Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

VA5 quota now 50,075. Reduce Countries and subdivisions by 50? 1348/1400 to 1348/1350

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

---

Per Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5, VA5 quota is currently 50,075 articles, not 50,000. Countries and subdivisions is currently 1348/1400 articles. Shall we reduce the quota by 50? Making it 1348/1350. starship.paint (RUN) 08:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
2. As nom. starship.paint (RUN) 09:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
3. We have too many pointless country subdivisions, so we could and should reduce it even further. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
4. Per nom, rightsizing. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
5. Even if there would turn out to be demand for more of this category it can be increased again, and for now quota can be taken from under-quota pages.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
6. I agree that this could be reduced even further. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:35, 3 May 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 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.

---

Super-basic and fundamental topic. List should be under Information, as a list is one of the most common types of/ways to organize information.

Support

1. BD2412 T 01:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
2. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 05:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Don't think it’s true that these lists are just for improvement. FAs don’t get kicked out. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
4. We should definitely have List on the list. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The purpose of the VA project is to identify a list of articles that we should devote more editing resources towards to make them high quality. We don't need that for list: there is no specialized history to them (the article itself mentions that the scholarship on lists is fragmented) and their purpose and existence is straightforward; it's basically a dictionary term. Almost everything on the article seems fairly obvious. It also establishes a dangerous precedent. Where do we stop? Should we add paragraph for example? Aurangzebra (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

What is the process from here? We have more than four participants and four support votes (80% support), and the discussion has been open for six weeks, with over a week since the last comment. BD2412 T 22:24, 16 May 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.

Level 5 proposals must run for at least 15 days?

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

---

Currently, L5 proposals must run for at least 14 days. But, all higher level proposals must run for at least 15 days. Propose to standardise L5 to at least 15 days as well. starship.paint 07:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom. starship.paint 07:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
3. LOL-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
4. Barely makes a difference, but why not. Consistency is good. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
5. Makes sense to align with Level 1-4. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:08, 22 June 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.

Proposed new rule: while nominating an article, also list the proposed location in the vital article 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.

---

The purpose of this new rule (to support a nomination, the location to where it should be added it must be listed) is to lighten the burden on closers, who are working without reward. They have to figure out where the article should go, despite not necessarily having any expertise in the topic. The burden of effort should be on the nominator and the supporters, not the closer. Ideally, the nominator should provide the location. If the nominator does not know the best location, they can provide multiple potential locations and the other supporters can chime in on which is the best one. This will apply to all nominations made after this proposal passes. starship.paint (RUN) 01:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 12:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Seems fair. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
3. I have seen the wave of terror that is User:feminist's proposals in the society section. I don't envy you at all when you close their discussions. SailorGardevoir (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
4. Sometimes the nominator does not know (speaking from experience), but most of the time this should be done. Would make closing things that aren't removes much easier. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
5. Yes, harder, but makes sense. Is this a proposal for all Levels? Aszx5000 (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

   @Aszx5000: - higher levels are less of an issue now that we are mandating that nominations must be included at lower levels. Thus there is already a clue on where the nomination should go at higher levels. starship.paint (RUN) 08:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

If you need an example of a nomination where the potential location is not immediately obvious, see Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Society#Add Self-defense. starship.paint (RUN) 01:36, 12 May 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.

VA template in edit summaries

The following discussion is closed. 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 know this has been brought before but surely there is a way for the template to work in edit summaries, because its extremely annoying to not be able to simply click on the proposal; most of the time it doesn't work but I have seen some instances were it did work. The Blue Rider 21:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it’s annoying to me as well. Not sure how to fix this, but willing to get some ideas. Interstellarity (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I have also found this really annoying. Maybe we could try asking at VPT? QuicoleJR (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

me too.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:01, 29 April 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.

Clarification that early modern period ends in 1815

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

---

For as long as I can remember, the cutoff between early modern and modern on the vital articles page. However, recently another editor has been moving articles around to split early modern at 1800. The significance to 1815 is the end of the Napoleonic Wars and the Congress of Vienna that defined the world order for the next 99 years. 1800 is a 00 year but has no additional historical significance. _pbp 21:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Support 1815

1. _pbp 21:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Support 1800

1. Based on our early modern period article, which generally supports a 1500-1800 date. SailorGardevoir (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
2. Rounder number. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

   So? Aside of being a "round number", there's no watershed event that begins or ends that year. _pbp 20:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

   Sure you could find something. John Adams elected president, marking the tradition of transition of power in the American democracy. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

   John Adams was elected in 1796... _pbp 01:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

   Election of Jefferson, then, ushering in the principal that an electorally defeated incumbent head of state gracefully leaves office. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Support something else

Discussion

FWIW, the article (which is trash, BTW) states, "There is no exact date that marks the beginning or end of the period and its timeline may vary depending on the area of history being studied." _pbp 00:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@SailorGardevoir: Without saying "it's what the article says", can you defend why 1800 is a good year for that split? What watershed event occurred in that year? _pbp 00:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

It’s a nice round number that’s close to the end of the French Revolution, which is what most people consider the main event that divides the modern era into early and late periods, not the Congress of Vienna. SailorGardevoir (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Another reason for just having 1800 be the starting date for the early modern period is that it downplays the Eurocentricity of dividing time into these specific periods. What's the main divider for the Ancient and Post-classical periods? The Fall of the Western Roman Empire? What's the main divider for Post-classical and Early modern? Either the Fall of the Eastern Roman Empire or the Discovery of the Americas. What's the main divider for Early modern and Late modern? The French Revolution (or apparently the Congress of Vienna). With the exception of the Discovery of the Americas and arguably the French Revolution, these events mostly just affected Europeans. SailorGardevoir (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I haven't read thoroughly on the topic, but I have for a while, in and out of Wikipedia presumed or believed that 1815 was the cut off transition year for the modern period, just like A.D. 467 is the cut off from Ancient to Post Classic. In general, we use worded titled eras on the vital project from level 2 and down, with Ancient, Post-Classic, Late and Early modern at lev2, followed by Stone, Medieval, Iron, Bronze, Renaisance, Pre-Columbian at lev3 and more at lev4. We list the worded eras and list other things under them, we do not list numbered centuries and/or decades until level 5, the majority of the project uses eras not centuries. Eras are marked by significant events or technologies not coincidental arbitrary calendar round numbers, otherwise we would end up with odd cut offs like splitting Ancient Rome into before and after A.D. 1 or something, which would make little sense.  Carlwev  13:07, 12 May 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.

User:DannyS712/DiscussionCloser is useful for closing 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.

---

Thanks Hanif Al Husaini, I followed your example in using this, and it is helpful! All can try it out! starship.paint (RUN) 12:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Is it just me or the "Close" button doesn't show up anymore. Already tried to install and uninstall multiple times and no success. The Blue Rider 17:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Often happens to me. I don't have a fix other than to keep reloading. J947 ‡ ^edits 09:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@J947 @The Blue Rider @Starship.paint uninstalling the script and installing User:DaxServer/DiscussionCloser.js fixed the problem for me. Hope this helps. feminist🩸 (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Feminist: - thank you! I think I already did that :) starship.paint (RUN) 12:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I just copied DaxServer's discussion closer.js and made my own adjustments. Thanks. The Blue Rider 20:17, 26 October 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.

Shutting off automatic 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.

---

Can someone please disable automatic archiving? Unclosed discussions with a clear consensus are getting auto-archived, and this is bad. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

+1. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

We need more prompt closures. Perhaps there should be some form of a qui pro quo requirement that to nominate something you must close something. Plus we need to do everything we can to make closures easier, that chiefly includes telling everyone from the start of the nomination where you want the nominated page to be added to. We should not be making closers do extra work on figuring out where things have to go. The nominators or supporters should figure that out. starship.paint (RUN) 03:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think there is a reason removals get closed before additions. However, I still think we should turn off automatic archiving and just archive things manually after closing them. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with turning off automatic archiving. starship.paint (RUN) 14:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure how to turn it off without retaining the ability to automatically create new archive pages once the current archive page is too big. I've set the automatic archive to a year in the meantime. starship.paint (RUN) 01:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

That should work. Thanks! QuicoleJR (talk) 22:28, 15 May 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.

Too much of a focus on U.S. removals?

The following discussion is closed. 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 cities, there's been at least 30 removals or proposed removals... ...when the U.S. is NOT the most overrepresented (looking at cities per million of urban population, most of Oceania, Europe and the Caribbean, and more than a few countries elsewhere have more VA articles than the U.S. does).

In politicians, there's been a whole of of removals or proposed removals... ...when the U.S. is NOT the most overrepresented there either

What's also ironic is that entertainment personalities is one of the areas where the U.S. is most OVERrepresented and it hasn't received as much attention as cities and politicians. _pbp 19:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

A few editors have begun working to trim down that section. I agree Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:13, 4 June 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.

Premature closures

The following discussion is closed. 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 noticed and reverted two discussions were closed with a nominator support and a single oppose vote based on time (see [1] and [2]). Although the time indicates that the nomination is not a subject of high interest, time does not seem to indicate a consensus having been achieved. Is there an interest in adding a rule to close based on time without a consensus regarding vitality.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

If there's less than four votes after 60 days, it seems fine by me to close as "no consensus" _pbp 05:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I see lots of subject that just do not get attention of our discussants that still need active consideration rather than people who can not be bothered by a subject. We do not even require 4 voters. 4 discussants is a very low threshold. We have lower thresholds than level 1-4. If we are going to time things out it should not be until 90 days since last comment. However, I don't think we should do that.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

90 days sounds about right, but I agree with TonyTheTiger that I wouldn't like see votings closed en masse just because they didn't find enough attention in time. The pages get very long, and stuff in the middle isn't seen by everyone. Too early closings before enough people have considered would mean that subjects that get less interest would not improve and stay the way they are. It would be better if we closed and archived the votings that are ready in due time. That would move the ones waiting for votes higher on the page, where they would get noticed by more editors. Makkool (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I would also agree with 90 days; these pages are very long, and I don't think it is helpful to have discussions open for more than 90-days. The Level 1-4 have a time limt for a no-consensus, so Level 5 should have too. I would suggest that this is proposed at the VA main page for decision? Aszx5000 (talk) 11:07, 22 June 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.