 by User:Dawid2009 21 September 2019

reopen voting for past 2-1 decisions until we get to at least 4 votes

leave past discussions alone (of course you can renominate on a case by case basis)

1. Support as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

Comment TonyTheTiger , I thinkIt is not good to dig so old discussions, wht hapenned hat happened, we will nt change everything ayway (where we were over quota, where under et.), there were also way more things whch were did without discussions (like changing uota at physical georaphy section without larger discussion by IP) or especially adding (sub)quotas at all(massive quotas by anoyonee), would you also remove all quotas as were not discussed etc, what that influence discussion which is difficut to interpretate (2-0, 1-0) and was six years ago? I think not so much... and I believe !voting is evil thing aomwtimes. For example we shouldi not decide by !voting process to remove all quotas which were added without discussion (via 1-0), for example many quotas at biographies (subquotas actually) were not discussed etc.. I do not see why we can not start to remove things which were done without consensus (like quotas for subsections in biographies = I mean number for quotas, not biographies). We should also not hold ourselves accountable for trivial things that were not anyone's intention (like archiving the bot), because someone will mistakenly think that we have the enthusiasm to be more and more rigid and less flexible, while level 5 still has many problems and needs to be encouraged for flexible improvement , it's not as stable as 4-1 where we can be more rigid Dawid2009 (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• User:Dawid2009. I am going to interpret your comment as a verstion of "leave past discussions alone" for each and every section (even the recent years although you seem to focus on the early years). Can I put you in those sections. This discussion has nothting to do with quotas. You have not stated whether you are for or against continuing to autoarchive and don't know how to interpret what you have said in that regard. Please realize, since there were complaints about auto archiving, I did research to understand what some of the issues were. I realize that some of what I see might have been from a previous process that did not actually involve auto-archiving. However, the result of whatever that process is was unresolved discussions too.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

since there were complaints about auto archiving - if so then OK, I will agree to review that. If discussions are very old we can eventually start new (in the case of controversial things discussions are required if not controversial like fixing mistakes from the past - perhaps not always - perso0nally if we could do things more flexible). Cheers. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The complaint is mentioned at the top of this section. Part #1 is one discussion I am asking if you have an opinion on. Since you only have an old 2019 2-1 discussion that seems unresolved, you might have a different opinion than say someone with new 2-0 or 3-0 discussions that auto archived. I have tried to lay this out so that there can be a logical assessment and you keep talking about really old discussions. What about the 2021, 2022 and 2023 discussions that have been auto archived. These are from times after we had a full set of 50,000 articles and things were working differently. I guess you may be trying to make a clear statement on newer issues. We will see if everyone wants to ignore the problems of autoarchiving.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Dawid2009, the way this discussion is going, I sort of feel that you noticed you were mentioned in this Part #4 discussion without really seeing the whole section including the preface to part #1.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:57, 23 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 Tenement

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

---

Key type of traditional building missing from Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Everyday_life#Housing_(9_articles). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

• Comment - this has only 5 interwikis, which would be surprising if this was a common building type. I am struggling to understand how this is significantly different from an apartment building (level 4 and 66 interwikis). starship.paint (RUN) 13:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  There's some translation/terminology issue I feel. The discussion of tenement in apartment building doesn't really discuss Europe outside Scotland. Take a look at Tenement#Poland, which is only about Poland but in Polish, this is the term to be used to describe hisstorical buildings found in most European cities that date to 18th-19th centuries. Perhaps there's some overlap with townhouse? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Implementing the split of the 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.

---

Just letting everyone know that I've began splitting the page. Right now the people subpage is mostly done; I don't have the time to finish the rest, but I wanted to start the process since it will probably take a few days. There's no immediate problems that I see, feel free to help and do any improvements you deem as necessary. I will only add that each subpage should have its individual archive to facilitate navigation due to their significant size, instead of using a centralized one. The Blue Rider 19:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@The Blue Rider: One small thing: I noticed you moved archived or closed discussions to the subpage when you probably should've just archived them. pbp 20:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Archives haven't been created to each subpage, that's why I didn't archive anything. The Blue Rider 23:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I have changed the redirects from the talk pages of each list to their appropriate section. For example, the talk page of the history list: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History now redirects to the subpage instead of the main page. Hopefully, this will help people with making sure people nominate articles in the correct section rather than the general talk page. Interstellarity (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I have been moving discussions to the subpages, and have cut the size of this page from 0.8 MB to 0.3 MB. starship.paint (RUN) 08:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Nice, thank you. The Blue Rider 10:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

A problem has became evident. The chosen 4 topics are unequal between themselves; Science and Technology barely has any proposals, it's the only talk page that is in accordance with the 75 KB proposed by WP:TALKCOND. Users seem to take a much greater interest in nominating pop culture topics rather than philosophy, natural, exact and to a lesser extent social sciences related articles. Not everything has been transcluded yet and the Society and People subpages are already at 341,528 and 204,984 KB, respectively. The Blue Rider 10:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The root of the problem are clearly the batch proposals. The Blue Rider 10:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

What is the solution for the batch proposals then? starship.paint (RUN) 11:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: @The Blue Rider: The solution is to be patient and let the batch proposals play out and hope the talk page and its subpages get smaller after that. pbp 18:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of batch proposals, the current system of having sections for each subpage is not good for people like me who edit on mobile devices, because it makes it impossible to close the giant batch proposals without closing the entire subpage section, and therefore makes it hard to reach the bottom proposals of those sections. Why are the talk subpages not formatted like normal talk pages? QuicoleJR (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

It's unfortunately a fact that healthy levels of discussion at VA necessitate large talk pages. Until we get to a point again when contributors are having serious load problems, we should just ignore that 75KB guideline as we've always done. I really don't think that limiting the amount of discussion we're having is the way to go when there are so many sections in need of improvement. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

What may be worthwhile is moving a section like Everyday life or Philosophy and religion over from the society subpage to the science subpage in order to balance the page sizes out. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

But there are no open discussions in those sections right now! Most nominations at "Society" subpage are from Arts (films), Sports (games) and Culture (TV shows) sections. Kammerer55 (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Good point (but there are some in Sports, which is part of Everyday life). J947 ‡ ^edits 10:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it's time to give these subpages names. Subpage 1 should be Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/People – that's straightforward. For subpage 2 I don't think there's any better option than Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/History and geography. Subpage 3 it seems like there's support for Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Society (I wouldn't mind /Arts either). Subpage 4, how about Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Sciences? J947 ‡ ^edits 03:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Fine. starship.paint (RUN) 04:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm still not completely happy with the current naming of the navigation buttons and I specially take issue with exact and natural sciences being named solely "sciences", but for the sake of clarity of the talk pages I support this. The Blue Rider 22:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

BTW, TBR, this change should be accomplished by page move, which cannot be done if there's a page in the way as you have created above (by making my red links above blue). No biggie, just thought I'd let you know. Just waiting for an admin/page mover to implement these moves. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the navigation buttons and the talk page names should be the same. The Blue Rider 22:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The Blue Rider, would you prefer /Science, technology, and mathematics? J947 ‡ ^edits 10:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Or what about STEM for brevity?--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I would be on board with STEM. The Blue Rider 15:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

STEM sounds good. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

STEM sounds fine for the subpage name (which probably does not matter that much), but I'm not sure regarding the button label, since not everyone might be familiar with the term. Kammerer55 (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

If you need to split the talk pages, could you use the talk pages of the existing subpages (by "topic"), i.e. Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography, Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts, Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/People, Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/History. At the moment we have talk pages like Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Sciences with no associated project page, which could get confusing — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:54, 21 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.

Introducing new template "VA link" to display level and locate article in the list

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

---

See previous discussion on VA3 talk page.

Please see a new template {{Vital article link}}, shorthand {{VA link}}, which can be used as {{VA link|article name}} to quickly see the article's current level and to locate it in the corresponding list. For example: {{VA link|Wikipedia}} produces Wikipedia  4, where the number links to the article's location. If the article is not vital, the template would produce a regular link instead, for example, {{VA link|Digital Revolution}} → Digital Revolution, so it should be safe to use in discussions even after the article gets demoted. It can be also used in headers:

Example: remove Water  2, add Ice  4

The template is supposed to always link to the right page, and it would generally link to the right section as well (subject to regular Cewbot-updates of json-files). Kammerer55 (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Nice, I'll try using it from now on. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:59, 2 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.

PLEASE ADD NEW TOPICS TO SUBPAGES (EXCEPT GENERAL DISCUSSIONS)

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

---

Subpages: #1 People, #2 History & Geography, #3 Society, #4 Science & Technology. Please take note, @Piotrus and Marchantiophyta:, as recent topic proposers. starship.paint (RUN) 08:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Adding info to the Introduction might be also helpful, especially for new participants. Kammerer55 (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we should have a discussion in order to update the rules/procedures for VT5. The Blue Rider 10:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

That’s right, though I was suggesting to add only what was already discussed and decided in the split page discussion. It would not be a “new” rule addition. Kammerer55 (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kammerer55: - I have edited the introduction, feel free to improve it. starship.paint (RUN) 14:04, 6 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.

Closing nominations one was involved in.

The following discussion is closed. 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 should be a rule that we not close discussions in which we were a voting discussant. This is a current controversy it seems. I know I have sat by and watched at least one nomination go from passing to failing because I did not feel it appropriate to close my own nomination (Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Subpage 1#Add Sam Smith, which spent 15 days at 3-0 and another 14 at 3-1 before falling to 3-3.)-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I am calling this to a formal vote.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Give the closing rules are quite mechanical it is okay for a !voter to also close; HOWEVER, I would support a rule that a close should only happen 7-days after the last !vote (not comment, or it will continue ad infinitum), which would prevent a casting !vote forcing an immediate close. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
2. I think it helps the non-combativeness of this place that closers are non-neutral, queerly enough. J947 ‡ ^edits 08:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

This makes little sense, people who close proposals at VA are regular users that also take part in voting—if this rules passes then proposals would hardly be closed at all. The Blue Rider 13:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

User:The Blue Rider, In archives 16 and 17 the following people have recently closed discussions: User:J947, User:TonyTheTiger, User:Starship.paint, User:Purplebackpack89, User:QuicoleJR, User:Kammerer55, User:The Blue Rider, and User:Grnrchst. Please point out any discussion in which all of these people participated.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about necessitating a rule, seems like it would slow down results. But I think I generally do not close discussions that I participated in. If the outcome is clear (4-0, 4-1), maybe it's OK to close as a participant? If the outcome is marginal (close to 60%), I wouldn't advise closing as a participant. Though, even 3-1 pass (75%) can change to 3-2 (60%) fail in one vote. starship.paint (RUN) 02:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I just don't see why a close can't wait until objective eyes feel it is a stable final consensus. If we institute the 7-day rule above, this becomes less important, but I would like it to be an explicit rule.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I am rather neutral on this proposal. There is definitely no harm in this rule, but also no much use either, since the current rules are very precise, so in theory there should be no bias in closing. To treat the marginal cases, it might be better to adjust the passing numbers, for example allow 14 days to close more obvious results, but increase to more days for other kinds of results, like on other levels. Though as I mentioned in another discussion, it's better to avoid potentially indefinite 7-day extensions. --Kammerer55 (talk) 07:54, 10 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.

Level 5 past rules

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

---

Was there a time in the past prior to the resent January 5 change when 4 support votes were required to enact a change at level 5.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there was. The Blue Rider 19:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

User:The Blue Rider do we know the dates?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a matter of checking the past revisions of this page. The Blue Rider 01:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@J947 and The Blue Rider: J947, you had recalled a four support past above and Blue Rider did too. rules requiring 5 votes were placed on the talk page on September 15, 2018 by User:Purplebackpack89. Then on on June 1, 2019 the rules changed to 4 votes by User:Rreagan007. Where were rules before September 15, 2018?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

5, I seem to recall, before September 2018. The rules were the same on all VA projects so it's safe to assume that was what was followed anyway. J947 ‡ ^edits 07:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Human rights abuses of the Marcos dictatorship

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

---

Hi, I'm new to VA discussions, but I feel Human rights abuses of the Marcos dictatorship belongs in Level 5. I already proposed Martial law under Ferdinand Marcos as level 4, but I think the Human Rights abuses merit it. Thanks, Chieharumachi (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the WikiProject Vital articles. While Ferdinand Marcos  4 is certainly vital and what he has done was more than wrong, this article seems too specific to list at VT5. The only other relevant article I would see is People Power Revolution  5 but it's also already listed. The Blue Rider 02:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Feedback noted with much thanks! :D This does make sense to me. - Chieharumachi (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Add manuscript

The following discussion is closed. 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 no doubt much more crucial than, say, Voynich manuscript and Miniature (illuminated manuscript), yet is still not included, which is absolutely absurd.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Support At 80 interwikis and ~400 daily pageviews it is a major oversight. Although pretty much obsoleted by the printing press, hand-written texts have existed for far longer in human history. Plus the term "manuscript" has widened in its meaning.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Support Respublik (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Support, sure, why not? Zar2gar1 (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add Owner's manual

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

---

Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Mhm. Ubiquitous. Probably vital in the context of everyday life. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
3. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 06:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
4. per above. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Remove History of cannabis or swap for one of the following history of food suggestions

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

---

Cannabis is V4. But history of, listed under history of everyday life, it has just two interwikis and is much less important than listed there histories of coffee and alcoholic food, each of which have 10+ interwikis. Cannabis has not been part of everyday life for most humans. Or we could consider swapping this for some of the important history of food articles that should accompany coffee and alchoholic drinks: History of the potato or History of sugar, History of cheese, History of pizza, History of the hamburger, History of seafood, History of chocolate, History of tea, History of salt or History of rice cultivation. In fact, we may want to consider adding all of those, or at least sevewral, to V5, which is why I am not listing this under history additions from few days ago but starting a new section for visibility. Feel free to change this into a lv3 subsection followed by a bunch of addition proposals :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nom. It can't be more important than sugar, salt, seafood or rice. starship.paint (RUN) 05:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Per nom. Also, I proposed history of the potato for inclusion at the History talk page. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Large 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.

---

As we struggle with minor quota issues, particularly in culture/arts topics, I feel we have major balance issues. Consider this: Arts: 3.3k. Philosophy and religion: 1.4k. Society and social sciences: 4.1k (incl. culture, 2k). That's 8.8k. Vs. Geography 5.2k and Biological and health sciences 6k - total 11.2k. The latter category is only using 5.2k out of its 6k quota, and IMHO even more than geography consists of stuff that nobody ever hears about unless they are a biologist (botanist, whatever): Convolvulaceae, Ipomoea, Solanaceae, Atropa belladonna... Sure, geographical features and living organisms are important, but IMHO, a movie or book that left a lasting impact on our culture (or a globally recognized cultural custom like trick or treat recently proposed and being shut down because holidays is over quota...) is more vital than some minor island, administrative division, or a species that nobody heard of. I suggest reducing Geography quota by 200 to 5k and biology by 600 to 5.4k and distributing the 800 freed spaces to arts, philosophy, religion, society&social sciences and Everyday life (which is struggling with 2.4k and a bit over quota). They can each get 200 entries each. Note that this proposal will not necessicate any removals from biology (it will be still under quota). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• @Piotrus: - I would separate these proposals. Reducing Geography should be its own proposal. starship.paint (RUN) 14:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  Hmmm, fair, but if people feel geography should stay while biological topics can be decreased, than all we have to do is to re-adjust the numbers given to other sections. For now let's see if there's a general consensus to take some entries from geo and/or bio pools and add them to widely defined culture. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• We are again dealing with the balance between stability and current topic demand for space. This is why I proposed that the project adopt a rule that Level 5 quotas expand in proportion to the number of articles. We need a system where the way to make space for one topic is not to reduce quotas about stuff you have never heard of or that is not important to you. Undulating quotas are unnerving when your interests are on the chopping block. A system with the regular availability of new additional quota space to meet demand for additional quota will improve the project.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  • @TonyTheTiger: are you advocating expanding beyond 50,000 articles? starship.paint (RUN) 01:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
    • User:Starship.paint, nothing like 250k or even 100k, but I am pondering numbers between 50.5k and 70k with ongoing growth in proportion to the encyclopedia. I think proportionate growth is the best strategy to promote stability rather than quota undulation based on the flavor of the month. Please note that I am speaking up now, even though right now the topics that are important to me are not facing big threats. I do see a time in the future when the power balance and interest balance is different where this might not be the case. Basically, I am thinking about numbers between 0.75% (today 50,666) and 1.0% (67,554) of the number of articles on WP. As WP grows we would be able to grow quotas in areas that demand it. Although there was a lot of discussion about my larger expansion proposals, discussion had almost run its course by the time I proposed 1%. As I am getting more involved and seeing what the implications of quota undulation are, I fear the day when someone says the Arts must cut from 3300 quota to 3000. I don't really think it is such a great idea to start cutting capital cities of small U.S. states and small territories, maybe even small countries soon. We've chopped the weakest U.S. presidents and are now after senators, VPs and Supreme Court jurists. Right now all 7 VAs that I have authored (5 from scratch), are in the arts. I hate participating in discussions where the main reason a subject fails is because of the current quota distribution.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
      • @TonyTheTiger: - your idea is certainly worth a standalone section to discuss. Though, I must say, I do find several areas to be American-centric, or even Western-centric. Naturally the English Wikipedia is biased thus, but I'm just hoping for more balance. starship.paint (RUN) 03:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
        • It failed to reach a consensus here. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
          • If it has been so recently rejected, it shouldn't be considered again for a while. starship.paint (RUN) 03:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
            • The 1% solution was not successful. It was my 4th or 5th successive attempt at making a project size change. I am now making a lot of other changes right now (Hurdle from 55% -- >60%, addressing 3-0 issue, 7 day response period before closure, as well as noms). I am trying to get an understanding of the quota politics for a while too. I'll wait at least a year and hope to have a better feel for things around here and how to approach it.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• I think if we take away from biology, biography should be the gainer, not everyday life. pbp 17:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Purplebackpack89 I don't mind sharing some of the quota with bios, but I think geneally more people have heard about an average vital entry on culture vs bio. But perhaps I am biased thinking again 'trick or treat' vs 'some minor actor or politician'. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that there are major balance issues - the VAST majority of contributors to this project are interested in the humanities, and so those topics are the most proposed and receive the most votes. The biology categories are a bit of a mess now, but with more attention could definitely include enough vital articles to hit their quotas.

Consider the examples you’ve provided: The Solanaceae are a plant family containing the Potato  3, Tomato  4, Tobacco  4, Bell pepper  4, Chili pepper  4, Eggplant  4, and over 2,000 other species integral to ecosystems the world over. This one plant family that “no one ever hears about” has had a greater impact on human culture/history/everyday life than almost any other entry on these lists. Likewise, Atropa belladonna gave us the drug Atropine  5 and has been used medicinally and cosmetically for thousands of years by many cultures; few books or movies will ever achieve that kind of lasting impact.

Biology is under quota now, but I think that reflects a lack of contributors and not a lack of vitality. If this project continues to grow it will eventually attract people who can address these deficiencies (and “clawing back” any needed space will probably be impossible). There’s also a deeper issue here: popular subjects will always grow to meet (and exceed) their quotas, and can easily go on growing until they’re just “lists of articles”, instead of “lists of vital articles”. --Marchantiophyta (talk) 03:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Marchantiophyta It's complex. What is vital/important? We are very much comparing apples to oranges here all the time, balancing important stuff that only specialists hear about with popculture or folklore or everyday life customs many people know. Note that I am not suggesting removing Solanaceae, my point was that a name, or even concept, it is not known to most people, unlike a lot of other everyday life stuff. But apples to oranges, again. In the end, if you don't use it, you don't get it. If we have nobody intersted in populating the few hundred open spots in biological categories, we should move the quota and discuss it again when it is tight. As for the growth arguments, everything grows, not just popculture but science too. New species are discovered, etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I wanted to second this too; I think we definitely give too many slots to People, parts of the Arts and Culture section, and to a lesser extent Geography. I think it just comes down to popularity or contemporary relevance being given much more weight at this level than the other 4.

As for filling up the remaining science sections, the Physics, Chemistry, Math, and Tech sections weren't full either until the past year or two. And that was largely due to a few editors swinging by with large batch-additions (for better or worse).

I'm pretty sure that if someone really into botany or mycology decided to focus on this project for a bit and was given the space to add items freely, they could easily hit the current quota. Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Swap proposal 1: -125 plants for +125 of scientists, inventors, and mathematicians

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

---

I'm proposing this change because after Interstellarity changed the quotas for people, the actual number of vital articles of scientists, inventors and mathematicians changed the most, from previously 1,121 to now 1,266, because Interstellarity gave a quota of 1,500, but since Interstellarity's changes were rejected, the quota is back to 1,150. No other category changed as much. Plants are currently 756/1,000, the quota change would leave them at 756/875. Scientists are 1,266/1,150 now, this change would leave them at 1,266/1,275. Parent categories: Biological and health sciences would change from 5,258/6,000 to 5,258/5,875; People would change from 15,620/15,000 to 15,620/15,125.

Support

1. As nom. starship.paint (RUN) 04:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Support addition and much more: it is extremely clear comparing the current people quotas at VA5 to those at VA4 there is major inconsistency in how these are allocated. The underrepresentation of scientists, inventors, and mathematicians is one of such inconsistencies: they take up 12.75% of the list at VA4 but just 7.67% of the list at VA5. Increasing the quota here to 1,500 (10%) was on point. No opinion on plants as of yet. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

   If we add more, we must remove more. Do propose other areas for cutting. starship.paint (RUN) 04:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

   Well we list 880 popular musicians here but only 60 at VA4... J947 ‡ ^edits 05:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

   We should cut them to at most 600 (drop of 280), or even 450 (drop of 430). Clearly the criteria is too lax. starship.paint (RUN) 05:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

   I support cutting from pop musicians instead. The Blue Rider 18:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

3. Seems reasonable. Scientists move the world forward. Fun side note: if you like science and think it will save the world or such, watch Dr. Stone folks, it's perhaps not vital but fun :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
4. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Totalibe (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, I realize this will probably still go through, but I honestly don't think we need to bump the quota above 1200 for Scientists. I say that as someone that's added a decent number of items in that section.

   If you actually go through the list, of the ~1250 we currently have, ~260 of them (more than 20%) are Late-Modern physicists. They're all way smarter than I'll ever be, but from the encyclopedia's perspective, how many are known for more than 1 or 2 findings that are already incorporated into actual physics topics?

   That probably applies some to all of the Late-Modern biographies, but there seems to be a particular imbalance towards physicists. Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

2. Strong oppose- This project is indeed anthropocentric, but that doesn't mean that we have to neglect nature. The reason why the plants section is under-quota is because there is a lack of interest in this topic. If you take a look, STEM is the subpage with the least proposals and the vast majority of them are from the Health and Technology categories. Occasionally a user or two that understands about zoology and botany comes to this project and make batch proposals that almost always get support. I'm sure if we asked for help to related WikiProjects we could easily fill the quota. The Blue Rider 18:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

One way by which we could go about this instead of proposing swaps, is to propose a bunch of different quota increases and decreases within this "Large quota change" section. Come back in a month, evaluate the consensus for increases and decreases, and find a way to balance the books. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• That is an ambitious proposal that may not produce a consensus. Personally, I'd prefer to get the easy swaps out of the way first, then go for your proposal. I have another in mind that I am posting now. But I do not think I will be proposing (any?) more such swaps. starship.paint (RUN) 06:49, 11 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 proposal 2: -60 health articles for +60 of philosophers, historians, and social scientists

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

---

Philosophers, historians, and social scientists was another category that grew during the time that Interstellarity changed the quota from 1,300 to 1,500, so the category grew from previously 1,325 to now 1,351. I propose a change for 1,300 -> 1,360 for philosophers, historians, and social scientists, and cutting health, medicine, and disease from 952/1,200 to 952/1,140.

Proposed changes in quota

• -10 for general diseases (79/100 to 79/90)
• -10 for injury (69/90 to 69/80)
• -30 for infectious diseases (154/205 to 154/175)
• -10 for general health and fitness (52/80 to 52/70)
• +20 for philosophers (293/275 to 293/295)
• +10 for historians (183/175 to 183/185)
• +20 for social scientists (769/750 to 769/770)
• +10 for psychologists (107/100 to 107/110).

For your consideration. starship.paint (RUN) 06:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. starship.paint (RUN) 06:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Health is important, but it is still significantly under quota. It can afford to lose 60 and still will have nearly 200 open spots for us to fill in with stuff that is misisng (and it is, as recent suggestions by Tony show). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Totalibe (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, similarly to what I wrote above for the Scientists section, I don't think we should be focusing on adding more slots to People right now. There's already a recency bias and a general bias towards bibliographies.

   If anything, I'd take the fact that nobody has filled out the Health section yet as an indication that the project is biased towards other topics, not that there are fewer vital topics in Health. It's like the dog that didn't bark.

   I'm also not a fan of the over-tuned quotas in general. Setting aside aesthetics, it's a slippery slope to having quota proposals almost as often as changes to the list. Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Other over-quota subsections

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

---

• Writers (1,731/1,600) - over quota by 131
• Actors and actresses (955/900) - over quota by 55
• Directors, producers, showrunners and screenwriters (477/375) - over quota by 102
• Visual artists (802/750) - over quota by 52
• Musicians and composers (1,473/1,425) - over quota by 48
• Cities (2,014/1,900) - over quota by 114
• United States television programs (188/90) - over quota by 98
• Education (350/305) - over quota by 45
• Politics and economics (1,857/1,600) - over quota by 257 - note, this was actually (1,861/1,850) before Interstellarity decreased it, without addressing how subcategory quota would change. This was done to partly make way for Culture (1,940/1,750) to (1,965/2,000).
• Rebels, revolutionaries and activists (497/400) - over quota by 97 - note, we recently had consensus that the bar for activists were too low, and lowered category total from 500 to 400.

The above are the categories that definitely need to be addressed in either changing quota or removing articles. If anyone wants to make significant proposals for quota changes. starship.paint (RUN) 07:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd generally support filling them from under quota topics, except cities. And despite being a social scientist with specializaiton in social movements, I'd carefully look at rebels and activists one, particularly through the prisom of possible recentism bias. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the subsection quota for US shows should be removed, since no other country subsection for TV shows has a quota. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:19, 16 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 Invisibility  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.

---

I am sticking this here because it is neither fish nor fowl, i.e. this concept is related to both technology/science and fiction, and the article is split between both dimensions. Where to add it, if it passes, is going to be "fun". I'd probably lean towards the same place that we move Teleportation  5 and Time travel  4 to (Arts>General?), see related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Subpage_3#Clean_up_genras:_move_Steampunk_5_and_or_something_else?. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
2. This is a solid candidate. Deserves more attention.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Vital Respublik (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Support--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Listing of I Love New York  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.

---

I was contemplating closing I Love New York. There are at least four distinct logical places to list it.

1. Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences/Politics and economics (1857/1850) >Business and economics (671/650)> Business>Marketing >Marketing  3
2. Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts (1857/1850) >Modern visual arts (304/300)> Modern visual arts: General (26/25)>Design >Graphic design  4 > Logo  5
3. Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts (1857/1850) >Visual arts (497/500)> Specific works of visual art (303/300)>Other media
4. Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences/Culture (1968/2000)>Language (618/600)>Language: General (230/215)>Linguistics>Theoretical linguistics>Semiotics  4>Ideogram  5>Heart symbol  5

The question for proper listing is why this vital

1. for equating the prose slogan "I Love X" with the design I ❤ X or I ❤ abbreviated X in a logograph for marketing purposes in a manner that is transformative for the field of marketing
2. for the logo design I ❤... in a form that is innovative for logo design
3. for the specific work of art I ❤... that has been copied widely.
4. specifically for using the symbol as a logograph for the word love in a way that has become universal.

I think the first is the reason why this is vital and thus the first place of listing would be best. Feel free to comment. I am especially interested in the opinions of the people who voted that it was vital along with me @Piotrus and Aszx5000:.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Since no one else has an opinion, User:Starship.paint, you were the closer. I don't know where you considered listing this. Can you please comment here.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @TonyTheTiger: - I listed it in 3 when I added it. I was not aware of other locations. What do you prefer? starship.paint (RUN) 00:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
    • I think 1 is the best place for it.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
      • Let me see if people at WP:WPVA agree with moving it out though.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
        • I also asked if a couple of other projects had thoughts. So lets give it a few days.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
          • User:Starship.paint, I guess go with the first listing place.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
            •  Done @TonyTheTiger:. starship.paint (RUN) 02:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

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